Headers
Driving Case Files / Attachments
1.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.
1 lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.27.2013_RE RE
Simon Cordell Court case
27/02/2013
/ Page Numbers: 1,2
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.
1 lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.27.2013_RE
RE Simon Cordell Court case
27/02/2013
/ Page Numbers: 1,2
1,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:22 '
To: gl-thamesmcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:19
To: gl-thames.mcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the case
below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have heard
nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been given a
next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and can
you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the 21/12/2012 about
a case below, I have not heard anything about this email. Please can you
confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so that I know this
matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I made
to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the outcome
was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
2,
The problem I have with this is yes I
was pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police
station which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so
the police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and
said it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until
I got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them,
I called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been
driving on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to
the court person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court
before I got the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks Mr Simon Cordell
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 2
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.06.2013_Wrongful conviction and
request to set aside the c
06/05/2013
/ Page Numbers: 3,4,5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 2
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.06.2013_Wrongful
conviction and request to set aside the c
06/05/2013
/ Page Numbers:
3,4,5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27
--
3,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 06
May 2013 17:26
To: gl-thamesmcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Cc: eastgroupcpo@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Wrongful
conviction and request to set aside the conviction and re-open the case
Attachments: RE: Simon Cordell Court case
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
RE: RE: Simon
Cordell Court case.
RE: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
RE: Simon Cordell Court case; S Cordell
Docs._GE_.pdf
Dear Sir or Madam
I have emailed your court on a number
of occasions regarding my conviction and sentence for no insurance. I am making
this request to have my case listed in order that I can do the following: -
1. Application
to set aside the conviction
2. Re-open
the case
Application to set aside the
conviction: -
On 22nd July 2012 I was stopped and
given a producer by the police as they did not believe that I held a valid
policy of insurance. I attended the police station and I was advised that my
case would be going to court and I would be summonsed in due course. I never
received any summons in relation to this matter and I only became aware that
the case had been dealt with in my absence when I received a letter from the
DVLA advising me that I had to send in my driving licence. I disputed with the
DVLA the points, but I was given an ultimatum that if I did not send in my
licence it would be revoked. I therefore had no choice but to send in my
licence. I immediately contacted the Court by telephone, and I was advised to
send an email. I sent in a number of emails and I have been given a number of
emails, but I have not received any confirmation from the court.
I forwarded a copy of my insurance
policy to the court and again this was ignored. The offence of no insurance was
allegedly committed on 22nd July 2012. I had a valid policy of insurance from
23rd March 2012 and this policy was valid until 22nd February 2013. The company
insuring me was Tradex Insurance Company Limited. I am the named policy holder,
Mr. Simon Cordell and my policy number are L/WST/MTP/0192359.
I have points on my licence which I
should not have. Can you please as a matter of urgency email me back on this
matter so that I can have a date so that the conviction can be set aside and my
case heard in order that I can show the court my insurance and the PLO can make
the necessary enquiries. Once this has happened, I would be grateful if the
court could email the DVLA to advise them that the points have been issued in
error and the fine be set aside also.
This matter is urgent and is dragging
on. I cannot resolve this matter until the case is listed before either a
District Judge or Magistrates so I would appreciate your cooperation. I am very
disappointed that you have ignored all my emails. This is causing me stress.
Can you now please resolve this legal mater by listing the case for an
application to set aside the conviction? I can then forward my documents to the
relevant prosecuting authority.
I await hearing from you in relation to this matter
and I thank you in advance for your anticipated co=operation in this matter.
Yours faithfully
Simon Cordell
4,
Wrongful conviction and request to set aside the
conviction and re-open the case->S Cordell Docs._GE_.pdf
Insurance Company Ltd
Mr Simon Cordell 109, Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
03 April 2012
Dear Mr Cordell,
Policy Number: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Reference: Motor Trade Policy
We have pleasure in enclosing your
policy documents.
These have been issued in accordance
with your instructions however we recommend that you thoroughly check the
enclosed and advise us immediately should any amendments be required.
Thank you for entrusting your business
with us.
Yours sincerely,
Emma Guard (UW)
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd Victory House,
7 Selsdon Way, London. E14 9GL DX551740, Isle of Dogs 5 Tel 020 7001 9200 Fax
020 7068 7730 www.tradex.com
Tradex Insurance Company Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (no. 202917)
FSA
Registered in England and Wales no.
2983873 at Victory House, 7 Selsdon Way, London E14 9GL (Doc version 11.6.11)
5,
Premium Advice Note
TRADEX
Insurance Company Ltd
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield EN3 7JQ 03 April 2012 |
|
|||
Dear Mr Cordell, |
||||
Policyholder:
Mr Simon Cordell, |
||||
Policy Number: |
L/WST/MTP/0192359 - 8 |
|||
Policy Type: |
Road Risks |
|||
Inception Date: |
23 March 2012 |
|||
Reason for Issue: |
Policy Adjustment |
|||
Effective Date: |
23 March 2012 |
|||
Parts / Sections Applicable |
Premium Due |
Insurance Premium Tax (6%) |
Total Premium Due |
|
Policy Total |
Ł 0.00 |
Ł 0.00 |
Ł 0.00 |
|
|
Finance Charges: Document Charges:
Service Charges: Total Amount Due: |
Ł 0.00 Ł 0.00 Ł 0.00 Ł 0.00 |
||
Collection Method: Broker Collected
Emma Goard (UW)
Tradex Insurance Company Limited.
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd Victory House,
7 Selsdon Way, London. E14 9GL DX551740, Isle of Dogs 5 Tel 020 7001 9200 Fax
020 7068 7730 www.tradex.com
Tradex Insurance Company Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (no. 202917)
Registered in England and Wales no.
2983873 at Victory House, 7 Selsdon Way, London E14 9GL (Doc version 1.11.11)
6,
Insurance Company Ltd
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield
EN3 7JQ
3 April 2012
Dear Mr Cordell,
Re: Your Motor Trade Policy
Policy Number: L/WST/MTP/0192359
I refer to the above-mentioned policy
number and your recent communication.
I enclose a copy of the vehicles
declared to Tradex and the Motor Insurance Database.
Please check the schedule of vehicles
carefully to ensure all of the information is correct and if amendments are
required, please advise us as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Emma Goard (UW)
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd Victory
House, 7 Selsdon Way, London. E14 9GL DX551740, Isle of Dogs 5 Tel 020 7001
9200 Fax 020 7068 7730 www.tradex.com
Tradex Insurance Company Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (no. 202917)
FSA
Registered in England and Wales no.
2983873 at Victory House, 7 Selsdon Way, London E14 9GL (Doc version 15.6.11)
7,
Motor Trade Vehicle Schedule
TRADEX
Insurance Company Ltd
Policy Number: |
L/WST/MTP/0192359 Date of Issue:
03 April 2012 |
Policyholder: |
Simon Cordell Agent: 23664
Westminster - Broadsure Direct |
Occupation/Profession: Address: |
Effective: 16:53 (24Hrs) 23 March 2012 Mechanical Servicing Overhaul Expiry: 12:00
(24Hrs) 22 February 2013 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3
7JQ |
Make/Model: |
CC/GVW/KW/h:
Reg. No: Value: YOM: Customer Loan: Security Reg: Date Added: |
RENAULT
CLIO RIPCURL |
1149
NA57LDY Ł0 2007 No A 23-Mar-12 |
Security Required Codes:
A: Manufacturers Standard B: Thatcham Cat 1 Alarm & Immobiliser C: Tracking Device D: Alarm, Immobiliser and Tracking Device
Reason for Issue: Policy Adjustment
Page 6 of 15
8,
Certificate of Motor Insurance
TRADEX
Insurance Company Ltd
Policy No.: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Name of Policyholder: Mr
Simon Cordell
Motor Trade Business: Buying
and Selling, Mechanical / Servicing / Overhauls
Description of Vehicles:
· Any vehicle owned, leased or on hire
purchase to Mr Simon Cordell
· Any vehicle (mechanically propelled or
otherwise) attached to a motor vehicle described in 1 for the purpose of being
towed.
· Any other motor vehicle held in trust
or in the custody or control of Mr Simon Cordell for the purposes of their
declared motor trade business. But excluding any:
Steam driven vehicles.
Motor vehicle transporters which,
inclusive of trailer(s), have a carrying capacity of more than 2 vehicles.
Vehicles owned by Directors, Partners
or their Spouses and more specifically insured elsewhere.
Commercial vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes.
Coaches and Minibuses other than for
sale, service, or repair.
Motorcycle. Quad Bikes.
Effective time and date of commencement
for the purposes of the relevant Road Traffic Acts.
Operative Date: 16:53 (24hrs) 23 March 2012
Operative Until: 12:00
(24hrs) 22 February 2013
PERSONS ENTITLED TO DRIVE AND
LIMITATIONS AS TO USE:
Name: Date of
Birth: Use: DOV:
Simon Cordell 26/01/1981 MT / SD&P Not Allowed
Provided that the person holds a
licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding
or obtaining such a licence. DEMONSTRATION: Demonstration of a vehicle
to any other person provided that person is driving with the permission of the
Policyholder and is accompanied by any driver named above who is entitled to
drive for motor trade purposes.
LIMITATIONS AS TO USE:
MT: Use in connection with the declared
motor trade business.
SD&P: Social
Domestic and Pleasure use including journeys between the home address and the
permanent place of business.
PBU: Personal Business use in
connection with other additional occupation(s).
DOV: Where shown as allowed, the drivers
named above may also drive any other vehicle for social domestic and pleasure
purposes only provided they have the permission of the owner to do so and the
vehicle is taxed, registered and insured in the owner's name.
Use by any other person provided that
such person is driving with the permission of the Policyholder and is
accompanied by any person entitled to drive as described above for the purpose
of demonstration only.
Excluding:
1. Use
for hire and reward other than in connection with the motor trade, racing, pace
making, competitions, rallies, track days, trials or speed tests whether on a
road, track, off-road, land prepared for such use or the Nürburgring
Northcliffe and whether the event is officially organised or informally
arranged.
2. Use
to secure the release of any motor vehicle which has been seized by or on
behalf of any government or public authority which was not the property of or
in the custody or control of the Policyholder at the time of seizure.
I hereby certify Ireland, the Isle
Pleasure use in
that the policy to which this
Certificate relates satisfies the requirements of the relevant law applicable
in Great Britain, Northern of Man, the Isle of Jersey, the Isle of Guernsey,
and the Isle of Alderney. Please see reverse of Certificate for Social,
Domestic and Europe.
Registered Office: Victory House, 7 Selsdon Way, Isle of Dogs, London E14 9GL Registered in
England, Ireland, and Wales No: 0293873
Tradex Insurance Company Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (no. 202917)
Advice to Third Parties: Nothing
in this Certificate affects your right as a Third Party to make a claim.
MID Compliance Enquiries: 020
7959 7542 Windscreen Cover - Not Included
Chief Executive Officer
Tradex Insurance Company Limited
Authorised Insurers
9,
Parts / Sections Applicable |
Covered / Not Covered |
Premium Due |
Insurance Premium Tax (6%) |
Total Premium Due |
|||
Road Risks |
Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Vehicles at the Trade Premises |
Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Public Liability |
Not Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Product Liability Sales and Service Indemnity |
Not Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Employers Liability |
Not Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Goods in Transit |
Not Covered |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Legal Expenses |
Covered |
Ł |
Included |
Ł |
Included |
Ł |
Included |
Totals |
|
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Ł |
0.00 |
Your premium and policy terms are based
on the following activities and vehicle types. Should there be significant
changes during the period of insurance you must tell us.
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
Declared Business Activities Vehicles Traded or Handled
Buying and Selling: |
25 |
% |
Standard Vehicles: |
100 |
% |
Importing and Exporting: |
0 |
% |
Sports Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Sale / Repair of Salvage Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Imported Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Mechanical / Servicing / Overhauls /
MOT: |
75 |
% |
Classic Cars: |
0 |
% |
Crash Body Repairs / Spraying: |
0 |
% |
Kit Cars / Modified Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Sale / Fitting of Motor Accessories: |
0 |
% |
Motorcycles: |
0 |
% |
Valeting / Steam Cleaning: |
0 |
% |
American / Canadian Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Windscreen Replacement: |
0 |
% |
Commercial Vehicles over 3.5t: |
0 |
% |
Exhaust / Tyre Replacement: |
0 |
% |
Car Transporters more than 2
Vehicles: |
0 |
% |
Recovery Agent: |
0 |
% |
Quad Bikes: |
0 |
% |
Repossession Agents: |
0 |
% |
Coaches / Minibuses: |
0 |
% |
Other: |
0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
100 |
% |
No Claims Bonus is
currently 6 Years protected.
Date:
03/04/2012
Page 9 Of 15
Policy Number:
L/WST/MTP/0192359
Tradex Insurance Company Ltd Victory
House, 7 Selsdon Way, London. E14 9GL DX551740, Isle of Dogs 5 Tel 020 7001
9200 Fax 020 7068 7730 www.tradex.com
Tradex Insurance Company Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (no. 202917)
Registered in England and Wales no.
2983873 at Victory House, 7 Selsdon Way, London E14 9GL (Doc version 1.11.11)
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
To be read in conjunction with your
Policy Booklet insurance Company Ltd
Policyholder: Simon
Cordell Broker / Agent:
Westminster-Broadsure Direct
Correspondence 109 Burncroft Avenue
Address: Enfield
Address: Street
EN3 7JQ
Correspondence 4th Floor Argyle Centre
York
Ramsgate
Kent
CT11 9DS
Policy No:
L/WST/MTP/0192359
Date of Issue: 03
April 2012
Reason for Issue: Policy Adjustment
Period of Insurance:
Operative From:
16:53 (24 hrs) 23 March 2012
Operative Until:
12:00 (24 hrs) 22 February 2013
10,
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
ROAD RISKS
Cover: Comprehensive
Operative Sections
Section 1: Third Party Liability
Limit of Indemnity: Third Party Death
or Bodily Injury - Unlimited
Third Party Property Damage -
Ł2,000,000 Section 2 - Vehicles: Road Risks A, B, C, D, E.
Limits of Indemnity: Own Vehicles* - Ł7,500 The vehicle limits
stated are the
Customer vehicles - Ł15,000 maximum indemnity payable for any
‘Includes permanently owned and stock
vehicles. one vehicle or claim. They win be
automatically reinstated up to four
times in any one period of insurance.
Vehicles Insured:
1. Any
vehicle owned, leased or on hire purchase to the Policyholder.
2. Any
vehicle (mechanically propelled or otherwise) attached to a motor vehicle
described in 1 & 4 for the purposes of being towed.
3. Any
other motor vehicle held in trust or in the custody or control of the
Policyholder for the purposes of their declared motor trade business.
4. Personally,
owned vehicles which have been declared to us for inclusion on the Motor
Insurance Database.
Steam driven vehicles.
Any vehicle transporter which,
inclusive of trailer(s), has a carrying capacity of more than 2 vehicles.
Vehicles owned by Directors, Partners
or their Spouses and more specifically insured elsewhere.
Commercial vehicles with a gross
vehicle weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes.
Coaches and Minibuses other than for
sale, service, or repair.
Motorcycles.
Quad Bikes.
Customer Vehicles (mechanically
propelled or otherwise) attached to a motor vehicle described in 1 & 4
above for the purpose of being towed other than for cover provided under
Section 1 - Third Party Liability.
Section 1 - Third Party Liability.
Łnil
This will not be applied where an
excess has been deducted from a claim under Section 2
Section 2 - Vehicles, Road Risks A, B,
C, D, E.
Ł500 or 10% of the claim whichever is
the greater.
Date: 03/04/2012
Page 10 of 15
Policy No:
L/WST/MTP/0192359
11,
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
PERSONS ENTITLED TO DRIVE
Named Driver:
Date of Birth:
Usage: DOV: Personally
Owned Vehicle:
Simon Cordell 26/01/1981
MT / SD&P Not Covered Covered
LIMITATIONS AS TO USE
MT: Use
in connection with the declared motor trade business.
SD&P: Social
Domestic and Pleasure use including journeys between the home address and the
permanent place of business.
PBU: Personal
Business use in connection with declared additional occupation(s).
DOV: Driving
Other Vehicles.
Provided that the person holds a
licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding
or obtaining such a licence.
This Policy Excludes:
1. Use
for racing, pace making, competitions, rallies, track days, trials, or speed
tests whether on a road, track, off-road, land prepared for such use or the
Nürburgring Northcliffe and whether the event is officially organised or informally
arranged.
2. Use
to secure the release of any motor vehicle which has been seized by or on
behalf of any government or public authority which was not the property of or
in the custody or control of the Policyholder at the time of seizure.
Date: 03/04/2012
Page 11 of 15
Policy No:
L/WST/MTP/0192359
12,
Date: 03/04/2012
Page 12 of 15
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
PERMANENTLY OWNED VEHICLES
Note: to comply with Motor Insurance
Database (MID) requirements you must advise us immediately when you acquire or
dispose of a vehicle.
Security Required A: Manufacturers B: Thatcham Cat 1 C: Tracking
Device D: Alarm, Immobiliser
Codes: Standard
Alarm & Immobiliser and Tracking
Device
Make/ Model:
CC / GVW
Reg No:
YOM:
Value:
Customer Security
Date
/ KW/h:
Loan:
Req:
Added:
RENAULT CLIO RIPCURL 1149 NA57LDY 2007 Trade No A 23/03/2012
13,
Limits of Indemnity: |
Ł |
7,500 |
For any one owned vehicle. * ‘includes permanently owned and stock
vehicles. |
|
Ł |
15,000 |
For any one customer vehicle. |
Excess: Excess Ł500 for each and every loss.
Endorsements Applicable to this
Section: None
Storage Information
Alarmed Building: |
0 |
% |
Non-Alarmed Building: |
0 |
% |
Locked Yard Under 24hr Guard: |
0 |
% |
Locked Yard: |
0 |
% |
Open Site: |
0 |
% |
Home Address: |
100 |
% |
Date:
03/04/2012
Page 13 of 15
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
EXTENSIONS TO ROAD RISKS
1. Driving
Other Vehicles - Not Covered.
2. Windscreen
- Not Covered.
3. Demonstration
- Driving by unnamed prospective purchasers - Third Party Only Accompanied.
4. Customer
Loan Vehicles - Not Covered.
5. Loss
of use of customer’s vehicles - Not Covered.
6. Vehicles
in the custody or control of Subcontractors - Not Covered.
VEHICLES AT THE TRADE PREMISES
Risk Address: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
Location: Home Address
Cover: All
Risks
Operative Sections
Section 2 - Vehicles: B - Trade
Premises A, B, C, D & E
14,
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
LEGAL LIABILITIES
Declared Motor Trade Business: |
Buying and Selling, Mechanical /
Servicing / Overhauls / |
|
MOT |
Declared Wages: |
Ł Not Declared |
Declared Turnover: |
Ł Not Declared |
Date:
03/04/2012
Page 14 of 15
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
PUBLIC LIABILITY including costs and
expenses: Not Requested
Limit of Indemnity: Ł0 Any
one occurrence and unlimited in
any one period of insurance.
Excess Ł500 each and every loss for
damage to third party property.
Optional extensions:
1. Extension
of territorial limits. Not Requested
2. Damage
to leased or rented premises. Not Requested
3. Tools
of trade. Not Requested
4. Application
of heat at the trade premises. Not Requested
5. Use
of spray-painting equipment at the trade premises. Not Requested
6. Application
of heat away from the trade premises. Not Requested
PRODUCT LIABILITY AND SALES AND SERVICE
K1 .0
INDEMNITY: Not Requested
Limit(s) of Indemnity: Ł0
Any one occurrence and in all in any one period of insurance.
Excess Ł500
each and every loss for damage to third party property.
Optional extensions:
Merchantable Quality: Not Requested
Extension of territorial limits. Not Requested
Excess Ł500 each and every loss.
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY: Not Requested
Limit of Indemnity: Ł 0 Any one
occurrence.
Extensions:
Injury to working Partners/Proprietors:
Not Requested
Optional Extensions:
Extension of territorial limits. Not Requested
15,
Date:
03/04/2012
Page 15 of 15
Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Motor Trade Policy Schedule
Policyholder: Simon Cordell Policy No: L/WST/MTP/0192359
Operative Date: 23 March 2012
LEGAL EXPENSES
Operative Clauses:
1: Uninsured Loss Recovery.
2: Personal Injury.
3: Motoring Prosecutions.
4: Contract.
Indemnity limits applicable are shown
in your policy booklet.
16,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
message
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:58:23
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email.
Please can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so that
I know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I made
to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the outcome
was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I
was pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police
station which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so
the police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and
said it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until
I got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them,
I called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
17,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
message
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been
driving on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to
the court person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court
before I got the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks Mr Simon Cordell
18,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_001.msg
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:58:23
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email.
Please can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so
that I know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I
made to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the
outcome was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I
was pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police
station which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so
the police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and
said it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until
I got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them,
I called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
19,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_001.msg
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been
driving on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to
the court person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court
before I got the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
20,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
message
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
To: gl-thames.mcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:19:08
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email. Please
can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so that I
know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I
made to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the
outcome was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I was
pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police station
which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so the
police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and said
it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until I
got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them, I
called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
21,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
message
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been
driving on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to
the court person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court
before I got the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
22,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_001.msg
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
To: gl-thamesmcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:22:08
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:19
To: gl-thames.mcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email.
Please can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so
that I know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I made
to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the outcome
was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London
23,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_001.msg
N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I
was pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police
station which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so
the police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and
said it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until
I got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them,
I called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been driving
on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to the court
person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court before I got
the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
24,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_002.msg
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
To: gl-thamesmdist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:56:42
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email.
Please can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so
that I know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I
made to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the
outcome was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I
was pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police
station which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so
the police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and
said it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until
I got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them,
I called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
25,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_002.msg
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so that
I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been driving on
the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to the court
person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court before I got
the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
26,
Wrongful conviction and request to set
aside the conviction and re-open the case->RE_ Simon Cordell Court case
_003.msg
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
To: gl-thamesmcenq@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Sent: 27
February 2013 12:54:35
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
Hello
Again, I am writing to get the
case below reopened, I have emailed as you can see below, and I still have
heard nothing about this case. After a call that was made today, I have been
given a next email to send this email to in the hope that it can be dealt with.
Please read the below emails and
can you please reply to say you have got this email.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
January 2013 13:20
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I sent an email on the
21/12/2012 about a case below, I have not heard anything about this email.
Please can you confirm you have got the email with a reply to this email so
that I know this matter is being looked into.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
December 2012 16:47
To: gl-thames.mclist@hmcts.gsl.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Court case
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I
made to the court about a case that was heard about no insurance which the
outcome was 6 points on my driving licence and a Ł700 fine.
My Name and address are below
Mr Simon Cordell 23 Byron terrace
Edmonton London N9 7DG
The problem I have with this is yes I was
pulled up by the police and was asked to bring my insurance to a police station
which I did do, but it seem the police had given me the wrong form so the
police station would not accept me to give them my insurance documents and said
it would need to go to court, I have never heard anything about this until I
got a letter from DVLA saying I had to send my driving licence back to them, I
called DVLA to be told that there was a court case which was heard and that I
been given 6 points so needed to send my driving licence to them to get these
points added,
I explained to them that I did not know
about any court date and that I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day
the police pulled me over.
27,
Wrongful conviction and request to set aside
the conviction and re-open the case->RE-Simon-Cordell-Court-case-003.msg
DVLA give me the court information to
contract the court which I did and was told I need to put in that I did not
know about the court date. I called Enfield court and was told that I need to
write a letter to them which I have done but as of today's date 21/12/2012 I
have not heard anything back from them.
Today 21/12/2012 I got a next letter
from DVLA saying that my driving licence was going to be revoked on the
22/12/2012 again I made a call to them which they have put a next 28 days onto
the date that they will revoke my driving licence, I have also made a next call
to the court and it seems I was given the wrong information and it should have
asked for the case to be reopened which I am doing now by send you this email.
Please could you reopen the case so
that I can indeed show the court I do in fact have insurance to have been
driving on the date I was pulled by the police, and as I said on the phone to
the court person I speak to today I did not know about any dates for court
before I got the letter from DVLA.
I will enclose in this email my
insurance documents so you can see in fact I was insurance, and could you
please send me a new date to go to court to prove this.
Many Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 3
joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_07.24.2013_re
open matter
24/07/2013
/ Page Numbers: 28
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 3
joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_07.24.2013_re
open matter
24/07/2013
/ Page Numbers: 28
--
28,
From: Miller,
Joanne
joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 24
July 2013 11:48
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
re open matter
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your email of
today in relation to your case being re-opened. I have checked our system and
have seen that the matter was re listed on the 22.07.13 and on that date the
conviction and sentence that was imposed on the 14.11.12 has been set aside and
the endorsement on your driving licence will be removed, also any financial
penalty imposed will be removed and no money will be owed my you.
Hope this information helps you.
Joanne Miccer
East London Magistrates' Court
Thames, Stratford and Waltham Forest Email joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 4
joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_07.24.2013_RE re open matter
24/07/2013
/ Page Numbers: 29,30
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 4
joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_07.24.2013_RE
re open matter
24/07/2013
/ Page Numbers:
29,30
--
29,
From: Miller,
Joanne
Sent: 24
July 2013 12:33
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
re open matter
Mr Cordell
There are some cases where the person
involved in the re-opening matter does not need to attend court but in all
cases people should be informed of the date of hearing, not sure this was not
done in this case, but as long as the outcome was right for you, I am pleased
to hear that.
regards
Joanne Miccer
East London Magistrates' Court
Thames, Stratford and Waltham Forest Email joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 24
July 2013 12:27
To: Miller, Joanne
Subject: RE:
re open matter
Dear Miller, Joanne
Thank you for the reply in this matter
we were not aware the case had been listed for the 22/07/2013, But the outcome
the court has made is correct.
Once again thank you for the update in
this matter.
Mr. Simon Cordell
From: Miller,
Joanne
mailto: joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 24
July 2013 11:48
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: re
open matter
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank
you for your email of today in relation to your case being re-opened. I have
checked our system and have seen that the matter was re listed on
the 22.07.13 and on that date the conviction and sentence that was imposed on
the 14.11.12 has been set aside and the endorsement on your driving licence
will be removed, also any financial penalty imposed will be removed and no
money will be owed my you.
Hope this information helps you.
Joanne Miccer
East London Magistrates' Court
Thames, Stratford and Waltham Forest Email joanne.miller@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and
inform the sender by return e-mail.
30,
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail
content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
5.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 5
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.15.2013_FW RE Simon Cordell
15/11/2013
/ Page Numbers: 31,32
5.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 5
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.15.2013_FW
RE Simon Cordell
15/11/2013
/ Page Numbers:
31,32
--
31,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:57
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Attachments: Van-reciept-10-11-2013.jpg
Dear martin
After a next call and talking to
oily he asked me to send over the receipt of me buying the van please see
attached scan. I am waiting for the new logbook to come from DVLA.
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:07
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Martin
Today the 15/11/13 I made a call to be
able to speak to you with regard to what happened yesterday the 14/11/2013 with
the police. I have talked to Oilly today and he asked me to write this email to
you as they are thinking of closing my insurance policy.
Yesterday I went for a meeting with the
owner of a night club for a future job position the meeting was set for 14.00
hours.
I drove down for my meeting and got
there at around 13.00 hours there were some police at the road side doing stops
on cars etc, as I drove pass and pulled over to park by the night club, my
friend who was with me got out of the van to get some drinks and food while I
waited in the van, as I got to the club early for my meeting.
The police that were doing the stops
came up to me, they told me they wanted to do some checks on the van I was
sitting in, I asked why, and they told me under the road traffic act.
I then passed the police my insurance
policy for them to go over, the police officer also asked me why I had stopped
there.
I explained to him I had a meeting in
the night club that we were outside, as it was due to open to the public in
1-month time to secure my future position there. While I was there, I was also
planning on asking if there were any painting jobs, I explained all this to the
police officer I was talking to.
The police looked inside the van and
clearly saw it was empty and that there were also no signs on the van showing
it to be a company van. But the police officer was still unhappy. He talked to
yourselves as the insurance company on the phone and was told I was not
insured, at what point I called you myself as my insurance company as I knew I
was insured. I explained the situation to yourselves to be told I was covered
for commuting to work, social and domestic, as well as motor trade, but not for
carriage of goods for a company, which did not matter as my van was empty and
still is whilst being in the police impound.
I am putting in a complaint to the
independent complaints commission in regard to the unlawful seizure of my
vehicle.
Further to this would it please be
possible to find out the status of my insurance policy and the reasons as to
why I have been told you are in the process of closing my policy.
Yours sincerely
Mr Simon Cordell
32,
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 6
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.22.2013_RE RE Simon Cordell
_001
22/11/2013
/ Page Numbers: 33,34,35,36,37,38,39
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 6
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.22.2013_RE
RE Simon Cordell _001
22/11/2013
/ Page Numbers:
33,34,35,36,37,38,39
--
33,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 22
November 2013 14:24
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Attachments: Police-Meno.pdf; Police complaint.doc;
CX52JRZ-Mid-database.png
Hello Martin
After the call you made today
and talked to myself Miss Lorraine Cordell, I am sending over the information
you asked for. I do feel also that KMG asking to speak to the police office is
in breach of my data protection, but I will be willing to write and allow them
to do this.
As I said to KMG yesterday on a
phone that was made to them when I talked to Kelly Tilley I have not been found
guilty at a court of law for not having no insurance and it is for a court of
law to find me guilty not a police officer who thinks I done something when I
have not.
Even if KGM does speak to the
police office he will still say what he feels and that is not a fact that I am
guilty of anything. To be found guilty it would have to be done in front of a
judge.
Also Martin as you said on the
phone today when you in fact talked to the police on that day not once did they
say I had anything in my van that would void my insurance, and in fact I
believe at this stage if the police did in fact have proof they would have said
to you that my van was full of things which is not the case.
I would like to also know if my
insurance is going to carry on while this matter is addressed or if it will be
closed down on the 27/11/2013 as the letter says that KGM have sent me. And if
KMG is going to close down my policy I would like full written conditions of
what part of my policy I have broken.
As for the letter of complain
that will be going to the police Simon still has not fully read over it to make
sure there is no errors or anything else that needs adding but it does go into
details as to what went on, it is only for use by yourself and KGM to read
only.
Also as I said on the phone to
you today the police are also telling me that the 3 times that my vehicles were
seized and I had to pay for them to be taken out of the compound, I will need
to claim this back from my insurance company as they had not done their job and
put them on the database so they are at fault not the police.
You said to me today that KGM
are looking into this as they are on the database and it should show up to the
police that I am in fact insured. This has not been the case for me and I have
suffered badly due to this and this is the reason I have to carry my insurance
policy at all times so when I get pulled over by the police I can show them my
documents, as the police say it does not show up as I am insured, this is also
the reason the insurance company have had so many calls from the police to
asked if I am insured or not since my policy started.
Could you please send me proof
that the vehicles where on the database so I can put the claim in to the police
to get my money back for the times my vehicles were seized. As at this stage I
do not want to have to put a freedom of information act into yourselves or the
police to the amount of times that the police have in fact had to call my
insurance company to see if I was insured due to the police saying I was not
insured..
I have always been very happy
with Broadsure Direct that is why I have still use them and would like my
insurance to carry on under them.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:57
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Hi Martin
Can you let me know by email if
I am going to still have insurance as from the 27/11/2013 please, I got a
letter saying my insurance will be closed from the 27/11/2013, and I cannot see
the reason for this as I have done nothing wrong.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
34,
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:57
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Dear martin
After a next call and talking to
oily he asked me to send over the receipt of me buying the van please see
attached scan. I am waiting for the new logbook to come from DVLA.
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:07
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Martin
Today the 15/11/13 I made a call to be
able to speak to you with regard to what happened yesterday the 14/11/2013 with
the police. I have talked to Oilly today and he asked me to write this email to
you as they are thinking of closing my insurance policy.
Yesterday I went for a meeting with the
owner of a night club for a future job position the meeting was set for 14.00
hours.
I drove down for my meeting and got
there at around 13.00 hours there were some police at the road side doing stops
on cars etc, as I drove pass and pulled over to park by the night club, my
friend who was with me got out of the van to get some drinks and food while I
waited in the van, as I got to the club early for my meeting.
The police that were doing the stops
came up to me, they told me they wanted to do some checks on the van I was
sitting in, I asked why, and they told me under the road traffic act.
I then passed the police my insurance
policy for them to go over, the police officer also asked me why I had stopped
there.
I explained to him I had a meeting in
the night club that we were outside, as it was due to open to the public in
1-month time to secure my future position there. While I was there, I was also
planning on asking if there were any painting jobs, I explained all this to the
police officer I was talking to.
The police looked inside the van and
clearly saw it was empty and that there were also no signs on the van showing
it to be a company van. But the police officer was still unhappy. He talked to
yourselves as the insurance company on the phone and was told I was not
insured, at what point I called you myself as my insurance company as I knew I
was insured. I explained the situation to yourselves to be told I was covered
for commuting to work, social and domestic, as well as motor trade, but not for
carriage of goods for a company, which did not matter as my van was empty and
still is whilst being in the police impound.
I am putting in a complaint to the
independent complaints commission in regard to the unlawful seizure of my
vehicle.
Further to this would it please be possible
to find out the status of my insurance policy and the reasons as to why I have
been told you are in the process of closing my policy.
Yours sincerely
Mr Simon Cordell
35,
36,
RE: RE:
Simon Cordell ->Police complaint.doc
I am writing this complaint about the
14/10/2013 when I was going to a meeting with an owner of a night club for a
future job position the meeting was set for 14.00 hours at Brixton Hill SW2
1QZ.
When I got to Brixton Hill SW2 1QZ
there were some police on the roadside doing some stops of cars etc, I drove
pass them and parked up just in front of them.
My friend who was with me got out of my
van and went to buy some drinks and food while I waited in the van.
Then next thing a police officer come
to my van and said to me he waited to do some checks on my van I asked him the
reason for this the police officer replied under the road traffic act he also
asked me the reason why I had stopped there as I was passing him my insurance
documents.
I explained to him I had a meeting in
the night club that we were outside, as it was due to open to the public in
1-month time to secure my future position there. While I was there, I was also
planning on asking if there were any painting jobs, I explained all this to the
police officer I was talking to.
The police officer made a call to my
insurance company and he then replied to me they are saying that I was not
insured, at this I was very shocked and started to make a call to my Mother to
ask her to call my insurance company to speak about why they was saying I was
not insurance. She is fact talked to a person called Martin who took Simons
Number and said he would call him. Martin did call and I explained to him what
was going on and he told me I was insured and also talked to the police office
and told him that I was insured. The police talked on the phone more than once
and was told I was in fact insured to drive my van.
The police officer was still not happy
and now told me that I was using my Van for work which I told him that was not
the case and that I was here for a meeting, I told the police officer to look
in my van and see if there were any working tools inside it. The police officer
saw this was not the case as the van was empty.
By this time a next police officer had
come to the other police officer and I started to talk to him I explained what
was going on and what the other officer was saying that I was using my Van to
work in, which was not the case and I told him also to look in the van and see
if there were any working tools in there. I even showed him a business card I
had got made up to give out to people in the hope of work. Which the police
officer put in his own wallet to keep for himself.
At this the other officer overheard me
and the other officer talking about the business card and then used this to say
that I had in fact been working and this is why he was going to seize my van. I
told him that where is the print bushes and print in my van as this is what was
on the business card it was a printer’s business card. The officer then said
why have you got paint of your jeans I told him that I did not have money to
buy new jeans and that was why I was looking for work to try and better myself.
I also told the office to go into the property where I was due to go for a
meeting and ask them if I was working there. He refused to do this. I still
feel as if there is a big issue here I am allowed to drive to a meeting and
park there as long as I am not carrying goods for a company which I was not and
that could clearly be seen my van was empty so how anyone can think I am doing
anything wrong is beyond me.
The police officer did not want to hear
anything I had to say and was looking for any reason from the start to arrest
me or seize my van this was his aim from the start.
It did not matter that the insurance
company told him I was insured, the only thing I would not be insured for were
if I was to use my van as a tool for carriage of goods for any company which
was clearly not the case as my van was empty.
37,
I am insured to go back and forward to
any place of work as my insurance covers for social domestic and pleasure and
commuting as well as motor trade.
The police officer for some reason
would not hear I was insured and just at this time wanted to seize my Van. He was
asking me to sign a ticket in order to give me 6 points on my licence and a
Ł300 fine and for my van to be seized. Which I did understand what he was
asking me to do as this has not happened to me only this time but a further 2
times when the police on a Sunday on both other times seized my vehicles due to
them not being able to call my insurance company. And it is showing on the
database I was not insured.
I refused to sign as I knew I was
insured. I told the police officer to arrest me and that we could get this
sorted at the police station, due to me refusing to sign the ticket the police
officer arrested me as I asked him to do.
All this time I was on the phone to my
mother and she heard all of what was going on. PC Smith spoke to my mum also on
the phone two times as well, my mother also asked PC smith was there anything
in my Van and PC Smith told her not that the van was empty. My mother also
called the insurance company and talked to them they also told her I was
insured, and they could not understand why the police was doing this.
I was taken to Southwark police station
they were still trying to force me to sign the ticket which I did not want to
do, they told me if I did not sign then they would not bail me and take me to
court the next morning, I told them to do this I was willing to stay in the
police cells till the next day when this could be heard by a judge as I knew I
was not in the wrong, they changed their mind and told this would not happen
and they wanted me out of the police station. They forced me to sign the ticket
and then made me leave the police station,
While waiting outside by reception in
the police station I asked to speak to an inspector the police officer who had
come to drive me out of Southwark told me if I did not leave with them now then
I would have to make my own way or I would break my bail conditions of not
being in Southwark, I was on the phone to my mum and she told me she was going
to get off the phone and call my solicitors, which she did, my solicitors told
my mum to tell me to wait and talk to an inspector and that due to the police
taking me to Southwark I would not be breaking my bail conditions as the police
had taken me there.
I waited to see an inspector and talked
to him, he said due to the police being from Brixton there was very little he
could do, but he would get an inspector from Brixton to call me so I could put
in my complaint in, this has not happened and this is the reason I am writing
my complaint to yourselves. I had to make my way home with no money each time
getting to the stop on the train I needed to change telling the train officer
what had happened if it was not for the fact they let me get back without
paying I would have had to walk all the way home as the police officer would
not let me get my things out of the van or my money.
I went to pick my van up and again
there was a cost to myself of Ł190, I will be taking this to court as I should
have had no need to have 6 points put on my licence and a Ł300 fine when I did
in fact have insurance to drive.
Due to also the police officer lying to
my insurance saying I was working and carrying goods in my van which is clearly
a lie as the van was empty I have also had a letter saying they are closing my
insurance over, so I am having to deal with this also.
I do not feel the police officer who
dealt with this matter address it as he should have, I feel he did not do his
job correctly and I have suffered due to this. My insurance company are saying
that the data for my vehicles are on the data base and are looking into the
reason why it is not showing up when the police are doing their checks.
38,
Yours sincerely Mr Simon Cordell
39,
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 7
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.26.2013_RE Simon Cordell
26/11/2013
/ Page Numbers: 40,41,42,43
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 7
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.26.2013_RE
Simon Cordell
26/11/2013
/ Page Numbers:
40,41,42
43
--
40,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 26
November 2013 15:46
To: Martin Jenkin
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Data-Protection-KGM.doc
Kelly-TiNer-KGM.doc
Hello Martin,
Thank you for the phone call today to
tell me I was still insured.
Could you please pass on the attached
documents to Kelly Tiller at KGM one is a Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998.
The other letter is just to get Kelly
Tiller to confirm by email I am in fact still insured so I have this in writing
and also to found out why my van is still not showing up on the database.
And also about the logbooks which I am
still waiting for them from DVLA I called DVLA today when I got back from the
compound and was told it can take 8 weeks for me to get the new logbooks, I
will therefore send then right over to you by email as soon as I get them.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
41,
RE: Simon
Cordell->Data-Protection-KGM.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 25/11/2013
KGM House 14 Eastwood Close London E18
1RZ
Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Please supply the information about me
I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to:
1. All
data to prove that my Vehicles were on the database since my insurance was
taken out.
2. Phone
recording of the 14/11/2013 with the police officer and Jessica advising that
Mr Simon Cordell was carrying tools in his vehicle.
3. Phone
call for 26/11/2013 with Kelly Tiller and the manager of the Charlton vehicle
pound, 8 Bramshot Avenue, Charlton, London, SE7 7HY, saying that there were not
tools in the van Reg CX52 JRZ when it was impounded on the 14/11/2013.
4. And
the reason why it still shows as of today’s date 25/11/2013 that my Van Reg
CX52 JRZ still shows on the Mid data base as uninsured.
5. All
phone calls made to Broadsure Direct and KGM since my policy started where the
police have had to call to confirm I was in fact insured.
6. If
there is any data that cannot be forwarding to me, please state this when
forwarding me my data.
42,
If you need any more information from
me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
It may be helpful for you to know that
a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should be
responded to within 40 days.
If you do not normally deal with these
requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer. If you need
advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can
assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at www.ico.org.uk/
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
43,
RE: Simon Cordell->Kelly-Tiller-KGM.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 25/11/2013
KGM House 14 Eastwood Close London E18
1RZ
Dear Kelly Tiller
Would it please be possible to confirm
by email that I am in fact still insured so I have this in writing by KGM.
Also I have talked to Martin and he has
told me that you need the logbook for my Vehicles, I am still waiting for them
to come back from DVLA and as soon as I get them back which can take up to 8
weeks I have been told by DVLA on the phone today, I will scan them in and send
them over to Martin.
Also can you please look into the
reason that my Van CX52 JRZ is still showing up on the database as uninsured as
of today’s date.
My Car MA57 LDY is now showing as
insured.
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
2014
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 8
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.24.2014_RE RE Simon Cordell
CX52JRZ
24/02/2014
/ Page Numbers: 44,45
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 8
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.24.2014_RE
RE Simon Cordell CX52JRZ
24/02/2014
/ Page Numbers:
44,45
--
44,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 24
February 2014 16:34
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell CX52JRZ
Attachments: sold-Van-CX52JRZ.jpg
Hi Martin
After the call today please see
the attached recipe for the Van CX52JRZ Lorraine
45,
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 9
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.24.2014_RE Simon Cordell REG
CX52JRX
24/02/2014
/ Page Numbers: 46,47
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 9
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.24.2014_RE
Simon Cordell REG CX52JRX
24/02/2014
/ Page Numbers:
46,47
--
46,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 24
February 2014 19:09
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell REG CX52JRX
Attachments: Sold-Van-CX52JRZ-27-04-2013.jpg
Buy-Van-reciept-CX52JRZ-10-11-2013.jpg
Hi Martin
Today when I sent over the recipe for
the van, I sent over the wrong one. Simon has just come here and showed me the
last 2 recipes for the van. I believe you already have the 10/11/2013 as I
emailed this over to you on the 15/11/2013 at 15.57
Lorraine
47,
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 10
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2015_RE Simon Cordell
Information
04/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 48,49
10.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 10
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2015_RE
Simon Cordell Information
04/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 48,49
--
48,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 04
March 2015 10:26
To: Martin Jenkin
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Information
Hi Martin
I have not heard from you re the
below email.
But could you please send me a
copy today of Simon Currant insurance policy and his no claims please.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
February 2015 15:33
To: Martin Jenkin
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Information
Hi Martin
Just giving you an update Simon
has called to try and speak to you today to make a late payment on his
insurance as he was a day late. could you please make sure someone calls us to
make the payment.
As for KGM they are now dealing
and addressing the issues, but it took me to start cc my emails to them to
Lloyds.
He has been having it really
hard due to all this insurance with KGM and the courts, and not being able to
drive half the time this policy has been in place due to them keep revoking his
driving licence, until the courts then sort it and put it back in place. They
have again revoked his driving licence this is the 3 time. I have had to get a
solicitor now to help with the cases of no insurance because I seem to be
getting nowhere. And also, to deal with the appeal case for the 14/11/2013. I
do have the audio now from KGM that proves the police officer lied and some
letters I will attach to this email just so you are updated.
I can't send the audio due to
most places will not accept that file type. So, I have included the transcript
that the solicitor done
Could you please also address
doing your section 9 witness statement about the calls for the 14/11/2013 as
the appeal case is due to be heard on the 05/03/2015.
Could you also please send over
a copy of Simon no claims please?
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin
mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 07
January 2015 09:06
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Information
Good Morning Lorraine,
Apologies for the lack of contact, I
have been in and out of the office.
Have you received any correspondence
from KGM? we spoke to them prior to Christmas regarding the issues and they
have been looking into the situation and as far as I am aware, they were going
to respond directly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
49,
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
t: 01843
594477 f: 01843 594488
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 28
December 2014 23:59
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Information
Hello Martin
Can you please get back to me with an update
as I not heard anything from KGM about the email I sent over to you on the
30/11/2014 with the data that would be needed. I also have not heard anything
from you about the section 9 witness statement. Please can you get back to me
as soon as possible.
Regards
Lorraine
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.11
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2015_Re Simon Cordell-Appeal
04/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 50,51,52,53,54
55,56,57,58
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.11
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2015_Re
Simon Cordell-Appeal
04/03/2015
/ Page Numbers:
50,51,52,53,54
55,56,57,58
--
50,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 04
March 2015 09:53
To: JOSEPHINE WARD
Subject: Re:
Simon
Cordell-Appeal
Attachments: DOC034
(2).pdf
Appeal-Case-Driving-Tools-26-11-2014.pdf
Clerks Notes for Simon Cordell-03.pdf
DOC008 (3).PDF
Here you go Josey if you look at the
date of conviction on the letter the court sent you will see it says 29/08/2014
but it did not go to trail till the 26/11/2014
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
Re: Simon Cordell-Appeal->Clerks Notes
for Simon Cordell-03.pdf
From: GL-SWESTERNMCENQ
To lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: Clerks
Notes for Simon Cordell
Date: 16 February 2015 09:57:22
Attachments: DOC034.pdf
With reference to your e-mail of the
10th February please find attached clerks notes from the trial on the 26th
November as requested.
Miss J Lee
Administration Officer
Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court
176a Lavender Hill, London, SW11 1JU
Tel: 020 7805 1470
Please note: As of June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No: 0870 324 0299*
*
'I am not authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means'.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
This email has been certified virus
free.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
58,
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.12
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.06.2014_RE Simon Cordell Errors
on Cases.
06/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.12
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.06.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
06/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68
--
59,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
March 2014 09:38
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this to ask if
there is any update, they did not list my case yesterday and it is now listed
for today at Woolwich at 2pm so I was wondering if you had any of the data,
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff are looking for the records at
Enfield Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them for
tomorrow morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before
Thursday. If there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be
accessed first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
60,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
After your email dated the 21/02/2014
I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the week of the
24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my 1st email when
asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich crown court and I
am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC, I am due in court
maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into court to have a
hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:48
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the
requested Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury
Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506
3100
Fax: 0870
739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
61,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
The records you request are at another
court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is open.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Administration Officer Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506
3100
Fax: 0870
739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
62,
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation between Mrs
Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates and
offences you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not
immediately accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would
help reduce the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Office Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I
have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in
my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know some are correct but due to some dates being wrong on some of the ones I
can see errors in I would
63,
like to check all the cases on
the PNC that was heard at Enfield Magistrates.
If this can be done as a matter
of urgency due to the impact this is having on my life with the case that is
ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court and my bail and other issues.
If the information could be
emailed to me, I would be grateful as I am next in court on March 2014 and
would like this information of any errors so I can show the judge.
Please see below the lists of
cases I would like information on.
64,
65,
66,
67,
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB
26/01/1981
This email was received from the INTERNET
and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage or copying
68,
is not permitted. If you are not the
intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return
e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of
69,
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
13.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 13
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_07.03.2014_REF 00-COSX14MT06
Open Print Manager Documents
03/07/2014
/ Page Numbers: 70,71
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 13
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_07.03.2014_REF
00-COSX14MT06 Open Print Manager Documents
03/07/2014
/ Page Numbers:
70,71
--
70,
From: Martin
Jenkin <martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com>
Sent: 03
July 2014 10:51
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: REF:
00-COSX14MT06 Open Print Manager Documents
Attachments: sofdec
(COSX14MT06).pdf
Please ask Simon to sign and return
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
t: 01843
594477
f: 01843
594488
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is strictly
confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is
addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you
are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or take any
action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note
that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications
passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
71,
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 14
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.10.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Errors on Cases.
10/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 14
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.10.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
10/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82
--
72,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:43
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see if
there is any update to the information that I have asked for.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto:
gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff are looking for the records at
Enfield Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them for
tomorrow morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before
Thursday. If there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be
accessed first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail:
GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
73,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
After your email dated the
21/02/2014 I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the
week of the 24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my
1st email when asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich
crown court and I am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC,
I am due in court maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into
court to have a hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at
court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:48
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the
requested Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail:
GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
74,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
The records you request are at
another court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is
open. Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Officer Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
75,
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation between Mrs
Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates and offences
you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not immediately
accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would help reduce
the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Office Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I
have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in
my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know
76,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81,
is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of Justice.
E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of
82,
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 15
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.11.2014_RE Simon Cordell
DVLA
11/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 83,84
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 15
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.11.2014_RE
Simon Cordell DVLA
11/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
83,84
--
83,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 11
March 2014 11:42
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell DVLA
Attachments: DVLA-CX52JRZ.pdf
Hi Martin
Please see the attached letter
from DVLA about CX52JRZ. I got the letter today but they seem to have put my
Surname as Cardell and not Cordell so I will be contacting them today by phone.
Regards,
Simon
84,
RE: Simon
Cordell DVLA->DVLA-CX52JRZ.pdf
0300 790 6802 0300 123 1279
www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration
6 March 2014
Date: 6 March 2014
01233/ 1336640030/00423
RE: Simon
Cordell DVLA->DVLA
Driver & Vehicle
Longview Road
Licensing Monriston
Agency
Swansea
SAB 7JL
Website: www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration
Phone: 0300 790 6802
Textphone: 0300 123 1279
TS ENT SIMON CARDELL
23 BYRON TERRACES
HERTFORD ROAD
LONDON
N9 7DG
ESSE
Dear Sir/Madam
Vehicle registration number: CX52
JRZ
Make: FORD
Model: TRANSIT 300 MWB TD
Thank you for your recent application
for a Registration Certificate (V5C) for the above - mentioned vehicle. We are
dealing with your request.
Your V62 application should be
processed on 20/03/2014 and a V5C issued to you.
Please allow 5 working days from
this date before making any enquiries about your application.
If you require any information
regarding taxing your vehicle, please refer to the website www.gov.uk/taxdisc
Yours sincerely
Dave Morgan
DVLA Central Capture Unit
Find out about DVLA’s online
services
Go to: www.gov.uk/browse/driving
INVESTORS IN PEOPLE
Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 16
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.12.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Errors on Cases.
12/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 16
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.12.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
12/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
--
85,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
March 2014 11:59
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this to see if
there is any news as to the data I asked for. I was hoping to have got an email
yesterday with some information due to the email you sent me on the 10/02/2014
but I did not. I understand that the court is only open Tuesday to Thursday
which only give till tomorrow as you are aware I am back in court on the
18/03/2014 which if I do not get anything by tomorrow I will have to go into
court then with nothing as the court would be closed. Could you therefore let
me know if the data I have asked for will be available by tomorrow?
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:59
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
As confirmed to Mrs Cordell last week,
a member of staff at Tottenham Magistrates Court will research the Registers
listed and copies will be sent, by e-mail, to you as we recover them. The Court
opens Tuesday to Thursday: we hope to have at least some of the records for you
tomorrow.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates
Court
Tel: 0207-506
3100
Fax: 0870
739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind
the Ministry of Justice contractually,
nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:43
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see
if there is any update to the information that I have asked for.
Regards
86,
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff are looking for the records at Enfield
Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them for tomorrow
morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before Thursday. If
there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be accessed
first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
87,
After your email dated the
21/02/2014 I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the
week of the 24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my
1st email when asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich crown
court and I am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC, I am
due in court maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into court
to have a hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at
court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:48
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the
requested Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell
88,
The records you request are at another
court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is open.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration Officer Highbury
Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To:
'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation
between Mrs Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates
and offences you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not
immediately accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would
help reduce the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
89,
Administration Office Highbury
Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506
3100
Fax: 0870
739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which r bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I
have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in
my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know some are correct but due to some dates being wrong on some of the ones I
can see errors in I would like to check all the cases on the PNC that was heard
at Enfield Magistrates.
If this can be done as a matter
of urgency due to the impact this is having on my life with the case that is
ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court and my bail and other issues.
If the information could be
emailed to me, I would be grateful as I am next in court on March 2014 and
would like this information of any errors so I can show the judge.
Please see below the lists of
cases I would like information on.
90,
91,
92,
93,
94,
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of Justice.
E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by
95,
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
96,
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
17.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 17
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Errors on Cases.
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 17
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111
--
97,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
March 2014 14:10
To: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
Could you please email them to
this address if possible? Or would it please be possible for my mum to attend
Enfield Court and pick the data up.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 13
March 2014 13:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
A number of the registers have been
located and they are being copied now. We will send them by post tomorrow to
the address given by you in a previous e-mail:
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109 Burncroft
Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
The age and quality of the register
entries is such that scanning, and e-mailing is not a viable option. Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements
which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.
98,
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
March 2014 12:27
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sorry to keep emailing you,
but I still have not had any emails with the data I have asked for. Can you
please get back to me with what is going on.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
[mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
March 2014 12:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Our colleague is searching for the
files now: I will send whatever she finds today. She will be continuing to
search for files tomorrow also.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
March 2014 11:59
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this to see if
there is any news as to the data I asked for. I was hoping to have got an email
yesterday with some information due to the email you sent me on the 10/02/2014
but I did not. I understand that the court is only open Tuesday to Thursday which
only give till tomorrow as you are aware I am back in court on the 18/03/2014
which if I do not get anything by tomorrow I will have to go into court then
with nothing as the court would be closed. Could you therefore let me know if
the data I have asked for will be available by tomorrow?
99,
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:59
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
As confirmed to Mrs Cordell last week,
a member of staff at Tottenham Magistrates Court will research the Registers
listed and copies will be sent, by e-mail, to you as we recover them. The Court
opens Tuesday to Thursday: we hope to have at least some of the records for you
tomorrow.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:43
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see
if there is any update to the information that I have asked for.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell
100,
Staff are looking for the records at
Enfield Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them for tomorrow
morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before Thursday. If
there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be accessed
first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
After your email dated the
21/02/2014 I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the
week of the 24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my
1st email when asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich
crown court and I am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC,
I am due in court maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into
court to have a hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at
court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:48
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
101,
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the requested
Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
The records you request are at
another court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is
open. Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Officer Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
102,
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the Ministry
of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation between Mrs
Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates and
offences you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not
immediately accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would
help reduce the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Office Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may
103,
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way
via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I
have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in
my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know some are correct but due to some dates being wrong on some of the ones I
can see errors in I would like to check all the cases on the PNC that was heard
at Enfield Magistrates.
If this can be done as a matter
of urgency due to the impact this is having on my life with the case that is
ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court and my bail and other issues.
If the information could be
emailed to me, I would be grateful as I am next in court on March 2014 and
would like this information of any errors so I can show the judge.
Please see below the lists of
cases I would like information on.
104,
105,
106,
107,
108,
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications
via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by
109,
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically
logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the INTERNET
and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
110,
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications
via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
111,
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 18
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE Simon Cordell Errors
on Cases. _001
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 18
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases. _001
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
--
112,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
March 2014 13:12
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
Could you please email them to
this address if possible.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 13
March 2014 13:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
A number of the registers have been
located and they are being copied now. We will send them by post tomorrow to
the address given by you in a previous e-mail:
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109 Burncroft
Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
The age and quality of the register entries
is such that scanning, and e-mailing is not a viable option. Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
113,
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
March 2014 12:27
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sorry to keep emailing you,
but I still have not had any emails with the data I have asked for. Can you
please get back to me with what is going on.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 12
March 2014 12:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Our colleague is searching for the
files now: I will send whatever she finds today. She will be continuing to
search for files tomorrow also.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the Ministry
of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
March 2014 11:59
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this to see if
there is any news as to the data I asked for. I was hoping to have got an email
yesterday with some information due to the email you sent me on the 10/02/2014
but I did not. I understand that the court is only open Tuesday to Thursday
which only give till tomorrow as you are aware I am back in court on the
18/03/2014 which if I do not get anything by tomorrow I will have to go into
court then with nothing as the court would be closed. Could you therefore let
me know if the data I have asked for will be available by tomorrow?
Regards
114,
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:59
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
As confirmed to Mrs Cordell last week,
a member of staff at Tottenham Magistrates Court will research the Registers
listed and copies will be sent, by e-mail, to you as we recover them. The Court
opens Tuesday to Thursday: we hope to have at least some of the records for you
tomorrow.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail:
GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:43
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see
if there is any update to the information that I have asked for.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell
115,
Staff are looking for the records at
Enfield Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them for
tomorrow morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before
Thursday. If there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be
accessed first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind
the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
After your email dated the
21/02/2014 I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the
week of the 24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my
1st email when asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich
crown court and I am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC,
I am due in court maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into
court to have a hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at
court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:48
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
116,
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the
requested Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the Ministry
of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
The records you request are at
another court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is
open. Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Officer Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
117,
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the Ministry
of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation between Mrs
Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates and
offences you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not
immediately accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would
help reduce the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Office Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may
118,
bind the Ministry of Justice in any way
via electronic means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I
have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in
my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know some are correct but due to some dates being wrong on some of the ones I
can see errors in I would like to check all the cases on the PNC that was heard
at Enfield Magistrates.
If this can be done as a matter
of urgency due to the impact this is having on my life with the case that is
ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court and my bail and other issues.
If the information could be
emailed to me, I would be grateful as I am next in court on March 2014 and
would like this information of any errors so I can show the judge.
Please see below the lists of
cases I would like information on.
119,
120,
121,
122,
123,
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded
for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded
for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by
124,
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec.
(CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure,
storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
125,
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically
logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
126,
This email was received from the INTERNET
and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by
Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)
In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
19.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 19
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Errors on Cases. _002
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139
19.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 19
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases. _002
13/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139
--
127,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
March 2014 12:27
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sorry to keep emailing you,
but I still have not had any emails with the data I have asked for. Can you
please get back to me with what is going on.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 12
March 2014 12:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Our colleague is searching for the
files now: I will send whatever she finds today. She will be continuing to
search for files tomorrow also.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
March 2014 11:59
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this to see if
there is any news as to the data I asked for. I was hoping to have got an email
yesterday with some information due to the email you sent me on the 10/02/2014
but I did not. I understand that the court is only open Tuesday to Thursday
which only give till tomorrow as you are aware I am back in court on the
18/03/2014 which if I do not get anything by tomorrow I will have to go into
court then with nothing as the court would be closed. Could you therefore let
me know if the data I have asked for will be available by tomorrow?
128,
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcomermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:59
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
As confirmed to Mrs Cordell last week,
a member of staff at Tottenham Magistrates Court will research the Registers
listed and copies will be sent, by e-mail, to you as we recover them. The Court
opens Tuesday to Thursday: we hope to have at least some of the records for you
tomorrow.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit
Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 10
March 2014 12:43
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see
if there is any update to the information that I have asked for.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:23
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell
129,
Staff are looking for the
records at Enfield Magistrates Court this week; however, we will not have them
for tomorrow morning. We will endeavour to have as many as possible before
Thursday. If there are specific dates you needed particularly, these could be
accessed first.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail:
GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
March 2014 15:08
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wondering if there is any
update, as I am in Woolwich Crown Court tomorrow and as said I wanted the
information before I went to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 14:39
To: 'GL-HCORNERMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
After your email dated the
21/02/2014 I was thinking that you would be searching for the data from the
week of the 24/02/2014 as this is what it said in the email. As I said in my 1st
email when asking for the information I have a case that is at Woolwich crown
court and I am having problems with my bail due to the records on my PNC, I am
due in court maybe tomorrow or this week as my solicitor is putting into court
to have a hearing and I wanted to have any errors on the PNC addressed at
court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From:
GL-HCORNERMCENQ mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent:
03 March 2014 13:48
130,
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Staff will be searching for the requested
Registers from tomorrow. We will contact you as soon as this is done.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
March 2014 13:22
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was wondering if there were
any updates as to the data, I have asked for so that I can check cases against
my PNC file.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 21
February 2014 16:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
The records you request are at
another court. We will begin searching for them next week when the court is
open. Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Officer Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
131,
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:29
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Hello
I do understand that most of the
items listed in my emails are archived due to their date but as I can see
errors in the dates of some of the things and I know this as fact I would like
all items checked that is listed so that it can be checked against the PNC
records I have got the print out from.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
mailto: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
February 2014 12:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to the conversation between Mrs
Cordell and a member of staff yesterday, please specify which dates and
offences you wish us to check. Almost all the offences are archived and not
immediately accessible using the computer; specific dates and offences would
help reduce the delay in providing this information.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit Administration
Office Highbury Corner Magistrates Court
Tel: 0207-506 3100
Fax: 0870 739 5768
e-mail: GL-HCORNERMCENQ@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
132,
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
February 2014 13:36
To: GL-HCORNERMCENQ
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109
Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I have
an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in my
PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.
I would be very grateful if you
can pull up the following records so I can check them with the PNC the police
printed off for the case that is ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court, I have been
told I will need a Memorandum of conviction or the transcript for the case.
I do know there are some errors
on the cases that was heard at Enfield Magistrates and can see them clearly,
but due to how far they go back cannot remember some of the cases. I do also
know some are correct but due to some dates being wrong on some of the ones I
can see errors in I would like to check all the cases on the PNC that was heard
at Enfield Magistrates.
If this can be done as a matter
of urgency due to the impact this is having on my life with the case that is
ongoing at Woolwich Crown Court and my bail and other issues.
If the information could be
emailed to me, I would be grateful as I am next in court on March 2014 and
would like this information of any errors so I can show the judge.
Please see below the lists of
cases I would like information on.
133,
134,
135,
136,
137,
organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response
to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry
of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail
content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by
138,
Vodafone in partnership with
Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please
call your organisation's IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
139,
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications
via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.
This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT
Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 20
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.25.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Logbook
25/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 140,141,142,143,144
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 20
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.25.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Logbook
25/03/2014
/ Page Numbers:
140,141,142,143,144
-=-
140,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 25
March 2014 11:40
To: Martin Jenkin
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Logbook
Attachments: CX52JRZ-logbook-full.pdf
Dear Martin
Here is the logbook for CX52JRZ
please see attached, I did call DVLA after I got the letter from them which
showed the spelling of the last name wrong as it was spelled Cardell and not
Cordell, they told me I had to wait until the logbook come in the post and then
to fill in section 6 to get it corrected, Which I will be doing,
Also I have also noticed today
when the logbook came in the post and I am not sure why they have put the new
keepers date as 15/02/2014 as the green slip section 10 was sent to them, so
the date of the 10/11/2013 was on it so I will be writing a letter to ask why
this was done, Along with the section 6 to correct the last name,
Could you please update us as to
when this can be sorted with KGM as to the claim that is against Simon so he
can sort his insurance out,
Also, about the claim for 09 Dec
2013 we still have not heard from KGM as to when someone will be sent out to
take a report from Simon could this be looked into?
And also, I know there was some
confusion as to the number that was called to report this on the 09 Dec 2013,
please see the below information from my phone bill
Mon 09 Dec 13:28 SPEC SERV
08444126412 22:00
The call was made to 08444126412
at 13:28 and lasted 22 min this is when Simon called to report what had
happened on the 09/12/2013 and give all the information which the person noted,
I know there is some issue as to the lady who witnessed this information being
missing but it was all given on this call, If it can be possible can someone
get the tape for this call and get the information to the witness so KGM can
contact her about what she saw and who was at fault,
Lorraine
141,
Copy of my Driving license!
142,
Copy of my Driving license!
143,
Copy of my Driving license!
144,
Copy of my Driving license!
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 21
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.26.2014_RE Simon Cordell
Logbook
26/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 145
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 21
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.26.2014_RE
Simon Cordell Logbook
26/03/2014
/ Page Numbers: 145
--
145
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 26
March 2014 17:54
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Logbook
Hi Martin
Is it all possible to get an update
I am losing money due to not having insurance and not being able to drive. You
said you would get back to me today and I have not heard anything.
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 25
March 2014 11:40
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Logbook
Dear Martin
Here is the logbook for CX52JRZ
please see attached. I did call DVLA after I got the letter from them which
showed the spelling of the last name wrong as it was spelled Cardell and not
Cordell, they told me I had to wait until the logbook come in the post and then
to fill in section 6 to get it corrected. Which I will be doing.
Also I have also noticed today
when the logbook came in the post and I am not sure why they have put the new
keepers date as 15/02/2014 as the green slip section 10 was sent to them, so
the date of the 10/11/2013 was on it so I will be writing a letter to ask why
this was done, Along with the section 6 to correct the last name.
Could you please update us as to
when this can be sorted with KGM as to the claim that is against Simon so he
can sort his insurance out.
Also, about the claim for 09 Dec
2013 we still have not heard from KGM as to when someone will be sent out to
take a report from Simon could this be looked into?
And also, I know there was some
confusion as to the number that was called to report this on the 09 Dec 2013,
please see the below information from my phone bill
Mon 09 Dec 13:28 SPEC SERV
08444126412 22:00
The call was made to 08444126412
at 13:28 and lasted 22 min this is when Simon called to report what had
happened on the 09/12/2013 and give all the information which the person noted.
I know there is some issue as to the lady who witnessed this information being
missing but it was all given on this call. If it can be possible can someone
get the tape for this call and get the information to the witness so KGM can
contact her about what she saw and who was at fault.
Lorraine
22.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 22
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_04.17.2014_
17/04/2014
/ Page Numbers: 146,147,148
22.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 22
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_04.17.2014_
17/04/2014
/ Page Numbers: 146,147,148
--
146,
From: Martin
Jenkin
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com>
Sent: 17
April 2014 18:44
To: Lorraine Cordell
Attachments: Cordell Cover note.pdf
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
t: 01843
594477
f: 01843
594488
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
147,
Temporary Motor Insurance Cover
Note Number!
148,
Temporary Motor Insurance Cover
Note Number!
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 23
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.15.2014_RE
Policy-Simon-Cordell
15/05/2014
/ Page Numbers:149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 23
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.15.2014_RE
Policy-Simon-Cordell
15/05/2014
/ Page Numbers:149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165
--
149,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 15
May 2014 13:04
To: Martin Jenkin
Subject: RE:
Policy-Simon-Cordell
Attachments: Statement-of-facts.pdf
36980126-Mr Ian Robinson.doc
36980127-Miss M Stavros.doc
36980128-
Miss L Cordell.doc
Policy-plan-letter-dated-12-05-2014.pdf
Simon-Driving Licence-Card-Back.jpg
Simon- Driving Licence-Card-Front
(1).jpg
Simon-Driving Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Hi Martin
Simon had a letter from policy plan
saying they were cancelling his policy the letter was dated 12/05/2014 and they
said they were cancelling seven days from the date of their letter. Not sure as
to why as when Simon got your letter dated the 06/05/2014 we sent the documents
you asked for to policy plan. Please see attached documents which were posted
to policy plan. Could you please see as to the reason as why they are
cancelling his policy please.
Regards
Simon
150,
Broadsure Direct 4th Floor,
Argyle Centre York Street Ramsgate Kent
CT11 9DS
Telephone :0J 843 594477 Fax :01843 594488
facts.pdf
Policyholder: Mr
Simon Cordell
Policy ref: COSX14MT05
STATEMENT OF FACT (vl.02)
Please note that the documents
enclosed relate to a "Statement of Fact" insurance policy. This means
that Broadsure Direct have prepared the documentation on your behalf, based on
the information provided by you.
It is vitally important that you
check all the enclosed documentation to ensure that it is correct and that the
policy meets your requirements. Please complete & return either declaration
below within seven days.
I have checked the Statement of
Fact and all related documentation that the information is correct, and the
policy meets my requirements.
Print
I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOULD ANY OF
THE INFORMATION WITHIN THIS STATEMENT BE INCORRECT, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILTY TO
CONTACT BROADSURE DIRECT IMMEDIATELY ON 01843 594477 AND OBTAIN CONFIRMATION
THAT THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
151,
Motor trade documents!
152,
Motor trade documents!
153,
Motor trade documents!
154,
Motor trade documents!
155,
Motor trade documents!
156,
Motor trade documents!
157,
Motor trade documents!
158,
Motor trade documents!
159,
Motor trade documents!
160,
Motor trade documents!
161,
Motor trade documents!
162,
Motor trade documents!
163,
Motor trade documents!
164,
Motor trade documents!
165,
Motor trade documents!
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 24
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.16.2014_RE Policy-Simon-Cordell
16/05/2014
/ Page Numbers: 166,167,168
169,170,171,172
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 24
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.16.2014_RE
Policy-Simon-Cordell
16/05/2014
/ Page Numbers:
166,167,168
169,170,171,172
--
166,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 16
May 2014 16:27
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Policy-Simon-Cordell
Attachments: 36980157-Jamie
Macuire.doc
36980158-L Cordell.doc
36980160.doc
Hi Martin
I got a call today and was told
they needed 3 more invoices which I am sending over now.
I hope the invoices will not be
used for anything as this could cause me trouble under the data protection law.
Regards
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
May 2014 13:04
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Policy-Simon-Cordell
Hi Martin
Simon had a letter from policy plan
saying they were cancelling his policy the letter was dated 12/05/2014 and they
said they were cancelling seven days from the date of their letter. Not sure as
to why as when Simon got your letter dated the 06/05/2014 we sent the documents
you asked for to policy plan. Please see attached documents which were posted
to policy plan. Could you please see as to the reason as why they are
cancelling his policy please.
Regards
Simon
167,
Motor trade documents!
168,
Motor trade documents!
169,
Motor trade documents!
170,
Motor trade documents!
171,
Motor trade documents!
172,
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 25
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_05.20.2014_FW
20/05/2014
/ Page Numbers: 173,174
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 25
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com_05.20.2014_FW
20/05/2014
/ Page Numbers:
173,174
--
173,
From: Martin
Jenkin
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 20
May 2014 18:52
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Attachments: image2014-05-20-184559.pdf
174,
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 26
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.22.2014_Plea-form-011401009802
22/05/2014
/ Page Numbers: 175,176,177
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 26
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.22.2014_Plea-form-011401009802
22/05/2014
/ Page Numbers:
175,176,177
--
175,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 22
May 2014 14:19
To: swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Plea-form-011401009802
Attachments: Plea-form-011401009802.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached Plea form for
summons dated 16/04/2014 for case number 011401009802 to be heard on the
28/05/2014. Which I am pleading not guilty to.
Could you please send back an email
recipe that you have received my Plea form.
Regards
Mr Simon Cordell
176,
177,
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 27
gaheris@broadsuredirect.com_06.12.2014_REF
00-COSX14MT06-ID58 Open Attach Documents
12/06/2014
/ Page Numbers: 178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 27
gaheris@broadsuredirect.com_06.12.2014_REF
00-COSX14MT06-ID58 Open Attach Documents
12/06/2014
/ Page Numbers: 178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207
--
178,
From: Gaheris
Edwards
Sent: 12
June 2014 13:47
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: REF:
00-COSX14MT06-ID<58> Open Attach Documents
Attachments: Vehicle
Referral List Edited 14082012.pdf; Examples of Proof of trading.pdf; 021608047-12-06-2014-13-
43-09.PDF;
MotTrade-RR-Summary.pdf.
Terms of Business.pdf.
MotTrade-RR-wording.pdf.
new biz fsa.GE.pdf.
sofdec-GE.pdf.
demands needs.GE.pdf
As requested,
Kind Regards,
Gaheris Edwards
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
Administration Department
t: 01843
594477
f: 01843
594488
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
179,
Motor trade documents!
180,
Motor trade documents!
181,
Motor trade documents!
182,
Certificate of Motor Insurance
Certificate Number MT10
021608047
183,
Period of Insurance from 19th May 2014
To Noon Renewal Date 19th May 2015
Total Payable Ł2,088.69
184,
Motor trade documents!
185,
Motor trade documents!
186,
Motor trade documents!
187,
Motor trade documents!
188,
Motor trade documents!
189,
Motor trade documents!
190,
Motor trade documents!
191,
Motor trade documents!
192,
Motor trade documents!
193,
Motor trade documents!
194,
Motor trade documents!
195,
Motor trade documents!
196,
Motor trade documents!
197,
Motor trade documents!
198,
Motor trade documents!
199,
Motor trade documents!
200,
Motor trade documents!
201,
Motor trade documents!
202,
Motor trade documents!
203,
Motor trade documents!
204,
Motor trade documents!
205,
REF: 00-COSX14MT06-ID<58> Open Attach
Documents->demands needs._GE_.pdf
SECTION 1
Authorised and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority (v1.04)
SECTION 2
Mr Simon Cordell
Prospect Ref:
COSX064MT8
109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield
Date: 02/06/2014
EN3 7JQ
Dear Mr Cordell
SECTION 3
Thank you for requesting a quotation
for your insurance cover.
This letter sets out the nature and
scope of the services we are providing to you, together with a Statement of
Demands & Needs. It will also provide further information that we are
required by law to provide.
Please read it carefully and let us
know immediately if any of the information is inaccurate, so that we can take
any appropriate action as soon as possible.
Enclosed please find our terms of
business and a policy summary. It is important that you read both in full
carefully and contact us if you have any queries.
In selecting the insurances set out in
the recommendation section below, we have dealt on the following basis.
We offer products from a range of insurers
for private cars, light vans and buildings and contents (non-commercial).
We only offer products from a limited
number of insurers for Motor Trade, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV), Fleet,
Liability, Landlords, Commercial Premises, and commercial Combined
non-investment insurance contracts. Ask us for a list of insurers we offer
insurance from.
Duty to disclose all material facts
It is your responsibility to provide
complete and accurate information to insurers when you take out your insurance
policy, throughout the life of the policy, and when you renew your insurance.
Failure to disclose information pertaining to your insurance, or any
inaccuracies in information given or changes in circumstances, could result in
your insurance being invalid or cover not operating fully and could mean that
part or all of a claim may not be paid.
It is important that you ensure that
all statements you make on your proposal forms, statement of fact declaration,
renewal declaration, claims forms and any other documentation are full and
accurate. If a form is completed on your behalf, you should check the answers
shown to any questions are true and accurate before signing the document.
You are reminded that it is an offence
under The Road Traffic Act to make any false statements or withhold relevant
information to obtain a Certificate of Insurance.
Please note under the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 you are required not to disclose convictions regarded as
"Spent".
You are advised to keep copies of any
correspondence you send to us or direct to your insurer.
Material facts are ones which are
likely to influence an insurer in the assessment and acceptance of the
206,
application, for example for motor
insurance any offence including motor and non-motor offences, drivers’ infirmities,
a young or inexperienced driver, Examples for household, buy to let property
and commercial premises insurance include subsidence, flood, landslip, theft.
For example, for liability insurance previous claims, potential future claims,
for Goods in Transit insurance hazardous goods, pharmaceuticals, time critical
goods, for commercial combined all facts concerning risks covered. Criminal
convictions, bankruptcy, administration, receivership, liquidation, country of
residence or if you have had insurance declined or cancelled should be
disclosed for all types of insurance. These are only examples and is not meant
to be an exhaustive list.
If you are in any doubt about whether
information is material, you should disclose it.
Should you require further guidance,
please contact us.
SECTION 4
Your Demands and Needs
You have requested a quotation on the
basis of your requirements below:
We have set out below our understanding
of your demands and needs and whether the policy we have selected meets those
demands and needs.
Please read the information below
carefully. It records the statements and information you provided when
requesting the quotation. If any of the information is incorrect or incomplete
please contact us immediately, so that we can take any appropriate action as
soon as possible.
Based on the information set out below,
we are making a personal recommendation to you of the policy proposed for the
reasons set out on this letter.
Comprehensive Cover / Road Risk Only
Indemnity Limit Ł10,000 No Public or Employer Liability Cover Mr Simon Cordell
to Drive
Social, Domestic & Pleasure Use
with Motor Trade Use
No Demonstration Cover / No Additional
Business Use
No Protected No Claims Bonus / No
Windscreen Cover / No Trade Plates
No High Performance / Classic /
Commercial (Over 7.5 Ton) Vehicles
Payment by Direct Debit
Ł500 Excess
The Period of insurance covered in this
quotation is 12 months.
SECTION 5
We have reviewed the policies within
our range and recommend the following policy to be the most suitable to meet
your needs:
Covea Policy
The Above Policy meets all your demands
and needs set out as above
Main exclusions, Limitations, and
conditions.
207,
You should read carefully and take note
of all exclusions, excesses, limitations, or conditions as set out in this
letter and the enclosed Policy Summary. A copy of the policy is available on
request.
SECTION 6
From the information provided we are
able to offer the following quotation. This and all quotations are subject to
change in respect of the premium indicated and the terms and conditions that
are supplied.
SECTION 7
Covea
Policy Premium: Ł 2088.69
Including ofŁ 125.32
Broker Arrangement Fee:
Ł
Legal Expenses: Ł
Total of
Premiums and Fees: Ł 2088.69
Including ofŁ125.32
SECTION 8 - Insurer Instalments
See attached Direct Debit mandate
SECTION 9 - Broker Instalments WITH
DEPOSIT
The Total Premium and Fees can be paid by
instalments with an initial payment of Ł 1044.35 followed by monthly 1
instalments of Ł 1044.35 each. Payment
by instalments is offered subject to status and the terms and conditions of a
customer credit agreement.
SECTION 10
Please see copy credit agreement form
where applicable.
SECTION 11
Other taxes or costs, or both, may
exist which are not paid through, nor imposed, by us.
If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Broadsure Direct
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 28
rachelbarker@broadsuredirect.com_07.10.2014_REF
00-COSX14MT06-ID63 Open Attach Documents
10/07/2014
/ Page Numbers: 208
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 28
rachelbarker@broadsuredirect.com_07.10.2014_REF
00-COSX14MT06-ID63 Open Attach Documents
10/07/2014
/ Page Numbers: 208
--
208,
From: Rachel
rachelbarker@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 10
July 2014 15:50
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: REF:
00-COSX14MT06-ID<63> Open Attach Documents
Good Afternoon Lorraine,
Sorry to bother you but Martin said
you would be the best person to email.
Could you please forward Up to
Date Copy of Driving Licence for Simon in his correct address as a matter of
urgency we have been trying to contact him but no answer.
Many Thanks for all your help if
you have any problems or require any further information please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Kind Regards Rachel Barker
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
Administration Department
t: 01843
594477
f: 01843
594488
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications
passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 29
tatjana.rogovska2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_09.15.2014_RE Not read RE
urgent Simon CORDELL 01140159689
15/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 209
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 29
tatjana.rogovska2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_09.15.2014_RE
Not read RE urgent Simon CORDELL 01140159689
15/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 209
--
209,
From: Rogovska2,
Tatjana
tatjana.rogovska2@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 15
September 2014 09:31
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Not read: RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
There were 2 emails from you in
our inbox which looked identical to me and one of them had an attachment. I
deleted the email without the attachment.
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
September 2014 19:33
To: Rogovska2, Tatjana
Subject: FW:
Not read: RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Dear Rogovska2, Tatjana
Can you please advise as to what email
was deleted I did send 2 emails the same but the 1st one I forgot to attach my
insurance document so I sent the email again which included my insurance
document can you please advise as to if you have my email and the attached
insurance document?
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Rogovska2,
Tatjana
mailto: tatiana.roaovska2@hmcts.asi.gov.uk
Sent: 12
September 2014 16:30
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Not
read: RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Your message was deleted without being
read on 12 September 2014 15:30:05 UTC.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 30
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.15.2014_RE Simon Cordell
documents
15/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 210,211,212
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 30
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.15.2014_RE
Simon Cordell documents
15/09/2014
/ Page Numbers:
210,211,212
--
210,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 15
September 2014 23:24
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell documents
Attachments: Driving
Lic.jpg; Driving Lic Back Part.jpg
Hi Martin
I am sorry my head is really not
with it I sent the wrong photo part of the licence please see attached and pass
these over.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
September 2014 10:23
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell documents
Hi Martin
Can these please be passed on
for Simon Insurance I did say I would get them over on Friday to the lady that
called me and said she forgot to send the insurance documents out, she also
said that policy plan had done a letter to cancel the new policy, so can you
please let me know ASAP if everything is still ok with Simon cover. She also
gave me her email wish I can’t seem to find, but I been sorting out funerals
for my Late mum and also a close friend of the family died also so at this time
it’s been a really hard time for us as a family.
Regards
Lorraine
211,
Copy of my Driving Licence!
212,
Copy of my Driving Licence!
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 31
pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_09.18.2014_FW Application to
Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
18/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 213,214,215
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 31
pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_09.18.2014_FW
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
18/09/2014
/ Page Numbers:
213,214,215
--
213,
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta
pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 18
September 2014 17:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Attachments: HMCTS - Application to Def giving new Re-opening
date - S CORDELL.doc
For your information, please find letter
attached
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer | HMCTS
|
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea, London
SW11 1JU
T: 020 7805 1467
F: 020 7805 1437 |
DX 58559 Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the
Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means."
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta
Sent: 18
September 2014 16:09
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
RichmondSouthProsecutions@met.police.uk
Cc: LCCC Compliance Unit; LCCC Enforcement
Unit
Subject: Application
to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Dear Sirs,
Please note that the above case has
been relisted for a reopening hearing on the 30th instant at Lavender Hill
Magistrates Court, courtroom 1 at 2 pm. Therefore, please be good enough to
have your file in court and can the LCCC please put this matter on hold until
after the hearing, when the Defendant will attend. Thank you.
Regards
P Brown
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer | HMCTS
|
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea, London
SW11 1JU
T: 020 7805 1467
F: 020 7805 1437 |
DX 58559 Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be
214,
monitored, recorded, and retained by
the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
215,
FW: Application to Reopen -
Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->HMCTS – Application to Def
giving new Re-opening date - S CORDELL.doc
September 19,
HM Courts & Tribunals
Service
2014
Mr Simon Cordell
109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield
Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court
176a Lavender Hill Battersea
London SW11 1JU
DX 58559 Clapham
Junction
T 0207 805 1497 F 0207 805 1437
gl-swesternmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cluster Manager:
Jan Hartnett
Courts in the SW Group:
Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court
Wimbledon Magistrates' & Youth Court
Dear Mr Cordell
Our ref: 1402437891
Re:
Re-opening Summons Hearing
With reference to your recent
court hearing, the matter has been listed for: -
Tuesday, 30th September 2014 at
2 pm at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court,
176A Lavender Hill, Battersea,
London SW11 1JU
Your case may be dealt with on
that day, or and a new date of hearing will be set for your case to be heard.
If you have any queries, please contact the Admin Centre at Lavender Hill. It
is in your best interest to attend this hearing.
Yours faithfully,
P Brow
P Brown
Admin Officer
Lavender Hill Admin Centre
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 32
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_FW Application to
Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 32
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_FW
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229
--
216,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 30
September 2014 13:29
To: mandy.skinner@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FW:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Attachments:
S Cordell Cert._ GE_
2013-2014.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_
FW_RE_ CX52JRZ.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ FW_
RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
[1] RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
REF_ 00-COSX14MT04-ID_42_ Urgent.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
Simon Cordell.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
Simon Cordell-01.pdf
Forwarded re phone call
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 30
September 2014 12:47
To: 'Brown-W, Pauletta'
Subject: RE:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Dear Miss Brown
My son was due to attend court
today at 2pm but he is very unwell as I said on the phone to you his Nan has
just died and he also has crohn's disease and depression, due to his Nan
passing away this has made his crohn's disease come on very bad.
We have tried to leave today to
come to the court and had to turn round due to my son needing to change his
things again.
Please can this email be passed
to the judge to show why my son cannot attend court today.
In addition, please show the
judge my son's insurance documents and all the emails that went back and
forward to the insurance company.
Can you please ask the Officer
that checks the documents to call KGM which will show he was insured and ask
him to talk to Kelly Tiller who direct number is in the emails.
Can you please get back to me
with an update to this matter and if the judge will set a new date or deal with
this matter today as he will have all the documents needed to show my son was
in fact insured.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta
mailto: pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 18
September 2014 17:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
For your information, please
find letter attached
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer |
HMCTS |
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea,
London SW11 1JU
T: 020
7805 1467
F: 020
7805 1437 |
DX 58559
Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
217,
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta
Sent: 18
September 2014 16:09
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
RichmondSouthProsecutions@met.police.uk
Cc: LCCC Compliance Unit; LCCC Enforcement
Unit
Subject: Application
to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Dear Sirs,
Please note that the above case has
been relisted for a reopening hearing on the 30th instant at Lavender Hill
Magistrates Court, courtroom 1 at 2 pm. Therefore, please be good enough to
have your file in court and can the LCCC please put this matter on hold until
after the hearing, when the Defendant will attend. Thank you.
Regards
P Brown
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer |
HMCTS |
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea,
London SW11 1JU
T: 020
7805 1467
F: 020
7805 1437 |
DX 58559 Clapham
Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded, and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking
software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a
responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding
e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
218,
KGM
MOTOR INSURANCE
Member of Canopies Group
Certificate of Molo; insurance
Name of Policy holder Mr
SIMON CORDELL
Policy Number:
MT3574694
Registration Number of the
Vehicle: Any motor vehicle the property of the Insured or in their
custody or control
Effective Time and Date for
Commencement of the Insurance for the purposes of the Relevant Law: 0:01
23 February 2013
Expiry Time and Date of the
Insurance: 23:59
22 February 2014
219,
FW: Application to Reopen - Simon P
CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine CX52JRZ.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 17:20
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: CX52JRZ
Hello Martin
Please see the below email that
I have been told by the police to contract Charlton Car Pound as when any
vehicle is impounded, they do a check and list all the items in the vehicle. I
am hoping to get a reply to my email on how to go about getting the list
shortly.
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 17:14
To: vrescharlton@met.police.uk
Subject: RE:
CX52JRZ
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after calling
the police and being told to contract yourselves about a matter I am trying to
sort out.
My Van reg CX52 JRZ was impounded to
Charlton Car Pound, 8 Bramshot Avenue, London, SE7 7HY on the 14/11/2013
tickets No: 01/ J63181495
I have been told by the police when I
called them that each vehicle that is impounded you do a check on to list what
items are in there.
I would like to know how I can go about
getting a list of items that was in my van reg CX52 JRZ as I need this list to
give it to my insurance company.
Or if my insurance company emails you
can you give them a list.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/32f56c08883d4e0098c6f6f8b77...
11/09/2014
220,
FW: Application to Reopen - Simon P
CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine Cordell Son Cordell.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:06
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Hello Martin
I have spent all weekend trying to get
hold of the two Charlton Car Pound as that is where the police have said there
will hold a list of what was in the van. The police have told me that the
compound has to make a list of every vehicle that is impounded so it covers
them also so they will have a list. I have sent 2 emails over the weekend which
I do know they have read as I had tracking on them.
I have spoken to Kelly today and she
has asked me to make sure you have the information for the compound and can you
pass it over to her asap. Also can you find out from Kelly Tiller if Simon will
be covered after 12.00 today while she gets hold of the compound please and let
us know as soon as possible.
Emails for the compound charltondocuments@met.police.uk vrescharlton@met.police.uk Address
and ticket number
Charlton Car Pound, 8 Bramshot Avenue,
London, SE7 7HY on the 14/11/2013 tickets No: 01/ J63181495
Charlton Car Pound
02082848661
telephone number that I can find.
Van Reg CX52JRZ and the date was taken
in was the 14/11/2013
I have also been speaking to Sally Browne,
duty inspector at Lambeth police station, I spoken to her on the 22/11/2013 and
the 23/11/2013 when she called me back. I was told that due to this going to
court the police would not be able to talk to us and that they will not be back
on duty till the end of this week and they will be doing night shaft.
CAD 7548/22Nov13 and also CAD
10164/22Nov13 these are the 2 CAD numbers for me asking to speak to the
inspector Silly Browne.
Please see the read receipts below for
the emails I sent over to the compound Your message
To: Austin PAUL R - Services
Subject: RE:
CX52JRZ
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 5:14:12 PM (UTC)
Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London was read on Saturday, November 23, 2013
4:41:48 AM (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE
- This email and any attachments may be
confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended
solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email
in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/892c09e27c074f97a8c9258c5a8... 11/09/2014
221,
Page 2 of 3
the information in this email
without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored
to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may
be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to
conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts
no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents.
The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but
malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during
transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Find us at:
Your message
To: Guy Rob - CC Services
Subject: FW: RE:
CX52JRZ
Sent: Sunday, November
24, 2013 1:32:58 PM (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London was read on Sunday,
November 24, 2013 5:01:36 PM (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE
- This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright
and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must
not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of
the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by
law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring
staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding
agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents.
The
security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages
are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of
content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or
opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS).
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 24
November 2013 13:33
To: charltondocuments@met.police.uk
Subject: FW:
RE: CX52JRZ
Hello
Can anyone please tell me how I can
deal with this issue below Many Thanks
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/892c09e27c074f97a8c9258c5a8...
11/09/2014
222,
Page 3 of 3
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 17:14
To: vrescharlton@met.police.uk
Subject: RE:
CX52JRZ
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after
calling the police and being told to contract yourselves about a matter I am
trying to sort out.
My Van reg CX52 JRZ was
impounded to Charlton Car Pound, 8 Bramshot Avenue, London, SE7 7HY on the
14/11/2013 tickets No: 01/ J63181495
I have been told by the police
when I called them that each vehicle that is impounded you do a check on to
list what items are in there.
I would like to know how I can
go about getting a list of items that was in my van reg CX52 JRZ as I need this
list to give it to my insurance company.
Or if my insurance company
emails you can you give them a list.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/892c09e27c074f97a8c9258c5a8...
11/09/2014
223,
FW: Application to Reopen - Simon P
CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine Cordell Cordell.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 16:50
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
[1] RE: Simon Cordell
Hello Martin
Kelly from KGM has just called and
said that they will keep the cover till Monday at 12.00 for us to have time to
get information from the police that there was in fact no tools in the van.
Simon has already been on the phone to the police and been told to contract the
compound 6the van was taken to as they have to check every vehicle that is
taken there, he is at this time on the phone to the compound in order to try
and get the information that KGM needs.
The Compound it was taken to is
Charlton vehicle pound 8
Bramshot Avenue,
Charlton,
London,
SE77HY
Simon
From: Martin
Jenkin mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 22
November 2013 15:50
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
[1] RE: Simon Cordell
Hi Lorraine,
Please find response from your
insurers
I have listened to the call that
took place between the police and my colleague Jessica advising that Mr Simon
Cordell was carrying tools in his vehicle so unfortunately, we have no other
opportunity but to continue with the cancellation of the policy.
Unfortunately the policy will cease as
of tomorrow as per the letter from KGM.
The only way to stop this is to either
get the Police officer to contact KGM, or to get a signed statement from him
before 1700hrs today.
Regards
Martin
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 15:15
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Hello Martin
I made a mistake on the date
that KGM said they were going to close my insurance policy it’s the 23/11/2013
so I will need to know today if I will still be insured as from 23/11/2013
until this matter is sorted.
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
November 2013 14:24
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Hello Martin
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/e8f014d0038a430ebb045cc2ec9...
11/09/2014
224,
Page 2 of 3
After the call you made today
and talked to myself Miss Lorraine Cordell, I am sending over the information
you asked for. I do feel also that KMG asking to speak to the police office is
in breach of my data protection, but I will be willing to write and allow them
to do this. As I said to KMG yesterday on a phone that was made to them when I
talked to Kelly Tilley I have not been found guilty at a court of law for not
having no insurance and it is for a court of law to find me guilty not a police
officer who thinks I done something when I have not. Even if KGM does speak to
the police office he will still say what he feels and that is not a fact that I
am guilty of anything. To be found guilty it would have to be done in front of
a judge.
Also Martin as you said on the
phone today when you in fact talked to the police on that day not once did they
say I had anything in my van that would void my insurance, and in fact I
believe at this stage if the police did in fact have proof they would have said
to you that my van was full of things which is not the case.
I would like to also know if my
insurance is going to carry on while this matter is addressed or if it will be
closed down on the 27/11/2013 as the letter says that KGM have sent me. And if
KMG is going to close down my policy I would like full written conditions of
what part of my policy I have broken.
As for the letter of complain
that will be going to the police Simon still has not fully read over it to make
sure there is no errors or anything else that needs adding but it does go into
details as to what went on, it is only for use by yourself and KGM to read
only.
Also as I said on the phone to
you today the police are also telling me that the 3 times that my vehicles were
seized and I had to pay for them to be taken out of the compound, I will need
to claim this back from my insurance company as they had not done their job and
put them on the database so they are at fault not the police.
You said to me today that KGM
are looking into this as they are on the database and it should show up to the
police that I am in fact insured. This has not been the case for me and I have
suffered badly due to this and this is the reason I have to carry my insurance
policy at all times so when I get pulled over by the police I can show them my
documents, as the police say it does not show up as I am insured, this is also
the reason the insurance company have had so many calls from the police to
asked if I am insured or not since my policy started.
Could you please send me proof
that the vehicles where on the database so I can put the claim in to the police
to get my money back for the times my vehicles were seized. As at this stage I
do not want to have to put a freedom of information act into yourselves or the
police to the amount of times that the police have in fact had to call my
insurance company to see if I was insured due to the police saying I was not
insured..
I have always been very happy
with Broadsure Direct that is why I have still use them and would like my
insurance to carry on under them.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [ mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:57
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Hi Martin
Can you let me know by email if
I am going to still have insurance as from the 27/11/2013 please, I got a
letter saying my insurance will be closed from the 27/11/2013, and I cannot see
the reason for this as I have done nothing wrong.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [ mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:57
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/e8f014d0038a430ebb045cc2ec9...
11/09/2014
225,
Page 3 of 3
Dear martin
After a next call and talking to
oily he asked me to send over the receipt of me buying the van please see
attached scan. I am waiting for the new logbook to come from DVLA.
Simon
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 15
November 2013 13:07
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Martin
Today the 15/11/13 I made a call
to be able to speak to you with regard to what happened yesterday the
14/11/2013 with the police. I have talked to Oilly today and he asked me to
write this email to you as they are thinking of closing my insurance policy.
Yesterday I went for a meeting
with the owner of a night club for a future job position the meeting was set
for 14.00 hours.
I drove down for my meeting and
got there at around 13.00 hours there were some police at the road side doing
stops on cars etc, as I drove pass and pulled over to park by the night club,
my friend who was with me got out of the van to get some drinks and food while
I waited in the van, as I got to the club early for my meeting.
The police that were doing the
stops came up to me, they told me they wanted to do some checks on the van I
was sitting in, I asked why, and they told me under the road traffic act.
I then passed the police my
insurance policy for them to go over, the police officer also asked me why I
had stopped there.
I explained to him I had a
meeting in the night club that we were outside, as it was due to open to the
public in 1-month time to secure my future position there. While I was there, I
was also planning on asking if there were any painting jobs, I explained all
this to the police officer I was talking to.
The police looked inside the van
and clearly saw it was empty and that there were also no signs on the van
showing it to be a company van. But the police officer was still unhappy. He
talked to yourselves as the insurance company on the phone and was told I was
not insured, at what point I called you myself as my insurance company as I
knew I was insured. I explained the situation to yourselves to be told I was
covered for commuting to work, social and domestic, as well as motor trade, but
not for carriage of goods for a company, which did not matter as my van was
empty and still is whilst being in the police impound.
I am putting in a complaint to
the independent complaints commission in regard to the unlawful seizure of my
vehicle.
Further to this would it please
be possible to find out the status of my insurance policy and the reasons as to
why I have been told you are in the process of closing my policy.
Yours sincerely
Mr Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/e8f014d0038a430ebb045cc2ec9...
11/09/2014
226,
FW: Application to Reopen -
Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine Cordell_ RE_ REF_
42_ Urgent.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 25
November 2013 17:12
To: 'Vicky Beale'
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT04-ID<42> Urgent
Hello Vicky Beale
After the call I made to yourself
about the email you sent me I will go to the compound in the morning due to the
time now I would not get there still very late due to the tariff and by the
time I got there I do not believe Kelly Tiller would still be working so I will
go in the morning and when I get there I will call Kelly.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
From: Vicky Beale mailto: vickybeale@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:10
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
REF:
00-COSX14MT04-ID<42> Urgent
Importance: High
Kind Regards,
Vicky Beale
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
From: Vicky Beale mailto: vickybeale@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 15:53
To: lorriane32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: REF: 00-COSX14MT04-ID<42> Urgent
Importance: High
Good Afternoon,
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/2b3bc59100854683a73894b080...
11/09/2014
227,
Page 2 of 2
Can you please ask Simon to contact
me urgently, as we need him to go to the compound and when he is there to
contact Kelly at KGM on 02085301811, if he can't do this that we need a report
form from the compound and for him to contact 02071613500 and request a subject
access request of report.
Kind Regards,
Vicky Beale
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/2b3bc59100854683a73894b080... 11/09/2014
228,
FW: Application to Reopen -
Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine Change Re Simon
Cordell.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 15:46
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Data-Protection-KGM.doc.
Kelly-Tiller-KGM.doc
Hello Martin,
Thank you for the phone call
today to tell me I was still insured.
Could you please pass on the
attached documents to Kelly Tiller at KGM one is a Subject access request under
the Data Protection Act 1998.
The other letter is just to get
Kelly Tiller to confirm by email I am in fact still insured so I have this in
writing and also to found out why my van is still not showing up on the
database.
And also about the logbooks
which I am still waiting for them from DVLA I called DVLA today when I got back
from the compound and was told it can take 8 weeks for me to get the new
logbooks, I will therefore send then right over to you by email as soon as I
get them.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/bf6c57d68b364b7a9c556779b77...
30/09/2014
229,
FW: Application to Reopen - Simon P
CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802->Lorraine Cordell-01.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 18
December 2013 13:06
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Hi Martin
I have still not had a reply
from KGM about the data protection or an email from them to say he is in fact
still insured. And on the Mid database the van is still showing as not insured,
due to this Simon is not driving the van as he does not want to get pulled
again by the police which I don’t think is right as he has in fact paid his
insurance to be able to drive it if he needs to can this please be sorted out
as he really does not want any more problems with getting pulled over due to it
not showing up as insured. I also have called DVLA again about the logbook and
have been told that they should be with us soon.
Many Thanks
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 15:46
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Hello Martin,
Thank you for the phone call
today to tell me I was still insured.
Could you please pass on the
attached documents to Kelly Tiller at KGM one is a Subject access request under
the Data Protection Act 1998.
The other letter is just to get
Kelly Tiller to confirm by email I am in fact still insured so I have this in
writing and also to found out why my van is still not showing up on the
database.
And also about the logbooks
which I am still waiting for them from DVLA I called DVLA today when I got back
from the compound and was told it can take 8 weeks for me to get the new
logbooks, I will therefore send then right over to you by email as soon as I
get them.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/b809ad443dde47888749f7f2f1c... 30/09/2014
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 33
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_FW Application to
Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ_001
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 33
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_FW
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ_001
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers:
230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243
--
230,
From: Lorraine
Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 30
September 2014 13:22
To: swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FW:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Attachments: S
Cordell Cert._GE_2013-2014.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ FW
RE CX52JRZ.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ FW
RE_SimonCordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE
[1] RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE
REF_ 00-COSX14MT04-ID_42_ Urgent.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE
Simon Cordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE
Simon Cordell-01.pdf
Dear Miss Brown
My son was due to attend court
today at 2pm but he is very unwell as I said on the phone to you his Nan has
just died and he also has crohn's disease and depression, due to his Nan
passing away this has made his crohn's disease come on very bad.
We have tried to leave today to
come to the court and had to turn round due to my son needing to change his
things again.
Please can this email be passed
to the judge to show why my son cannot attend court today.
In addition, please show the
judge my son's insurance documents and all the emails that went back and
forward to the insurance company.
Can you please ask the Officer
that checks the documents to call KGM which will show he was insured and ask
him to talk to Kelly Tiller who direct number is in the emails.
Can you please get back to me
with an update to this matter and if the judge will set a new date or deal with
this matter today as he will have all the documents needed to show my son was
in fact insured.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta mailto: pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 18 September 2014 17:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
For your information, please
find letter attached
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer | HMCTS
|
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea, London
SW11 1JU
T: 020 7805 1467
F: 020 7805 1437 |
DX 58559 Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Please note: As of June 2nd, 2014, our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
From: Brown-W, Pauletta
Sent: 18
September 2014 16:09
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
RichmondSouthProsecutions@met.police.uk
Cc: LCCC Compliance Unit; LCCC Enforcement
Unit
Subject: Application
to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
231,
Dear Sirs,
Please note that the above case has been
relisted for a reopening hearing on the 30th instant at Lavender Hill
Magistrates Court, courtroom 1 at 2 pm. Therefore, please be good enough to
have your file in court and can the LCCC please put this matter on hold until
after the hearing, when the Defendant will attend. Thank you.
Regards
P Brown
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer | HMCTS
|
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea, London
SW11 1JU
T: 020 7805 1467 |
F: 020 7805 1437 |
DX 58559 Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014, our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail
content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are
not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
232,
KGM
MOTOR INSURANCE
Member of Canopies Group
Certificate of Molo; insurance
Name of Policy holder Mr
SIMON CORDELL
Policy Number:
MT3574694
Registration Number of the
Vehicle: Any motor vehicle the property of the Insured or in their
custody or control
Effective Time and Date for
Commencement of the Insurance for the purposes of the Relevant Law: 0:01
23 February 2013
Expiry Time and Date of the
Insurance: 23:59
22 February 2014
--
233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 34.
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_RE Application to
Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers: 244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 34.
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.30.2014_RE
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ
30/09/2014
/ Page Numbers:
244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
--
244,
Dear Miss Brown
My son was due to attend court
today at 2pm but he is very unwell as I said on the phone to you his Nan has
just died and he also has crohn's disease and depression, due to his Nan
passing away this has made his crohn's disease come on very bad.
We have tried to leave today to
come to the court and had to turn round due to my son needing to change his
things again.
Please can this email be passed
to the judge to show why my son cannot attend court today.
In addition, please show the
judge my son's insurance documents and all the emails that went back and
forward to the insurance company.
Can you please ask the Officer
that checks the documents to call KGM which will show he was insured and ask
him to talk to Kelly Tiller who direct number is in the emails.
Can you please get back to me
with an update to this matter and if the judge will set a new date or deal with
this matter today as he will have all the documents needed to show my son was
in fact insured.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Brown-W,
Pauletta
mailto:
pauletta.brown-w@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 18
September 2014 17:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
FW: Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL
(02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
For your information, please
find letter attached
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer |
HMCTS |
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea,
London SW11 1JU
T: 020
7805 1467 |
F: 020
7805 1437 |
DX 58559
Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014, our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to bind
the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means."
From:
Brown-W, Pauletta
Sent: 18
September 2014 16:09
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
RichmondSouthProsecutions@met.police.uk
Cc: LCCC
Compliance Unit; LCCC Enforcement Unit
Subject: Application
to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 30
September 2014 12:47
To:
'Brown-W, Pauletta'
Subject: RE:
Application to Reopen - Simon P CORDELL (02TJJ63181495 LAH) 1401009802
Attachments:
S Cordell Cert._ GE_
2013-2014.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_
FW_RE_ CX52JRZ.pdf
Lorraine Cordell_ FW_
RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
[1] RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
REF_ 00-COSX14MT04-ID_42_ Urgent.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
Simon Cordell.pdf.
Lorraine Cordell_ RE_
Simon Cordell-01.pdf
245,
Dear Sirs,
Please note that the above case
has been relisted for a reopening hearing on the 30th instant at Lavender Hill
Magistrates Court, courtroom 1 at 2 pm. Therefore, please be good enough to
have your file in court and can the LCCC please put this matter on hold until
after the hearing, when the Defendant will attend. Thank you.
Regards
P Brown
Pauletta Brown | Admin Officer |
HMCTS |
176a Lavender Hill, Battersea,
London SW11 1JU
T: 020
7805 1467 |
F: 020
7805 1437 |
DX 58559
Clapham Junction |
E: Pauletta.Brown-W@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
*Please note: As of
June 2nd, 2014, our fax will be GOLDFAX No:0870 324 0299*
"I am not authorised to
bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or
other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via
electronic means."
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
246,
KGM
MOTOR INSURANCE
Member of Canopies Group
Certificate of Molo; insurance
Name of Policy holder Mr
SIMON CORDELL
Policy Number:
MT3574694
Registration Number of the
Vehicle: Any motor vehicle the property of the Insured or in their
custody or control
Effective Time and Date for
Commencement of the Insurance for the purposes of the Relevant Law: 0:01
23 February 2013
Expiry Time and Date of the
Insurance: 23:59
22 February 2014
--
247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 35
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_10.08.2014_RE RE urgent Simon CORDELL
011401596899
08/10/2014
/ Page Numbers: 259,260,261
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 35
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_10.08.2014_RE
RE urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
08/10/2014
/ Page Numbers:
259,260,261
--
259,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 08
October 2014 18:24
To: 'gl-brentmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Attachments: S
Cordell Cert_ GE_ 2013-2014.pdf
Dear sir or Madam
I am writing this email due to
the reply dated the 01/10/2014 I got in the post on 06/10/2014 about the email I
sent to you on the 12/09/2014 please see below email dated 12/09/2014.
Above is a picture of the reply
where you say I have 21 days to file a statutory declaration due to me being
unaware of the court processing.
I did not know about this court
case. I have been wrongfully convicted and have points on my licence, which
should not be there.
In the email dated the
12/09/2014, I asked for my case to be listed in order that I could do the
following
Application to set aside the
conviction
Re-open the case
260,
The reason for this is because I
have been wrongfully convicted as I did in fact have insurance. As shown in the
attached file.
Please can you list my case in
court so I can put the Application to set aside the conviction, Re-open the
case that I have been wrongfully convicted for.
This matter is urgent. I cannot
resolve this matter until the case is listed before either a District Judge or
Magistrates so I would appreciate your cooperation. This is causing me stress.
Can you please resolve this legal matter by listing the case for an application
to set aside the conviction? I can then forward my documents to the relevant
prosecuting authority.
Regards Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
September 2014 15:11
To: gl-brentmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Dear Sir or Madam
I have tried to call the court
on a number of occasions regarding my conviction and sentence for no insurance
but the phone just rings when I press the number given to ask about this case
the telephone number I am calling is 0208 955 0555. I have now found out the
information to the case but pressing number 7 the lady I spoke to did in fact
try and put me to a manager but that also just ring then cut me off. So, I
called back again and asked her if she could give me the information which she
did.
I am making this request to have
my case listed in order that I can do the following.
Application to set aside the
conviction
Re-open the case
My name: Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
Address: 109 Burncroft Av
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Case No: 011401596899
Application to set aside the
conviction: -
On 01/01/2014 I was stopped by
the police as they did not believe that I held a valid policy of insurance. Due
to this being a holiday my insurance company was closed so the police could not
check if I was in fact was insured, I was insured and asked the police to check
there records due to the amount of problems I had had with my insurance not
showing on the MID database and being stopped do many times they did this and
could in fact see many times but still impounded my van reg CX52 JRZ.
After the holidays I went to the
compound and had to again pay for my Van to be taken out of the compound.
I never received any summons in
relation to this matter and I only became aware that the case had been dealt
with in my absence when I received a letter from the DVLA advising me that I
had to send in my driving licence. I disputed with the DVLA the points, but I
was
261,
given an ultimatum that if I did
not send in my licence it would be revoked.
The offence of no insurance was
allegedly committed on 01/01/2014. I had a valid policy of insurance from
23/02/2013 and this policy was valid until 22/02/2014 The company insuring me
was KGM, and my broker was Broadsure direct I am the named policy holder, Mr.
Simon Cordell and my policy number is MT3574694.
I have points on my licence
which I should not have. Can you please as a matter of urgency email me back on
this matter so that I can have a date so that the conviction can be set aside
and my case heard in order that I can show the court my insurance and the PLO
can make the necessary enquiries.
I would be grateful if you can
inform DVLA that this matter and the points that have been added to my licence
is being disputed so this can be put on hold as I do not see why I should suffer
when I have done nothing wrong and I was insured to drive. This is in fact have
a big effect on my life when I have done nothing wrong and would like this
addressed as a matter of urgency.
This matter is urgent. I cannot
resolve this matter until the case is listed before either a District Judge or
Magistrates so I would appreciate your cooperation. This is causing me stress.
Can you now please resolve this legal mater by listing the case for an
application to set aside the conviction? I can then forward my documents to the
relevant prosecuting authority.
Please see attached my insurance
documents for this offence in fact showing I was in fact insured.
I await hearing from you in
relation to this matter and I thank you in advance for your anticipated co-operation
in this matter.
Yours faithfully
Simon Cordell
261+
KGM
MOTOR INSURANCE
Member of Canopies Group
Certificate of Molo; insurance
Name of Policy holder Mr
SIMON CORDELL
Policy Number:
MT3574694
Registration Number of the
Vehicle: Any motor vehicle the property of the Insured or in their
custody or control
Effective Time and Date for
Commencement of the Insurance for the purposes of the Relevant Law: 0:01
23 February 2013
Expiry Time and Date of the
Insurance: 23:59
22 February 2014
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 36
Anita.Ayi@financial-ombudsman.org.uk_11.20.2014_Mr
S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Ag
20/11/2014
/ Page Numbers: 262,263,264
265,266,267
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 36
Anita.Ayi@financial-ombudsman.org.uk_11.20.2014_Mr
S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Ag
20/11/2014
/ Page Numbers:
262,263,264
265,266,267
--
262,
From: Ayi,
Anita
Anita.Ayi@fmandal-ombudsman.org.uk
Sent: 20
November 2014 17:30
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Mr
S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited (Our ref: 16352175)
Attachments: Cordell
CF.rtf
Dear Ms Cordell
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM
Underwriting Agencies Limited
Thank you for getting in touch with us.
Our consumer leaflet explains our role - so do read through and have a look at
how we can help: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm
As you can see, before we can take on a
complaint, the business involved must have the chance to put things right. what
happens next
I've written to the business to let
them know about the complaint. They should contact you soon to tell you they
are looking into what's happened - and to ask for more details if they need
them.
If you don't hear
from the business within the next few days, you can contact them using the
details below - mentioning that we have already written to them. They should
give you their final response to the complaint - in
writing - within eight weeks of the date they first received it.
The business's final response should
summarise the complaint and give you their final say. It should also tell you
that you can refer the complaint to us if you're not happy - which you have to
do within six months.
In case you need it, the business's
address is:
KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited
KGM House
George Lane
London
E18 1RX
263,
once you have a final response - or
after eight weeks
If you're not happy with the business's
final response - or if eight weeks pass and you haven't received it - then
please fill in the enclosed complaint form and send it to us.
Please also send us a copy of the final
response and any other information you think is important to the complaint.
There's no need to send us any original documents.
We don't normally pay the professional
fees - in full or in part - of any solicitor, accountant, or other paid adviser
that a consumer might use to bring a complaint to us.
We won't take any more action unless
you contact us again. If you would like more information about us, please see
our website - www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk.
Yours sincerely Anita Ayi
Consumer Consultant
Anita Ayi | Consumer Consultant |
Tel: 020 3716 9790 |
Fax: 020 3716 9791 |Financial Ombudsman Service |
Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR
This email is covered by our email disclaimer.
This email was sent from Financial
Ombudsman Service Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Registered Number:
3725015. Registered Office: Exchange
Tower, London, E14 9SR, United Kingdom.
264,
265,
266,
267,
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 37
Anita.Ayi@financial-ombudsman.org.uk_11.21.2014_RE
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting
21/11/2014
/ Page Numbers: 268,269,270
271,272,273,274
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 37
Anita.Ayi@financial-ombudsman.org.uk_11.21.2014_RE
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting
21/11/2014
/ Page Numbers:
268,269,270
271,272,273,274
--
268,
From: Ayi,
Anita
Anita.Ayi@fmandal-ombudsman.org.uk
Sent: 21
November 2014 11:30
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited (Our ref: 16352175)
Attachments: Cordell
CF.rtf
Dear Lorraine
Many thanks for your email.
I have reattached the complaint
form to the email for your perusal.
If you have any further
question, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
Anita Ayi
Consumer Consultant
Anita Ayi | Consumer Consultant
|
Tel: 020
3716 9790 |
Fax: 020
3716 9791 |
Financial Ombudsman Service |
Exchange Tower, London, E14 9SR
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
November 2014 20:09
To: Ayi, Anita
Subject: RE:
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited (Our ref: 16352175)
Hello
Thank you for the email to the
complaint but I cannot see the attached form which my son would need to look
over and write anything else that has not been written and sign and send back.
Could you please attach the form
so that this can be done
Regards
Lorraine
From: Ayi,
Anita mailto:
Anita.Ayi@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Sent:
20 November 2014 17:30
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Mr
S Cordell's complaint about KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited (Our ref: 16352175)
Dear Ms Cordell
Mr S Cordell's complaint about KGM
Underwriting Agencies Limited
Thank you for getting in touch with us.
Our consumer leaflet explains our role - so do read through and have a look at
how we can help: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/consumer-leaflet.htm
As you can see, before we can take on a
complaint, the business involved must have the chance to put things right. what
happens next
I've written to the business to let
them know about the complaint. They should contact you soon to tell you they
are looking into what's happened - and to ask for more details if they need
them.
269,
If you don't hear
from the business within the next few days, you can contact them using the
details below - mentioning that we have already written to them. They should
give you their final response to the complaint - in
writing - within eight weeks of the date they first received it.
The business's final response should
summarise the complaint and give you their final say. It should also tell you
that you can refer the complaint to us if you're not happy - which you have to
do within six months.
In case you need it, the business's
address is:
KGM Underwriting Agencies Limited
KGM House
George Lane
London
E18 1RX
270,
once you have a final response - or
after eight weeks
If you're not happy with the business's
final response - or if eight weeks pass and you haven't received it - then
please fill in the enclosed complaint form and send it to us.
Please also send us a copy of the final
response and any other information you think is important to the complaint.
There's no need to send us any original documents.
We don't normally pay the professional fees
- in full or in part - of any solicitor, accountant, or other paid adviser that
a consumer might use to bring a complaint to us.
We won't take any more action unless
you contact us again. If you would like more information about us, please see
our website - www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk.
Yours sincerely Anita Ayi
Consumer Consultant
Anita Ayi | Consumer Consultant |
Tel: 020 3716 9790 |
Fax: 020 3716 9791 |
Financial Ombudsman Service | Exchange Tower,
London, E14 9SR
This email is covered by our email disclaimer.
This email was sent from Financial
Ombudsman Service Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Registered Number:
3725015. Registered Office: Exchange
Tower, London, E14 9SR, United Kingdom.
This email is covered by our email disclaimer.
This email was sent from Financial
Ombudsman Service Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Registered Number:
3725015. Registered Office: Exchange
Tower, London, E14 9SR, United Kingdom.
271,
Financial Ombudsman Service /
complaint form!
272,
Financial Ombudsman Service /
complaint form!
273,
Financial Ombudsman Service /
complaint form!
274,
Financial Ombudsman Service /
complaint form!
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 38
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.21.2014_RE Simon Cordell
21/11/2014
/ Page Numbers: 275,276
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 38
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.21.2014_RE
Simon Cordell
21/11/2014
/ Page Numbers:
275,276
--
275,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 21
November 2014 14:12
To: gl-bromleymcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: 011402647845-Court-Case.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a letter
from the court that my son Simon Cordell DOB 26/01/2014 had a case on the
06/11/2014 in Bromley Magistrates Court
It says on the letter it was for a case
of no insurance the case number is 011402647845
The problem is we did not know he was
due to come to court on this date we have had no summons and my son is insured
he always has insurance and would not drive without it.
There has been a number of issues with
his insurance and this is due to it not showing up on the MID database. There
has been a number of Seizers to his vehicles for no insurance when he was in
fact insured.
Could you please send me details of
what date this offence of no insurance happened? This way I can send the
correct insurance policy by email. and can work forward to clearing this matter
up.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
276,
RE: - Simon
Cordell->011402647845-Court-Case.pdf
Bromley Magistrates' Court Code 2575
London Collection and Compliance
Centre PO Box 31090 London SW1P 3WQ Payments 0300 790 9901 www.direct.gov.uk/payacourtfine
Information 020 7556 8500 AP 31712
Mr Simon Paul CORDELL
109 Burnt Croft Avenue
Enfield
Middlesex
EN3 7JQ
Division: 077
Account number: 14115223S CG
Case number: 011402647845
Born: 26 January 1981
Notice of fine and collection order
Offences and penalties
Date |
Offences
and Impositions |
|
Amount
Ł |
6
Nov 2014 |
1
/ Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without |
Fine |
600.00 |
|
third
party insurance. |
Victim
Sur |
60.00 |
|
|
Costs |
85.00 |
You
must pay: |
The
total amount on or before 4 December 2014 |
Total:
Ł |
745.00 |
The court has made a Collection
Order to collect the sum due.
See reverse for details on how to
pay. Failure to pay as ordered will make you liable for further
enforcement action unless you pay the full
balance immediately. This
could include:
® Deductions from your earnings
· Deductions from your benefit
· A distress warrant being issued to
the bailiffs for the seizure of goods (which will incur additional costs of up
to Ł300)
» Warrant for your arrest to return
you to court
· Increasing your fine by 50%
9 Clamping, removal, and sale of your vehicle
· Registering the account in the
Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines (affecting your ability to obtain
credit)
· If after these sanctions have been
imposed, your fine remains outstanding, the court may order that you are
imprisoned for non-payment.
If you have difficulties in paying
the amount you must immediately contact the Enforcement Team on the number
above.
All enquiries regarding this notice
should be made to the above address.
Date: 6 November 2014
K. T. Griffiths
Justices' Clerk
Mr Simon Paul CORDELL
7 November 2014/FINO 36 0/2415061/1
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 39
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.27.2014_FW Simon Cordell
27/11/2014
/ Page Numbers: 277,278,279
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 39
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.27.2014_FW
Simon Cordell
27/11/2014
/ Page Numbers:
277,278,279
--
277,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:49
To: 'sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: si-insurance-19-05-2014.pdf
Dear Miss S E Leslie
Thank you for the reply to my email, I did in fact
speak to someone at the court yesterday Mr Mark Dredge as I explained my son
was due in court yesterday on a next matter of no insurance when he was
insured. After speaking to that court, they told me to ask the CPS dealing with
that case to deal with the other 2 matters of no insurance which my son never
got a summons for.
Mark Dredge told me the case at Bromley was in fact
a date of 20/05/2014 so I attended court with my son yesterday with my son’s
insurance papers for that date.
I did ask the CPS yesterday to deal with these
other 2 matters, but she said she could not, and I would have to contract the
court which I had told her I had already done.
Please see attached file of my son’s insurance.
You can contact me on 07961 833021.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell
From: Leslie,
Sandra [mailto:sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk]
On Behalf Of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Morning Miss Cordell
Thank you for your email, please
could you email me your mobile number to discuss this matter further.
Regards Miss S E Leslie
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21
November 2014 14:12
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a letter
from the court that my son Simon Cordell DOB 26/01/2014 had a case on the
06/11/2014 in Bromley Magistrates Court
It says on the letter it was for a case
of no insurance the case number is 011402647845
The problem is we did not know he was
due to come to court on this date we have had no summons and my son is insured
he always has insurance and would not drive without it.
There has been a number of issues with
his insurance and this is due to it not showing up on the MID database. There
has been a number of Seizers to his vehicles for no insurance when he was in
fact insured.
Could you please send me details of
what date this offence of no insurance happened? This way I can send the
correct insurance policy by email. and can work forward to clearing this matter
up.
278,
Regards Lorraine Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems,
please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended
only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure,
storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
279,
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 40
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.27.2014_RE Simon Cordell
27/11/2014
/ Page Numbers: 280,281,282
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 40
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_11.27.2014_RE
Simon Cordell
27/11/2014
/ Page Numbers:
280,281,282
--
280,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:44
To: 'GL-BROMLEYMCENQ'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: si-insurance-19-05-2014.pdf
Dear Miss S E Leslie
Thank you for the reply to my email, I did in fact
speak to someone at the court yesterday Mr Mark Dredge as I explained my son
was due in court yesterday on a next matter of no insurance when he was
insured. After speaking to that court, they told me to ask the CPS dealing with
that case to deal with the other 2 matters of no insurance which my son never
got a summons for.
Mark Dredge told me the case at Bromley was in fact
a date of 20/05/2014 so I attended court with my son yesterday with my son’s
insurance papers for that date.
I did ask the CPS yesterday to deal with these
other 2 matters, but she said she could not, and I would have to contract the
court which I had told her I had already done.
Please see attached file of my son’s insurance.
You can contact me on 07961 8.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell
From: Leslie,
Sandra [mailto:sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk]
On Behalf Of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Morning Miss Cordell
Thank you for your email, please
could you email me your mobile number to discuss this matter further.
Regards Miss S E Leslie
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21
November 2014 14:12
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a letter
from the court that my son Simon Cordell DOB 26/01/2014 had a case on the
06/11/2014 in Bromley Magistrates Court
It says on the letter it was for a case
of no insurance the case number is 011402647845
The problem is we did not know he was
due to come to court on this date we have had no summons and my son is insured
he always has insurance and would not drive without it.
There has been a number of issues with
his insurance and this is due to it not showing up on the MID database. There
has been a number of Seizers to his vehicles for no insurance when he was in
fact insured.
Could you please send me details of
what date this offence of no insurance happened? This way I can send the
correct insurance policy by email. and can work forward to clearing this matter
up.
281,
Regards Lorraine Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
282,
41.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 41
Mark.Dredge@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_12.04.2014_FW Simon Cordell
04/12/2014
/ Page Numbers: 283,284,285,286
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 41
12.04.2014_FW Simon Cordell
04/12/2014
/ Page Numbers:
283,284,285,286
--
283,
From: Dredge,
Mark <Mark.Dredge@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
on behalf of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
gl-bromleymcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 04
December 2014 15:34
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: si-insurance-19-05-2014.pdf
Dear Miss Leslie,
Please be informed that I the Statutory
Declaration was granted and will be heard 18/12/2014
Kind Regards
Mark Dredge Customer Services
SE Group Bexley-Bromley-Greenwich
Magistrates' Courts 1 London Road Bromley BR11RA
0208 437 3500 Gold Fax 0870 324 0223
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:44
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Miss S E Leslie
Thank you for the reply to my email, I did in fact speak
to someone at the court yesterday Mr Mark Dredge as I explained my son was due
in court yesterday on a next matter of no insurance when he was insured. After
speaking to that court, they told me to ask the CPS dealing with that case to
deal with the other 2 matters of no insurance which my son never got a summons
for.
Mark Dredge told me the case at Bromley was in fact
a date of 20/05/2014 so I attended court with my son yesterday with my son’s
insurance papers for that date.
I did ask the CPS yesterday to deal with these
other 2 matters, but she said she could not, and I would have to contract the
court which I had told her I had already done.
Please see attached file of my son’s insurance.
You can contact me on 07961.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell
From: Leslie, Sandra
mailto: sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
On
Behalf Of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Sent: 27
November 2014 12:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject:
RE: Simon
Cordell
Morning Miss Cordell
Thank you for your email, please
could you email me your mobile number to discuss this matter further.
Regards Miss S E Leslie
284,
From: Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 November
2014 14:12
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a letter
from the court that my son Simon Cordell DOB 26/01/2014 had a case on the
06/11/2014 in Bromley Magistrates Court
It says on the letter it was for a case
of no insurance the case number is 011402647845
The problem is we did not know he was
due to come to court on this date we have had no summons and my son is insured
he always has insurance and would not drive without it.
There has been a number of issues with
his insurance and this is due to it not showing up on the MID database. There
has been a number of Seizers to his vehicles for no insurance when he was in
fact insured.
Could you please send me details of
what date this offence of no insurance happened? This way I can send the
correct insurance policy by email. and can work forward to clearing this matter
up.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
285,
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
286,
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 42
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_FW MT3574694
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 42
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_FW
MT3574694
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297
--
287,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 21
January 2015 22:53
To: 'Andrew.Austin@canopius.com'
Cc: 'complaints@lloyds.com'
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Attachments: S Cordell Cert._ KGM_ 2013-2014_Colour.pdf.
Information we need.pdf
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
288,
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime, I am keen to
assist you if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there
is a contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is
acceptable so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from
you with this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469 147743 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
289,
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me being
found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about what
was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and about
the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subj etc.
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so
to do a 4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact, would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
· Confirmation of the points you raised
to the Financial Ombudsman when you verbally submitted your complaint and the
outcome you are looking to achieve.
· Full details of the losses that you
have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
· Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations,
we note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
290,
Alternatively, you may wish to wait
until our full investigations have been finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of any of
the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies are
sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police, Broadsure
Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue did not go
away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even
291,
aware I had mechanics trade on my
policy so if my mechanics tools had been in my van at the time my insurance
would still have been cancelled which to me what was the point in having
insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak to
the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing was
in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when this
should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has
292,
messed my clean driving licence up and
in fact got to the point I could not drive so could not work. Due to the fact,
KGM could not send me the information over that was needed to prove I did have
insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards Simon Cordell
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
293,
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
294,
295,
FW: MT3574fpage on we need.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
Section 9 witness statement from:
· Jessica about the call that she took,
from the police officer who called KGM after Simon Cordell was stopped on the
14/11/2013. This statement will include what was said on the phone call by the
police officer and what Jessica said to the police officer this would also
include what sort of tools the police officer said there was in the van. Any
other information as to the date of the 14/11/2013 and after this date as to
any dealing Jessica had with the stop on the 14/11/2013.
· Copy of all phone recordings between
the police officer, and Jessica on the date of 14/11/2013.
· All phone recordings of any calls that
were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his
insurance policy being cancelled and to address the stop that was made on the
14/11/2013.
· The phone recording of when Kelly
Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the police compound, and get someone
from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about the list of tools that was meant
to have been in the van when the police stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the
14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to the police compound on the
26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the compound and Simon Cordell
spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was in fact no tools in the
van.
· Copies of all emails that were sent
from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with regard to the police stop of Simon
Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would include all emails of dates after the
14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying to stop his insurance policy from
being cancelled and was trying to address this matter of what the police had
said about there being tools in his Van which was why the insurance policy was
going to be cancelled.
Section 9 witness statement from:
· Kelly Tiller as to any dealing she had
with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would include all
dealing with Broadsure about this matter and any calls that was made to her by
Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any calls Kelly Tiller made about this
matter about the cancellation of the policy and the stop by the police on the
14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
· This would also include all details of
the call that was made by the police compound to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013
to prove there were no tools in the van. Which in turn stopped the cancelation
of the insurance policy as I believe the reason for the cancellation was due to
Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his insurance due to there being tools in the
van.
· Full details as to why the insurance
policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr Simon Cordell was meant to have
done wrong which would have in fact made his insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
296,
Page 2 of 3
· Full details as to why in the end the
insurance policy was not cancelled and the reasons for not cancelling which was
due to Mr Simon Cordell going to the police compound and the police compound
confirming to Kelly Tiller over the phone there was in fact no tools in the
van.
· The reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr
Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on the MID database.
· Confirmation Simon Cordell did have
insurance to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void his insurance in any way.
· Why Kelly Tiller did not deal with all
the data protection requests that had been submitted to KGM, under the data
protection act 1998 subject access request, as if this had been done Simon
Cordell would not be in the court system for this case.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin [mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE: REF:
00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at
KGM and he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear
email for me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is
required for me to forward on!
(unfortunately, Kelly is on
annual leave at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is strictly
confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is
addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you
are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or take any
action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
297,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able
to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 43
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_RE MT3574694
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 43
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_RE
MT3574694
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308
--
298,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 21
January 2015 22:51
To: 'Austin, Andrew'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Attachments: S Cordell Cert._ KGM_
2013-2014_Colour.pdf
Information we need.pdf
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done this
Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all the
emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
299,
As you can see, I am not very happy about
all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for requesting
information under the subject access request and if you wish to proceed with
this please confirm.
In the meantime, I am keen to
assist you if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there
is a contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is
acceptable so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from
you with this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469 147743 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you
300,
did have an email on the 30 November
2014 about what was needed, and I do have the court letter showing I was found
guilty and about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact, would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell Thank you for your
email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
· Confirmation of the points you raised
to the Financial Ombudsman when you verbally submitted your complaint and the
outcome you are looking to achieve.
· Full details of the losses that you
have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
· Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations,
we note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
301,
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of
any of the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies
are sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have
302,
been cancelled which to me What was the
point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been too
late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have ended
work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early the
next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the 26/11/2013.
I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why I had heard
nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summon the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work. Due to the fact, KGM could
303,
not send me the information over that
was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards Simon Cordell
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited
304,
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in
England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
305,
306,
RE: MT3574fpage on we need.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
Section 9 witness statement from:
1. Jessica
about the call that she took, from the police officer who called KGM after
Simon Cordell was stopped on the 14/11/2013. This statement will include what
was said on the phone call by the police officer and what Jessica said to the
police officer this would also include what sort of tools the police officer
said there was in the van. Any other information as to the date of the
14/11/2013 and after this date as to any dealing Jessica had with the stop on
the 14/11/2013.
2. Copy
of all phone recordings between the police officer, and Jessica on the date of
14/11/2013.
3. All
phone recordings of any calls that were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or
Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his insurance policy being cancelled and to
address the stop that was made on the 14/11/2013.
4. The
phone recording of when Kelly Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the
police compound, and get someone from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about
the list of tools that was meant to have been in the van when the police
stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to
the police compound on the 26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the
compound and Simon Cordell spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was
in fact no tools in the van.
5. Copies
of all emails that were sent from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with
regard to the police stop of Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would
include all emails of dates after the 14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying
to stop his insurance policy from being cancelled and was trying to address
this matter of what the police had said about there being tools in his Van
which was why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled.
· Section 9 witness statement
from:
6. Kelly
Tiller as to any dealing she had with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the
14/11/2013. This would include all dealing with Broadsure about this matter and
any calls that was made to her by Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any
calls Kelly Tiller made about this matter about the cancellation of the policy
and the stop by the police on the 14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
7. This
would also include all details of the call that was made by the police compound
to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013 to prove there were no tools in the van.
Which in turn stopped the cancelation of the insurance policy as I believe the
reason for the cancellation was due to Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his
insurance due to there being tools in the van.
8. Full
details as to why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have done wrong which would have in fact made his
insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
307,
Page 2 of 3
9. Full
details as to why in the end the insurance policy was not cancelled and the
reasons for not cancelling which was due to Mr Simon Cordell going to the
police compound and the police compound confirming to Kelly Tiller over the
phone there was in fact no tools in the van.
10. The
reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on
the MID database.
11. Confirmation
Simon Cordell did have insurance to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void
his insurance in any way.
12. Why Kelly
Tiller did not deal with all the data protection requests that had been
submitted to KGM, under the data protection act 1998 subject access request, as
if this had been done Simon Cordell would not be in the court system for this
case.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Martin Jenkin mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To:
'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE: REF:
00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at
KGM and he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear
email for me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is
required for me to forward on!
(unfortunately Kelly is on
annual leave at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
308,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able
to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 44
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_RE MT3574694_002
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 44
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2015_RE
MT3574694_002
21/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
--
309,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: andrew.austin@canopius.com
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Attachments: RE_REF_00-COSX14MT07-ID_80
Open Attach Documents.pdf.
RE_ Simon Cordell.pdf.
Data-Protection-KGM.doc.
Kelly-TiNer-KGM.doc
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then the
insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done nothing
wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
310,
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work. Due to the fact, KGM could not send me the
information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
311,
Regards
Simon Cordell
312,
RE: MT3574694->RE_ REF_
00-COSX14MT07-ID_80POpeniAtt°ch4Documents.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell
[lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin
Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
· Section 9 witness statement from:
1. Jessica
about the call that she took, from the police officer who called KGM after
Simon Cordell was stopped on the 14/11/2013. This statement will include what
was said on the phone call by the police officer and what Jessica said to the
police officer this would also include what sort of tools the police officer
said there was in the van. Any other information as to the date of the
14/11/2013 and after this date as to any dealing Jessica had with the stop on
the 14/11/2013.
2. Copy
of all phone recordings between the police officer, and Jessica on the date of
14/11/2013.
3. All
phone recordings of any calls that were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or
Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his insurance policy being cancelled and to
address the stop that was made on the 14/11/2013.
4. The
phone recording of when Kelly Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the
police compound, and get someone from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about
the list of tools that was meant to have been in the van when the police
stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to
the police compound on the 26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the
compound and Simon Cordell spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was
in fact no tools in the van.
5. Copies
of all emails that were sent from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with
regard to the police stop of Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would
include all emails of dates after the 14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying
to stop his insurance policy from being cancelled and was trying to address
this matter of what the police had said about there being tools in his Van
which was why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled.
· Section 9 witness statement from:
6. Kelly
Tiller as to any dealing she had with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013.
This would include all dealing with Broadsure about this matter and any calls
that was made to her by Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any calls Kelly
Tiller made about this matter about the cancellation of the policy and the stop
by the police on the 14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
7. This
would also include all details of the call that was made by the police compound
to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013 to prove there were no tools in the van.
Which in turn stopped the cancelation of the insurance policy as I believe the
reason for the cancellation was due to Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his
insurance due to there being tools in the van.
8. Full
details as to why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have done wrong which would have in fact made his
insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
313,
Page 2 of 3
9. Full
details as to why in the end the insurance policy was not cancelled and the
reasons for not cancelling which was due to Mr Simon Cordell going to the
police compound and the police compound confirming to Kelly Tiller over the
phone there was in fact no tools in the van.
10. The
reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on
the MID database.
11. Confirmation
Simon Cordell did have insurance to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void
his insurance in any way.
12. Why
Kelly Tiller did not deal with all the data protection requests that had been
submitted to KGM, under the data protection act 1998 subject access request, as
if this had been done Simon Cordell would not be in the court system for this
case.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin
Mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
REF:
00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at KGM and
he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear email for
me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is required
for me to forward on!
(unfortunately Kelly is on annual leave
at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
314,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able
to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
315,
RE: MT3574694->Data-Protection-KGM.doc
From: Lorraine
Cordell
[lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 26
November 2013 15:46
To: 'Martin
Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Data-Protection-KGM.doc.
Kelly-Tiller-KGM.doc
Hello Martin,
Thank you for the phone call today to
tell me I was still insured.
Could you please pass on the attached
documents to Kelly Tiller at KGM one is a Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998.
The other letter is just to get Kelly
Tiller to confirm by email I am in fact still insured so I have this in writing
and also to found out why my van is still not showing up on the database.
And also about the logbooks which I am
still waiting for them from DVLA I called DVLA today when I got back from the
compound and was told it can take 8 weeks for me to get the new logbooks, I
will therefore send then right over to you by email as soon as I get them.
Many Thanks
Simon Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/ad3ceeed5576443cb0c61af3f3b...
21/01/2015
316,
RE: MT3574694->Data-Protection-KGM.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield
Middlesex EN3 7JQ 25/11/2013
KGM House 14 Eastwood Close London E18
1RZ
Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Please supply the information about me
I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to:
1. All
data to prove that my Vehicles were on the database since my insurance was
taken out.
2. Phone
recording of the 14/11/2013 with the police officer and Jessica advising that
Mr Simon Cordell was carrying tools in his vehicle.
3. Phone
call for 26/11/2013 with Kelly Tiller and the manager of the Charlton vehicle
pound, 8 Bramshot Avenue, Charlton, London, SE7 7HY, saying that there were not
tools in the van Reg CX52 JRZ when it was impounded on the 14/11/2013.
4. And
the reason why it still shows as of today’s date 25/11/2013 that my Van Reg
CX52 JRZ still shows on the Mid data base as uninsured.
5. All
phone calls made to Broadsure Direct and KGM since my policy started where the
police have had to call to confirm I was in fact insured.
6. If
there is any data that cannot be forwarding to me, please state this when
forwarding me my data.
317,
If you need any more information from
me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
It may be helpful for you to know that
a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should be
responded to within 40 days.
If you do not normally deal with these
requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer. If you need
advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can
assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at www.ico.org.uk/
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
318,
RE: MT3574694->Kelly-Tiller-KGM.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 25/11/2013
KGM House 14 Eastwood Close London E18
1RZ
Dear Kelly Tiller
Would it please be possible to confirm
by email that I am in fact still insured so I have this in writing by KGM.
Also I have talked to Martin and he has
told me that you need the logbook for my Vehicles, I am still waiting for them to
come back from DVLA and as soon as I get them back which can take up to 8 weeks
I have been told by DVLA on the phone today, I will scan them in and send them
over to Martin.
Also can you please look into the
reason that my Van CX52 JRZ is still showing up on the database as uninsured as
of today’s date.
My Car MA57 LDY is now showing as
insured.
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 45
complaints@lloyds.com_01.22.2015_Notification Case No
80792014 - MT3574694_001
22/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 45
complaints@lloyds.com_01.22.2015_Notification
Case No 80792014 - MT3574694_001
22/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
--
319,
From: Complaints complaints@lloyds.com
Sent: 22 January 2015 12:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: Notification
Case No 8079/2014 - MT3574694
Attachments: S Cordell Cert
KGM_ 2013-2014_Colour.pdf
Information we need.pdf
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your emails.
I note that you have been
liaising with Canopius in regard to your complaint and from the correspondence
we have on file that it is your intention to go to court.
Lloyd's complaints procedure is
to offer policyholders the option for a review by Lloyd's, should they remain
dissatisfied with the way in which their complaint has been handled. This is an
independent review by a case officer at Lloyd's. However please note once a
complaint becomes the subject of a court case Lloyd's can take no further
action and we would have to cease our investigation.
Therefore, please can you
confirm whether you are providing these emails for information only or whether
you wish Lloyd's to review your case in place of potential court proceedings.
Kind regards Cheryl
Mrs Cheryl Shannon Case Officer
Complaints Lloyd's
Telephone +44 (0)1634 39 5693 www.lloyds.com
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU
PRINT
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 22:53
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Cc: Complaints
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which will
show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
320,
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the information
I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov 2014 and way
before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this hanging over my
head. I did not just get points on my licence I got disqualified from driving
for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance please tell me why when I
have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it has not been enforced is due
to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
Mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
321,
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to
assist you if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there
is a contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is
acceptable so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you
with this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 | M
07469 147743 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol
for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
322,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell Thank you for your
email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the following
documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
1. Confirmation
of the points you raised to the Financial Ombudsman when you verbally submitted
your complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
2. Full
details of the losses that you have incurred as a direct result of your
complaint and full documentary evidence supporting this.
3. Confirmation
of dates of any convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your
complaint, including full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations we
note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should
you not be in receipt of any of the letters I refer to advise me above, please
and I will ensure copies are sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
323,
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when my
van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due to
the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At these times lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I
324,
waited till Broadsure direct called me
back and confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work. Due to the fact, KGM could not send me the
information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards
Simon Cordell
325,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing Agents
Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor the
content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses, unauthorised
use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on behalf of a
member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
The information in this E-Mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged.
326,
If you are NOT the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. You should NOT
retain, copy, or use this E-mail for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part
of its contents to any other person or persons.
Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender, EXCEPT where the sender specifically states
them to be the views of Lloyd's.
Lloyd's may monitor the content of
E-mails sent and received via its network for viruses or unauthorised use and
for other lawful business purposes.
Lloyd's
is authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
327,
328,
Notification Case No
8079/2014 - MT3574fpagfnfJri°fti0n we need.pdf
From: Lorraine Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
· Section 9 witness statement
from:
1. Jessica
about the call that she took, from the police officer who called KGM after
Simon Cordell was stopped on the 14/11/2013. This statement will include what
was said on the phone call by the police officer and what Jessica said to the
police officer this would also include what sort of tools the police officer
said there was in the van. Any other information as to the date of the
14/11/2013 and after this date as to any dealing Jessica had with the stop on
the 14/11/2013.
2. Copy
of all phone recordings between the police officer, and Jessica on the date of
14/11/2013.
3. All
phone recordings of any calls that were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or
Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his insurance policy being cancelled and to
address the stop that was made on the 14/11/2013.
4. The
phone recording of when Kelly Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the
police compound, and get someone from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about
the list of tools that was meant to have been in the van when the police
stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to
the police compound on the 26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the
compound and Simon Cordell spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was
in fact no tools in the van.
5. Copies
of all emails that were sent from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with
regard to the police stop of Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would
include all emails of dates after the 14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying
to stop his insurance policy from being cancelled and was trying to address
this matter of what the police had said about there being tools in his Van
which was why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled.
· Section 9 witness statement from:
6. Kelly
Tiller as to any dealing she had with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the
14/11/2013. This would include all dealing with Broadsure about this matter and
any calls that was made to her by Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any
calls Kelly Tiller made about this matter about the cancellation of the policy
and the stop by the police on the 14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
7. This
would also include all details of the call that was made by the police compound
to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013 to prove there were no tools in the van.
Which in turn stopped the cancelation of the insurance policy as I believe the
reason for the cancellation was due to Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his
insurance due to there being tools in the van.
8. Full
details as to why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have done wrong which would have in fact made his
insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
329,
Page 2 of 3
9. Full
details as to why in the end the insurance policy was not cancelled and the
reasons for not cancelling which was due to Mr Simon Cordell going to the police
compound and the police compound confirming to Kelly Tiller over the phone
there was in fact no tools in the van.
10. The
reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on
the MID database.
11. Confirmation
Simon Cordell did have insurance to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void
his insurance in any way.
12. Why
Kelly Tiller did not deal with all the data protection requests that had been
submitted to KGM, under the data protection act 1998 subject access request, as
if this had been done Simon Cordell would not be in the court system for this
case.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin
Mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
REF:
00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at
KGM and he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear
email for me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is
required for me to forward on!
(unfortunately Kelly is on
annual leave at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
330,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able
to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 46
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.22.2015_RE
Notification Case No 80792014 - MT3574694
22/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 46
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.22.2015_RE
Notification Case No 80792014 - MT3574694
22/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343
--
331,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 22
January 2015 15:55
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
Notification Case No 8079/2014 -
Attachments: MT3574694
Information we need.pdf
Dear Andrew
Please see the below email from
Mrs Cheryl Shannon, Case Officer, Complaints, Lloyd’s, and my reply.
I said to her I am willing to
give you 7 days to get the information, we have been asking for to clear my
son's name at court. Please see attached for information we need.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From: Complaints
mailto: complaints@lloyds.com
Sent: 22
January 2015 15:04
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: Notification
Case No 8079/2014 - MT3574694
Dear Mrs Cordell,
Thank you for your email and for
speaking to me this afternoon.
with the Subject Access Request
and call recordings that we will not escalate your complaint to a Lloyd's
Kind regards Cheryl
Just to clarify our
conversation, you wish to allow KGM 7 days to supply you as requested by you.
You wish to continue to copy us
in correspondence for our records only and review unless you instruct us to.
Mrs Cheryl Shannon Case Officer
Complaints Lloyd's
Telephone +44
(0)1634 39 5693 www.lloyds.com
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU
PRINT
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
January 2015 14:10
To:
Complaints
Subject: RE:
Notification Case No 8079/2014 - MT3574694
Dear Mrs Cheryl Shannon
332,
Thank you for the email it is
not my intention to go to court yet.
But due to the mess up with my
insurance from KGM my driving licence has been very badly damaged, and I have
suffered due to the insurance I had with KGM not showing up on the Police MID
database. This in turn made me keep getting pulled by the police on the
weekdays it was not so bad as I always had to carry my insurance policy and
showed the police and they called my insurance company. But at the weekends due
to the insurance company being closed the police could not confirm I had
insurance so my vehicles were sized which in turn I suffered with the cost to
take my vehicles out of the police compound and wasted my time having to go to
the compound when there should have been no need. Also it caused me problems
getting home after the police sized my vehicles. I am out of pocket of around
Ł1700.00 just for the cost to get my vehicles out of the compound this is
without everything else that has led on due to it showing I was not insured.
I have had to go to a number of
court cases just to prove I had insurance and then there have been cases where
I have had no summons from the police so could not file I was pleading not
guilty so they found me guilty when I did not even know there was a court case
going ahead.
This has put points on my
driving licence and fines, and I have been banned from driving. I have had to
spend my time to get the cases reopened once I knew about them also.
In addition, there was one case
when the police lied to my insurance company that I had tools in my van which I
did not. Which I had to spend more of my time to prove to KGM that in fact
there was no tools in my van as my insurance was getting cancelled for no good
reason. I done this by way of having to go to the police compound as when any
vehicle is impounded, they have list everything that was in the vehicle. When I
got to the police compound I spoke to a manager who confirmed there were no
tools, and a telephone call was made to Kelly Tiller at KGM and she spoke to
the manager and he confirmed to her there was no tools when the van was taken
into the police compound or when it was removed from the police compound.
I knew this case would go to
court as the police office had in fact tried to make my insurance void, so I
put in Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 to be able to
get the information I knew I would need. KGM done nothing about this I did not
get one reply from putting 3 Subject access requests under the Data Protection
Act 1998 this was going back to Nov 2013. this case was heard at court and due
to not having the information I needed to prove the police office was not
telling the truth I was found guilty and disqualified from driving for 6 months
due to repeat offending of no insurance. I have appealed this as I was insured
but need the data which KGM hold to prove this, but they will not give me it.
This case is due to go to the crown court I have not got a date yet but if I
can get the information to the CPS it will not need to go to appeal. I have
asked KGM again in Nov 2014 for the information and written what would be
needed just for this case, and they still have not sent it and I being asked
for information.
ATM as it stands KGM have failed
to comply with 3 Subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 and
follow the correct protocol for acting on a Subject access request under the
Data Protection Act 1998.
All this is having a huge impact
on my life not being able to drive due to points on my driving licence which in
fact was clean now I have such a mess to sort out just to get all of this
sorted when I was in fact insured and had paid for my insurance and have done
nothing wrong.
Yes, I am very upset over all of
this and KGM is not helping I have been asking and asking and getting nowhere I
should not be going through this. Yes I do want my money back I have lost but
right now I want these court cases to be dealt with and for my driving licence
to go back to being clean with no points this is the most important part for me
but KGM does not seem to understand this and this is upsetting me even more,
the insurance I took out with KGM has turned into a nightmare and I don't know
when this is going to end and they are going to deal with this matter so I can
clear my name with DVLA and the courts.
I am forwarding you all the
emails I am sending so you can see what is going on and keep updated. As you
can see, I am not getting very far with the information I need to clear my name
with the courts and DVLA. If KGM fail to comply with the Subject access request
under the Data Protection Act 1998 and give me the information I need within 7
days I will be putting it in your hands to deal with all of the matters as this
has been going on long enough.
333,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Complaints
mailto: complaints@llovds.com
Sent: 22
January 2015 12:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Notification
Case No 8079/2014 - MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your emails.
I note that you have been
liaising with Canopius in regard to your complaint and from the correspondence
we have on file that it is your intention to go to court.
Lloyd's complaints procedure is
to offer policyholders the option for a review by Lloyd's, should they remain
dissatisfied with the way in which their complaint has been handled. This is an
independent review by a case officer at Lloyd's. However please note once a
complaint becomes the subject of a court case Lloyd's can take no further
action and we would have to cease our investigation.
Therefore, please can you
confirm whether you are providing these emails for information only or whether
you wish Lloyd's to review your case in place of potential court proceedings.
Kind regards Cheryl
Mrs Cheryl Shannon Case Officer
Complaints Lloyd's
Telephone +44
(0)1634 39 5693 www.lloyds.com
SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU
PRINT
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 22:53
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Cc: Complaints
Subject: FW: MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser
so this mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information
over to the CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told
KGM I had tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section and Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the
phone call from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over
dealing with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy
and she was the one that
334,
believed the police until I went to the
police compound and spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller.
If I had not done this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance
and I have all the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
Simon Cordell
335,
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to
assist you if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there
is a contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from
you with this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469 147743 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin,
Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
336,
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21 January
2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell Thank you for
your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14
requests the following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
Confirmation of the points you
raised to the Financial Ombudsman when you verbally submitted your complaint
and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
Full details of the losses that
you have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above,
I will be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject
access request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial
investigations we note that you submitted a subject access request to your
Broker. Should you wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request
this in writing to our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the
foot of the letter including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of
Ł10.00. Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have
been finalised.
Can you please confirm how you
wish to proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of
any of the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies
are sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance Member of the UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin,
Andrew
337,
Subject:
RE: MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct who
took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving
338,
my phone ring and I stopped to pick it
up and it was Broadsure direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I
was very upset at this and told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on
they was called KGM back and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure
direct called me back and confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled
then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work. Due to the fact, KGM could not send me the
information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards
Simon Cordell
339,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited | registered
number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited
340,
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in
England and Wales
The information in this E-Mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged.
If you are NOT the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. You should NOT
retain, copy, or use this E-mail for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part
of its contents to any other person or persons.
Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender, EXCEPT where the sender specifically states
them to be the views of Lloyd's.
Lloyd's may monitor the content of
E-mails sent and received via its network for viruses or unauthorised use and
for other lawful business purposes.
Lloyd's is authorised under the
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
The information in this E-Mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL and may be privileged.
If you are NOT the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. You should NOT
retain, copy, or use this E-mail for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part
of its contents to any other person or persons.
Any views expressed in this message are
those of the individual sender, EXCEPT where the sender specifically states
them to be the views of Lloyd's.
Lloyd's may monitor the content of
E-mails sent and received via its network for viruses or unauthorised use and
for other lawful business purposes.
Lloyd's is authorised under the
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
341,
RE: Notification Case No 8079/2014 -
MT3574fp9agfnfJri°fti0n we need.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
Section 9 witness statement from:
1. Jessica
about the call that she took, from the police officer who called KGM after
Simon Cordell was stopped on the 14/11/2013. This statement will include what
was said on the phone call by the police officer and what Jessica said to the
police officer this would also include what sort of tools the police officer
said there was in the van. Any other information as to the date of the
14/11/2013 and after this date as to any dealing Jessica had with the stop on
the 14/11/2013.
2. Copy
of all phone recordings between the police officer, and Jessica on the date of
14/11/2013.
3. All
phone recordings of any calls that were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or
Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his insurance policy being cancelled and to
address the stop that was made on the 14/11/2013.
4. The
phone recording of when Kelly Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the
police compound, and get someone from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about
the list of tools that was meant to have been in the van when the police
stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to
the police compound on the 26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the
compound and Simon Cordell spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was
in fact no tools in the van.
5. Copies
of all emails that were sent from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with
regard to the police stop of Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would
include all emails of dates after the 14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying
to stop his insurance policy from being cancelled and was trying to address
this matter of what the police had said about there being tools in his Van
which was why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled.
Section 9 witness statement from:
6. Kelly
Tiller as to any dealing she had with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the
14/11/2013. This would include all dealing with Broadsure about this matter and
any calls that was made to her by Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any
calls Kelly Tiller made about this matter about the cancellation of the policy
and the stop by the police on the 14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
7. This
would also include all details of the call that was made by the police compound
to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013 to prove there were no tools in the van.
Which in turn stopped the cancelation of the insurance policy as I believe the
reason for the cancellation was due to Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his
insurance due to there being tools in the van.
8. Full
details as to why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have done wrong which would have in fact made his
insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca...
21/01/2015
342,
Page 2 of 3
· Full details as to why in the end the
insurance policy was not cancelled and the reasons for not cancelling which was
due to Mr Simon Cordell going to the police compound and the police compound
confirming to Kelly Tiller over the phone there was in fact no tools in the
van.
· The reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr
Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on the MID database.
· Confirmation Simon Cordell did have insurance
to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void his insurance in any way.
· Why Kelly Tiller did not deal with all
the data protection requests that had been submitted to KGM, under the data
protection act 1998 subject access request, as if this had been done Simon
Cordell would not be in the court system for this case.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Martin Jenkin [mailto: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com]
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at
KGM and he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear email
for me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is
required for me to forward on!
(unfortunately Kelly is on
annual leave at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca...
21/01/2015
343,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able
to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 47
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_01.23.2015_FW FW MT3574694
23/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 47
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_01.23.2015_FW
FW MT3574694
23/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
--
344,
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
FW: MT3574694
Attachments: S Cordell Cert._ KGM_
2013-2014_Colour.pdf
Information we need.pdf
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this should satisfy the Courts but if they need anything else
we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you require.
I understand you were stopped several times
and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of these
vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to consider
compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence to us as
soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along
with a Ł10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it
would appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should
have asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request
accordingly. This was not done for which I must apologise, as a result we will
waive the fee requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final response
to your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we have
received your response to the above points.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court
345,
and I can send the information over to
the CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect me
346,
vehicles, and everything else I have
had to deal with the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don't
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at the
compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
347,
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to assist you
if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there is a
contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you with
this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469
147743 | <http://www.kgminsurance.co.uk/> www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
<http://www.canopius.com/>
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
348,
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner's Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the complaint
that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I was in fact
I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not have been
ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 as I
would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
349,
Simon Cordell
From: Austin, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
· Confirmation of the points you raised
to the Financial Ombudsman
when you verbally submitted your
complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
· Full details of the losses that you
have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
· Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations we
note that you submitted a subject
350,
access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of any of
the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies are
sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
351,
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when
352,
any vehicles are taken there they have
to do a full list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible
if something goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and
forwarded them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the
Monday. On Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the
compound as Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once
there to call Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it
would have been too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as
she would have ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be
going there early the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for
353,
information and again heard nothing.
These matters need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work.
Due to the fact, KGM could not send me
the information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
354,
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards
Simon Cordell
355,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office:
Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office:
Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents
356,
Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
357,
358,
FW: FW: MT35746
- On we need.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 30
November 2014 14:47
To: ’Martin
Jenkin’
Subject: RE:
REF: 00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents
Hi Martin
Thank you for getting back to me
about this matter, and for you contacting KGM and getting this addressed,
please see the below information that will be needed. We will also still need
the section 9 witness statement from you.
The below section is what will
be needed from KGM.
Section 9 witness
statement from:
1. Jessica
about the call that she took, from the police officer who called KGM after
Simon Cordell was stopped on the 14/11/2013. This statement will include what
was said on the phone call by the police officer and what Jessica said to the
police officer this would also include what sort of tools the police officer
said there was in the van. Any other information as to the date of the
14/11/2013 and after this date as to any dealing Jessica had with the stop on
the 14/11/2013.
2. Copy
of all phone recordings between the police officer, and Jessica on the date of
14/11/2013.
3. All
phone recordings of any calls that were made, to KGM from Simon Cordell or
Lorraine Cordell to try to stop his insurance policy being cancelled and to
address the stop that was made on the 14/11/2013.
4. The
phone recording of when Kelly Tiller had asked Simon Cordell to go to the
police compound, and get someone from the compound to call Kelly Tiller about
the list of tools that was meant to have been in the van when the police
stopped Mr |Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. I believe Simon Cordell went to
the police compound on the 26/11/2013 and this is where the manager of the
compound and Simon Cordell spoke to called Kelly Tiller and confirmed there was
in fact no tools in the van.
5. Copies
of all emails that were sent from KGM to Broadsure and Broadsure to KGM with
regard to the police stop of Simon Cordell on the 14/11/2013. This would
include all emails of dates after the 14/11/2014 when Simon Cordell was trying
to stop his insurance policy from being cancelled and was trying to address
this matter of what the police had said about there being tools in his Van
which was why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled.
Section 9 witness
statement from:
6. Kelly
Tiller as to any dealing she had with the police stop on Simon Cordell on the
14/11/2013. This would include all dealing with Broadsure about this matter and
any calls that was made to her by Simon Cordell and Lorraine Cordell, and any
calls Kelly Tiller made about this matter about the cancellation of the policy
and the stop by the police on the 14/11/2014 until this issue was addressed.
7. This
would also include all details of the call that was made by the police compound
to Kelly Tiller on the 26/11/2013 to prove there were no tools in the van.
Which in turn stopped the cancelation of the insurance policy as I believe the
reason for the cancellation was due to Kelly Tiller saying he had voided his
insurance due to there being tools in the van.
8. Full
details as to why the insurance policy was going to be cancelled and what Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have done wrong which would have in fact made his
insurance policy void.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
359,
Page 2 of 3
· Full details as to why in the end the insurance
policy was not cancelled and the reasons for not cancelling which was due to Mr
Simon Cordell going to the police compound and the police compound confirming
to Kelly Tiller over the phone there was in fact no tools in the van.
· The reason why until Jan 2014 that Mr
Simon Cordell’s insurance did not show up on the MID database.
· Confirmation Simon Cordell did have
insurance to drive on the 14/11/2014 and did not void his insurance in any way.
· Why Kelly Tiller did not deal with all
the data protection requests that had been submitted to KGM, under the data
protection act 1998 subject access request, as if this had been done Simon
Cordell would not be in the court system for this case.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin
mailto:
martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Sent: 28
November 2014 14:36
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
REF:
00-COSX14MT07-ID<80> Open Attach Documents Lorraine,
I have spoken to the manager at KGM
and he has advised Andy Austin is detailing with the case.
They have asked for a clear
email for me to send to them of your requirements.
Please could you email what is
required for me to forward on!
(unfortunately, Kelly is on
annual leave at present)
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
360,
Page 3 of 3
error, please reply to the sender
as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we are able to,
and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications passing through our
network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3815cbf28add435d9773bab08ca... 21/01/2015
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 48
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_01.30.2015_RE MT3574694 Simon
Cordell
30/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 48
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_01.30.2015_RE
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
30/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385
--
361,
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Sent: 30
January 2015 17:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew; Donovan, Paul
Subject: Simon
Cordell
Attachments: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Simon,
S Cordell 300115.pdf; s Cordell
call from police 141113.wma; Van-reciept-10-11-2013.jpg; MR SIMON CORDELL -
CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB); 26_H_2013_13_53_KellyTiller Kelly call to compound.wav
Please find attached the
following -
·
Recording of the original call made by
the Police officer to KGM in which he advised that there were tools in your
van.
·
Recording of the call between Kelly
Tiller and the Police compound in which Kelly was advised that there were no
tools in the vehicle.
·
Receipt showing purchase of the van.
·
E-Mail from Gareth Mullet from the
compound confirming that there was nothing on the seizure notice to indicate
that there were any tools removed from the vehicle or in the vehicle in the
compound.
·
Letter of Indemnity for the CPS/Courts.
I believe these are the relevant
items you were after and hope this will assist you to resolve the court
matters. If you need anything else please let me know, or in my absence Andy
Austin.
Paul Donovan will respond
separately in respect of your data request but hopefully the attached will meet
your requirements. As soon as I receive documentation from you to support costs
incurred, I can consider our response on compensation.
No doubt I will hear from you
shortly, in the meantime have a good weekend.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 27
January 2015 11:14
To: Wood, Peter
Cc: Austin, Andrew; complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Yes please could you send the
tapes out and the Letter of Indemnity I would be most grateful as I think this
would cover the courts and would like to get the information to them as soon as
possible to the court and CPS.
As for the other information
that is acceptable, as I not sure how long it will take the police compound to
send me over the information, I will need to send to you they do take their
time.
362,
I am just happy this matter is
getting address as said the most worrying thing was the court case and this is
the information I needed. I hope you have a great time on leave.
I look forward to hearing from
you and will pass the information over from the police compound as soon as I
have it.
Regards
Simon
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 27
January 2015 10:05
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
I spent some time last Friday tracking
down a number of calls and did find the original call that the Police made to
Jessica and the calls Kelly made to the Compound so we can provide these and it
sounds like these are the important calls from the CPS and Courts viewpoint. I
will pass these over to our Data Protection Officer of course but will ask if
its ok for me to release them to you in the meantime before he does his
official response.
I think we should also do the Letter of
Indemnity and will send this across to you in the next few days, there’s no
reason why you can't send this across now and it can do no harm.
I'm conscious we have not done a formal
final response yet to your complaint, I intend to do this as soon as we receive
full details of the recovery costs you incurred and can make a decision on
compensation, I trust that’s acceptable.
If you need anything else or have any
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I am keeping Andy in the loop as I am
due to go on leave from 12/2/15 - 8/3/15 so he will need to pick up any issues
that may arise during that time.
We will be in touch shortly and await
details from you as above in due course.
King Regards Mr Peter Wood
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 26 January 2015 23:10:04 GMT
To: Wood, Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com <complaints@lloyds.com>
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter Wood
Thank you for picking this up
and taking the time to deal with this matter.
363,
The date of the appeal I do not
have yet.
I are waiting for this but the
court and CPS said if I get the information needed before the court date then
it could be sent to the court who found me guilty and the CPS and this would be
linked to the case and addressed. In addition, there should be no need for the
appeal court case.
I am trying to do this so that a
next day is not got to be wasted of my time in court and getting to and from
the court.
The day that the police officer
pulled me and told KGM that I had tools in my van, which the police officer
lied, and the police officer has said this in court so lied to the judge is
14/11/2013.
I think due to what the police
officer said in court the CPS and judge would like to know the facts and what
the police officer said on that phone call to KGM. In addition, when KGM spoke
to the manager at the police compound and found out in fact there was not
tools, I think the reason for this is the police officer committed perjury in
the court.
That is why they asked me to get
proof that my insurance was not void, section 9 witness statements as to what
the police officer told KGM on the phone to try to void my insurance, In
addition, the facts how KGM found out I had in fact done nothing wrong and my
insurance should not be cancelled.
However, if you think a Letter
of Indemnity would sort this matter out then if this could be done I would be
very grateful, but could you include in the letter only reason this has come
about is due to what the police officer told KGM about the tools being in the
van. In addition, this is the reason KGM told the police officer that I would
not then be covered by the insurance policy I had in force with them.
This should cover it I hope as I
really did nothing wrong and Kelly Tiller knows the police officer lied to get
my insurance cancelled as she spoke to the police compound and they told her
there was no tools.
The vehicle registration I was
driving on the 14/11/2010 was CX52JRZ, this registration was included on my
insurance. So should have shown on the database along with my car. However,
none showed up as being insured on the MID database, this is what has caused me
all the problems with the police.
As already aware yes, I was
stopped around 8 or 9 times and had vehicles seized.
I do have some of the some of
them here already like do have the receipt what I paid to get the vehicle out
of the compound for the 14/11/2013 case I picked that up on the 16/11/2013.
I have the ones for the
08/04/2013, 29/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 03/01/2014 I just need to get the receipts
for the other dates and also something that shows they was all sized due to no
insurance from the police compound.
As for the Data Subject Access
Request, I am most grateful that this is being addressed. If I had known a fee
was, needed I would have paid that right away, but due to no one getting back
to me about the ones that were put in, I did not know a fee was needed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
FW: MT3574694
364,
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this should satisfy the Courts but if they need anything else
we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you require.
I understand you were stopped several
times and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of
these vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to
consider compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence
to us as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along
with a Ł10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it
would appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should
have asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request
accordingly. This was not done for which I must apologise, as a result we will
waive the fee requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final
response to your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we
have received your response to the above points.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder. co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com <Andrew.Austin@canopius.com>
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court
365,
and I can send the information over to
the CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is
366,
really a lot and it was all due
to KGM not sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database.
The seizers alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is
without all the days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence
being messed up and showing points for no insurance. All the time going back
and forward to the compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have
had to deal with the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this
for months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no
notice, it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I
don’t feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let
alone any company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the
end at the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the
MID and that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It
was that bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very
happy about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for
their insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get
the information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from
Nov 2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on
0208 245 7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
367,
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21 January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to assist you
if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there is a
contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you with
this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
368,
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469
147743 | <http://www.kgminsurance.co.uk/> www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| <http://www.canopius.com/> www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
369,
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin, Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21 January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
370,
1. Confirmation
of the points you raised to the Financial Ombudsman
when you verbally submitted your
complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
2. Full
details of the losses that you have incurred as a direct result of your complaint
and full documentary evidence supporting this.
3. Confirmation
of dates of any convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your
complaint, including full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations we
note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of any of
the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies are
sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
371,
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
372,
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I spoke
to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say in the
matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly Tiller
was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then the
insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done nothing
wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in
373,
fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
374,
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want to
do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was insurance
and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work.
Due to the fact, KGM could not send me
the information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
375,
Regards
Simon Cordell
376,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited | registered
number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in
England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime
Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy
377,
this message and notify the sender
immediately. Canopius may monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via
its network for viruses, unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes.
E-mail sent for and on behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited | registered
number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and
regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
378,
379,
380,
381,
Blank page!
380,
RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell-> MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB).msg
From: MT
Underwriting [MT.Underwriting@canopius.com]
To: Gramlick, Les
Sent: 04
December 2014 15:34:12
Subject: FW:
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly Tiller
Member of the UK Specialty Division
of Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9116 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841
www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk
[mailto:GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk]
On Behalf Of VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 14:10
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly,
I have looked at the seizure notice
nothing was taken at the roadside and nothing was registered as left in the
vehicle Regards Gareth
From: Tiller,
Kelly [mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:28
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: RE:
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
I have been told by the police
that you do a report on all items that was in the vehicle at the time it was
ceased. Can I have a copy of this report please?
Kind regards Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ D +44 (0) 20 8530 1818 | F +44 (0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk On
Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:26
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
We have no record what was in the
vehicle, we do not touch the vehicles contents.
Regards
F S Williams
382,
RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell-> MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB).msg
From: Tiller,
Kelly mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:55
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: MR
SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Morning,
I need some assistance with regards
to the above. We ensure Mr Simon Cordell and I need a copy of the report of the
items that was in his vehicle at the time it was ceased.
We are due to cancel his policy
@ noon today.
Your urgent advises are awaited.
Kind regards
Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority Canopius Underwriting Limited | registered number 02473672
| appointed representative of Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
383,
RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell-> MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB).msg
system. To avoid incurring legal
liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email
without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored
to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may
be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to
conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts
no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and
corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet.
Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS).
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or
legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not
distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the
sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only
specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf
of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
384,
RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell-> MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB).msg
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 49
enquiries@cps.gsi.gov.uk_01.31.2015_RE Case appeal
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 386
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 49
enquiries@cps.gsi.gov.uk_01.31.2015_RE
Case appeal
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 386
--
386,
From: Enquiries
Sent: 31
January 2015 02:59
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Case appeal
Thank you for contacting Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) Enquiries
The CPS is responsible for prosecuting
most criminal cases in England and Wales, following a police investigation.
If you are contacting CPS Enquiries in
relation to a case which is presently before the courts, or in relation to a
case which the CPS is advising the police on charges, you should contact the
relevant CPS area directly. Contact details for the 13 CPS regional offices can
be found at the following link:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/your_cps/our_organisation/the_cps_areas.html
Your query may be forwarded to the
relevant CPS regional office in the best position to respond to any issues that
you have raised. If your email is forwarded, a response will be provided to you
by the relevant CPS regional office within 20 working days.
Please note that if you have previously
been advised that the CPS cannot aid you and your query does not raise any new
issues, we will not be able to provide any further response. If your enquiry
does not relate to the CPS, we will be unable to provide a response, but may be
able to provide contact details for the relevant agency or organisation.
This e-mail is private and is intended
only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient,
please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message
and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 50
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_FW MT3574694 Simon
Cordell
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 50
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_FW
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers:
387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413
--
387,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 31
January 2015 18:15
To: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Cc: m.mckee@michaelcarrollandco.com
Subject: FW:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Attachments: S
Cordell 300115.pdf.
s Cordell call from police 141113.wma.
Van-reciept-10-11-2013.jpg.
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ (28.9 KB);
26_11_2013_13_53
Kelly-Tiller-Kelly-call to compound.wav
Hi Josey
I got the attached information
from Simon’s insurance company on Friday. After a lot of work to get it and a lot
of emails and over a year of time. The letter of Indemnity is not correct with
some points which I have asked peter wood to address.
Simon has asked me to forward
this to you.
The reason is this show how far
the police will go to lie. Not only did he lie to KGM Simon’s insurance, about
tools being in Simon’s van to void Simon insurance cover and be able to seize
his van. He then went on to lie in his statement of facts to be used at court
saying nothing about tools just that the insurance said Simon’s was not covered
by his insurance. He then stood up in court and under oath when the judge asked
him about tools being in the van said he did not say tools was in the van. The
reason the judge asked this was he saw emails from KGM saying about the tools.
Simon was found guilty of this
and we have taken it to appeal and are waiting on a date.
But in the Asbo case can this
not be shown that the police will lie even under oath. They are trying to use
Simon’s char in the Asbo case and make him look bad. Why can we not show the
police in the same light by using this information?
Simon has asked can you get the
case papers from the courts for this case and the Woolwich case. As these cases
do show somewhat how far the police are willing to go with Simon.
In the Asbo case papers you have
police saying in their statement they know Simon is always insured it is on
police file how much he was stopped. Yet he has around 8 cases at court for no
insurance. In addition, most of these cases he never had a summons for, and they
found him guilty due to him knowing nothing about the case was due to be in
court.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood,
Peter
mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 30
January 2015 17:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew; Donovan, Paul
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
Please find attached the following -
1. Recording of
the original call made by the Police officer to KGM in which he advised that
there were tools in your van.
2. Recording of
the call between Kelly Tiller and the Police compound in which Kelly was
advised that there were no tools in the vehicle.
3. Receipt
showing purchase of the van.
4. E-Mail from
Gareth Mullett from the compound confirming that there was nothing on the
seizure notice to indicate that
388,
there were any tools removed
from the vehicle or in the vehicle in the compound.
• Letter of Indemnity for the
CPS/Courts.
I believe these are the relevant
items you were after and hope this will assist you to resolve the court
matters. If you need anything else please let me know, or in my absence Andy
Austin.
Paul Donovan will respond
separately in respect of your data request but hopefully the attached will meet
your requirements. As soon as I receive documentation from you to support costs
incurred, I can consider our response on compensation.
No doubt I will hear from you
shortly, in the meantime have a good weekend.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 27
January 2015 11:14
To: Wood, Peter
Cc: Austin, Andrew; complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Yes please could you send the
tapes out and the Letter of Indemnity I would be most grateful as I think this
would cover the courts and would like to get the information to them as soon as
possible to the court and CPS.
As for the other information
that is acceptable, as I not sure how long it will take the police compound to
send me over the information, I will need to send to you they do take their
time.
I am just happy this matter is
getting address as said the most worrying thing was the court case and this is
the information I needed. I hope you have a great time on leave.
I look forward to hearing from
you and will pass the information over from the police compound as soon as I
have it.
Regards
Simon
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 27
January 2015 10:05
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
389,
I spent some time last Friday tracking down
a number of calls and did find the original call that the Police made to
Jessica and the calls Kelly made to the Compound so we can provide these and it
sounds like these are the important calls from the CPS and Courts viewpoint. I
will pass these over to our Data Protection Officer of course but will ask if
its ok for me to release them to you in the meantime before he does his
official response.
I think we should also do the Letter of
Indemnity and will send this across to you in the next few days, there’s no
reason why you can't send this across now and it can do no harm.
I'm conscious we have not done a formal
final response yet to your complaint, I intend to do this as soon as we receive
full details of the recovery costs you incurred and can make a decision on
compensation, I trust that’s acceptable.
If you need anything else or have any
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I am keeping Andy in the loop as I am
due to go on leave from 12/2/15 - 8/3/15 so he will need to pick up any issues
that may arise during that time.
We will be in touch shortly and await
details from you as above in due course.
King Regards Mr Peter Wood
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 26 January 2015 23:10:04 GMT
To: Wood, Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com <complaints@lloyds.com>
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter Wood
Thank you for picking this up
and taking the time to deal with this matter.
The date of the appeal I do not
have yet.
I are waiting for this but the
court and CPS said if I get the information needed before the court date then
it could be sent to the court who found me guilty and the CPS and this would be
linked to the case and addressed. In addition, there should be no need for the
appeal court case.
I am trying to do this so that a
next day is not got to be wasted of my time in court and getting to and from
the court.
The day that the police officer
pulled me and told KGM that I had tools in my van, which the police officer
lied, and the police officer has said this in court so lied to the judge is
14/11/2013.
I think due to what the police
officer said in court the CPS and judge would like to know the facts and what
the police officer said on that phone call to KGM. In addition, when KGM spoke
to the manager at the police compound and found out in fact there was not
tools, I think the reason for this is the police officer committed perjury in
the court.
That is why they asked me to get
proof that my insurance was not void, section 9 witness statements as to what
the police officer told KGM on the phone to try to void my insurance, In
addition, the facts how KGM found out I had in fact done nothing wrong and my
insurance should not be cancelled.
390,
However, if you think a Letter
of Indemnity would sort this matter out then if this could be done I would be
very grateful, but could you include in the letter only reason this has come
about is due to what the police officer told KGM about the tools being in the
van. In addition, this is the reason KGM told the police officer that I would
not then be covered by the insurance policy I had in force with them.
This should cover it I hope as I
really did nothing wrong and Kelly Tiller knows the police officer lied to get
my insurance cancelled as she spoke to the police compound and they told her
there was no tools.
The vehicle registration I was
driving on the 14/11/2010 was CX52JRZ, this registration was included on my
insurance. So should have shown on the database along with my car. However,
none showed up as being insured on the MID database, this is what has caused me
all the problems with the police.
As already aware yes, I was
stopped around 8 or 9 times and had vehicles seized.
I do have some of the some of
them here already like do have the receipt what I paid to get the vehicle out
of the compound for the 14/11/2013 case I picked that up on the 16/11/2013.
I have the ones for the
08/04/2013, 29/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 03/01/2014 I just need to get the receipts
for the other dates and also something that shows they was all sized due to no
insurance from the police compound.
As for the Data Subject Access
Request, I am most grateful that this is being addressed. If I had known a fee
was, needed I would have paid that right away, but due to no one getting back
to me about the ones that were put in, I did not know a fee was needed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
FW: MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this should satisfy the Courts but if they need anything else
we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you require.
I understand you were stopped several
times and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of
these vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to
consider compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence
to us as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along
with a Ł10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it
would appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should
have asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request
accordingly. This was not done for which I must apologise, as a
391,
result we will waive the fee
requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final response
to your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we have
received your response to the above points.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com <Andrew.Austin@canopius.com>
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
392,
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked
393,
out why it was not showing up on the
MID and that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It
was that bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin, Andrew
[mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21 January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
394,
I have detailed the process for requesting
information under the subject access request and if you wish to proceed with
this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to assist you
if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there is a
contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you with
this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469
147743 | <http://www.kgminsurance.co.uk/> www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| <http://www.canopius.com/> www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few
395,
missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as there is
a lot of data..
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
396,
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
[mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21 January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
1. Confirmation
of the points you raised to the Financial Ombudsman
when you verbally submitted your
complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
2. Full
details of the losses that you have incurred as a direct result of your
complaint and full documentary evidence supporting this.
3. Confirmation
of dates of any convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your
complaint, including full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
397,
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
Following our initial investigations we
note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of any of
the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies are
sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
398,
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police were off
--
399,400,401,402,403,404,405,406,407,408,409,410,411,412,413,
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 51
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_RE Case appeal
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 414
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 51
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_RE
Case appeal
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 414
--
414,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 31
January 2015 02:58
To: 'enquiries@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Case appeal
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to find out to
whom I would have to send information to within the CPS in regard to a case I
was found guilty off at Wimbledon magistrate's court of driving without
insurance.
I put an appeal into Wimbledon
magistrate's court on the same day, which was accepted by the Judge hearing my
case in court.
I was told by the court and CPS if I
got the information that was needed to prove that I did in fact have insurance
then I could pass this to the CPS to look at.
I have yet to get the date of my
appeal, but do have the information from my insurance company that I feel will
prove I did in fact have insurance to drive on the day I was stopped by police
and would like to forward that over by email to the CPS to address.
Would it please be possible to get an
email address of where the data can be sent to so that this can be done?
Regards
Lorraine
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 52
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_RE MT3574694 Simon
Cordell
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 52
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.31.2015_RE
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
31/01/2015
/ Page Numbers: 415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433
--
415,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 31
January 2015 01:47
To: 'Wood, Peter'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Attachments: registration MA47LDY Corrected.pdf
Dear Peter
Thank you very much for the
information you have sent, I do see some errors in your letter of Indemnity.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY
·
Ford Transit registration CX52JRZ
·
On the 8/4/13 at 11.05am the following
vehicle was added to the policy -
·
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY
This registration was always put
in not correctly but was in fact given to Broadsure Direct correctly.
The registration should have
been Ford Zetec registration MA57LDY
This was later correct after the
3rd time of telling the Ford Zetec registration as MA57LDY please see attached
document.
This is the registration that
should have been on the policy from the start.
We never knew it was not correct
until 08/04/13 when again the correct registration was given.
However, it was put down as
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY, we then believe it was put in correctly and
not a new car added.
We were not sent any documents
of that change so did not know there was again an error until the Oct 2013 when
it was in fact corrected this time, we asked for new documents to be sent which
they were so we could check.
But they kept on his policy
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY we made a next call and told them this needed
to be removed and was told it would be done.
It seems this was never done by
what you have sent in your email.
I do believe I have emails also
about this issue to Broadsure Direct and Martin Jenkins, can confirm this as he
was the one, we dealt with at Broadsure Direct. He also should remember all the
phone calls.
There is also a next issue Simon
was not just covered with the basic trade insurance with KGM, Broadsure Direct
had a special section with KGM which included in his insurance he was in fact
covered for his work as a mechanic, not just standard insurance of trade buying
and selling that KGM as a rule only deals with.
This has been discussed with the
underwriters at KGM by Broadsure Direct re Martin Jenkins. This also caused
issues with his insurance cover a few times. This was also meant to have been
address and seems it was not. At the time we were not happy as we were told he
was not covered when in fact he was. If you call Broadsure Direct and speak to
Martin Jenkins, I feel that he can send you the paperwork and under writing of
how Simon's insurance was meant to have been setup.
As you can see there was a
number of issues with his insurance with KGM that lead to problems. and even
with the issues of 14/11/2013 when a call was made to Kelly Tiller we asked did
the police say what tools was meant to have been in the van as if there was
mechanic tools in there his insurance should have in fact covered this. Kelly
Tiller said no the police officer did not say which tools. But also said he was
again not insured for this again Martin Jenkins got a rude call from us and
again he had to make calls to address this issue.
Can you please confirm he was
correctly insured with KGM and write this as I would like this addressed.
And one last thing could you
please say in your letter on the date of the 14/11/2013 he was fully insured
just so there cannot be any mistakes at court.
Sorry, this is causing such an
issue and taking up your time but I really want to have something that is fully
correct, as I do not want any other issues with courts, police and anything
else that could cause my Son problems.
416,
Regards
Lorraine.
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 30
January 2015 17:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew; Donovan, Paul
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
Please find attached the
following -
·
Recording of the original call made by
the Police officer to KGM in which he advised that there were tools in your
van.
·
Recording of the call between Kelly
Tiller and the Police compound in which Kelly was advised that there were no
tools in the vehicle.
·
Receipt showing purchase of the van.
·
E-Mail from Gareth Mullett from the
compound confirming that there was nothing on the seizure notice to indicate
that there were any tools removed from the vehicle or in the vehicle in the
compound.
·
Letter of Indemnity for the CPS/Courts.
I believe these are the relevant
items you were after and hope this will assist you to resolve the court
matters. If you need anything else please let me know, or in my absence Andy
Austin.
Paul Donovan will respond
separately in respect of your data request but hopefully the attached will meet
your requirements. As soon as I receive documentation from you to support costs
incurred, I can consider our response on compensation.
No doubt I will hear from you
shortly, in the meantime have a good weekend.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 27
January 2015 11:14
To: Wood, Peter
Cc: Austin, Andrew; complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Yes please could you send the
tapes out and the Letter of Indemnity I would be most grateful as I think this
would cover the courts and would like to get the information to them as soon as
possible to the court and CPS.
As for the other information
that is acceptable, as I not sure how long it will take the police compound to
send me over the
417,
information, I will need to send
to you they do take their time.
I am just happy this matter is
getting address as said the most worrying thing was the court case and this is
the information I needed. I hope you have a great time on leave.
I look forward to hearing from
you and will pass the information over from the police compound as soon as I
have it.
Regards
Simon
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 27
January 2015 10:05
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
I spent some time last Friday tracking
down a number of calls and did find the original call that the Police made to
Jessica and the calls Kelly made to the Compound so we can provide these and it
sounds like these are the important calls from the CPS and Courts viewpoint. I
will pass these over to our Data Protection Officer of course but will ask if
its ok for me to release them to you in the meantime before he does his
official response.
I think we should also do the Letter of
Indemnity and will send this across to you in the next few days, there’s no
reason why you can't send this across now and it can do no harm.
I'm conscious we have not done a formal
final response yet to your complaint, I intend to do this as soon as we receive
full details of the recovery costs you incurred and can make a decision on
compensation, I trust that’s acceptable.
If you need anything else or have any
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I am keeping Andy in the loop as I am
due to go on leave from 12/2/15 - 8/3/15 so he will need to pick up any issues
that may arise during that time.
We will be in touch shortly and await
details from you as above in due course.
King Regards Mr Peter Wood
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 26 January 2015 23:10:04 GMT
To: Wood, Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com <complaints@lloyds.com>
Subject:
Re: MT3574694
Simon
Cordell
Dear Peter Wood
Thank you for picking this up
and taking the time to deal with this matter.
418,
The date of the appeal I do not
have yet.
I are waiting for this but the court
and CPS said if I get the information needed before the court date then it
could be sent to the court who found me guilty and the CPS and this would be
linked to the case and addressed. In addition, there should be no need for the
appeal court case.
I am trying to do this so that a
next day is not got to be wasted of my time in court and getting to and from
the court.
The day that the police officer
pulled me and told KGM that I had tools in my van, which the police officer
lied, and the police officer has said this in court so lied to the judge is
14/11/2013.
I think due to what the police
officer said in court the CPS and judge would like to know the facts and what
the police officer said on that phone call to KGM. In addition, when KGM spoke
to the manager at the police compound and found out in fact there was not
tools, I think the reason for this is the police officer committed perjury in
the court.
That is why they asked me to get
proof that my insurance was not void, section 9 witness statements as to what
the police officer told KGM on the phone to try to void my insurance, In
addition, the facts how KGM found out I had in fact done nothing wrong and my
insurance should not be cancelled.
However, if you think a Letter
of Indemnity would sort this matter out then if this could be done I would be
very grateful, but could you include in the letter only reason this has come
about is due to what the police officer told KGM about the tools being in the
van. In addition, this is the reason KGM told the police officer that I would
not then be covered by the insurance policy I had in force with them.
This should cover it I hope as I
really did nothing wrong and Kelly Tiller knows the police officer lied to get
my insurance cancelled as she spoke to the police compound and they told her
there was no tools.
The vehicle registration I was
driving on the 14/11/2010 was CX52JRZ, this registration was included on my
insurance. So should have shown on the database along with my car. However,
none showed up as being insured on the MID database, this is what has caused me
all the problems with the police.
As already aware yes, I was
stopped around 8 or 9 times and had vehicles seized.
I do have some of the some of
them here already like do have the receipt what I paid to get the vehicle out
of the compound for the 14/11/2013 case I picked that up on the 16/11/2013.
I have the ones for the
08/04/2013, 29/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 03/01/2014 I just need to get the receipts
for the other dates and also something that shows they was all sized due to no
insurance from the police compound.
As for the Data Subject Access
Request, I am most grateful that this is being addressed. If I had known a fee
was, needed I would have paid that right away, but due to no one getting back
to me about the ones that were put in, I did not know a fee was needed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
419,
Subject: FW: FW: MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this should satisfy the Courts but if they need anything else
we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you require.
I understand you were stopped several
times and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of
these vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to
consider compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence
to us as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along
with a Ł10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it
would appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should
have asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request
accordingly. This was not done for which I must apologise, as a result we will
waive the fee requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final response
to your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we have
received your response to the above points.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com <Andrew.Austin@canopius.com>
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
420,
Yes, we do want full discloser so this mater
can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the CPS
for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had tools in
my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and Jessica
know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call from the
police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing with my
policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she was the
one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and spoke to
the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done this Kelly
Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all the emails to
prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
421,
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
--
422,423,424,425,426,427,428,429,430,431,432,433,
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 53
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.02.2015_RE MT3574694 Simon
Cordell
02/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455
53.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 53
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.02.2015_RE
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
02/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455
--
434,
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Sent: 02
February 2015 15:48
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin,
Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Attachments: S Cordell 020215.pdf
Dear Lorraine,
Please review the attached revised
LOI, once you confirm you are happy with it, I will put an original in the post
today.
I think that's it for now but
just shout if you need anything else.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 02
February 2015 15:08
To: Wood,
Peter
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Thank you for the reply to my
email
Yes, the below would cover
everything I feel, so if you can go ahead and do this, I would be most
grateful.
As said, I just do not want any
way that the CSP and Court could have any confusion with anything.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood,
Peter mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 02
February 2015 14:56
To: Lorraine
Cordell Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell Dear Lorraine,
Thanks for your comments, don't
worry I want to get this resolved as much as you and Simon, it’s taken far too
long already, so before I send an amended Indemnity Letter (LOI) please confirm
my understanding as listed below -
1. I will
amend the registration of the Ford Zetec to show MA57LDY. Broadsure originally
gave us the incorrect registration and as you say it was a while before this
error was corrected and our policy history was confusing due to the incorrect
Clio that I was not aware of previously.
2. You
are correct, looking back on the instructions from Broadsure I cannot see that
they instructed Underwriters to delete the Renault Clio that was added in error
following receipt of advices from Broadsure. I can amend the comment in the
435,
3. letter
to show that this vehicle was added to the policy incorrectly following an
effort on your part to correct the registration number of the Ford Zetec and
was a broker error, are you happy with this?
1. The
letter states cover was for Social Domestic & Pleasure and Motor Trade Use.
Motor Trade use would cover Simon to carry a Motor Mechanics tools being used
in connection with Motor Trade but not any tools that would typically be used
for any other purposes such as perhaps,
paint/brushes/ladders/plumbing/Electrical(domestic/commercial except auto
electrical) and so on. This is standard cover; however I am happy to expand on
this statement in the letter if you would like me to in order to clarify that
point?
2. The
Police officer asked if Simon would be covered for the carriage of tools to
drive around doing "odd jobs". Later in the call he again confirmed
that Simon was not covered "to drive around doing jobs". I sent you
the call so you can listen to it yourself but the tone of the enquiry was
suggesting that Simon was doing jobs not connected to the Motor Trade however I
do feel there is plenty of room here for misunderstanding. If the question had
been more specific with the officer stating that Simon had tools connected with
the Motor Trade in the vehicle would he be covered - Yes. If he said that the
tools were not connected to the Motor Trade (as per my comments above) then the
answer is - No. Not something I can put into a Letter of Indemnity but
certainly something to be argued with the CPS/Courts.
3. I'm
happy to confirm in the letter that cover was in force under this policy on the
14/11/2013.
4. Once I
hear back from you, I will revise the LOI accordingly and e-mail it across for
you to sign off, I will also send an original in the post just in case!
5. If you
need anything else please do not hesitate to drop me and Andy a line, I am keeping
Andy in the loop as I will be on leave from 12/2/15 - 9/3/15 so he will need to
deal with anything in my absence.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 31
January 2015 01:47
To: Wood, Peter
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Thank you very much for the
information you have sent, I do see some errors in your letter of Indemnity.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY
1.
Ford Transit registration CX52JRZ
On the 8/4/13 at 11.05am the following vehicle was added to the policy -
2.
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY
This registration was always put
in not correctly but was in fact given to Broadsure Direct correctly.
The registration should have
been Ford Zetec registration MA57LDY
This was later correct after the
3rd time of telling the Ford Zetec registration as MA57LDY please see attached
document. This is the registration that should have been on the policy from the
start.
We never knew it was not correct
until 08/04/13 when again the correct registration was given.
436,
However, it was put down as
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY, we then believe it was put in correctly and
not a new car added.
We were not sent any documents
of that change so did not know there was again an error until the Oct 2013 when
it was in fact corrected this time, we asked for new documents to be sent which
they were so we could check.
But they kept on his policy
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY we made a next call and told them this needed
to be removed and was told it would be done.
It seems this was never done by
what you have sent in your email.
I do believe I have emails also
about this issue to Broadsure Direct and Martin Jenkins, can confirm this as he
was the one, we dealt with at Broadsure Direct. He also should remember all the
phone calls.
There is also a next issue Simon
was not just covered with the basic trade insurance with KGM, Broadsure Direct
had a special section with KGM which included in his insurance he was in fact
covered for his work as a mechanic, not just standard insurance of trade buying
and selling that KGM as a rule only deals with.
This has been discussed with the
underwriters at KGM by Broadsure Direct re Martin Jenkins. This also caused
issues with his insurance cover a few times. This was also meant to have been
address and seems it was not. At the time we were not happy as we were told he
was not covered when in fact he was. If you call Broadsure Direct and speak to
Martin Jenkins, I feel that he can send you the paperwork and under writing of
how Simon's insurance was meant to have been setup.
As you can see there was a
number of issues with his insurance with KGM that lead to problems. and even
with the issues of 14/11/2013 when a call was made to Kelly Tiller we asked did
the police say what tools was meant to have been in the van as if there was
mechanic tools in there his insurance should have in fact covered this. Kelly
Tiller said no the police officer did not say which tools. But also said he was
again not insured for this again Martin Jenkins got a rude call from us and
again he had to make calls to address this issue.
Can you please confirm he was
correctly insured with KGM and write this as I would like this addressed.
And one last thing could you
please say in your letter on the date of the 14/11/2013 he was fully insured
just so there cannot be any mistakes at court.
Sorry, this is causing such an
issue and taking up your time but I really want to have something that is fully
correct, as I do not want any other issues with courts, police and anything else
that could cause my Son problems.
Regards
Lorraine.
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 30
January 2015 17:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew; Donovan, Paul
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
Please find attached the
following -
1. Recording
of the original call made by the Police officer to KGM in which he advised that
there were tools in your van.
2. Recording
of the call between Kelly Tiller and the Police compound in which Kelly was
advised that there were no tools in the vehicle.
3. Receipt
showing purchase of the van.
4. E-Mail
from Gareth Mullett from the compound confirming that there was nothing on the
seizure notice to indicate that there were any tools removed from the vehicle
or in the vehicle in the compound.
5. Letter
of Indemnity for the CPS/Courts.
6. I
believe these are the relevant items you were after and hope this will assist
you to resolve the court matters. If you need anything else please let me know,
or in my absence Andy Austin.
437,
Paul Donovan will respond
separately in respect of your data request but hopefully the attached will meet
your requirements.
As soon as I receive
documentation from you to support costs incurred, I can consider our response
on compensation. No doubt I will hear from you shortly, in the meantime have a
good weekend.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 27
January 2015 11:14
To: Wood, Peter
Cc: Austin, Andrew; complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Yes please could you send the
tapes out and the Letter of Indemnity I would be most grateful as I think this
would cover the courts and would like to get the information to them as soon as
possible to the court and CPS.
As for the other information
that is acceptable, as I not sure how long it will take the police compound to
send me over the information, I will need to send to you they do take their
time.
I am just happy this matter is
getting address as said the most worrying thing was the court case and this is
the information I needed. I hope you have a great time on leave.
I look forward to hearing from
you and will pass the information over from the police compound as soon as I
have it.
Regards
Simon
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 27
January 2015 10:05
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
I spent some time last Friday tracking
down a number of calls and did find the original call that the Police made to
Jessica and the calls Kelly made to the Compound so we can provide these and it
sounds like these are the important calls from the CPS and Courts viewpoint. I
will pass these over to our Data Protection Officer of course but will ask if
its ok for me to release them to you in the meantime before he does his
official response.
438,
I think we should also do the Letter of
Indemnity and will send this across to you in the next few days, threes no
reason why you can't send this across now and it can do no harm.
I'm conscious we have not done a formal
final response yet to your complaint, I intend to do this as soon as we receive
full details of the recovery costs you incurred and can make a decision on
compensation, I trust that’s acceptable.
If you need anything else or have any
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I am keeping Andy in the loop as I am
due to go on leave from 12/2/15 - 8/3/15 so he will need to pick up any issues
that may arise during that time.
We will be in touch shortly and await
details from you as above in due course.
King Regards Mr Peter Wood
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 26 January 2015 23:10:04 GMT
To: Wood, Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com <complaints@lloyds.com>
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter Wood
Thank you for picking this up
and taking the time to deal with this matter.
The date of the appeal I do not
have yet.
I are waiting for this but the
court and CPS said if I get the information needed before the court date then
it could be sent to the court who found me guilty and the CPS and this would be
linked to the case and addressed. In addition, there should be no need for the
appeal court case.
I am trying to do this so that a
next day is not got to be wasted of my time in court and getting to and from
the court.
The day that the police officer
pulled me and told KGM that I had tools in my van, which the police officer
lied, and the police officer has said this in court so lied to the judge is
14/11/2013.
I think due to what the police
officer said in court the CPS and judge would like to know the facts and what
the police officer said on that phone call to KGM. In addition, when KGM spoke
to the manager at the police compound and found out in fact there was not
tools, I think the reason for this is the police officer committed perjury in
the court.
That is why they asked me to get
proof that my insurance was not void, section 9 witness statements as to what
the police officer told KGM on the phone to try to void my insurance, In
addition, the facts how KGM found out I had in fact done nothing wrong and my
insurance should not be cancelled.
However, if you think a Letter
of Indemnity would sort this matter out then if this could be done I would be
very grateful, but could you include in the letter only reason this has come
about is due to what the police officer told KGM about the tools being in the
van. In addition, this is the reason KGM told the police officer that I would
not then be covered by the insurance policy I had in force with them.
439,
This should cover it I hope as I
really did nothing wrong and Kelly Tiller knows the police officer lied to get
my insurance cancelled as she spoke to the police compound and they told her
there was no tools.
The vehicle registration I was
driving on the 14/11/2010 was CX52JRZ, this registration was included on my
insurance. So should have shown on the database along with my car. However,
none showed up as being insured on the MID database, this is what has caused me
all the problems with the police.
As already aware yes, I was
stopped around 8 or 9 times and had vehicles seized.
I do have some of the some of
them here already like do have the receipt what I paid to get the vehicle out
of the compound for the 14/11/2013 case I picked that up on the 16/11/2013.
I have the ones for the
08/04/2013, 29/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 03/01/2014 I just need to get the receipts
for the other dates and also something that shows they was all sized due to no
insurance from the police compound.
As for the Data Subject Access
Request, I am most grateful that this is being addressed. If I had known a fee
was, needed I would have paid that right away, but due to no one getting back
to me about the ones that were put in, I did not know a fee was needed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
FW: MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this should satisfy the Courts but if they need anything else
we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you require.
I understand you were stopped several
times and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of
these vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to
consider compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence
to us as soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along with
a Ł10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it would
appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should have
asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request accordingly.
This was not done for which I must apologise, as a result we will waive the fee
requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final response to
your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we have
received your response to the above points.
440,
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@,canopius.com <Andrew.Austin@canopius.com>
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all
441,
the times I have been taken to court for
no insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the
MID database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around Ł1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at
the compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
442,
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the information
I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov 2014 and way
before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this hanging over my
head. I did not just get points on my licence I got disqualified from driving
for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance please tell me why when I
have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it has not been enforced is due
to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
[mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com]
Sent: 21 January 2015 16:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
443,
In the meantime I am keen to assist you
if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there is a
contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you with
this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 | M 07469
147743 | <http://www.kgminsurance.co.uk/> www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| <http://www.canopius.com/> www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here when
the vehicles were sized, I also do have court letters, and letters from DVLA,
which I will forward over to
444,
you once I have scanned then in so
please give me a few days and I will get back to you with this information as
there is a lot of data.
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given under
the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in, so was
wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so to do a
4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed the
protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this you need
information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to the court
as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts and see if
fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go ahead with
more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
445,
From: Austin,
Andrew [mailto:
Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following: -
· Confirmation of the points you raised
to the Financial Ombudsman
when you verbally submitted your
complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
· Full details of the losses that you
have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
· Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following: -
446,
Following our initial investigations we
note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of Ł10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been
finalised.
Can you please confirm how you wish to
proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of any of
the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies are
sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 January 2015 11:31
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint I put
in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure Direct
who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
447,
I have been asking for information from
KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out there was
some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct and KGM was
aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my vehicles were
sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I had to pay the
costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week when I was
pulled by police it was not so bad as the insurance company was opened so when
I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
448,
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
ended work for that day so I sent an email saying I would be going there early
the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
449,
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer
when the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my
documents but due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many
times about that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole
policy with KGM. I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown
court I have again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters
need to be addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summons the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
450,
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work.
Due to the fact, KGM could not send me
the information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the emails
that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of Ł180.00 to Ł200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
Regards
Simon Cordell
451,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered
452,
in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime
Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited | registered
number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and
regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
453,
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor the
content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses, unauthorised
use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on behalf of a
member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
454,
455,
54.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 54
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.03.2015_Re Simon Cordell
03/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465
54.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 54
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.03.2015_Re
Simon Cordell
03/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465
--
456,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 03
February 2015 12:57
To: 'London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: 'swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Appeal-Case-Driving-Tools-26-11-2014.pdf
S Cordell 020215.pdf.
MT Underwriting_ FW_
MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ.pdf
s Cordell call from
police 141113.wma.
26_11_2013_13_53-Kelly-Tiller-Kelly
call to compound.wav
Dear Debbie Barnett
Thank you for taking the time to
talk to me today on the phone one the 02/02/2015. Could you please also confirm
by email that you have this email.
As explained, there have been a
number of issues with my son Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
The issues are one of not being
insured. When in fact he was.
There was a case heard on the
26/11/2014 at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court where my son Simon Cordell was found
guilty. Of using his vehicle for business purposes.
This was only the case due to
the police officer lying. Not just to KGM who my son was insured with, but in
his statement of facts, and also on oath to the judge and CPS.
The case is such that on the day
my son was stopped the police office made a call to KGM the police office told
KGM that my son Simon Cordell had lots of tools in his van and was doing odd
jobs. Under my son insurance this would not have covered him, and the police
officer would have known this already as my son had given the police officer
his policy at the side of the road.
My son was arrested and taken to
the police station. Due to him refusing to sign the seizer notice and telling
the police officer he was lying and to arrest him.
My sons Van registration CX52JRZ
was seized and taken to Chariton police vehicle pound, with no tools in there.
The police office when wrote his
statement not with what he told KGM on the phone call but with something
totally incorrect information. The judge asked the police office at court about
the tools as he saw emails from KGM the police office told the judge he knew
nothing about any tools.
The police officer I believed
new he could not put tools down in his statement as calls was already being put
into the police about complaints. So changed his story in his statement.
The facts are that there are
audio tapes of what the police officer said to KGM, and also the call that was
made to Chariton police vehicle pound as KGM record all calls.
I have both of the audio files
from KGM and also a Letter of Indemnity and an email that a manager sent to
Kelly Tiller at KGM.
How can a police officer act in
such a manner. I really do not understand why he did this.
As also said on the phone there
is a number of summons my son has not had regarding the other stops from
police, these case he have gone to court without him knowing and he been found
guilty when he did not even know there was a case in court.
I have sent many emails to get
these cases set aside and sent his insurance documents to the court. 2 case we
had to do statutory declarations one for Willesden and one for Bromley. The
Willesden one seems to have been reheard at court on the 26/01/2015 without us
knowing again he was found guilty but they put this case under a new case
number looking at the letter so all the documents that were sent before was not
with the court file I would have through. But with both statutory declarations
we added a copy of his insurance.
I have been trying for some time
to get all of this put together so it can all be addresses and so far, nothing
has been done with all the emails I have sent to the court. We also asked at
court when we went to Wimbledon Magistrates' Court, but nothing was done. Could
you please tell us where we can sort this out about getting all the other cases
addressed without the need to be going from one court to the next. This is a waste
of courts time and money when clearly all that is needed to be is check my
son's insurance that he was in fact insured.
457,
I am sure that the letter that has been
sent of Indemnity from KGM would cover these other cases as proof he was in
fact insured. Could you please advise what needs to be done with these other
cases.
Please can you address the issues in
this email and get back to me by email.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
458,
459,
460,
461,
462,
Re: Simon Cordell->MT Under writing_
FW_ MR SIMON CORDELL 4CX52 JRZ.pdf
From: MT
Underwriting [MT.Underwriting@canopius.com]
Sent: 04 December
2014 15:34
To: Gramlick, Les
Subject: FW: MR
SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly Tiller
Member of the UK Specialty
Division of Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ D
+44 (0) 20 8530 9116 | F +44 (0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk
[mailto:GARETH.MuNett@met.pnn.police.uk]
On Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 14:10
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly,
I have looked at the seizure
notice nothing was taken at the roadside and nothing was registered as left in
the vehicle Regards Gareth
From: Tiller,
Kelly [ mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:28
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
I have been told by the police
that you do a report on all items that was in the vehicle at the time it was
ceased.
Can I have a copy of this report
please?
Kind regards Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk mailto: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk On
Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:26
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
We have no record what was in
the vehicle, we do not touch the vehicles contents.
Regards F S Williams
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
463,
Page 2 of 4
From: Tiller,
Kelly [mailto: Kelly.Tiller@eanopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:55
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: MR
SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Morning,
I need some assistance with
regards to the above. We ensure Mr Simon Cordell and I need a copy of the
report of the items that was in his vehicle at the time it was ceased.
We are due to cancel his policy
@ noon today.
Your urgent advises are awaited.
Kind regards
Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and
in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited | registered
number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative
of Canopius Managing Agents
Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
464,
Page 3 of 4
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or
legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not
distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the
sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's commitment
to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime
and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our
capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
465,
Page 4 of 4
The MPS accepts no
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and
corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet.
Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS).
Find us at:
Facebook: Facebook.com/
metpolice.uk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 55
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.03.2017_Re Subject Access
Request Simon Cordell
03/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 466,467,468
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 55
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.03.2017_Re
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell
03/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 466,467,468
--
466,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent:03 February 2017 14:16
Subject: Re:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell
Attachments: Subject-access-request-Broadsure-Direct.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached document regarding
a subject access request I would like address while Broadsure Direct was
dealing with my insurance.
If this email with attachment has been
sent to the wrong department that deals with data protection subject access
requests could this, please be passed to the correct department that deals with
it?
If there is a fee payable or you need ID
can someone let me know as soon as possible via this email address.
Could you also let me know via this
email address this email has been received along with the attachment?
Regards Simon Cordell
467,
Re: Subject Access Request Simon
Cordell->Subject-access-request-Broadsure-Direct.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 03/02/2017
Broadsure Direct 4th Floor
The Argyle Centre York St Ramsgate Kent
CT11 9DS
Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Please supply the information about me
I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to: Mr Simon
Cordell
If this has been passed to the
incorrect department who deal with such requests, could this please be passed
to the correct department who deals with data protection subject access
requests please?
All data that Broadsure Direct hold on
any systems or files about me since I held insurance with Broadsure Direct.
All audio call files that Broadsure
Direct hold this would include when the police have called to check if I was
insured.
• All account Information and amounts
paid.
Reason as to why any insurance policies
were cancelled, or Voided
1
468,
· Dates all policies started and ended
and which company had the policies in force.
· If you are withholding any information,
I have asked for please make me aware of this and the reason as to why the data
is being denied.
If you need any more information from
me, such as ID or a fee is payable, please let me know as soon as possible so
this subject access request can be dealt with in a speedy manner. This can be
done via my email: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
It may be helpful for you to know that
a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should be
responded to within 40 days.
If you do not normally deal with these
requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer. If you need
advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can
assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at www.ico.org.uk/
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
2
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 56
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.05.2015_FW Re Simon Cordell
05/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 56
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.05.2015_FW
Re Simon Cordell
05/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478
--
469,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 05 February
2015 16:53
To: listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FW:
Re: Simon Cordell
Attachments: Appeal-Case-Driving-Tools-26-11-2014.pdf
S Cordell 020215.pdf
MT-Under writing_ FW_
MR-SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ.pdf
S Cordell call from
police-141113.wma
26_11_2013_13_53-Kelly-Tiller-Kelly
call to compound.wav
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due today due to speaking
to the CPS again about the case that was heard at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court
on the 26/11/2014 where my son was found guilty.
My son's details are Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB:
26/01/1981.
An appeal was put in on the same date 26/11/2014
and we have been waiting for an appeal date. But today when speaking to the CSP
they told us a date was already set for the 05/03/2015 at Kingston-upon-Thames
Crown Court, we have had no letters of a date being set could you please
forward to this email any letters that have been sent.
At court when my son was found guilty the cps and
the judge advised if we got the information needed from his insurance then it
could be sent before we got a date for the appeal to the cps and court.
which I spoke to Debbie Barnett from the CPS on the
02/02/2015 and told her I was now able to send this data over.
She asked me to send this via email which was done
on the 03/02/2015, please see below email.
Could you please link this email and all
attachments to the court file. I do not know the case ref for the court due to
not having any letters.
There are 3 PDF files and 2 Audio files from his
insurance company. Could you also please explain what format the audio files
should be in to be used in this case, also should they be on CD of tape. and
would we need to bring something to court to play them on. The insurance
company need to know this ASAP seeing as the case is listed for the 05/03/2015.
Could you also please tell us what time the case is
listed for, and also reply to this email to let me know you have got it safely
with the attached documents and audio files.
Regards Lorraine Cordell Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 03
February 2015 12:57
To: 'London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: 'swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett
Thank you for taking the time to talk
to me today on the phone one the 02/02/2015. Could you please also confirm by
email that you have this email.
As explained, there have been a number
of issues with my son Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
The issues are one of not being
insured. When in fact he was.
There was a case heard on the
26/11/2014 at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court where my son Simon Cordell was found
guilty. Of using his
470,
vehicle for business purposes.
This was only the case due to the
police officer lying. Not just to KGM who my son was insured with, but in his
statement of facts, and also on oath to the judge and CPS.
The case is such that on the day my son
was stopped the police office made a call to KGM the police office told KGM
that my son Simon Cordell had lots of tools in his van and was doing odd jobs.
Under my son insurance this would not have covered him, and the police officer
would have known this already as my son had given the police officer his policy
at the side of the road.
My son was arrested and taken to the
police station. Due to him refusing to sign the seizer notice and telling the
police officer he was lying and to arrest him.
My sons Van registration CX52JRZ was
seized and taken to Chariton police vehicle pound, with no tools in there.
The police office when wrote his
statement not with what he told KGM on the phone call but with something
totally incorrect information. The judge asked the police office at court about
the tools as he saw emails from KGM the police office told the judge he knew
nothing about any tools.
The police officer I believed new he
could not put tools down in his statement as calls was already being put into
the police about complaints. So changed his story in his statement.
The facts are that there are audio
tapes of what the police officer said to KGM, and also the call that was made
to Chariton police vehicle pound as KGM record all calls.
I have both of the audio files from KGM
and also a Letter of Indemnity and an email that a manager sent to Kelly Tiller
at KGM.
How can a police officer act in such a
manner. I really do not understand why he did this.
As also said on the phone there is a
number of summons my son has not had regarding the other stops from police,
these case he have gone to court without him knowing and he been found guilty
when he did not even know there was a case in court.
I have sent many emails to get these
cases set aside and sent his insurance documents to the court. 2 case we had to
do statutory declarations one for Willesden and one for Bromley. The Willesden
one seems to have been reheard at court on the 26/01/2015 without us knowing
again he was found guilty but they put this case under a new case number
looking at the letter so all the documents that were sent before was not with
the court file I would have through. But with both statutory declarations we
added a copy of his insurance.
I have been trying for some time to get
all of this put together so it can all be addresses and so far, nothing has
been done with all the emails I have sent to the court. We also asked at court
when we went to Wimbledon Magistrates' Court, but nothing was done. Could you
please tell us where we can sort this out about getting all the other cases
addressed without the need to be going from one court to the next. This is a
waste of courts time and money when clearly all that is needed to be is check
my son's insurance that he was in fact insured. I
am sure that the letter that has been sent of
Indemnity from KGM would cover these other cases as proof he was in fact
insured. Could you please advise what needs to be done with these other cases.
Please can you address the issues in
this email and get back to me by email.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
471,
472,
473,
474,
475,
FW: Re: Simon Cordell->MT Underwriting_ MR SMION CORDELL-4CX52 JRZ.pdf
From: MT Underwriting [MT.Underwriting@canopius.com]
Sent: 04 December 2014 15:34
To: Gramlick,
Les
Subject: FW: MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly Tiller
Member of the UK Specialty
Division of Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9116 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk
mailto: GARETH.MuNett@met.pnn.police.uk
On Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 14:10
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly,
I have looked at the seizure
notice nothing was taken at the roadside and nothing was registered as left in
the vehicle Regards Gareth
From: Tiller,
Kelly mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:28
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
I have been told by the police
that you do a report on all items that was in the vehicle at the time it was
ceased.
Can I have a copy of this report
please?
Kind regards Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk mailto: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk On
Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:26
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
We have no record what was in
the vehicle, we do not touch the vehicles contents.
Regards F S Williams
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
476,
Page 2 of 4
From: Tiller,
Kelly mailto: Kelly.Tiller@eanopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:55
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: MR
SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Morning,
I need some assistance with
regards to the above. We ensure Mr Simon Cordell and I need a copy of the
report of the items that was in his vehicle at the time it was ceased.
We are due to cancel his policy
@ noon today.
Your urgent advises are awaited.
Kind regards
Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ D +44 (0) 20 8530 1818 | F +44 (0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in any
attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative
of Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a
brand name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in
England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the
streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support
victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.
Consider our environment - please do not print this
email unless absolutely necessary.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
477,
Page 3 of 4
NOTICE
- This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright
and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you
must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the
permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent
permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by
monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any
binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and
corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet.
Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS).
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
478,
Page 4 of 4
The MPS accepts no responsibility
for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The
security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages
are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of
content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or
opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do
not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 57
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.05.2015_FW Re Simon
Cordell_001
05/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 57
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.05.2015_FW
Re Simon Cordell_001
05/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488
--
479,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 05
February 2015 15:13
To: listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
Re: Simon Cordell
Attachments: Appeal-Case-Driving-Tools-26-11-2014.pdf.
S Cordell 020215.pdf.
MT Underwriting_ MR
SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ.pdf
s Cordell call from
police 141113.wma.
26_11_2013_13_53
Kelly Tiller Kelly call to compound.wav
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due
today due to speaking to the CPS again about the case that was heard at
Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on the 26/11/2014 where my son was found guilty.
My son's details are Mr Simon
Paul Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
An appeal was put in on the same
date 26/11/2014 and we have been waiting for an appeal date. But today when
speaking to the CSP they told us a date was already set for the 05/03/2015 at
Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court, we have had no letters of a date being set
could you please forward to this email any letters that have been sent.
At court when my son was found
guilty the cps and the judge advised if we got the information needed from his
insurance then it could be sent before we got a date for the appeal to the cps
and court.
which I spoke to Debbie Barnett
from the CPS on the 02/02/2015 and told her I was now able to send this data
over.
She asked me to send this via
email which was done on the 03/02/2015, please see below email.
Could you please link this email
and all attachments to the court file. I do not know the case ref for the court
due to not having any letters.
There are 3 PDF files and 2
Audio files from his insurance company. Could you also please explain what
format the audio files should be in to be used in this case, also should they
be on CD of tape. and would we need to bring something to court to play them
on. The insurance company need to know this ASAP seeing as the case is listed
for the 05/03/2015.
Could you also please tell us
what time the case is listed for, and also reply to this email to let me know you
have got it safely with the attached documents and audio files.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 03
February 2015 12:57
To: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett
Thank you for taking the time to talk
to me today on the phone one the 02/02/2015. Could you please also confirm by
email that you have this email.
As explained, there have been a number
of issues with my son Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
The issues are one of not being insured.
When in fact he was.
480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487,488,
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 58
Listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk_02.06.2015_RE
Re Simon Cordell
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 489,490,491,492
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 58
Listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk_02.06.2015_RE
Re Simon Cordell
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
489,490,491,492
--
489,
From: Kingston Crown, Listing <Listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
February 2015 16:59
To:
'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Re: Simon Cordell
Attachments: DOC008.PDF
Dear Lorraine
Please find enclosed letter that
would have been sent via recorded delivery on 02.02.15.
Regards
Karen Mitchecc
Listing Team
Kingston upon Thames Crown Court
(T) 020 8240 2500 (Gold fax) 0870 324 0157
listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
"I am not authorised to bind
the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means".
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 06
February 2015 16:27 To: Kingston Crown, Listing
Cc: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk;
GL-SWESTERNMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Re: Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett CPS: and
Sheila from the Listing Office at the crown court.
It does seem I am having trouble
with sending the audio files could you please tell me how I can send them I
have put the other files in but not the audio which will need to be put with
his case files.
Please read below emails.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 06
February 2015 15:41
To: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Re: Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett CPS: and
Sheila from the Listing Office at the crown court.
I did send the below email with
all attachments, but I don't think anyone got it due to its size. I am
resending it in 3 parts.
Part 1 of 3 email
490,
Please see Attached files and
please read below email. could you please also let me know you have got this email.
I did also call yesterday and
was told you was not in the office and spoke to someone who told me an appeal
date has been set for the 05/03/2015 the crown court.
I have also spoke to Sheila
today at the Crown court listing office where I told her that we had not had
any letters from the crown court she also told me that they did not get any
emails I sent over. I do not have the case number and asked her if she could
send the letter that was sent out by email to this email address.
Could all attached documents be
attached to the case files please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 03
February 2015 12:57
To: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett
Thank you for taking the time to
talk to me today on the phone one the 02/02/2015. Could you please also confirm
by email that you have this email.
As explained, there have been a
number of issues with my son Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
The issues are one of not being
insured. When in fact he was.
There was a case heard on the
26/11/2014 at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court where my son Simon Cordell was found
guilty. Of using his vehicle for business purposes.
This was only the case due to
the police officer lying. Not just to KGM who my son was insured with, but in
his statement of facts, and also on oath to the judge and CPS.
The case is such that on the day
my son was stopped the police office made a call to KGM the police office told
KGM that my son Simon Cordell had lots of tools in his van and was doing odd
jobs. Under my son insurance this would not have covered him, and the police
officer would have known this already as my son had given the police officer
his policy at the side of the road.
My son was arrested and taken to
the police station. Due to him refusing to sign the seizer notice and telling
the police officer he was lying and to arrest him.
My sons Van registration CX52JRZ
was seized and taken to Chariton police vehicle pound, with no tools in there.
The police office when wrote his
statement not with what he told KGM on the phone call but with something
totally incorrect information. The judge asked the police office at court about
the tools as he saw emails from KGM the police office told the judge he knew
nothing about any tools.
The police officer I believed
new he could not put tools down in his statement as calls was already being put
into the police about complaints. So changed his story in his statement.
The facts are that there are
audio tapes of what the police officer said to KGM, and also the call that was
made to Chariton police vehicle pound as KGM record all calls.
I have both of the audio files
from KGM and also a Letter of Indemnity and an email that a manager sent to
Kelly Tiller at KGM.
How can a police officer act in
such a manner. I really do not understand why he did this.
As also said on the phone there
is a number of summons my son has not had regarding the other stops from
police, these case he have gone to court without him knowing and he been found
guilty when he did not even know there was a case in court.
491,
I have sent many emails to get these cases
set aside and sent his insurance documents to the court. 2 case we had to do
statutory declarations one for Willesden and one for Bromley. The Willesden one
seems to have been reheard at court on the 26/01/2015 without us knowing again
he was found guilty but they put this case under a new case number looking at
the letter so all the documents that were sent before was not with the court
file I would have through. But with both statutory declarations we added a copy
of his insurance.
I have been trying for some time to get
all of this put together so it can all be addresses and so far, nothing has
been done with all the emails I have sent to the court. We also asked at court
when we went to Wimbledon Magistrates' Court, but nothing was done. Could you please
tell us where we can sort this out about getting all the other cases addressed
without the need to be going from one court to the next. This is a waste of
courts time and money when clearly all that is needed to be is check my son's
insurance that he was in fact insured.
I am sure that the letter that has been
sent of Indemnity from KGM would cover these other cases as proof he was in
fact insured. Could you please advise what needs to be done with these other
cases.
Please can you address the issues in
this email and get back to me by email.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership
with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems,
please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
492,
RE: Re: Simon
Cordell->DOC008.PDF
In the Crown Court at Kingston Upon
Thames
KX 0661 4713 9GB
Case No:
A20140377
Court Code: 427
Simon P Cordell 109 Burncroft Avenue
ENFIELD Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Notice of Hearing of Appeal
The appeal of Simon Paul Cordell
against conviction and sentence by Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on the 29
August 2014
will be heard at the Crown Court at 6-8
Penrhyn Road, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 2BB on the 5 March 2015 at
10:00 AM
04/03/15 NON-ATTENDANCE MAY RESULT IN
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Important information:
· If you are not legally represented, you
are advised to telephone the court (020 8240 2500) during the afternoon before
the hearing of the appeal for confirmation of the time your case will be heard.
· If your appeal is likely to last LONGER
THAN 1 HOUR, please tell us IMMEDIATELY.
· To abandon your appeal:
If you are appealing against a decision
of a magistrates' court or licensing justices' you must give a written notice
of your wish to abandon the appeal to the Clerk to Justices'; a copy of the
notice to the Crown Court; a copy to every other party to the appeal.
If you are appealing against any other
decision you must give a written notice to the Crown Court and a copy to every
other party to the appeal.
Notice must be given at least 3 clear
days (not counting Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays) before the date of
the hearing. If you do not, or if you do not appear at the hearing, you may
have to pay costs.
· If you are not successful in your
appeal to the Crown Court, you may be ordered to pay the costs of the Respondent
or at least a part of them. If you are successful you may be awarded costs.
Copy to:
Appellant
Respondent Clerk to the Justices
59.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 59
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.06.2015_RE Re Simon
Cordell_001
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 493,494,495,496,497,498
499,500,501,502
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 59
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.06.2015_RE
Re Simon Cordell_001
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
493,494,495,496,497,498
499,500,501,502
--
493,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 06
February 2015 16:27
To: listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Re: Simon Cordell
Attachments: Appeal-Case-Driving-Tools-26-11-2014.pdf
S Cordell 020215.pdf
MT Underwriting-FW-MR-SIMON-CORDELL -
CX52 JRZ.pdf
Dear Debbie Barnett CPS: and
Sheila from the Listing Office at the crown court.
It does seem I am having trouble
with sending the audio files could you please tell me how I can send them I
have put the other files in but not the audio which will need to be put with
his case files.
Please read below emails.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 06
February 2015 15:41
To: London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: listing@kingstonuponthames.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Re: Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett CPS: and
Sheila from the Listing Office at the crown court.
I did send the below email with
all attachments, but I don't think anyone got it due to its size. I am
resending it in 3 parts.
Part 1 of 3 email
Please see Attached files and please
read below email. could you please also let me know you have got this email.
I did also call yesterday and
was told you was not in the office and spoke to someone who told me an appeal
date has been set for the 05/03/2015 the crown court.
I have also spoke to Sheila
today at the Crown court listing office where I told her that we had not had
any letters from the crown court she also told me that they did not get any
emails I sent over. I do not have the case number and asked her if she could
send the letter that was sent out by email to this email address.
Could all attached documents be
attached to the case files please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 03
February 2015 12:57
To: 'London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: 'swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Debbie Barnett
Thank you for taking the time to talk to
me today on the phone one the 02/02/2015. Could you please also confirm by
email that you have this email.
494,
As explained, there have been a number
of issues with my son Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
The issues are one of not being
insured. When in fact he was.
There was a case heard on the
26/11/2014 at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court where my son Simon Cordell was found
guilty. Of using his vehicle for business purposes.
This was only the case due to the
police officer lying. Not just to KGM who my son was insured with, but in his
statement of facts, and also on oath to the judge and CPS.
The case is such that on the day my son
was stopped the police office made a call to KGM the police office told KGM
that my son Simon Cordell had lots of tools in his van and was doing odd jobs.
Under my son insurance this would not have covered him, and the police officer
would have known this already as my son had given the police officer his policy
at the side of the road.
My son was arrested and taken to the
police station. Due to him refusing to sign the seizer notice and telling the
police officer he was lying and to arrest him.
My sons Van registration CX52JRZ was
seized and taken to Chariton police vehicle pound, with no tools in there.
The police office when wrote his
statement not with what he told KGM on the phone call but with something
totally incorrect information. The judge asked the police office at court about
the tools as he saw emails from KGM the police office told the judge he knew
nothing about any tools.
The police officer I believed new he
could not put tools down in his statement as calls was already being put into
the police about complaints. So changed his story in his statement.
The facts are that there are audio
tapes of what the police officer said to KGM, and also the call that was made
to Chariton police vehicle pound as KGM record all calls.
I have both of the audio files from KGM
and also a Letter of Indemnity and an email that a manager sent to Kelly Tiller
at KGM.
How can a police officer act in such a
manner. I really do not understand why he did this.
As also said on the phone there is a
number of summons my son has not had regarding the other stops from police,
these case he have gone to court without him knowing and he been found guilty
when he did not even know there was a case in court.
I have sent many emails to get these
cases set aside and sent his insurance documents to the court. 2 case we had to
do statutory declarations one for Willesden and one for Bromley. The Willesden
one seems to have been reheard at court on the 26/01/2015 without us knowing
again he was found guilty but they put this case under a new case number
looking at the letter so all the documents that were sent before was not with
the court file I would have through. But with both statutory declarations we
added a copy of his insurance.
I have been trying for some time to get
all of this put together so it can all be addresses and so far, nothing has
been done with all the emails I have sent to the court. We also asked at court
when we went to Wimbledon Magistrates' Court, but nothing was done. Could you
please tell us where we can sort this out about getting all the other cases addressed
without the need to be going from one court to the next. This is a waste of
courts time and money when clearly all that is needed to be is check my son's
insurance that he was in fact insured. I
am sure that the letter that has been sent of
Indemnity from KGM would cover these other cases as proof he was in fact
insured. Could you please advise what needs to be done with these other cases.
Please can you address the issues in
this email and get back to me by email.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
495,
496,
497,
498,
499,
RE: Re: Simon Cordell->MT Under
writing_ FW_ MR SIMON CORDELL-4CX52 JRZ.pdf
From:
MT Underwriting [MT.Underwriting@canopius.com]
Sent:
04 December 2014 15:34
To: Gramlick,
Les
Subject: FW: MR
SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly Tiller
Member of the UK Specialty
Division of Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ D
+44 (0) 20 8530 9116 | F +44 (0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk
mailto: GARETH.MuNett@met.pnn.police.uk On
Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 14:10
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly,
I have looked at the seizure
notice nothing was taken at the roadside and nothing was registered as left in
the vehicle Regards Gareth
From: Tiller,
Kelly [ mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:28
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
I have been told by the police
that you do a report on all items that was in the vehicle at the time it was
ceased.
Can I have a copy of this report
please?
Kind regards Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ D +44 (0) 20 8530 1818 | F +44 (0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk On Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:26
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
We have no record what was in the
vehicle, we do not touch the vehicles contents.
Regards F S Williams
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
500,
Page 2 of 4
From: Tiller,
Kelly [ mailto: Kelly.Tiller@eanopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:55
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: MR
SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Morning,
I need some assistance with
regards to the above. We ensure Mr Simon Cordell and I need a copy of the
report of the items that was in his vehicle at the time it was ceased.
We are due to cancel his policy
@ noon today.
Your urgent advises are awaited.
Kind regards
Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and
in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative
of Canopius Managing Agents
Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9,
One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
501,
Page 3 of 4
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's commitment
to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime
and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our
capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
502,
Page 4 of 4
The MPS accepts no
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and
corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet.
Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS).
Twitter: @metpoliceuk
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 60
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.06.2015_Re Simon Cordell
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 503,504
505,506,507,508,509
60.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 60
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.06.2015_Re
Simon Cordell
06/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
503,504
505,506,507,508,509 Should be 28 pages
--
503,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 06
February 2015 15:24
To: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Cc: mc.mckee@michaelcarrollandco.com
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: S
Cordell 020215.pdf.
MT Underwriting_ MR SIMON CORDELL - CX52
JRZ.pdf.
RE_MT3574694 Simon Cordell_KGM.pdf
Part 1 of 3 email.
please see attached the way in which
Simon has been treated by police and the lies one police office said to his
insurance KGM this is due to be at Kingston upon Thames crown court on the
05/03/2013
and this is the information KGM has
sent. I do have all the emails from KGM that has gone back and forward since
Simon was pulled by police on the 14/11/2013
I have to send this in a few emails due
to the size not sure if you are getting them
Regards
Lorraine
504,
505,
506,
Re: Simon Cordell->MT Underwriting_ MR
SIMON.CX52 JRZ.pdf
From: MT
Underwriting [MT.Underwriting@canopius.com]
Sent: 04
December 2014 15:34
To: Gramlick, Les
Subject: FW: MR
SIMON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly Tiller
Member of the UK Specialty
Division of Canopus Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9116 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: GARETH.Mullett@met.pnn.police.uk
mailto:
GARETH.MuNett@met.pnn.police.uk
On Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 26
November 2013 14:10
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Kelly,
I have looked at the seizure
notice nothing was taken at the roadside and nothing was registered as left in
the vehicle Regards Gareth
From: Tiller,
Kelly mailto: Kelly.Tiller@canopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:28
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
I have been told by the police that
you do a report on all items that was in the vehicle at the time it was ceased.
Can I have a copy of this report
please?
Kind regards Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto: Sarah.Williams6@met.pnn.police.uk On Behalf Of
VresCharlton@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 25
November 2013 16:26
To: Tiller, Kelly
Subject: RE:
MR SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
We have no record what was in
the vehicle, we do not touch the vehicles contents.
Regards Fpo S Williams
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
507,
Page 2 of 4
From: Tiller,
Kelly [ mailto: Kelly.Tiller@eanopius.com
Sent: 25
November 2013 10:55
To: VRES Mailbox - Charlton
Subject: MR
SI MON CORDELL - CX52 JRZ
Morning,
I need some assistance with regards
to the above. We ensure Mr Simon Cordell and I need a copy of the report of the
items that was in his vehicle at the time it was ceased.
We are due to cancel his policy
@ noon today.
Your urgent advises are awaited.
Kind regards
Kelly Tiller
Fleet Underwriting | KGM Motor
Insurance - Member of the Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 1818 |
F +44
(0) 20 8530 1841 www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative
of Canopius Managing Agents
Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
508,
Page 3 of 4
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and
in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Syndicate 260 which is managed by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d... 30/01/2015
509,
Page 4 of 4
The MPS accepts no
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and
corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet.
Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS).
Twitter: @metpoliceuk
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/3a5148a85fd442038750be9b13d...
30/01/2015
510+,
Re: Simon Cordell->RE_ SIMON COrdell_KGM.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent:06 February 2015 11:12
To: ’Wood, Peter’
Subject RE: MT3574694
Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
I have sent the information over
to the CSP I am waiting for a reply from them, I do believe however there is
now an appeal date of the 05/03/2015 which I am trying to confirm due to not
getting any letters from the court.
As for the data we need from the
compound I have had to put a subject access request in, not sure how long this
is going to take, but as soon as I heard anything, I will let you know,
Thank you again for dealing with
this matter and I am sure we will talk soon; hope you have a great holiday.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Wood, Peter mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 06
February 2015 10:41
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Lorraine/Simon,
Just a quick note to let you
know that I will be on holiday from 12/2/15 returning on 9/3/15, so if you need
anything in the meantime please communicate with Andy Austin.
Can you let me know how you get
on with the CPS and let me know if there is anything else, we can do or that
you might need from us?
Just to confirm, I'm sure you
are onto this, but you are currently pulling together evidence of the costs
incurred by Simon for various release fee's following Police stop and seizures.
As soon as you have provided this evidence, I can consider the compensation
aspect of your complaint. I would prefer to deal with this myself when I return
after the 9/3/15, I hope that s acceptable to you but if not please let me know
and I will put something in place so that this can be handled in my absence.
Finally, I would advise that the
formal Data Subject Access Request you previously made has gone to our Data
Protection Officer. He is aware that I have already provided the Indemnity
Letter and some key call recordings to assist you. They are dealing with your
request and he has asked that I send you his initial response, I have pasted
this in below for your information-
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba... 06/02/2015
511+,
Page 2 of21
Global Data Protection Officer |
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
Gallery 9 | One Lime Street |
London | EC3M 7HA
D +44
(0) 20 7337 3796 |
M +44
(0) 7584 102572 www.canopius.com
l
I trust that's everything for
now, have a good weekend and no doubt we will be in contact soon. If you need
anything else, just shout!
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 02
February 2015 15:08
To: Wood, Peter
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Thank you for the reply to my
email
Yes, the below would cover
everything I feel, so if you can go ahead and do this, I would be most
grateful. As said, I just do not want any way that the CSP and Court could have
any confusion with anything. Regards Lorraine
From: Wood, Peter
mailto:
Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 02
February 2015 14:56
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Lorraine,
Thanks for your comments, don't
worry I want to get this resolved as much as you and Simon, it’s taken far too
long already, so before I send an amended Indemnity Letter (LOI) please confirm
my understanding as listed below -
· I will amend the registration of
the Ford Zetec to show MA57LDY. Broadsure originally gave us the incorrect
registration and as you say it was a while before this error was corrected and
our policy history was confusing due to the incorrect Clio that I was not aware
of previously.
· You are correct, looking back on
the instructions from Broadsure I cannot see that they instructed Underwriters
to delete the Renault Clio that was added in error following receipt of advices
from Broadsure. I can amend the comment in the letter to show that this vehicle
was added to the policy
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba... 06/02/2015
512+,
Page 3 of21
incorrectly following an effort
on your part to correct the registration number of the Ford Zetec and was a
broker error, are you happy with this?
· The letter states cover was for Social Domestic
& Pleasure and Motor Trade Use. Motor Trade use would cover Simon to carry
a Motor Mechanics tools being used in connection with Motor Trade but not any
tools that would typically be used for any other purposes such as perhaps,
paint/brushes/ladders/plumbing/Electrical(domestic/commercial except auto
electrical) and so on. This is standard cover; however, I am happy to expand on
this statement in the letter if you would like me to in order to clarify that
point?
· The Police officer asked if Simon would be covered
for the carriage of tools to drive around doing "odd jobs". Later in
the call he again confirmed that Simon was not covered "to drive around
doing jobs". I sent you the call so you can listen to it yourself but the
tone of the enquiry was suggesting that Simon was doing jobs not connected to
the Motor Trade however I do feel there is plenty of room here for misunderstanding.
If the question had been more specific with the officer stating that Simon had
tools connected with the Motor Trade in the vehicle would he be covered- Yes.
If he said that the tools were not connected to the Motor Trade (as per my
comments above) then the answer is - No. Not something I can put into a Letter
of Indemnity but certainly something to be argued with the CPS/Courts.
· I'm happy to confirm in the letter that cover was
in force under this policy on the 14/11/2013.
Once I hear back from you, I will revise the LOI
accordingly and e-mail it across for you to sign off, I will also send an
original in the post just in case!
If you need anything else please
do not hesitate to drop me and Andy a line, I am keeping Andy in the loop as I
will be on leave from 12/2/15 - 9/3/15 so he will need to deal with anything in
my absence.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of Canopius
Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 31
January 2015 01:47
To: Wood, Peter
Subject: RE: MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Thank you very much for the information you have
sent, I do see some errors in your letter of Indemnity.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY
· Ford Transit registration CX52JRZ
On the 8/4/13 at 11.05am the following vehicle was
added to the policy -
· Renault Clio registration NA57LDY.
Ford Zetec registration MA47LDY Renault Clio
registration NA57LDY
This registration was always put in not correctly
but was in fact given to Broadsure Direct correctly.
The registration should have been Ford Zetec
registration MA57LDY
This was later correct after the
3rd time of telling the Ford Zetec registration as MA57LDY please see attached
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba... 06/02/2015
513+,
Page 4 of21
document.
This is the registration that
should have been on the policy from the start.
We never knew it was not correct
until 08/04/13 when again the correct registration was given.
However, it was put down as
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY, we then believe it was put in correctly and
not a new car added.
We were not sent any documents
of that change so did not know there was again an error until the Oct 2013 when
it was in fact corrected this time, we asked for new documents to be sent which
they were so we could check.
But they kept on his policy
Renault Clio registration NA57LDY we made a next call and told them this needed
to be removed and was told it would be done.
It seems this was never done by
what you have sent in your email.
I do believe I have emails also
about this issue to Broadsure Direct and Martin Jenkins, can confirm this as he
was the one, we dealt with at Broadsure Direct. He also should remember all the
phone calls.
There is also a next issue Simon
was not just covered with the basic trade insurance with KGM, Broadsure Direct
had a special section with KGM which included in his insurance he was in fact
covered for his work as a mechanic, not just standard insurance of trade buying
and selling that KGM as a rule only deals with.
This has been discussed with the
underwriters at KGM by Broadsure Direct re Martin Jenkins. This also caused
issues with his insurance cover a few times. This was also meant to have been
address and seems it was not. At the time we were not happy as we were told he
was not covered when in fact he was. If you call Broadsure Direct and speak to
Martin Jenkins, I feel that he can send you the paperwork and under writing of
how Simon’s insurance was meant to have been setup.
As you can see there was a
number of issues with his insurance with KGM that lead to problems. and even
with the issues of 14/11/2013 when a call was made to Kelly Tiller we asked did
the police say what tools was meant to have been in the van as if there was
mechanic tools in there his insurance should have in fact covered this. Kelly
Tiller said no the police officer did not say which tools. But also said he was
again not insured for this again Martin Jenkins got a rude call from us and
again he had to make calls to address this issue.
Can you please confirm he was
correctly insured with KGM and write this as I would like this addressed.
And one last thing could you
please say in your letter on the date of the 14/11/2013 he was fully insured
just so there cannot be any mistakes at court.
Sorry, this is causing such an
issue and taking up your time but I really want to have something that is fully
correct, as I do not want any other issues with courts, police and anything
else that could cause my Son problems.
Regards
Lorraine.
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 30
January 2015 17:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Austin, Andrew; Donovan, Paul
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Simon,
Please find attached the
following -
·
Recording of the original call made by
the Police officer to KGM in which he advised that there were tools in your
van.
·
Recording of the call between Kelly
Tiller and the Police compound in which Kelly was advised that there were no
tools in the vehicle.
·
Receipt showing purchase of the van.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
514+,
Page 5 of21
·
E-Mail from Gareth Mullett from the compound
confirming that there was nothing on the seizure notice to indicate that there
were any tools removed from the vehicle or in the vehicle in the compound.
·
Letter of Indemnity for the CPS/Courts.
I believe these are the relevant
items you were after and hope this will assist you to resolve the court
matters. If you need anything else please let me know, or in my absence Andy
Austin.
Paul Donovan will respond
separately in respect of your data request but hopefully the attached will meet
your requirements.
As soon as I receive
documentation from you to support costs incurred, I can consider our response
on compensation.
No doubt I will hear from you
shortly, in the meantime have a good weekend.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 27
January 2015 11:14
To: Wood, Peter
Cc: Austin, Andrew; complaints@lloyds.com
Subject: RE:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
Yes please could you send the
tapes out and the Letter of Indemnity I would be most grateful as I think this
would cover the courts and would like to get the information to them as soon as
possible to the court and CPS.
As for the other information
that is acceptable, as I not sure how long it will take the police compound to
send me over the information, I will need to send to you they do take their
time.
I am just happy this matter is
getting address as said the most worrying thing was the court case and this is
the information I needed. I hope you have a great time on leave.
I look forward to hearing from
you and will pass the information over from the police compound as soon as I
have it.
Regards
Simon
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 27
January 2015 10:05
To: Lorraine Cordell
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
515+,
Page 6 of21
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: Re:
MT3574694 Simon Cordell Dear Simon,
I spent some time last Friday tracking
down a number of calls and did find the original call that the Police made to
Jessica and the calls Kelly made to the Compound so we can provide these and it
sounds like these are the important calls from the CPS and Courts viewpoint. I
will pass these over to our Data Protection Officer of course but will ask if
its ok for me to release them to you in the meantime before he does his
official response.
I think we should also do the Letter of
Indemnity and will send this across to you in the next few days, threes no
reason why you can't send this across now and it can do no harm.
I'm conscious we have not done a formal
final response yet to your complaint, I intend to do this as soon as we receive
full details of the recovery costs you incurred and can make a decision on
compensation, I trust that’s acceptable.
If you need anything else or have any
questions in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us.
I am keeping Andy in the loop as I am
due to go on leave from 12/2/15 - 8/3/15 so he will need to pick up any issues
that may arise during that time.
We will be in touch shortly and await
details from you as above in due course.
King Regards Mr Peter Wo
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 26
January 2015 23:10:04 GMT
To: Wood, Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Cc: complaints@lloyds.com <complaints@lloyds.com>
Subject: MT3574694
Simon Cordell
Dear Peter Wood
Thank you for picking this up
and taking the time to deal with this matter.
The date of the appeal I do not
have yet.
I are waiting for this but the
court and CPS said if I get the information needed before the court date then
it could be sent to the court who found me guilty and the CPS and this would be
linked to the case and addressed. In addition, there should be no need for the
appeal court case.
I am trying to do this so that a
next day is not got to be wasted of my time in court and getting to and from
the court.
The day that the police officer
pulled me and told KGM that I had tools in my van, which the police officer
lied, and the police officer has said this in court so lied to the judge is
14/11/2013.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
516+,
Page 7 of21
I think due to what the police officer
said in court the CPS and judge would like to know the facts and what the
police officer said on that phone call to KGM. In addition, when KGM spoke to
the manager at the police compound and found out in fact there was not tools, I
think the reason for this is the police officer committed perjury in the court.
That is why they asked me to get
proof that my insurance was not void, section 9 witness statements as to what
the police officer told KGM on the phone to try to void my insurance, In
addition, the facts how KGM found out I had in fact done nothing wrong and my
insurance should not be cancelled.
However, if you think a Letter
of Indemnity would sort this matter out then if this could be done I would be
very grateful, but could you include in the letter only reason this has come
about is due to what the police officer told KGM about the tools being in the
van. In addition, this is the reason KGM told the police officer that I would
not then be covered by the insurance policy I had in force with them.
This should cover it I hope as I
really did nothing wrong and Kelly Tiller knows the police officer lied to get
my insurance cancelled as she spoke to the police compound and they told her
there was no tools.
The vehicle registration I was
driving on the 14/11/2010 was CX52JRZ, this registration was included on my
insurance. So should have shown on the database along with my car. However,
none showed up as being insured on the MID database, this is what has caused me
all the problems with the police.
As already aware yes, I was
stopped around 8 or 9 times and had vehicles seized.
I do have some of the some of
them here already like do have the receipt what I paid to get the vehicle out
of the compound for the 14/11/2013 case I picked that up on the 16/11/2013.
I have the ones for the
08/04/2013, 29/10/2013, 16/11/2013, 03/01/2014 I just need to get the receipts
for the other dates and also something that shows they was all sized due to no
insurance from the police compound.
As for the Data Subject Access
Request, I am most grateful that this is being addressed. If I had known a fee
was, needed I would have paid that right away, but due to no one getting back
to me about the ones that were put in, I did not know a fee was needed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Wood,
Peter [mailto:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 23
January 2015 17:19
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
FW: MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
Unfortunately Andy has been called away
due to a family emergency, in his absence I have picked this matter up.
The first order of business to my mind
is dealing with the Court case, can you confirm when the date has been set for
the hearing please? My thought is that we provide a Letter of Indemnity that
basically confirms that you had a valid policy in force between said dates and
on what vehicles, this
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
517+,
Page 8 of21
should satisfy the Courts but if they
need anything else, we will be happy to assist, just let me know what you
require.
I understand you were stopped several times
and had vehicles seized, you are in the process of obtaining evidence of these
vehicle seizures and the costs incurred by you as a result for us to consider
compensation. When you have gathered this please forward the evidence to us as
soon as possible.
There is also the matter of your Data
Subject Access Request. I have spent some time today tracking down recorded
calls and various communications and hove notified our Data Protection Officer
of your request. I can see that you have made a request, any request should
correctly be sent on for the attention of the Data Protection Officer along
with a 10 fee. Your request was addressed generally to KGM with no fee and it
would appear not actioned. The underwriter dealing with your request should
have asked immediately for the fee payment and escalated your request
accordingly. This was not done for which I must apologise, as a result we will
waive the fee requirement and I would confirm this is now in hand.
We have yet to issue a final response
to your complaint and I would assure you we will do this as soon as we have
received your response to the above points.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager |
UK Specialty Division of Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London
| E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com <Andrew.Austin@canopius.com>
Subject: FW:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
Please see attached Insurance, which
will show you full details of his insurance policy and dates covered.
Yes, we do want full discloser so this
mater can be sorted out by the court and I can send the information over to the
CPS for the case of the 14/11/2013 where the police officer told KGM I had
tools in my van to void my insurance. Kelly Tiller from the trade section and
Jessica know fully what went on and it was Jessica that took the phone call
from the police officer. After this I believe Kelly Tiller took over dealing
with my policy and she was the one that had the say to cancel my policy and she
was the one that believed the police until I went to the police compound and
spoke to the manager there where he spoke to Kelly Tiller. If I had not done
this Kelly Tiller would have cancelled my policy of insurance and I have all
the
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
518+,
Page 9 of21
emails to prove this.
After Kelly Tiller found out I was not
lying about having no tools in my van the insurance policy was kept in place, I
did ask Kelly Tiller on more than once to send me the information and put data
requests in which was not replied to. Now I have been found guilty when Kelly
Tiller knows the truth that there was not tools and the police officer lied to
KGM on the phone call.
I am the one that has suffered over all
this not just on this case but all the times I have been taken to court for no
insurance over the year my policy run with KGM due to it not showing on the MID
database.
You should have all the emails already
from Broadsure Direct and many was sent by them to KGM as I was told KGM could
not talk to me and I had to deal with Broadsure Direct about my policy Martin
Jenkins from Broadsure Direct should also have copies of all emails as I do.
I have spoken to DVLA today and asked
for the data of how many times points was put on my licence due to not getting
summons from police and then dealing with cases I knew nothing about and then I
had to get the cases reopened, I have to write them a letter and they will send
the data I have asked for in the post.
I do have a lot of letters which I will
sort out scan and send over. But the 1st part I want to deal with is the court
case I was found guilty at and have put an appeal in that is the most important
to me right now.
We can deal with everything else once I
get all the data scanned as there is really a lot and it was all due to KGM not
sorting out why my insurance was not showing on the MID database. The seizers
alone have left me out of pocket by around 1700.00. That is without all the
days I have not been able to work due to my driving licence being messed up and
showing points for no insurance. All the time going back and forward to the
compound to collect my vehicles, and everything else I have had to deal with
the courts when in fact I had done nothing wrong.
I have tried to deal with this for
months and months without going to the ombudsman and KGM has taken no notice,
it has taken me to go to the ombudsman for KGM to take any notice and I don’t
feel anyone would be happy with the this sort of service from KGM let alone any
company doing this and
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
519+,
Page 10 of 21
causing someone so much suffering.
It was one of the police in the end at the
compound who in the end worked out why it was not showing up on the MID and
that was because there had been a space put within my Reg Numbers. It was that
bad two police compounds new me and said each time not again.
As you can see, I am not very happy
about all of this, but I do not think anyone would be when they paid for their
insurance and had done nothing wrong to suffer all this.
Therefore could you please get the
information I need to send to the CPS; I have written what was needed from Nov
2014 and way before this, and it still has not been sent and I have this
hanging over my head. I did not just get points on my licence I got
disqualified from driving for 6 months due to repeat offending of no insurance
please tell me why when I have paid for my insurance from KGM? The reason it
has not been enforced is due to me putting an appeal in.
You can contact my mother on 0208 245
7454 or 07961 833021
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 16:13
To: ’Lorraine Cordell’
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell,
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
520+,
Page 11 of 21
I have detailed the process for
requesting information under the subject access request and if you wish to
proceed with this please confirm.
In the meantime I am keen to assist you
if I can in confirming when cover was in force.
Please can you confirm if there is a
contact number, I can call you or your Mother on and a time that is acceptable
so that I can try and help resolve this particular issue for you.
I look forward to hearing from you with
this information.
Regards,
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations Manager
| KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 1806 |
M 07469 147743 |
http://www.kgminsurance.co.uk/>
www.kgminsurance.co.uk |
<http://www.canopius.com/>
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21 January 2015 13:22
To: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Andrew
I will forward this to you within a few
days I will ask the police compound to do a full print out as to all the
tickets as I believe there is a few missing.
I do have around 6 of the tickets here
when the vehicles were sized I also do have court letters, and letters from
DVLA, which I will forward over to you once I have scanned then in so please
give me a few days and I will get
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
521+,
Page 12 of 21
back to you with this
information as there is a lot of data.
The main one at this time I am worried
about is the case where the vehicle was sized due to the police lying and me
being found guilty at court you did have an email on the 30 November 2014 about
what was needed and I do have the court letter showing I was found guilty and
about the appeal.
This data should have been given
under the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I put in,
so was wondering what you can do about this and if you will need a new Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 I have already sent 3 in so
to do a 4th I do not feel I should need to do.
KGM have in fact not followed
the protocol for the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998
which has been put in 3 times already to KGM, I will be addressing this with
the Information Commissioner’s Office as I do not see any reason you would have
to stop the information I have asked for under this act to prove I was not in
fact guilty of no insurance.
And now say to deal with this
you need information from me. I can understand you want the information for the
complaint that has been put in, but not the information I asked for to show I
was in fact I was insured for an appeal that is ongoing. And in fact, would not
have been ongoing if the Subject access request under the Data Protection Act
1998 as I would not have been found guilty.
I would like the data sent to
the court as soon as possible in regards to this so they can look at the facts
and see if fact I was insured so there should be no need for the appeal to go
ahead with more of my time wasted going to court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Austin,
Andrew
mailto: Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:54
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
522+,
Page 13 of 21
To: ’Lorraine Cordell’ Subject: RE:
MT3574694
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email.
My letter dated 22/12/14 requests the
following documentary evidence from you
With regards to any losses that may
have been incurred as a result of the above, I confirm as detailed in my
previous letter, I require the following:
· Confirmation of the points you raised
to the Financial Ombudsman
when you verbally submitted your
complaint and the outcome you are looking to achieve.
· Full details of the losses that you
have incurred as a direct result of your complaint and full documentary
evidence supporting this.
· Confirmation of dates of any
convictions or costs imposed directly as a result of your complaint, including
full documentary evidence supporting this.
Once I receive all of the above, I will
be happy to consider this further.
With regards to your subject access
request. My letter of the 9/12/14 advised the following:
Following our initial investigations,
we note that you submitted a subject access request to your Broker. Should you
wish to proceed with this, please can you formally request this in writing to
our Data Protection Officer at the address detailed at the foot of the letter
including a cheque payable to KGM Insurance for the sum of 10.00.
Alternatively, you may wish to wait until our full investigations have been finalised.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
515+,
Page 14 of 21
Can you please confirm how you
wish to proceed with that request.
Should you not be in receipt of
any of the letters I refer to advise me above, please and I will ensure copies
are sent to you immediately.
I await your reply
Andrew Austin
Deputy Underwriting Operations
Manager | KGM Motor Insurance
Member of the UK Specialty
Division of Canopius Group KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close | London | E18 1RZ
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
January 2015 11:31
To:
Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
MT3574694
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing due to the complaint
I put in. I have forwarded emails to Broadsure Direct and spoken to Broadsure
Direct who took the policy of insurance out policy no: MT3574694
I have been asking for
information from KGM since 2013 and have heard nothing back.
When the policy was taken out
there was some reason it did not show up on the MID database Broadsure Direct
and KGM was aware of this.
Due to this fact I had my
vehicles were sized a number of times I believe 8 or 9 times in all, where I
had to pay the costs to get my vehicles out the compound each time. In the week
when I was pulled by police it was not so
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
523+,
Page 15 of 21
bad as the insurance company was opened
so when I showed the police my policy, they could call the insurance company.
The seizers happened mostly at the
weekend mostly due to the insurance company being closed and the police could
not talk to anyone even when I had my policy on me at all times to prove I did
in fact have insurance.
I made many calls to the police,
Broadsure Direct, KGM and the people who run the MID database, but the issue
did not go away, and my vehicles still did not show up on the MID database.
There was also a time in Nov 2013 when
my van was sized this was due to KGM telling the police I was not insured due
to the police telling KGM that I had tools in my van. Which was a lie by the
police as I did not have anything in my van. Kelly Tiller from the trade
section was dealing with this and a few days later I got a letter from KGM
saying they was going to cancel my policy. As you can understand I was very
upset over this as I had done nothing wrong.
At this time lots of calls was both
made to KMG and Broadsure to stop the cancelation of my insurance policy, I
spoke to Kelly Tiller many times, but she believed the police and I had no say
in the matter. The police was off duty so I could not speak to them and Kelly
Tiller was saying unless I could prove I did not have any tools in my van then
the insurance policy would be cancelled which was very unfair as I had done
nothing wrong I knew I never had any tools.
But I also asked Kelly Tiller did the
police tell her what tools was meant to be in my van, to which she said no. KGM
was not even aware I had mechanics trade on my policy so if my mechanics tools
had been in my van at the time my insurance would still have been cancelled
which to me what was the point in having insurance?
I then spoke to a wonderful operator at
the police when I called told her what had gone on and was told by her to go to
the police compound as when any vehicles are taken there they have to do a full
list of items that are in the vehicles as they are in fact legible if something
goes missing. Over that weekend I sent emails to the compound and forwarded
them to Broadsure as my insurance was due to be cancelled on the Monday. On
Monday I got an email from Broadsure direct asking me to go to the compound as
Kelly Tiller had no luck getting a reply from them also, and once there to call
Kelly Tiller due to the time on the Monday I got the email it would have been
too late to go the compound and get a call to Kelly Tiller as she would have
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
524+,
Page 16 of 21
ended work for that day so I sent an
email saying I would be going there early the next morning.
I went the next day and asked to speak
to the manager of the compound who in fact looked up my van and said nothing
was in there, there was not tools I called Kelly Tiller and the manager of the
compound spoke to her and confirmed there was nothing in the van when it was
taken there by police and that I had put thing in the van when I had taken it
out of the compound.
At this point Kelly tiller believed me
and said the policy would not be cancelled. But on my way back from the
compound driving my phone ring and I stopped to pick it up and it was Broadsure
direct saying my policy had in fact been cancelled I was very upset at this and
told them what had happened, I was asked to hold on they was called KGM back
and would call me right back. I waited till Broadsure direct called me back and
confirmed my insurance policy had not been cancelled then drove home.
From this point I have been asking for
all information and putting data protection acts in which have not been dealt
with and I have heard nothing from KGM.
I have been back and forward to court
due to no insurance and in fact 4 cases I did not get any summons so was in
fact found guilty as I did not know it was even going to court.
I have had points put on my driving
licence for no reason and had to go back and forward to court many times when
this should not have been the case.
Then the case come up for the seizer when
the police said I had tools in my van I went to court with all my documents but
due to not having the information I had asked for from KGM many times about
that case I was found guilty. I am very upset about the whole policy with KGM.
I have put an appeal in, and this case will be going to crown court I have
again asked for information and again heard nothing. These matters need to be
addressed as I am suffering due to all of this.
Martin Jenkins at Broadsure Direct
knows everything that has gone on as he was my main contact.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
525+,
Page 17 of 21
I also have all the emails the last one
that I will enclose again, which I have heard nothing about and the 1st Subject
access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 that I sent on the
26/11/2013. I did in fact send the Subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998 about time times and asked Martin Jenkins to look into why
I had heard nothing about more than once.
Once I get the appeal date for crown
court, I will ask the court to summon the people at KGM to deal with this
matter as they know I was insurance and did nothing wrong and the police lied.
All I have asked for is the data so there will be no need to summons people
this way I can send the section 9 witness statements over to the crown and the
other information and this case should be dropped against me.
It just seemed that KGM does not want
to do anything and give me the information I need to prove in fact I was
insurance and the police lied to KGM to in fact make it that I was not
insurance.
There is a lot more I could say about
the insurance I had with KGM, but this insurance policy was my worst nightmare.
It has messed my clean driving licence up and in fact got to the point I could
not drive so could not work.
Due to the fact, KGM could not send me
the information over that was needed to prove I did have insurance.
If you need o can send over all the
emails that has been sent back and forward to Broadsure who sent them to KGM.
I have lost a lot of money, and time
due to this insurance policy I have had to pay for my vehicles to be taken out
of the police compound around 8 to 9 times at a cost of 180.00 to 200.00 a
time. All the loss of work due to having to take time to go to the police
compound, and all the times I have had to go to court for no insurance when in
fact I had insurance. And points put on my driving licence to the fact I could
not drive, this has all been costs to myself.
My Mother Lorraine Cordell has also
written many of the emails and is fine with dealing with this issue.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
526+,
Page 18 of 21
Regards
Simon Cordell
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
527+,
Page 19 of 21
received via its network for
viruses, unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for
and on behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the
Prudential Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9,
One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised
by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed
representative of Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius
Managing Agents Limited
Registered office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London,
EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba... 06/02/2015
529+,
Page 20 of 21
Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and
in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses, unauthorised
use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on behalf of a
member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba... 06/02/2015
530+,
Page 21 of 21
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/2bf34c458f384c308de555fb3d6efba...
06/02/2015
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 61
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.09.2015_RE Appeal against
conviction for no insurance Reg
09/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 510
511,512,513,514
61.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 61
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.09.2015_RE
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Reg
09/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 510
511,512,513,514
--
510,
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Sent: 09
February 2015 11:30
To: Josephine Ward
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th
March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Attachments: Witness
Statement 060215 S Cordell.docx
Dear Ms Ward,
I have drafted a section 9
statement as requested. Before I sign it off can you review it and confirm it
satisfies all of your requirements please? As soon as you do so I will sign it
off, scan a copy over to you and put the original in the post.
Let me know if you need anything
else and of course if you need me to amend the attached in any way.
Lorraine/Andy - FYI.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Josephine
Ward mailto: josie@michaelcarroHandco.com
Sent: 08
February 2015 19:02
To: Wood, Peter; Austin, Andrew
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Appeal
against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March
2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Mr Wood
I have been instructed by Mr Simon Paul
Cordell and Miss Lorraine Cordell to assist in the appeal against conviction
that is due to be heard at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court on 5th March 2015
at 10am.
Miss Cordell has played two recordings
that she received from KGM which are pertinent to the appeal but at present as
the telephone recordings have not been produced as an exhibit by KGM they will
not be admissible at court.
Can you therefore please write a
section 9 statement confirming that:
·
all recording equipment was working
correctly
·
KGM produced two recordings at the
request of Ms Lorraine Cordell
·
Confirmation that the recording of S
Cordell call from police 141113 Recording was provided by KGM from their
recorded calls and is authentic
·
Confirmation that the recording between
the Car Pound and Kelly Tiller was also provided from the KGM recorded calls
and is authentic
If we are in possession of a section 9
statement producing the recordings, then we will not have to apply to the court
for a Third-Party Summons to compel an employee from KGM to attend to produce
the recordings. This would be a complete waste of your time when all we require
is a section 9 attesting to the recordings being retrieved from the system and
exhibited as two separates
511,
recordings.
If you require assistance with drafting
a section 9 statement, then we would be happy to draft it and email it over. We
would require the name of the person who retrieved the recordings. the dates
that the recordings were retrieved, the dates the recordings relate to,
confirmation that the recordings were sent to Lorraine Cordell by email so that
she can produce CD's of the recordings so that they can be played in court and
specifically refer to the email containing the recordings so that there is
continuity in the chain of evidence. Ideally, we would like KGM to produce the
CD's and exhibit them but failing this we will try to get the CPS to agree the
CD's as produced from the email of Miss Cordell. We stress that the section in
relation to the search and retrieval of the KGM database is essential and
critical to ensuring that the chain of evidence is intact.
We can serve these recordings on the
CPS and the Court so that they are agreed in advance of the Appeal hearing.
We thank you in advance for your
anticipated co-operation in this matter and hope that we do not have to apply
for a Third-party Witness Summons to compel the attendance of a KGM employee at
the Appeal on the 5th March 2015.
We confirm that Miss Cordell is forwarding
an email confirming that we are instructed and authorised to request this
information.
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO.
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in any
attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited | registered
number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and
regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
512,
513,
514,
62.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 62
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.10.2015_RE Simon Cordell
Information
10/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
523,524,525,526,527,528
529
62.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 62
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.10.2015_RE
Simon Cordell Information
10/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
523,524,525,526,527,528
529
--
515,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 10
February 2015 15:33
To: 'Martin Jenkin'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Information
Attachments: S Cordell 020215.pdf
Witness Statement 060215 S Cordell.docx
REGINA V. SIMON CORDELL APPEAL AGAINST
CONVICTION AT KINGSTON UPON THAMES CROWN COURT 080215.doc.
Witness Statement 060215 S Cordell.docx
Hi Martin
Just giving you an update Simon
has called to try and speak to you today to make a late payment on his
insurance as he was a day late. could you please make sure someone calls us to
make the payment.
As for KGM they are now dealing
and addressing the issues, but it took me to start cc my emails to them to
Lloyds.
He has been having it really
hard due to all this insurance with KGM and the courts, and not being able to
drive half the time this policy has been in place due to them keep revoking his
driving licence, until the courts then sort it and put it back in place. They
have again revoked his driving licence this is the 3 time. I have had to get a
solicitor now to help with the cases of no insurance because I seem to be
getting nowhere. And also to deal with the appeal case for the 14/11/2013. I do
have the audio now from KGM that proves the police officer lied and some
letters I will attach to this email just so you are updated.
I can't send the audio due to
most places will not accept that file type. So I have included the transcript
that the solicitor done
Could you please also address
doing your section 9 witness statement about the calls for the 14/11/2013 as
the appeal case is due to be heard on the 05/03/2015.
Could you also please send over
a copy of Simon no claims please?
Regards
Lorraine
From: Martin
Jenkin [mailto:martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com]
Sent: 07
January 2015 09:06
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Information
Good Morning Lorraine,
Apologies for the lack of contact, I
have been in and out of the office.
Have you received any correspondence
from KGM? we spoke to them prior to Christmas regarding the issues and they
have been looking into the situation and as far as I am aware, they were going
to respond directly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Martin Jenkin DDI 01843 598744
Broadsure direct
INSURANCE INTERMEDIARY
t: 01843
594477
f: 01843
594488
516,
Broadsure Direct - Telephone
number: 01843 594477 - Fax Number: 01843 594488
This e-mail transmission is
strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to
whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, or
take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please reply to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please
note that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail
communications passing through our network.
Broadsure Direct Is Authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 28
December 2014 23:59
To: martinjenkin@broadsuredirect.com
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell Information
Hello Martin
Can
you please get back to me with an update as I not heard anything from KGM about
the email
I sent over to you on the 30/11/2014 with the data that would be needed. I also
have not heard anything from you about the section 9 witness statement. Please
can you get back to me as soon as possible.
Regards
Lorraine
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
517,
518,
519,
520,
521,
522,
RE: Simon Cordell Information->REGINA
V. SIMON CORDELL APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AT KINGSTON UPON THAMES CROWN COURT
080215.doc
REGINA
V. SIMON CORDELL
APPEAL AGAINST
CONVICTION IN RELATION TO AN ALLEGATION OF NO INSURANCE AT WIMBLEDON
MAGISTRATES COURT ON 26th NOVEMBER 2014
PARTICULARS OF THE CHARGE - 14th
November 2013 at Brixton Hill
Police approached and said enquiries re
no insurance, SC explained problems insurance not showing up on the MOTOR
INSURANCE DATABASE
Call made to SC insurance broker
Broadshaw. Police not happy with this. He made phone calls to KGM stating that
there were lots of tools in the vehicle.
PC Geoghan Metropolitan Police. Clarify
limitation on use MT3574694.
S Cordell call from police 141113
Recording
Thank you for calling KGM introduction
select correct dept from the
following:
Thank you for calling KGN accounts
department to speak to an account handler please press 1
Female: Hello
KGM
PC G: Hi
there it is PC Geoghan from the Met Police I need to speak to someone about a
policy of insurance a gentleman claims to have with you
Female: Okay
if you hold the line, I will pass you through to our underwriting department Carl
KGM: Good afternoon Carl speaking how can I help
PC G: Hi
there it’s PC Geoghan from the Metropolitan Police I’ve got a gentleman stopped
and he has produced a certificate of insurance from KGM and I just wanted to
clarify some of the limitation on the use.
Carl: Okay do you have a policy number
PC G: Yeah, I do it’s MT3574694.
Carl: It’s a Motor trade policy. Yeah, I
might have to forward you to another Department
PC G: Yeah sure
Jessica: Hi
you have been passed through to Jessica from KGM how I can help
PC G: I have a gentleman here who has been
stopped with an insurance certificate issued by KGM. I’ve got a policy number
and other details
Jessica: Okay
I can see that from my screen
PC G: Basically it says motor trade and SDWP
and use motor trade purposes- Looking at vehicle it’s got a load of tools in
and they appear to be workmen doing sort of work odd jobs here and there. Is
that something motor trade would cover?
Jessica: No,
he just covered for road trade, road risk only and SDWP and would not cover for
any other occupation
PC G: Okay right, right. He’s claimed he
bought the vehicle today or yesterday and he’s not able to produce any proof
that he has done that
523,
Jessica: Rights
PC G: Em does he have to notify you of any
vehicles
Jessica: When
a client purchases a vehicle, they have 14 days to make us aware. If they
didn’t within 14 days they don’t make us aware then they’re not covered but
anything like this happened we do need proof to show that he had only had it
within the 14 days otherwise it would not cover it we need to obviously we
would not ask for proof normally but say if he has like pulled over now we
would ask because he could just say he bought it yesterday or a week ago and we
would still cover him.
PC G So it definitely does not cover him on
the if he literally going around with tools in the van doing jobs that is not
something, he is covered for Jessica Certainly not
PC G: That’s not something he is covered for
Jessica: No
certainly not
PC G Can I just get your name obviously for
my notes
Name: Jessica
Kempton DOB 02.02.1992
Phone:
0208 530 1822
Underwriting Department
PC G Thanks very much for your help
22.11.2013 Emails:
vrescharlton@met.police.uk at
17.14 hrs - no reply
charltondocuments@met.police.uk -
forwarded email of 22.11.2013. This email was sent on 24.11.2013 at 13.33 hrs
Email read on 24.11.2013 by Rob.Guy@met.pnn.police.uk read
the email on 24.11.2013 at 17.02 hrs
Emailed broker on 25.11.2013 at 10.06
hrs email martinienkins@broadshawdirect.com -
all emails sent to compound forwarded.
Spoke to PS complaint made on
CAD6768/14NOV/13 Cost of recovering the van Ł190
Ref: 474782
Details of search of van: KGM recording.
(FROM RECORDING 26_11_2013_11_53_Kelly Tiller Kelly call to compound
Thank you for calling KGM introduction hold whilst we connect you to
our underwriters
Charlton Car pound: Good
afternoon James speaking
James KMG: Hello
James is Kelly there please. Who’s calling please?
Charlton Car pound - Car
pound Metropolitan police service
James KMG: Yeah
one second please. Okay I will just put you through
Kelly Tiller - Hello
Kelly speaking
Gareth: Hello
Kelly my name is Gareth, Manager of Charlton Car Pound Metropolitan Police
Service I’m dealing with a Mr Simon Paul Cordell something about the tools in
the back of his vehicle Kelly: Correct yeah
524,
Gareth: All
I can do is I’ve looked at the seizure notice which would be given to Paul at
the time and any property left was blank so if there was any tools in the back
normally that would be registered as tools in the rear of the vehicle
Kelly: Right
okay because we had a call from the police
Gareth: Yeah
Kelly:
He advised that there were tools in the vehicle
Gareth:
Do you want to speak to him a moment
Kelly:
Who Sorry
Gareth:
Paul because I have got him in front of me
Kelly:
Yeah that’s fine
SC Hello
Kelly:
Hello
SC: You alright Kelly
Kelly: Okay
what have they given you there
SC: They have not given me anything, but
he did explain to you on the phone that threes’ no tools on the vehicle on
their CADs and in any case, they would write that down tools in the vehicle and
so forth
Kelly:
Right okay and has he gives you a printout of this.
SC: No you will have to ask him yourself
Kelly: Right
can you pass me back to him
Gareth: Hello
Kelly
Kelly:
Hello, right okay so if there was any kind of tools in the vehicle it would be
stated on there
Gareth:
Well yeah what happens on the roadside a police officer will issue a seizure
notice and he will say do you want to take any property out of the vehicle,
normally they take satnavs, wallets, money whatever
Kelly:
He could have taken the tools out of the vehicle
Gareth:
Well I do not know I am not going to comment on that to be perfectly frank with
you all I can do is comment on the paperwork that I see in front of me Right
okay
Gareth: And
there was nothing left in the vehicle
Kelly:
At the time of when it come in but obviously Yeah
Kelly:
He’s had the opportunity to take items out of that vehicle
Gareth: But
then it would have been mentioned that he had done that and there is nothing
there saying that he had, and it would have also mentioned what was taken on
the seizure notice yeah
Kelly: Is
there any chance you can forward me a copy of this
Gareth:
No we are not allowed to under the Police Act and God knows what else. All I
can confirm is what I have seen on the
seizure notice
Kelly:
Can you confirm that in an email to me please
Gareth: Right
what you do
Kelly: I
have already emailed yourselves and
Right
You’ve replied to say you would not
have anything like that on record and I just need you to pop me over an email
to say that
525,
Gareth: If
you go to Charlton car Charlton documents and I can reply from there because
we have firewalls and God knows what
else
Kelly:
So you don’t use the vcse one of whatever it is
called
Gareth: No
if you do charltondocuments@met.police.uk. What I am going to do I am going to
bring up a copy of this seizure notice just double check that I have done
everything right for you
Kelly: Are
you a police officer
Gareth: No
I work at the compound I am just one of the little plebs
Kelly:
I have just forwarded you over a copy of the email and the reply that I got
from the
vres
Charlton@met.pnn.police.co.uk
Gareth: What
I will do I can only go on what we have got here and I’m just bringing it up
now if you bear with me. I am looking at the copy of
Kelly: Is
that from a PC Geoghan
Gareth: Bear
with me at the end of the day it is just a signature
Kelly: Oh
alright okay
Gareth: All
I can say is property left in the vehicle there is nothing in their Property
removed from driver that is blank as well but obviously he did not remove
anything else as that would have been registered
Kelly: Yeah
Gareth: He
would have told the officer there’s tools in there be careful as they’re part
of me trade
Kelly: Yeah
Gareth: Then
that would have been registered they were within there. We take them out and
put them into our property store for safe-keeping and then when he comes to
collect them, they get given back then
Kelly:
Right okay that fine it is just when we got a call from the officer when he has
Mr Cordell at the road side he has advised us that he is carrying tools in his
vehicle Gareth: Well I can’t comment on that I can only go on the information
on that seizure notice and there was nothing been entered that the gentleman
removed anything or there was anything left. That’s all I can say
Kelly: That’s
fine no worries so if you can just reply to my email there and then that will
be great. Thanks for your help.
Email from Kelly Tiller to compound.
Case Number: 011401009802
REQUEST FROM MAGISTRATES COURT VIA
EMAIL - smglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Summons reply sent in by email on 22nd
May 2014 at 14.19 hours with not guilty plea attached
526,
Receipt from 23rd May 2014
GL-SWESTERNMCENQ [smglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk]
Phone call from Simon’s mother who
confirmed receipt of the email. Convicted in absence on Application to re-open case email sent on 11th September
2014 Email acknowledged from the court to
527,
528,
529,
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 63
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.10.2015_RE Simon Cordell
10/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 530,531,532,533,534
535,536
63.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 63
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.10.2015_RE
Simon Cordell
10/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 530,531,532,533,534
535,536
--
530,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:06
To: 'GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: London.magistratescentralwest@cps.gsi.gov.uk
London.magistratessouth@cps.gsi.gov.uk
london.magistratesnortheast@cps.gsi.gov.uk
gl-bromleymcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: S Cordell 020215.pdf
Found Guilty
again 26-01-2015.pdf
S Cordell Cert.GE-2013-2014.pdf.
image2014-05-20-184559.pdf
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this email due to the
number of problems I have been having due to a policy of insurance I had with
KGM insurance which did not show up on the MID database in the week it was fine
as I carried my insurance documents with me at all times and the insurance
company could be called, but the problems was when the insurance company was
closed as the police could not contact them.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I have sent
many emails to the courts with my insurance documents, but there have been
cases where I have not had a summons. So did not know about cases and they have
been heard at court and I was found guilty of no insurance.
I have done statutory declarations at court
including my insurance documents and this still has not corrected anything.
One of the statutory declarations was
again heard at court on the 26/01/2015 which again I did not know about for
Willesden Magistrates' Court. But I have sent so many emails to this court with
all documents and asked for them to be checked with the police officer at court
to show I was insured to drive. This has not been done I have just again been
found guilty due to not getting letters of a court hearing date.
I have now also got a letter of
Indemnity from KGM who I was insured with under policy number MT3574694. 00.01
AM on the 23/2/13 and was in force until Midnight on the 22/2/14 when it
lapsed.
Most of the cases are with the KGM
policy you will see the reason as to why in the Letter of Indemnity from KGM.
I also believe there was one case for
Covea Insurance PLC policy number MT10 021608047 it was not showing on the MID
due to the stop was the day after I took the policy out.
Please can any cases be set aside and
reopened and looked into and any other cases that have been heard for no
insurance under these policies of insurance be addressed.
You will in due cause be hearing from
my solicitor, she is trying to address all the cases, but this is taking time.
She has seen all the emails I have sent trying to address these issues and
feels more should have been done as it would have only taken for the insurance
policies to be checked and this would have stopped a waste of time and money
for the courts, and myself at this time she wants to just appeal all cases to
the crown court. which would again be a waste of money for the courts. and
again of my time.
But this is having an effect on my life
my driving licence has been revoked 3 times for no insurance, when in fact I
have always had insurance to drive and would not drive if I did not have
insurance.
Please see attached documents
Could you get back to me as soon as
possible by way of email, as it does seem there is an issue with my post and
not getting letters that was meant to be sent to me? I am taking this up with
the royal mail.
Regards
Simon Cordell
DOB: 26/01/1981
531,
Blank Page!
532,
533,
534,
535,
536,
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 64
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_FW Simon Cordell
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544
64.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 64
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_FW
Simon Cordell
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544
--
537,
From: O'Sullivan
Emma <Emma.O'Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 11
February 2015 15:24
To: CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
Southcju
(CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionCju@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionCJU@met.pnn.police.uk
Cc: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: S Cordell 020215.pdf
Found Guilty again 26-01-2015.pdf
S Cordell Cert.GE-2013-2014.pdf.
image2014-05-20-184559.pdf
Dear All,
Please could you kindly assist Lorraine
Cordell on behalf of her son Simon Cordell. They believe that a number of
summons have been issued against Simon for the offence of no insurance since
2013 due to an error made by the insurance company as per the attached letter.
Unfortunately due to Simon not always receiving the summons/adjournment notice
they are unsure how many cases have been issued against him and are trying to
get them all reopened and listed before court to be heard together in light of
the above. Please would you be able to check your database and confirm to the
email address below the number of cases with reference number, court, and
conviction date.
I have also spoken to her on the
phone and informed Lorraine that she will need to contact the court directly to
make application to reopen/stat decs, which she can only do so once the
information has been obtained.
The only matter the cps are
currently aware of is for the case ref J63181495 which is listed for appeal at
Kingston Crown Court 05/03/15.
If you are unable to advise her
on summons that have been issued on her son, please could you kindly advise her
where she could obtain the information.
Kind Regards,
Emma O'Sullivan
London Traffic Unit Admin Line
Manager 02033571604 ’
Rose Court,
4th Floor
2 Southwark Bridge, London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263 Southwark 12.
From: London
traffic team
Sent: 10
February 2015 14:41
To: O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
From: London
magistrates central west
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:25
To: London traffic team
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
538,
FYI
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:06
To: GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London magistrates central west
London magistrates south
London magistrate’s northeast
gl-bromlevmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this email due to the
number of problems I have been having due to a policy of insurance I had with
KGM insurance which did not show up on the MID database in the week it was fine
as I carried my insurance documents with me at all times and the insurance
company could be called, but the problems was when the insurance company was
closed as the police could not contact them.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I have sent
many emails to the courts with my insurance documents, but there have been
cases where I have not had a summons. So did not know about cases and they have
been heard at court and I was found guilty of no insurance.
I have done statutory declarations at
court including my insurance documents and this still has not corrected
anything.
One of the statutory declarations was
again heard at court on the 26/01/2015 which again I did not know about for
Willesden Magistrates' Court. But I have sent so many emails to this court with
all documents and asked for them to be checked with the police officer at court
to show I was insured to drive. This has not been done I have just again been
found guilty due to not getting letters of a court hearing date.
I have now also got a letter of
Indemnity from KGM who I was insured with under policy number MT3574694. 00.01
AM on the 23/2/13 and was in force until Midnight on the 22/2/14 when it
lapsed.
Most of the cases are with the KGM
policy you will see the reason as to why in the Letter of Indemnity from KGM.
I also believe there was one case for
Covea Insurance PLC policy number MT10 021608047 it was not showing on the MID
due to the stop was the day after I took the policy out.
Please can any cases be set aside and
reopened and looked into and any other cases that have been heard for no
insurance under these policies of insurance be addressed.
You will in due cause be hearing from
my solicitor, she is trying to address all the cases, but this is taking time.
She has seen all the emails I have sent trying to address these issues and
feels more should have been done as it would have only taken for the insurance
policies to be checked and this would have stopped a waste of time and money
for the courts, and myself at this time she wants to just appeal all cases to
the crown court. which would again be a waste of money for the courts. and
again of my time.
But this is having an effect on my life
my driving licence has been revoked 3 times for no insurance, when in fact I
have always had insurance to drive and would not drive if I did not have
insurance.
Please see attached documents
Could you get back to me as soon as
possible by way of email, as it does seem there is an issue with my post and
not getting letters that was meant to be sent to me? I am taking this up with
the royal mail.
Regards
Simon Cordell
DOB: 26/01/1981
539,
This email has been scanned by the
Symantec Email Security cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.svmanteccloud.com
*********************************************************************+
This e-mail is private and is intended only for the
addressee and any copy recipients. If you are not an intended recipient, please
advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any
attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the
Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to
secure their effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be recorded
to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************
540,
Documents!
541,
Documents!
542,
Documents!
543,
Documents!
544,
Documents!
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 65
London VR R and complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Thank
you for your email
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 545
65.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 65
London VR R and complaints
@cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Thank you for your email
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 545
--
545,
From: London
VR R and complaints
London VR R and complaints
@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 11
February 2015 12:01
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Thank
you for your email
Dear Recipient,
Thank you for your email to CPS
London.
If your e-mail concerns a
request for review under the Victims' Right to Review scheme
This is a formal acknowledgment
that we have received your request. We will provide a response within 10
working days and, in the meantime, we will contact you if there is anything we
need to clarify or if we need any additional information.
If your email is a complaint
against the CPS
This is a formal acknowledgement
that your complaint has been received. We will provide a full response to your
complaint within 20 working days. If we are unable to respond within this
timescale, we will contact you to advise when a response will be received. We
will contact you either by email or phone if there is anything we need to
clarify or if we need any additional information.
If your email provides positive
or negative feedback
This is a formal acknowledgement
that we have received your positive or negative feedback, and a reply may be
given where required. All feedback received is logged and analysed in order to
identify service improvements. The CPS is committed to delivering excellent
service standards and will utilise public feedback to identify and develop good
practice.
We thank you for taking the time
to write to us.
Please find below a link to the
Feedback and Complaints Guidance:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/feedback_and_complaints/complaints_guidance_english.pdf This e-mail is private and is intended only for the
addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended
recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 66
London VR R and complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Your
correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Ser
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 546,547
66.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 66
London VR R and
complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Your correspondence with
the Crown Prosecution Ser
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
546,547
--
546,
From: London
VR R and complaints
London VR R and
complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 11
February 2015 16:36
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service
Attachments:
Letter
to Mr Simon Cordell.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see the attached in
regard to your recent correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service. Kind
regards,
T. Pates
London VRR and Complaints
Crown Prosecution Service,
London
5th Floor
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS
Tel: 0203
357 0000
Email: London
VR R and complaints @cps.asi.aov.uk
*********************************************************************+
This e-mail is private and is
intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************
547,
CPS
Your correspondence with the
Crown Prosecution Service->Letter to Mr Simon Cordell.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 11 February
2015
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email of 11
February 2015.
I have looked on our Case
Management System and note that the Appeal hearing in respect of a driving with
no insurance against Simon Cordell is fixed for 5 March 2015 at Kingston Crown
Court.
As stated in my letter to Ms
Lorraine Cordell, please forward a copy of the letter from your insurers as
proof that you were insured to drive at the relevant time in order for me to
review the case.
Please retain any original
insurance documents and only send copies marked for my attention to the address
below.
Yours sincerely
Ms Yetunde Martins
Head of the CPS London
Appeals and Committals for
sentence Team
Crown Prosecution Service
3rd Floor
Drummond Gate
Pimlico
London SW1V 2QZ
Early Guilty Plea London Team
Third Floor One Drummond Gate
Pimlico London SW1V 2QZ
DX: 161330
Victoria 19
Email: EGP.London@cps.gsi.gov.uk
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 67
London VR R and complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Your correspondence with the Crown Prosecution
Ser_001
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 548,549
67.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 67
London VR R and
complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk_02.11.2015_Your correspondence with
the Crown Prosecution Ser_001
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 548,549
--
548,
From: London
VR R and complaints
London VR R and
complaints @cps.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 11
February 2015 11:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service
Attachments: Letter
to Mrs Lorraine Cordell.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see the attached in
regard to your recent correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service. Kind
regards,
T. Pates
London VRR and Complaints
Crown Prosecution Service,
London
5th Floor
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS
Tel: 0203
357 0000
Email: London
VR R and complaints @cps.asi.aov.uk Web:
www.cps.gov.uk/London
*********************************************************************+
This e-mail is private and is
intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************
549,
CPS
Your correspondence with the
Crown Prosecution Service->Letter to Mrs Lorraine Cordell.pdf
Mrs Lorraine Cordell 10
February 2015
Dear Mrs Cordell
Thank you for your email of 31
January 2015, sent to our complaints team in relation to a case in which you
were the defendant at Wimbledon Magistrates Court.
I am the Legal Manager
responsible for the team which deals with all appeals Magistrates Court to the
Crown Court.
I have looked through our Case
Management System and cannot find any case of driving with no insurance in
which Lorraine Cordell is the defendant.
I would be grateful if you can
provide me with further details to assist me in identifying the case to which
you refer.
Please also forward to me a copy
of the letter from your insurers as proof that you were insured to drive at the
relevant time.
Please retain any original
insurance documents and only send copies marked for my attention to the address
below.
Yours sincerely
Ms Yetunde Martins
Head of the CPS London
Appeals and Committals for
sentence Team
Crown Prosecution Service
3rd Floor
Drummond Gate
Pimlico
London SW1V 2QZ
Early Guilty Plea London Team
Third Floor One Drummond Gate
Pimlico London SW1V 2QZ
DX: 161330
Victoria 19
Email: EGP.London@cps.gsi.gov.uk
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 68
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.11.2015_RE Appeal against
conviction for no insurance Reg
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 550,551,552
553,554,555
68.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 68
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_02.11.2015_RE
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Reg
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
550,551,552
553,554,555
--
550,
From: Wood,
Peter
Sent: 11
February 2015 11:40
To: Lorraine Cordell; Josephine Ward josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th
March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Attachments: S
Cordell statement.pdf
Hello,
Please find attached signed
statement as requested.
The original is in the post to
the Burncroft Ave address.
If you need anything else,
please ask Andy in my absence.
Regards Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
February 2015 18:07
To: Wood, Peter
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames
Crown Court
Dear Peter
Sorry for the late reply yes
Josephine Ward has said this is fine and can be signed off. thank you for all
the help in this matter.
I hope you have a great time on
holiday.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood,
Peter
mailto:
Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 10
February 2015 16:38
To: Josephine Ward; Wood, Peter
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th
March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Good Afternoon,
Please can I have your confirmation
that the draft section 9 statement is acceptable asap? If I do not hear back by
11.30 tomorrow, I will have to assume it is and sign it off and send out as I
will be in meetings and on holiday after that time.
Thanks
Pete Wood
551,
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Date:
9 February 2015 11:29:00 GMT
To: Josephine Ward
Cc: Austin, Andrew
Subject: RE:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th
March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Ms Ward,
I have drafted a section 9
statement as requested. Before I sign it off can you review it and confirm it
satisfies all of your requirements please? As soon as you do so I will sign it
off, scan a copy over to you and put the original in the post.
Let me know if you need anything
else and of course if you need me to amend the attached in any way.
Lorraine/Andy - FYI.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk
| www.canopius.com
From: Josephine
Ward [mailto:josie@michaelcarroHandco.com]
Sent: 08
February 2015 19:02
To: Wood, Peter; Austin, Andrew
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Appeal
against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March
2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Mr Wood
I have been instructed by Mr Simon Paul
Cordell and Miss Lorraine Cordell to assist in the appeal against conviction
that is due to be heard at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court on 5th March 2015
at 10am.
Miss Cordell has played two recordings
that she received from KGM which are pertinent to the appeal but at present as
the telephone recordings have not been produced as an exhibit by KGM they will
not be admissible at court.
Can you therefore please write a
section 9 statement confirming that:
· all recording equipment was working
correctly
· KGM produced two recordings at the
request of Ms Lorraine Cordell
· Confirmation that the recording of S
Cordell call from police 141113 Recording was provided by KGM from their
recorded calls and is authentic
· Confirmation that the recording between
the Car Pound and Kelly Tiller was also provided from the KGM recorded calls
and is authentic
If we are in possession of a section 9
statement producing the recordings, then we will not have to apply to the court
for a Third-Party Summons to compel an employee from KGM to attend to produce
the recordings. This would be a complete waste of your
552,
time when all we require is a section 9
attesting to the recordings being retrieved from the system and exhibited as
two separate recordings.
If you require assistance with drafting
a section 9 statement, then we would be happy to draft it and email it over. We
would require the name of the person who retrieved the recordings. the dates
that the recordings were retrieved, the dates the recordings relate to,
confirmation that the recordings were sent to Lorraine Cordell by email so that
she can produce CD's of the recordings so that they can be played in court and
specifically refer to the email containing the recordings so that there is
continuity in the chain of evidence. Ideally, we would like KGM to produce the
CD's and exhibit them but failing this we will try to get the CPS to agree the
CD's as produced from the email of Miss Cordell. We stress that the section in
relation to the search and retrieval of the KGM database is essential and
critical to ensuring that the chain of evidence is intact.
We can serve these recordings on the
CPS and the Court so that they are agreed in advance of the Appeal hearing.
We thank you in advance for your
anticipated co-operation in this matter and hope that we do not have to apply
for a Third-party Witness Summons to compel the attendance of a KGM employee at
the Appeal on the 5th March 2015.
We confirm that Miss Cordell is
forwarding an email confirming that we are instructed and authorised to request
this information.
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO.
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in any
attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail and in
any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may monitor
the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses, unauthorised
use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on behalf of a
member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited |
registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation
Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents
553,
Limited
Canopius Services Limited | registered
number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand name for
business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered office: Gallery
9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England and Wales
554,
555,
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 69
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.11.2015_RE Appeal against
conviction at Kingston Upon Tha_001
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 556,557,558
559,560,561
69.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 69
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.11.2015_RE
Appeal against conviction at Kingston Upon Tha_001
11/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
556,557,558
559,560,561
--
556,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 11
February 2015 14:39
To: JOSEPHINE WARD
Subject: RE:
Appeal against conviction at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Attachments: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.pdf
S Cordell statement.pdf
Hi Josey
The dates of conviction were the
26/11/2014 Wimbledon magistrate’s court.
Appeal date is 05/03/2015 at
10:00 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
I will try and put emails to
something and bring them to the office do you need all the ones for all the
driving with no insurance of just the ones for the appeal?
The complaints started on the
phone to the police on the day this happened which was the 14/11/2013 I am sure
I have the person’s name here in my files I will try and find the name of the
officer who was dealing with this matter on the phone calls as she called me
back a number of times..
But I wrote to the IPCC on their
form from there website on the 03/12/2013, I got the reply email for that form
on 03/12/2013 at 13:30 please see attached email. But this will need to be
updated now due to what has happened in this case with the police officer.
Please also see attached Peter
Wood Statement.
I will bring all emails I can
what I can do is export the emails to PDF like the one I have done in the
attached from the IPCC then put them to disc as there is a real lot of emails
and in outlook just saving them does not save them with all details. so, as a rule
I export to PDF. is this ok?
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD
mailto:
josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 11
February 2015 13:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Appeal against conviction at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court Lorraine
Can you transfer all from server onto a
USB as this may be the easiest way of accessing the data. I suggested my office
so that everything can be printed off and put in bundles and scanned and sent
in the DX. Re the discs you can burn off and exhibit, but I will deal with this
in your section 9 statement.
I will have to request the data from
the court re the trial notes so all I will need is the date of conviction and
the appeal date and I will send that email off in the next ten minutes. I need
these for two reasons (a) accurate transcript of what was said for the appeal
hearing in Kingston Upon Thames (b) for when the formal complaint to the IPCC
is made.
I am snowed under at the moment to
please keep Monday appointment if you can and likewise, I hope that I do not
have to rearrange.
Can you confirm with Simon whether he
wants to apply to set aside the conviction which is the correct way to go about
it. Time runs from date of conviction so 21 days so lodge appeal against
conviction as I believe only a Crown Court Judge can sort out the licence being
revoked.
557,
You also mentioned that there was
another court in East London or South East London can you bring whatever you
need doing on that also.
Regards
Josephine
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:24 PM,
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Josey
· APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION - NO
INSURANCE I think the 17th will be fine just give me a time.
Not sure what you mean below about the CD
should I burn a copy off and bring them with me to the office or do they need
to be burned off at the office.
I can access emails that are being sent
to me from the office if I make sure I close outlook on my computer, but would
have no access to the emails that are already in outlook as these have been
directly downloaded to outlook from the virgin media server and I have that
setup to del once they have been downloaded.
Is it you who needs to ask for the
Legal Adviser's notes re what was recorded as part of PC Geoghan's evidence
and his officer's pocketbook or me?
· APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION / SET ASIDE
CONVICTION FOR 26.01.2015
On the 2nd part as I have already taken
my emails to outlook, they are not on a server so the only way to access them
is from my computer.
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD
mailto:iosephinewardsolicitor@gmail.coml
Sent: 11
February 2015 11:54
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Appeal
against conviction at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court Lorraine
1.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION - NO INSURANCE
I need to draft a section 9
statement re transcribing the recordings onto CD. I need to draft a section 9
statement for you also so that you can exhibit them. I will also need to obtain
a copy of the Legal Adviser's notes re what was recorded as part of PC
Geoghan's evidence. I need to obtain copies of the officer's pocketbook
also.
Can you access your email from
my office in terms of files as emails will have to be printed off? A bundle will
have to be prepared for the CPS and the Crown Court.
What is your availability 16th
or 17th February 2015. I am flying home the next two weekends. I am then on
duty quite a lot and will have murder case papers served so I will be
hectically busy.
2. APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION /
SET ASIDE CONVICTION FOR 26.01.2015
558,
Again, Lorraine it will take 1 -2 hours
to go through this, but I will need access to emails sent and received etc. I
await hearing from you.
Regards
Josephine
559,
RE: Appeal
against conviction at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court Re
From: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 03
December 2013 13:30
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Complaint
form Thank you.
Your completed form has been
sent to the appropriate authority you have selected in the complaint form for
them to consider.
They will be in contact with you
directly in due course.
Regards,
Independent Police Complaints
Commission
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
file:///C:/Users/Alienware/AppData/Local/Temp/35e4ec5458fd4329a943f31b23681c5...
11/02/2015
560,
561,
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 70
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.13.2015_RE Simon Cordell
011403134612_001
13/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 70
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.13.2015_RE
Simon Cordell 011403134612_001
13/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578
--
562,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 13
February 2015 11:05
To: GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
Southcju
(CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionCju@met.pnn.police.uk)
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionCJU@met.pnn.police.uk
London.magistratescentralwest@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 011403134612
Attachments: Found
Guilty again 26-01-2015.pdf.
S -Cordell -020215.pdf.
S -Cordell- Cert.GE-2013-2014.pdf.
RE-urgent- Simon -CORDELL-
011401596899-01.pdf.
RE-urgent- Simon -CORDELL-
011401596899.pdf
RE-urgent -Simon -CORDELL-
011401596899-03.pdf
RE-urgent -Simon -CORDELL -011401596899-04.pdf
Lorraine Cordell-RE-Simon Cordell.pdf
Appeal-Notice-Signed.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Complaint
I am writing this email again due to a
case being heard at court and me being found guilty. On the 26/01/2015 Case
number: 011403134612, I believe the old case number was 011401596899.
I have emailed the court many times due
to this case I and in my emails attached my insurance documents.
I Have done a statutory declaration
which I included my insurance documents.
I know my file must have had my
insurance document within there as it was included in many emails to the court
and asked for my emails and documents to be put on my file.
I had no letters from the court to say
a date of a hearing of the 26/01/2015, I have asked in emails that have been
sent for any dates to be also copied over to me by email, as there does seem to
be an issue with my post.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I have
asked in many emails and phone calls to the court for the police officer who
checks documents to get him to check my documents which will confirm I am
insured.
None of this has been done and again I
have been found guilty at court for no insurance when I was insured to drive.
I am making this request to have my case
listed in order that I can do the following.
A. Application
to set aside the conviction
B. Re-open
the case
My name: Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981.
Address: 109 Burncroft Av
Enfield
Middlesex
EN3 7JQ
I am including in this email
1. Letter
of Indemnity from KGM.
2. Policy
of insurance form KGM.
3. List
of emails sent to Court.
4. Email
dates Tue 10/02/2015 13:06 which I have not had a reply to as yet.
563,
· Appeal Form
Could you please get back to me
today by return email to lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk as I would like to
know what can be done about this case?
I have 21 days to appeal to the
crown court and this date is running out very fast so I am also including the
form so I do not run out of time to appeal to the Crown Court as I feel I will
run out of time in this matter. But feel it would be a waste of time and money
for the court and me to address it this way and take it to appeal at the crown
court.
I am not sure what CPS dealt
with this case and I do now that the appeal form needs to be addressed to them
also, so I have included all that I know off. If I have not included the right
Email for the CPS who dealt with this case can it be forwarded to them. Or
could you please get back to me by email at lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
and let me know the correct email address this needs to be sent to.
Regards Simon Cordell
564,
Document!
565,
Document!
566,
Document!
567,
Document!
568,
Document!
569,
RE: Simon Cordell 011403134612->RE
urgent Simon Cordell596899-1.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 08
October 2014 18:24
To: gl-brentmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Attachments: S
Cordell Cert._ GE_ 2013-2014.pdf
Dear sir or Madam
I am writing this email due to
the reply dated the 01/10/2014 I got in the post on 06/10/2014 about the email
I sent to you on the 12/09/2014 please see below email dated 12/09/2014.
Above is a picture of the court
processing.
I did not know about this not be
there.
In the email dated the
12/09/2014, I asked for my case to be listed in order that I could do the
following
Application to set aside the
conviction
Re-open the case
The reason for this is because I
have been wrongfully convicted as I did in fact have insurance. As shown in the
attached file.
Please can you list my case in
court so I can put the Application to set aside the conviction, Re-open the
case that I
reply where you say I have 21
days to file a statutory declaration due to me being unaware of court case. I
have been wrongfully convicted and have points on my licence, which should
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/a37e51b1bbcc4e63a3e87e6ea4d... 31/01/2015
570,571,572,573,574,575,576,577,578,
71.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 71
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.13.2015_RE Simon Cordell
13/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 579,580,581
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 71
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.13.2015_RE
Simon Cordell
13/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
579,580,581
--
579,
From: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 13 February 2015 14:57
To: O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: RE: Simon Cordell
Dear Emma
Thank you so much for your help in
this matter I had an email today from Sharon Burns from the North section and
she has been really helpful.
Once again thank you for the
help in this matter
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: O'Sullivan Emma
mailto: Emma.O'Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 11 February 2015 15:24
To: CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
Southcju
(CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionCju@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionCJU@met.pnn.police.uk
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW: Simon Cordell
Dear All,
Please could you kindly assist Lorraine
Cordell on behalf of her son Simon Cordell. They believe that a number of
summons have been issued against Simon for the offence of no insurance since
2013 due to an error made by the insurance company as per the attached letter.
Unfortunately, due to Simon not always receiving the summons/adjournment notice
they are unsure how many cases have been issued against him and are trying to
get them all reopened and listed before court to be heard together in light of
the above. Please would you be able to check your database and confirm to the
email address below the number of cases with reference number, court, and
conviction date.
I have also spoken to her on the
phone and informed Lorraine that she will need to contact the court directly to
make application to reopen/stat decs, which she can only do so once the
information has been obtained.
The only matter the cps are
currently aware of is for the case ref J63181495 which is listed for appeal at
Kingston Crown Court 05/03/15.
If you are unable to advise her
on summons that have been issued on her son, please could you kindly advise her
where she could obtain the information.
Kind Regards,
Emma O'Sullivan London Traffic
Unit Admin Line Manager 02033571604
Rose Court,
4th Floor
2 Southwark Bridge, London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263
Southwark 12.
580,
From: London
traffic team
Sent: 10
February 2015 14:41
To: O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
From: London
magistrates central west
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:25
To: London traffic team
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
FYI
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:06
To: GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London magistrates central west
London magistrates south
London magistrate’s northeast
gl-bromleymcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this email due to
the number of problems I have been having due to a policy of insurance I had
with KGM insurance which did not show up on the MID database in the week it was
fine as I carried my insurance documents with me at all times and the insurance
company could be called, but the problems was when the insurance company was
closed as the police could not contact them.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I
have sent many emails to the courts with my insurance documents, but there have
been cases where I have not had a summons. So did not know about cases and they
have been heard at court and I was found guilty of no insurance.
I have done statutory
declarations at court including my insurance documents and this still has not
corrected anything.
One of the statutory
declarations was again heard at court on the 26/01/2015 which again I did not
know about for Willesden Magistrates' Court. But I have sent so many emails to
this court with all documents and asked for them to be checked with the police
officer at court to show I was insured to drive. This has not been done I have
just again been found guilty due to not getting letters of a court hearing
date.
I have now also got a letter of
Indemnity from KGM who I was insured with under policy number MT3574694. 00.01
AM on the 23/2/13 and was in force until Midnight on the 22/2/14 when it
lapsed.
Most of the cases are with the
KGM policy you will see the reason as to why in the Letter of Indemnity from
KGM.
I also believe there was one
case for Covea Insurance PLC policy number MT10 021608047 it was not showing on
the MID due to the stop was the day after I took the policy out.
Please can any cases be set
aside and reopened and looked into and any other cases that have been heard for
no insurance under these policies of insurance be addressed.
You will in due cause be hearing
from my solicitor, she is trying to address all the cases, but this is taking
time. She has seen all the emails I have sent trying to address these issues
and feels more should have been done as it would have only taken for the
insurance policies to be checked and this would have stopped a waste of time
and money for the courts, and myself at this time she wants to just appeal all
cases to the crown court. which would again be a waste of money for the courts.
and again, of my time.
But this is having an effect on
my life my driving licence has been revoked 3 times for no insurance, when in
fact I have always had insurance to drive and would not drive if I did not have
insurance.
Please see attached documents
Could you get back to me as soon
as possible by way of email, as it does seem there is an issue with my post and
not getting letters that was meant to be sent to me? I am taking this up with
the royal mail.
581,
Regards Simon Cordell DOB:
26/01/1981
This email has been scanned by
the Symantec Email Security cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.svmanteccloud.com
*********************************************************************+
This e-mail is private and is
intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************
72.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 72
swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_02.16.2015_Clerks Notes for
Simon Cordell
16/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 582
583,584,585,586
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 72
swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_02.16.2015_Clerks
Notes for Simon Cordell
16/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 582
583,584,585,586
--
582,
From: GL-SWESTERNMCENQ
<swglondonmc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 16
February 2015 09:57
To: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: Clerks
Notes for Simon Cordell
Attachments: DOC034.pdf
With reference to your e-mail of the 10th
February please find attached clerks notes from the trial on the 26th November
as requested.
Miss J Lee
Administration Officer Lavender Hill
Magistrates' Court 176a Lavender Hill, London, SW11 1JU
Tel: 020 7805 1470
*Please note:
As of June 2nd, 2014 Our fax will be GOLDFAX No: 0870 324 0299*
'I am not authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means'.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
583,
584,
585,
586,
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 73
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_RE Simon Cordell
Appeal
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 587
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 73
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_RE
Simon Cordell Appeal
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 587
--
587,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent:26 February 2015 23:28
To: Sharon.Bums@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Appeal
Dear Sharon
Would it please be possible if you can
call me on 07961 833021 re Simon Cordell appeal please. Regards
Lorraine Cordell
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 74
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_RE Simon Cordell
Appeal_001
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 74
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_RE
Simon Cordell Appeal_001
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598
--
588,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 26
February 2015 22:23
To: 'listing@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: 'Sharon.Burns@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Appeal
Attachments: Simon-Cordell-Appeal-Willesden-Harrow-Crown-Court.pdf
S-Cordell Cert.GE-2013-2014.pdf
S-Cordell 020215.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached documents re Appeal
could all documents be placed on file. Regards
589,
RE: Simon Cordell
Appeal->Simon_Cordell_Appeal_Willesden_Harrow_Crown_Court.pdf
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
CROWN COURT AT HARROW
Hailsham Drive Harrow, Middlesex HA1
4TU
DX 97335 HARROW 5
Telephone 020
8424 2294
Ext.
Fax 020
8424 2209
Mr Simon Paul Cordell
24th February 2015
109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield
Middx
EN3 7JQ
Dear Sirs
Re:
Yourself-v-Central Driving Offences Unit Case number A20150049
The Crown Court has received a set of
appeal papers from the magistrate’s court at Willesden.
In order to assist you, a copy of the
memorandum of conviction and sentence is enclosed.
The court is committed to processing
appeals as quickly as possible and it would greatly help the listing of this
appeal if you would complete this form and return it to the Crown Court by the 10
March 2015
If the court does not have a reply by
this date your appeal will be listed without further consultation.
Please note if you fail to attend
that hearing your appeal may be dismissed and further costs can be awarded
against you.
If you do not wish to proceed with
your appeal you should contact the court in writing before this date.
·
Please confirm that the appeal is
against Conviction/Sentence/Conviction & Sentence:
Conviction and Sentence
·
Please estimate the time the Appeal’s
hearing will take:
I was not there I am not sure how long
these cases take but I would think no more than one hour.
3.
Number & names of prosecution
witnesses you require:
590,
I don’t have any names as I have
never had a summons for this case, and I have had no Dates for court I don’t
know the CPS name that dealt with this case.
Number & names of defence
witnesses you require:
Not justified to show my
insurance documents and that I was insured to drive by KGM Insurance.
Name of counsel: MICHAEL CARROLL & CO.
Dates to avoid: 05/03/2015,.10/03/2015,
17/03/2013 and could this please be listed for the afternoon as I need to be
able to get to court.
Please confirm if an interpreter is required: No
Your reference: I
don’t know this.
Your telephone/mobile number: 07961 833021
this is my mother’s number she can talk re this case, also the email is lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
These details can be faxed to
0870 324 0194 or emailed to listing@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Mary Graham Appeals Clerk List
Office
NOTE:
Once an appeal has been allocated a
hearing date it will NOT be changed, save for the most exceptional
reasons.
It is, therefore, essential that
all dates to avoid are provided to the court by the date specified above.
Any subsequent application to
move a fixture date will have to be listed before a judge, which does not
automatically mean your application will be granted and may lead to wasted
costs.
It has also just been noted that
the court passed a driving disqualification until test passed was issued for
this case which we have only just been made aware of by the paper work that has
been served and seeing the Memorandum of ENTRY, If this had been known then I
would have asked that the this be suspended until the appeal was heard in my
appeal application.
We were only told by the court
that 6 points and a fine had been given by the Judge and also the letter the
court sent shows this Please see letter included within this paperwork.
Can we still ask that the
driving disqualification be suspended until the Appeal is heard.?
2
591,
592,
593,
594,
595,
596,
597,
598,
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 75
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_Re Simon Cordell
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers: 599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 75
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.26.2015_Re
Simon Cordell
26/02/2015
/ Page Numbers:
599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607
--
599,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 26
February 2015 22:31
To: 'GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: 'Sharon.Burns@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Simon-Cordell-Appeal-Willesden-Harrow-Crown-Court.pdf
Found Guilty
again 26-01-2015.pdf
Dear Annabel Jereniah
I have just seen the Memorandum of
Entry that the Crown Court has sent and on that it says there was a
Disqualification until test passed.
But when we contacted the court, we
were only told about 6 points and a fine for this case and this was also on the
letter from the court.
If I knew a Disqualification until test
passed when I filed my appeal on the 13/02/2015 I would have ticked this be
suspended until appeal was heard.
Can you please look into this and see
if the appeal could include the suspension of the Disqualification until the
appeal is heard.
Please see attached document
Simon Cordell Appeal Willesden Harrow
Crown Court Found Guilty again 26-01-2015
As you will see the letter Found Guilty
again 26-01-2015 does not show any disqualification and this was confirmed by
the court when we called that there were 6 points added and a fine.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
600,601,602,603,604,605,606,607,
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 76
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.01.2015_FW RE Simon Cordell
011403134612
01/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 76
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.01.2015_FW
RE Simon Cordell 011403134612
01/03/2015
/ Page Numbers:
608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
--
608,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 01
March 2015 15:24
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell 011403134612
Attachments: Found Guilty again 26-01-2015.pdf
S Cordell 020215.pdf
S Cordell Cert-GE-2013-2014.pdf.
RE_ urgent Simon CORDELL
011401596899-01.pdf
RE_ urgent Simon CORDELL
011401596899.pdf
RE_ urgent Simon CORDELL
011401596899-03.pdf
RE_ urgent Simon CORDELL
011401596899-04.pdf
Lorraine Cordell-RE-Simon Cordell.pdf;
Appeal-Notice-Signed.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
February 2015 11:05
To: 'GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk'
Cc: 'CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
Southcju
CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionCju@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionCJU@met.pnn.police.uk
London.magistratescentralwest@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 011403134612
To Whom It May Concern:
Complaint
I am writing this email again due to a
case being heard at court and me being found guilty. On the 26/01/2015 Case
number: 011403134612, I believe the old case number was 011401596899.
I have emailed the court many times due
to this case I and in my emails attached my insurance documents.
I Have done a statutory declaration
which I included my insurance documents.
I know my file must have had my
insurance document within there as it was included in many emails to the court
and asked for my emails and documents to be put on my file.
I had no letters from the court to say
a date of a hearing of the 26/01/2015, I have asked in emails that have been
sent for any dates to be also copied over to me by email, as there does seem to
be an issue with my post.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I have
asked in many emails and phone calls to the court for the police officer who
checks documents to get him to check my documents which will confirm I am
insured.
None of this has been done and again I
have been found guilty at court for no insurance when I was insured to drive.
I am making this request to have my
case listed in order that I can do the following: -
1. Application
to set aside the conviction
2. Re-open
the case
My name: Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB:
26/01/1981.
Address: 109 Burncroft Av
Enfield
Middlesex
EN3 7JQ
I am including in this email
609,
· Letter of Indemnity from KGM.
· Policy of insurance form KGM.
· List of emails sent to Court.
· Email dates Tue 10/02/2015 13:06 which
I have not had a reply to as yet.
· Appeal Form
Could you please get back to me today
by return email to lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk as I would like to know what can be
done about this case?
I have 21 days to appeal to the crown
court and this date is running out very fast so I am also including the form so
I do not run out of time to appeal to the Crown Court as I feel I will run out
of time in this matter. But feel it would be a waste of time and money for the
court and me to address it this way and take it to appeal at the crown court.
I am not sure what CPS dealt with this
case and I do now that the appeal form needs to be addressed to them also, so I
have included all that I know off. If I have not included the right Email for
the CPS who dealt with this case can it be forwarded to them. Or could you
please get back to me by email at lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
and let me know the correct email address this needs to be sent to.
Regards Simon Cordell
610,
611,
612,
613,
FW: RE: Simon Cordell
011403134612->RE_ urgent Simon Corrdell.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 08
October 2014 18:24
To: gl-brentmcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: urgent Simon CORDELL 011401596899
Attachments: S
Cordell Cert-GE- 2013-2014.pdf
Dear sir or Madam
I am writing this email due to
the reply dated the 01/10/2014 I got in the post on 06/10/2014 about the email
I sent to you on the 12/09/2014 please see below email dated 12/09/2014.
Above is a picture of the court
processing.
I did not know about this not be
there.
In the email dated the
12/09/2014, I asked for my case to be listed in order that I could do the
following
Application to set aside the
conviction
Re-open the case
The reason for this is because I
have been wrongfully convicted as I did in fact have insurance. As shown in the
attached file.
Please can you list my case in
court so I can put the Application to set aside the conviction, Re-open the
case that I
reply where you say I have 21
days to file a statutory declaration due to me being unaware of court case. I
have been wrongfully convicted and have points on my licence, which should
file:///C:/Users/Alienware_PC/AppData/Local/Temp/a37e51b1bbcc4e63a3e87e6ea4d... 31/01/2015
614,615,616,617,618,619,620,621,622,623,624,
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 77
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2015_Re Data Protection
team
17/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 625,626,627
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 77
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.13.2015_Re
Data Protection team
17/03/2015 13/03/2015 – 22-32
/ Page Numbers:
625,626,627
--
625,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 13
March 2015 22:32
Subject: Re:
Data Protection team
Attachments: Data-Protection-Broadsure.doc
To Whom It May Concern:
Could you please forward the
attached document to your team that deals with subject access requests under
the data protection Act 1998
Could you please confirm by
return email that this has been done and if there will be a fee needed?
Regards Simon Cordell
626,
Re: Data
Protection team->Data-Protection-Broadsure.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 13/03/2015
Broadsure Direct 4th Floor
The Argyle Centre York St
Ramsgate Kent
CT11 9DS Dear Sir or Madam
Subject access request
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Please supply the information about me
I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to:
1. All
data that Broadsure Direct hold on any systems or files about me.
2. All
audio call files that Broadsure Direct hold this would include when the police
have called to check if I was insured.
3. All
account Information and amounts paid.
4. Reason
as to why any insurance policies were cancelled.
Dates all policies started and ended
and which company had the policies in force.
All data that is being asked for would
be within the period of the last 6 years. This would include any data that is being
held by the whole of Enfield Council ASB Response Team.
627
If you are withholding any
information, I have asked for please make me aware of this and the reason as to
why the data is being denied.
If you need any more information
from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
It may be helpful for you to
know that a request for information under the Data Protection Act 1998 should
be responded to within 40 days.
If you do not normally deal with
these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer. If you
need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office
can assist you and can be contacted on 0303 123 1113 or at www.ico.org.uk/
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
78.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 78
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.14.2015_RE DVLA, Mr Cordell
14/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 628,629,630
631,632,
78.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 78
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.14.2015_RE
DVLA, Mr Cordell
14/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 628,629,630
631,632,
--
628,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 14
March 2015 00:31
To: 'Tracy Bullock'
Subject: RE:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Attachments: appeal-driving-outcome.pdf.
S Cordell 020215.pdf
Dear Tracey Bullock
Thank you for the email I did in
fact get your letter today dated the 09/03/2015
ref:
29597142
I would like to ask if you have
had the above update as of yet for the case listed in your letter as
26/11/2014, as noted in your letter. The appeal hearing was heard on the
05/03/2015 and I won my appeal.
So this case is dealt with
please see attached document from the crown court re the appeal hearing but on
their letter even they have put the date not correct they put the 29/08/2014 as
noted that was removed by the court on the 06/10/2014, and I was again found
guilty on the 26/11/2014. The appeal was for this date and not the 29/08/2014
as I had already had this date reopened and that was removed. I am contacting
the court and asking for a new letter to be sent with the right date on it as
this is just a mess.
I have also noted you said that
the licence was revoked on the 07/02/2015 by DVLA. Due to all the mess-up with
my insurance with KGM from the 2013/2014 and it not showing up on the MID
database, there were a list of cases that I did not get a summon for so did not
know I had to attend court, and was found guilty due to not attending court, a
number of calls have been made to DVLA in regards to this, this is why cases
have been reopened due to the mess up with the courts and also appeals put in
to the courts due to I could not take no more of the mess ups .
Could you also please tell me
how many points are on my licence and if it is still revoked? I believe the
revoke was for the case I have just won on appeal and would believe that DVLA
should have been updated to this already, so believe the revoke should not
still be in place as the court has now seen the error and corrected this so I should
never have been convicted and then you would never have revoked my licence,
could you please confirm this by email so I know if I can drive or not and if
all the points are off my licence or I still have points on there.
I was trying to address all the
wrong convictions against my name due to the errors in the MID I have really
done nothing wrong to lose my driving licence I was insured to drive please see
KGM LOI. I do understand that this will need to come from a court, but I am
very upset due to everything that has happened when I had paid for my insurance
to drive.
I am in fact paying for
insurance right now which due to this mess with the KGM insurance and the
courts this has caused me to suffer badly when I should not have had to I am in
fact paying for insurance from 2014 to 2015 that I can’t even use due to all
this mess. So, I am insured but cannot drive. My insurance is not cheap it is
costing me around Ł1600.00 this is not a small amount to be paying yet I
cannot drive due to this mess.
I do have an appeal date for the
case you have dated 26/01/2015 that is in May 2015, but I am really suffering
here due to all these errors due to the MID database not showing me as being
insured. I am trying to address all of these issues and have sent 100's of
emails to courts CPS and have even had to file Appeals because the cases have
not been addressed correctly by the courts, I have sent my insurance documents
to the courts so many times.
Even the last appeal case the
judge was appalled due to what has happened to me.
I also know there is more dates
when the courts added points etc to my driving licence and then they were
removed due to me proving I was insured. I do have a claim ongoing and need to
show how much this has affected my life. These have not been included in your
letter, could you please look at my driving record from 2013 to date of all
cases that the court added points etc and then they were removed as I need to
prove the impact this has had on my life I also know there were I believe 1 or
2 more times my Licence was revoked and then put back in place due to the court
updating DVLA and I do know there is more dates you have not included in your
letter.
Could you please get back to me
by email ASAP to tell me if I am now allowed to drive or if my licence is still
revoked due to the errors of the courts and Insurance Company and if any points
are still on there?
Could you also please confirm
everything also in writing, so I do have a letter confirming everything as
things are still being addressed also with the courts and there is still one
appeal date?
Regards
Simon Cordell
629,
From: Tracy
Bullock
mailto:
tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2015 11:18
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: DVLA,
Mr Cordell
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, I
would like to inform you that full details of your driver record will be sent
to you by post. Many Thanks
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Case work 1D9 | DVLA |
Swansea | SA99 1AY GTN 1213 Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing
Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
630,
631,
632,
79.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 79
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.17.2015_FW DVLA, Mr Cordell
17/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 633,634,635,636
637
79.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 79
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.17.2015_FW
DVLA, Mr Cordell
17/03/2015
/ Page Numbers:
633,634,635,636
637
--
633,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 17
March 2015 13:12
To: 'tracey.bollock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Attachments: appeal-driving-outcome.pdf; S Cordell-020215.pdf
Dear Tracey Bullock
I have not had a reply to my
below email and therefore was wondering if there were any updates.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 14
March 2015 00:31
To: 'Tracy Bullock'
Subject: RE:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Dear Tracey Bullock
Thank you for the email I did in
fact get your letter today dated the 09/03/2015
ref:
29597142
I would like to ask if you have
had the above update as of yet for the case listed in your letter as
26/11/2014, as noted in your letter. The appeal hearing was heard on the
05/03/2015 and I won my appeal.
So this case is dealt with
please see attached document from the crown court re the appeal hearing but on
their letter even they have put the date not correct they put the 29/08/2014 as
noted that was removed by the court on the 06/10/2014, and I was again found
guilty on the 26/11/2014. The appeal was for this date and not the 29/08/2014
as I had already had this date reopened and that was removed. I am contacting
the court and asking for a new letter to be sent with the right date on it as this
is just a mess.
I have also noted you said that
the licence was revoked on the 07/02/2015 by DVLA. Due to all the mess-up with
my insurance with KGM from the 2013/2014 and it not showing up on the MID
database, there were a list of cases that I did not get a summon for so did not
know I had to attend court, and was found guilty due to not attending court, a
number of calls have been made to DVLA in regards to this, this is why cases
have been reopened due to the mess up with the courts and also appeals put in
to the courts due to I could not take no more of the mess ups .
Could you also please tell me
how many points are on my licence and if it is still revoked? I believe the
revoke was for the case I have just won on appeal and would believe that DVLA
should have been updated to this already, so believe the revoke should not
still be in place as the court has now seen the error and corrected this so I
should never have been convicted and then you would never have revoked my
licence, could you please confirm this by email so I know if I can drive or not
and if all the points are off my licence or I still have points on there.
I was trying to address all the
wrong convictions against my name due to the errors in the MID I have really
done nothing wrong to lose my driving licence I was insured to drive please see
KGM LOI. I do understand that this will need to come from a court, but I am
very upset due to everything that has happened when I had paid for my insurance
to drive.
I am in fact paying for
insurance right now which due to this mess with the KGM insurance and the
courts this has caused me to suffer badly when I should not have had to I am in
fact paying for insurance from 2014 to 2015 that I can’t even use due to all
this mess. So, I am insured but cannot drive. My insurance is not cheap it is
costing me around Ł1600.00 this is not a small amount to be paying yet I cannot
drive due to this mess.
I do have an appeal date for the
case you have dated 26/01/2015 that is in May 2015, but I am really suffering
here due to all these errors due to the MID database not showing me as being
insured. I am trying to address all of these issues and have sent 100's of
emails to courts CPS and have even had to file Appeals because the cases have
not been addressed correctly by the courts, I have sent my insurance documents
to the courts so many times.
Even the last appeal case the
judge was appalled due to what has happened to me.
I also know there is more dates
when the courts added points etc. to my driving licence and then they were
removed due to me proving I was insured. I do have a claim ongoing and need to
show how much this has affected my life. These have not been included in your
letter, could you please look at my driving record from 2013 to date of all
cases that the court added points etc. and then they were
634,
removed as I need to prove the
impact this has had on my life I also know there were I believe 1 or 2 more
times my Licence was revoked and then put back in place due to the court
updating DVLA and I do know there is more dates you have not included in your
letter.
Could you please get back to me
by email ASAP to tell me if I am now allowed to drive or if my licence is still
revoked due to the errors of the courts and Insurance Company and if any points
are still on there?
Could you also please confirm
everything also in writing, so I do have a letter confirming everything as
things are still being addressed also with the courts and there is still one
appeal date?
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Tracy
Bullock
mailto:
tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2015 11:18
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: DVLA,
Mr Cordell
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, I
would like to inform you that full details of your driver record will be sent
to you by post. Many Thanks
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Casework1 D9 | DVLA |
Swansea | SA99 1AY GTN 1213 Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing
Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
635,636,637,
80.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 80
tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk_03.18.2015_RE DVLA, Mr
Cordell_001
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 638,639,640,641
80.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 80
tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk_03.18.2015_RE
DVLA, Mr Cordell_001
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 638,639,640,641
--
638,
From: Tracy Bullock
tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 18
March 2015 12:46
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Attachments: Cordell.doc
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, please
see attached letter to the Crown Court to which we are awaiting a reply.
Your driving licence was revoked
due to it not being returned for updating with the latest hearing details of
the 26/01/2015, however as a gesture of goodwill due to incorrect information
being provided by the Crown Court we will lift this revocation to enable you to
drive pending the outcome of your case. In the meantime you will need to
forward your licence to us for updating, we appreciate you are returning to
court regarding this offence in May, however by law the information needs to be
updated onto your current driving licence until this date.
Should your appeal be successful
we will then issue you with a free replacement licence.
In reply to your query regarding
the points on your record I can confirm there are 6 points for the IN10 offence
of the 20/05/2014 and 6 points for the IN10 offence for the 01/01/2014, however
these can be removed when instructed by the Court.
I hope this information will be
helpful.
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Case work lD9 | DVLA |
Swansea | SA99 1AY GTN 1213 Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing
Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
March 2015 13:12
To: Tracy
Bullock
Subject: FW: DVLA, Mr Cordell
Dear Tracey Bullock
I have not had a reply to my
below email and therefore was wondering if there were any updates.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 14 March 2015 00:31
To: 'Tracy
Bullock'
Subject: RE: DVLA, Mr Cordell
639,
Dear Tracey Bullock
Thank you for the email I did in
fact get your letter today dated the 09/03/2015
ref:
29597142
I would like to ask if you have
had the above update as of yet for the case listed in your letter as
26/11/2014, as noted in your letter. The appeal hearing was heard on the
05/03/2015 and I won my appeal.
So this case is dealt with
please see attached document from the crown court re the appeal hearing but on
their letter even they have put the date not correct they put the 29/08/2014 as
noted that was removed by the court on the 06/10/2014, and I was again found
guilty on the 26/11/2014. The appeal was for this date and not the 29/08/2014
as I had already had this date reopened and that was removed. I am contacting
the court and asking for a new letter to be sent with the right date on it as
this is just a mess.
I have also noted you said that
the licence was revoked on the 07/02/2015 by DVLA. Due to all the mess-up with
my insurance with KGM from the 2013/2014 and it not showing up on the MID
database, there were a list of cases that I did not get a summon for so did not
know I had to attend court, and was found guilty due to not attending court, a
number of calls have been made to DVLA in regards to this, this is why cases
have been reopened due to the mess up with the courts and also appeals put in
to the courts due to I could not take no more of the mess ups .
Could you also please tell me
how many points are on my licence and if it is still revoked? I believe the
revoke was for the case I have just won on appeal and would believe that DVLA
should have been updated to this already, so believe the revoke should not
still be in place as the court has now seen the error and corrected this so I should
never have been convicted and then you would never have revoked my licence,
could you please confirm this by email so I know if I can drive or not and if
all the points are off my licence or I still have points on there.
I was trying to address all the
wrong convictions against my name due to the errors in the MID I have really
done nothing wrong to lose my driving licence I was insured to drive please see
KGM LOI. I do understand that this will need to come from a court, but I am
very upset due to everything that has happened when I had paid for my insurance
to drive.
I am in fact paying for
insurance right now which due to this mess with the KGM insurance and the
courts this has caused me to suffer badly when I should not have had to I am in
fact paying for insurance from 2014 to 2015 that I can’t even use due to all
this mess. So, I am insured but cannot drive. My insurance is not cheap it is
costing me around Ł1600.00 this is not a small amount to be paying yet I cannot
drive due to this mess.
I do have an appeal date for the
case you have dated 26/01/2015 that is in May 2015, but I am really suffering
here due to all these errors due to the MID database not showing me as being
insured. I am trying to address all of these issues and have sent 100's of
emails to courts CPS and have even had to file Appeals because the cases have
not been addressed correctly by the courts, I have sent my insurance documents
to the courts so many times.
Even the last appeal case the
judge was appalled due to what has happened to me.
I also know there is more dates
when the courts added points etc. to my driving licence and then they were
removed due to me proving I was insured. I do have a claim ongoing and need to
show how much this has affected my life. These have not been included in your
letter, could you please look at my driving record from 2013 to date of all
cases that the court added points etc. and then they were removed as I need to
prove the impact this has had on my life I also know there were I believe 1 or
2 more times my Licence was revoked and then put back in place due to the court
updating DVLA and I do know there is more dates you have not included in your
letter.
Could you please get back to me
by email ASAP to tell me if I am now allowed to drive or if my licence is still
revoked due to the errors of the courts and Insurance Company and if any points
are still on there?
Could you also please confirm
everything also in writing, so I do have a letter confirming everything as things
are still being addressed also with the courts and there is still one appeal
date?
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Tracy Bullock
mailto: tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2015 11:18
To: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: DVLA,
Mr Cordell
640,
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, I would like
to inform you that full details of your driver record will be sent to you by
post. Many Thanks
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Case work
l D9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY GTN
1213
Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.aov.uk/dvia/nomorecounterpart
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with
Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please
call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
641,
EXCELLENCE
INVESTORS IN PEOPLE
RE: DVLA,
Mr Cordell->Cordell.doc
Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency CCU/CCG
CRTSCWK1 Longview Road Swansea
SA6 7JL
Telephone 01792
384522
Fax 01792
782748
Minicom 01792
766366
Web Site www.gov.uk/browse/driving
Our reference: 29597142
Date: 16 March 2015
Dear Sir or Madam,
Mr Simon Paul Cordell
26-Jan-1981
The above-named driver has
contacted DVLA claiming to have successfully appealed on the 05/03/2015 against
a conviction at your Court on the 26/11/2014.
Would you please forward a copy
of the result of the appeal to DVLA, quoting our reference number on all
correspondence?
Failure to remove this
conviction from DVLA records may result in the revocation of entitlement to
drive.
Yours faithfully
Tracy Bullock
81.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.81
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.18.2015_RE DVLA, Mr Cordell_001
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 642
643,644,645,646
81.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.81
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.18.2015_RE
DVLA, Mr Cordell_001
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 642
643,644,645,646
--
642,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 18
March 2015 13:56
To: 'Tracy Bullock'
Subject: RE:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Attachments: Appeal-Harrow-14-05-2015.pdf
Dear Tracey Bullock
Thank you for the reply to my
email.
Can you please tell me which
case the 20/05/2014 was for and what court dealt with it please and what date
it was dealt on by the court as this was not included in your letter and I knew
nothing about this case until today so I will have to contact the court who
dealt with this and get it addressed, as I was insured.
I know about the date of the
01/01/2014 as this one is going to appeal please see the appeal date letter
attached. This one is going to appeal on the 14/05/2015 at Harrow crown court.
The date of the 14/11/2013 has
had the appeal hearing and this was won on the 05/03/2015 which you should have
had the information from the court to remove this case from your records.
But I know there were more dates
that cases was heard at court and I was found guilty and points were added and
then removed since 2013 to date it is these dates I would like included to show
the problems I have had when paying for insurance and errors due to it not
showing on the MID database as I was in fact insured.
Sorry for the time this is
taking it is such a mess as dates was not sent nor summons and I was found guilty
when I was insured, I have written so many emails to the courts and CPS but
don't get replies all I want is to get all these cases sorted so there is no
points on my licence and back to normal.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Tracy
Bullock [mailto:tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 18
March 2015 12:46
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
DVLA,
Mr Cordell
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, please
see attached letter to the Crown Court to which we are awaiting a reply.
Your driving licence was revoked
due to it not being returned for updating with the latest hearing details of
the 26/01/2015, however as a gesture of goodwill due to incorrect information
being provided by the Crown Court we will lift this revocation to enable you to
drive pending the outcome of your case. In the meantime you will need to
forward your licence to us for updating, we appreciate you are returning to
court regarding this offence in May, however by law the information needs to be
updated onto your current driving licence until this date.
Should your appeal be successful
we will then issue you with a free replacement licence.
In reply to your query regarding
the points on your record I can confirm there are 6 points for the IN10 offence
of the 20/05/2014 and 6 points for the IN10 offence for the 01/01/2014, however
these can be removed when instructed by the Court.
I hope this information will be
helpful.
643,
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Case work lD9 |
DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY GTN 1213
Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing
Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
March 2015 13:12
To: Tracy Bullock
Subject: FW:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Dear Tracey Bullock
I have not had a reply to my
below email and therefore was wondering if there were any updates.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 14
March 2015 00:31
To: 'Tracy Bullock'
Subject: RE:
DVLA, Mr Cordell
Dear Tracey Bullock
Thank you for the email I did in
fact get your letter today dated the 09/03/2015
ref:
29597142
I would like to ask if you have
had the above update as of yet for the case listed in your letter as 26/11/2014,
as noted in your letter. The appeal hearing was heard on the 05/03/2015 and I
won my appeal.
So this case is dealt with
please see attached document from the crown court re the appeal hearing but on
their letter even they have put the date not correct they put the 29/08/2014 as
noted that was removed by the court on the 06/10/2014, and I was again found
guilty on the 26/11/2014. The appeal was for this date and not the 29/08/2014
as I had already had this date reopened and that was removed. I am contacting
the court and asking for a new letter to be sent with the right date on it as
this is just a mess.
I have also noted you said that
the licence was revoked on the 07/02/2015 by DVLA. Due to all the mess-up with
my insurance with KGM from the 2013/2014 and it not showing up on the MID
database, there were a list of cases that I did not get a summon for so did not
know I had to attend court, and was found guilty due to not attending court, a
number of calls have been made to DVLA in regards to this, this is why cases
have been reopened due to the mess up with the courts and also appeals put in
to the courts due to I could not take no more of the mess ups .
Could you also please tell me
how many points are on my licence and if it is still revoked? I believe the
revoke was for the case I have just won on appeal and would believe that DVLA
should have been updated to this already, so believe the revoke should not
still be in place as the court has now seen the error and corrected this so I
should never have been convicted and then you would never have revoked my
licence, could you please confirm this by email so I know if I can drive or not
and if all the points are off my licence or I still have points on there.
I was trying to address all the
wrong convictions against my name due to the errors in the MID I have really
done nothing wrong to lose my driving licence I was insured to drive please see
KGM LOI. I do understand that this will need to come from a court, but I am
very upset due to everything that has happened when I had paid for my insurance
to drive.
644,
I am in fact paying for
insurance right now which due to this mess with the KGM insurance and the courts
this has caused me to suffer badly when I should not have had to I am in fact
paying for insurance from 2014 to 2015 that I can’t even use due to all this
mess. So, I am insured but cannot drive. My insurance is not cheap it is
costing me around Ł1600.00 this is not a small amount to be paying yet I cannot
drive due to this mess.
I do have an appeal date for the
case you have dated 26/01/2015 that is in May 2015, but I am really suffering
here due to all these errors due to the MID database not showing me as being
insured. I am trying to address all of these issues and have sent 100's of
emails to courts CPS and have even had to file Appeals because the cases have
not been addressed correctly by the courts, I have sent my insurance documents
to the courts so many times.
Even the last appeal case the
judge was appalled due to what has happened to me.
I also know there is more dates
when the courts added points etc. to my driving licence and then they were
removed due to me proving I was insured. I do have a claim ongoing and need to
show how much this has affected my life. These have not been included in your
letter, could you please look at my driving record from 2013 to date of all
cases that the court added points etc. and then they were removed as I need to
prove the impact this has had on my life I also know there were I believe 1 or
2 more times my Licence was revoked and then put back in place due to the court
updating DVLA and I do know there is more dates you have not included in your
letter.
Could you please get back to me
by email ASAP to tell me if I am now allowed to drive or if my licence is still
revoked due to the errors of the courts and Insurance Company and if any points
are still on there?
Could you also please confirm
everything also in writing, so I do have a letter confirming everything as
things are still being addressed also with the courts and there is still one
appeal date?
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Tracy
Bullock
mailto: tracey.bullock@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 10
March 2015 11:18
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: DVLA,
Mr Cordell
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your Email, I
would like to inform you that full details of your driver record will be sent
to you by post. Many Thanks
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Casework
1 D9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY
GTN 1213 Ext. 86326
(01792) 786326
Driver & Vehicle Licensing
Agency
8 June 2015 - the counterpart is
abolished
Find out more at: www.gov.uk/dvla/nomorecounterpart
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
645,646,
82.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 82
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.18.2015_RE
Simon Cordell 1403116916
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 647,648
649,650,651,652,653
82.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 82
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.18.2015_RE
Simon Cordell 1403116916
18/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 647,648
649,650,651,652,653
--
647,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 18
March 2015 17:38
To: 'GL-BROMLEYMCENQ'
Cc: 'CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
SouthcjuCO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionCju@met.pnn.police.uk
O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Attachments: Insurance-2014-05-20-184559.pd
Emma-O'Sullivan-Simon Cordell.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Complaint
I am writing this email due to
many problems with a case that has been ongoing for no insurance the old case
number was 1402647845 the new case number is 1403116916.
The Problem I have been having
is not getting a summon this was the 1st thing so did not know a court date and
was found guilty when I did not know I was due to attend court.
Many emails have been sent
including my insurance I had a list of cases due to an insurance policy I had
with KGM this insurance did not show up on the MID database and I had my
vehicles seized around 9 times when in fact I had paid for my insurance.
Then this case happened on the
20/5/2014 this was on a new policy with a new insurance company please see
attached insurance document. The insurance started on the 19/05/2014 and I
believe this is why this one was not showing on the MID on the 20/05/2014 as it
was too short a time.
I have sent many emails to the
CPS who do not reply but I do get the read replies so I know the emails are
getting opened the only reason I got the above emails addresses was due to all
the email I was sending to the main CPS and calls I was making one day I was
put though to a manager of traffic CPS as I was so upset on the phone to what
was going on. I explained all the problems I was having all the calls and
emails that were being sent, her name was Emma O'Sullivan please see attached
email. The only traffic CPS that have replied was from CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
a wonderful lady called Sharon Burns.
I have also been sending emails
to the court for the above listed case and have been including my insurance
policy, I have been getting replies to my emails were I was told to file a
statutory declaration which I did for this case on the 02/12/2014 at Highbury
Magistrates Court.
When I came out of court, I was
told to go to the court office where a lady took all the papers for the
statutory declaration including a copy of my insurance papers. I was told I
would get a date in the post with a new date hearing. I have been waiting for
the date to come but as of, yet I did not get one for this case.
I also did not get a date for
the other statutory declaration I done on the same date and that case was heard
again on the 26/01/2015 again I was found guilty and was very upset and just
filed an appeal which will be heard on the 14/05/2015 at Harrow crown court.
But for the Bromley Magistrates'
Court case I not had anything.
For the past 4 weeks I been
dealing with a lady called Tracey Bullock Administrative Officer, Court
Casework1 D9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY due to the CPS not getting back to me
with what was on my driving licence. today she sent me this over
Dear Mr Cordell
The Court case with the offence
date of the 20/05/2014 is as follows:
South East London Magistrates'
Court Date of Conviction - 06/11/2014 Offence - IN10 Date of Offence -
20/05/2014
648,
Fine - Ł600 Points - 6
South East London Magistrates'
Court Bromley Magistrates' Court London Road Bromley Kent BR1 IRQ
Telephone no - 020 8437 3500
Hope this information is of help to you
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Case work
lD9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY
Now I got very upset as I knew I
had filed the statutory declaration for this case and seeing the conviction
date this was clearly wrong as I had filed the statutory declaration after this
date. I made a call to the court and was told that the statutory declaration
filed in error and was closed, so was never reopened. The lady I spoke to said
she was going to get the file out and get the right person to call me but give
me an update call just to let me know it had been done.
I then got a call from a lady
called Donna and while on the phone to her the other lady called me from the
court to say it had been done. I told her I was on the phone to Donna and she
told me that is who I needed to speak to.
I was shocked to hear the lady
say to me that the case was heard on the 18/12/2014 and I was found guilty
again as I did not turn up, but I have had no letters so how was I meant to
show up when I did not know I needed to. But this cannot be right as looking at
the information DVLA hold it is the old information to the 1st hearing, as far
as I have been told by the court when a statutory declaration is filed the
court would have to contact DVLA and remove the old conviction they had on file
this has not been done by the court. so how could the case have been heard on
the 18/12/2014. something is really not right here at all as it is all the old
information that DVLA have on file which should have been removed when the
statutory declaration was filed on the 02/12/2014.
I would like this case looked
into and set aside and it to be reopened.
I would also like the summons
sent to me for this case that was meant to have been sent out to me which I
have never had and the letter of a hearing for the 18/12/2014 could this please
be sent via email to this email address.
Also, if the court is not
willing to deal with this could you please give me the right to appeal to the
crown court and I will file the correct paperwork to the court.
Could it also be made sure that
the right CPS get the files and my insurance policy so it can be checked I was
in fact insured.
And an update as to what will
happen as it is very upsetting that I am been found guilty for no insurance
when in fact I do pay for my insurance.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Simon Cordell
649,
Blank Page!
650,
651,
RE: Simon Cordell
1403116916->Emma O'Sullivan-Simon Cordell.pdf
From: O
Sullivan Emma
To:
CO16Mailbox-. NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk:
CO16Mailbox- SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk:
Southcju
(CO16Mailbox- SouthProsecutionCiu@met.pnn.police.uk
CO16Mailbox-. NorthProsecutionCJU@met.pnn.police.uk
Cc: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
Date: 11 February 2015 15:24:41
Attachments: S Cordell
020215.pdf
Found Guilty again
26-01-2015.pdf
S Cordell Cert._ GE
2013-2014.pdf
image2014-05-20-184559.pdf
Dear All,
Please could you kindly assist
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of her son Simon Cordell. They believe that a number
of summons have been issued against Simon for the offence of no insurance since
2013 due to an error made by the insurance company as per the attached letter.
Unfortunately, due to Simon not always receiving the summons/adjournment notice
they are unsure how many cases have been issued against him and are trying to
get them all reopened and listed before court to be heard together in light of
the above. Please would you be able to check your database and confirm to the
email address below the number of cases with reference number, court, and
conviction date.
have also spoken to her on the
phone and informed Lorraine that she will need to contact the court directly to
make application to reopen/stat decs, which she can only do so once the
information has been obtained.
The only matter the cps are
currently aware of is for the case ref J63181495 which is listed for appeal at
Kingston Crown Court 05/03/15.
If you are unable to advise her
on summons that have been issued on her son, please could you kindly advise her
where she could obtain the information.
Kind Regards,
Emma O'Sullivan London Traffic
Unit Admin Line Manager 02033571604
Rose Court,
4th Floor
Southwark Bridge,
London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263
Southwark 12.
From: London
traffic team
Sent: 10
February 2015 14:41
To: O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
652,
From: London
magistrates central west
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:25
To: London traffic team
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
FYI
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
February 2015 13:06
To: GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: London
magistrates central west
London magistrates south
London magistrate’s northeast.
gl-bromleymcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this email due to the
number of problems I have been having due to a policy of insurance I had with
KGM insurance which did not show up on the MID database in the week it was fine
as I carried my insurance documents with me at all times and the insurance
company could be called, but the problems was when the insurance company was
closed as the police could not contact them.
My mum Lorraine Cordell and I
have sent many emails to the courts with my insurance documents, but there have
been cases where I have not had a summons. So did not know about cases and they
have been heard at court and I was found guilty of no insurance.
I have done statutory
declarations at court including my insurance documents and this still has not
corrected anything.
One of the statutory
declarations was again heard at court on the 26/01/2015 which again I did not
know about for Willesden Magistrates' Court. But I have sent so many emails to
this court with all documents and asked for them to be checked with the police
officer at court to show I was insured to drive. This has not been done I have
just again been found guilty due to not getting letters of a court hearing
date.
I have now also got a letter of
Indemnity from KGM who I was insured with under policy number MT3574694. 00.01
AM on the 23/2/13 and was in force until Midnight on the 22/2/14 when it
lapsed.
Most of the cases are with the
KGM policy you will see the reason as to why in the Letter of Indemnity from
KGM.
I also believe there was one
case for Covea Insurance PLC policy number MT10 021608047 it was not showing on
the MID due to the stop was the day after I took the policy out.
Please can any cases be set
aside and reopened and looked into and any other cases that have been heard for
no insurance under these policies of insurance be addressed.
You will in due cause be hearing
from my solicitor, she is trying to address all the cases, but this is taking
time. She has seen all the emails I have sent trying to address these issues
and feels more should have been done as it would have only taken for the
insurance policies to be checked and this would have stopped a waste of time
and money for the courts, and myself at this time she wants to just appeal all
cases to the crown court. which would again be a waste of money for the courts.
and again, of my time.
But this is having an effect on
my life my driving licence has been revoked 3 times for no insurance, when in
fact I have always had insurance to drive and would not drive if I did not have
insurance.
Please see attached documents
653,
Could you get back to me as soon
as possible by way of email, as it does seem there is an issue with my post and
not getting letters that was meant to be sent to me? I am taking this up with
the royal mail.
Regards
Simon Cordell
DOB: 26/01/1981
This email has been scanned by
the Symantec Email Security cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
*********************************************************************
This e-mail is private and is
intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended
recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply
e-mail and delete this message
and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Activity and use of CPS Connect
systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the
Criminal Justice Extranet is
monitored to secure their effective operation and for
other lawful business purposes.
Communications using these systems will also be
monitored and may be recorded to
secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************
83.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 83
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_03.23.2015_FW Simon Cordell
1403116916
23/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661
83.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 83
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_03.23.2015_FW
Simon Cordell 1403116916
23/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661
--
654,
From: O'Sullivan
Emma
Emma.O'Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 23
March 2015 10:15
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Attachments: Insurance-2014-05-20-184559.pdf.
Emma O'Sullivan-Simon Cordell.pdf
Hi Lorraine,
Apologies the email address for
the team is below.
CO16Mailbox- SouthProsecutionFPN@met.police.uk
sent it to the north team in
error but they have confirmed it has been forwarded on to the south team.
Kind Regards,
Emma O'Sullivan London Traffic
Unit Admin Line Manager 02033571604 ’
Rose Court,
4th Floor
Southwark Bridge,
London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263
Southwark 12.
From: O'Sullivan
Emma
Sent: 23
March 2015 09:55
To: CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
Cc: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Dear South Team,
Please see below email.
Simon Cordell is waiting for a date
from the court to hear the application to reopen. Please ensure the attached
documents have been placed on file and dealt with once the case has been
relisted. Please could someone kindly ring Lorraine Cordell once her
correspondence has been dealt with - 02082457454/07961833021.
Thank you
Emma O'Sullivan London Traffic
Unit Admin Line Manager 02033571604 ’
Rose Court,
4th Floor
2 Southwark Bridge,
London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263
Southwark 12.
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
--
655,656,657,658,659,660,661,
84.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 84
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_03.23.2015_FW Simon Cordell
1403116916_001
23/03/2015
/ Page Numbers: 662,663,664,665,666
667,668
84.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 84
Emma.O’Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk_
03.23.2015_FW Simon Cordell
1403116916_001
23/03/2015
/ Page Numbers:
662,663,664,665,666
667,668
--
662,
From: O'Sullivan
Emma
Emma.O'Sullivan@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 23
March 2015 09:55
To: CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Attachments: Insurance-2014-05-20-184559.pdf.
Emma O'Sullivan-Simon Cordell.pdf
Dear South Team,
Please see below email.
Simon Cordell is waiting for a
date from the court to hear the application to reopen. Please ensure the
attached documents have been placed on file and dealt with once the case has
been relisted. Please could someone kindly ring Lorraine Cordell once her
correspondence has been dealt with - 02082457454/07961833021.
Thank you
Emma O'Sullivan London Traffic
Unit Admin Line Manager 02033571604 ’
Rose Court,
4th Floor
2 Southwark Bridge, London,
SE1 9HS,
DX 154263
Southwark 12.
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 18
March 2015 17:38
To: 'GL-BROMLEYMCENQ'
Cc: CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk;
Southcju';
O'Sullivan Emma
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
To Whom It May Concern:
Complaint
I am writing this email due to many
problems with a case that has been ongoing for no insurance the old case number
was 1402647845 the new case number is 1403116916.
The Problem I have been having
is not getting a summon this was the 1st thing so did not know a court date and
was found guilty when I did not know I was due to attend court.
Many emails have been sent
including my insurance I had a list of cases due to an insurance policy I had
with KGM this insurance did not show up on the MID database and I had my
vehicles seized around 9 times when in fact I had paid for my insurance.
Then this case happened on the
20/5/2014 this was on a new policy with a new insurance company please see
attached insurance document. The insurance started on the 19/05/2014 and I
believe this is why this one was not showing on the MID on the 20/05/2014 as it
was too short a time.
I have sent many emails to the
CPS who do not reply but I do get the read replies so I know the emails are
getting opened the only reason I got the above emails addresses was due to all
the email I was sending to the main CPS and calls I was making one day I was
put though to a manager of traffic CPS as I was so upset on the phone to what
was going on. I explained all the problems I was having all the calls and
emails that were being sent, her name was Emma O'Sullivan please see attached
email. The only traffic CPS
--
663,664,665,666,667,668,
85.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 85
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_04.01.2015_RE Appeal against
conviction for no insurance Reg
01/04/2015
/ Page Numbers: 669,670,671,672
673,674
85.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 85
Peter.Wood@canopius.com_04.01.2015_RE
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Reg
01/04/2015
/ Page Numbers:
669,670,671,672
673,674
--
669,
From: Wood,
Peter
Sent: 01
April 2015 16:02
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015
at Kingston Upon Thames Crown
Court
Hi Lorraine,
Fantastic holiday thanks, really
great time, went by far too quickly and now it’s back to normal, took me a
while to get my head back in the game I must say.
I didn't realise there was more
than 1 court case! This is going to take some time to sort out but I'm glad to
hear you got the right result on the recent case.
I guess all I can say for the
moment is let me know how things go and of course I will respond again after I
have received and considered details of the Police stops/vehicle seizures we
are waiting on.
All the best.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44
(0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 01
April 2015 15:00
To: Wood, Peter
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Peter
Thank you for the email and I
hope you had a great holiday.
I am waiting for the police
compound to get back to us with the data for the seizers, but they just take so
long with everything.
There are still court cases for
no insurance that are still ongoing there are 2 left where Simon did not get
any summons form the court and was found guilty due to not knowing. One is due
to be heard in May 2015 and we are waiting for the last date.
DVLA have now taken of the ban
on the 18/03/2015 so the insurance my son has been paying for the last year and
could not be used due to this can now be used as he can drive now. But there is
still the 12 points on his licence due to the other 2 court cases for no
insurance DVLA do know the 12 points should not be on there in fact they have
also been in contact with the courts they are not happy, but they cannot remove
the points until the cases are heard in court.
But an update to what happened
in court case were the police officer lied was Simon won the case and the judge
was very upset at the police officer and put notes that it needed addressing.
The complaint is ongoing with
the police office that lied, at this time that may take some time as the police
officer may be charged. We won't know fully until the Serious Misconduct
Investigation Unit Directorate of Professional Standards completes there
investigation into what the police officer did and what the crown court judge
said as the judge knows he lied to 2 judges and Simon was found guilty when he
had done nothing wrong. We had a meeting about this on the 26/03/2015 but the
person dealing with this is waiting for the crown court documents as to what
the judge said, we should have the court transcript from Kingston Crown Court
just after the Easter holidays.
I will keep you updated as to
the data you need it’s just waiting for it from the police compound as requests
had to be made for the data,
670,
Simon did try to get the information
without the requests, but the police was not having it, so the request had to
be put in for it.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood, Peter mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 31
March 2015 09:25
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Hello Lorraine,
I trust you and Simon are well.
I was wondering if you could
update me on what’s been happening please? I would like to make sure there is
nothing else we can do and of course to bring this matter to a conclusion if we
can.
Regards
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 |
www.kgminsurance.co.uk
|
www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 11 February 2015 12:45
To: Wood, Peter
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Hi Peter
Thank you so much for all your
help, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood, Peter [mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 11 February 2015 11:40
To: Lorraine
Cordell; Josephine Ward (josie@michaelcarrollandco.com)
Cc: Austin,
Andrew
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina
v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Hello,
Please find attached signed
statement as requested.
The original is in the post to
the Burncroft Ave address.
If you need anything else,
please ask Andy in my absence.
Regards
671,
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10 February 2015 18:07
To: Wood, Peter
Subject:
RE:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th
March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Peter
Sorry for the late reply yes
Josephine Ward has said this is fine and can be signed off. thank you for all
the help in this matter.
I hope you have a great time on
holiday.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood, Peter [mailto: Peter.Wood@canopius.com
Sent: 10 February 2015 16:38
To: Josephine
Ward; Wood, Peter
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Austin,
Andrew
Subject:
RE: Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v.
Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Good Afternoon,
Please can I have your
confirmation that the draft section 9 statement is acceptable asap? If I do not
hear back by 11.30 tomorrow, I will have to assume it is and sign it off and
send out as I will be in meetings and on holiday after that time.
Thanks
Pete Wood
From: Wood,
Peter <Peter.Wood@canopius.com>
Date: 9 February 2015 11:29:00 GMT
To:
Josephine Ward Josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Cc:
Austin, Andrew Andrew.Austin@canopius.com
Subject: RE: Appeal
against conviction for no insurance Regina v. Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March
2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Ms Ward,
I have drafted a section 9
statement as requested. Before I sign it off can you review it and confirm it
satisfies all of your requirements please? As soon as you do so I will sign it
off, scan a copy over to you and put the original in the post.
Let me know if you need anything
else and of course if you need me to amend the attached in any way.
Lorraine/Andy - FYI.
Regards
672,
Peter Wood
UK Specialty Operations Manager
|
UK Specialty Division of
Canopius Group
KGM House | 14 Eastwood Close |
London | E18 1RZ
D +44 (0) 20 8530 9120 | www.kgminsurance.co.uk | www.canopius.com
From: Josephine Ward [mailto: Josie@michaelcarroHandco.com
Sent: 08 February 2015 19:02
To: Wood,
Peter; Austin, Andrew
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
Appeal against conviction for no insurance Regina v.
Simon Paul Cordell on 5th March 2015 at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court
Dear Mr Wood
I have been instructed by Mr
Simon Paul Cordell and Miss Lorraine Cordell to assist in the appeal against
conviction that is due to be heard at Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court on 5th
March 2015 at 10am.
Miss Cordell has played two
recordings that she received from KGM which are pertinent to the appeal but at
present as the telephone recordings have not been produced as an exhibit by KGM
they will not be admissible at court.
Can you therefore please write a
section 9 statement confirming that:
all recording equipment was
working correctly
KGM produced two recordings at
the request of Ms Lorraine Cordell
Confirmation that the recording
of S Cordell call from police 141113 Recording was provided by KGM from their
recorded calls and is authentic
Confirmation that the recording
between the Car Pound and Kelly Tiller was also provided from the KGM recorded
calls and is authentic
If we are in possession of a
section 9 statement producing the recordings, then we will not have to apply to
the court for a Third-Party Summons to compel an employee from KGM to attend to
produce the recordings. This would be a complete waste of your time when all we
require is a section 9 attesting to the recordings being retrieved from the
system and exhibited as two separate recordings.
If you require assistance with
drafting a section 9 statement, then we would be happy to draft it and email it
over. We would require the name of the person who retrieved the recordings. the
dates that the recordings were retrieved, the dates the recordings relate to,
confirmation that the recordings were sent to Lorraine Cordell by email so that
she can produce CD's of the recordings so that they can be played in court and
specifically refer to the email containing the recordings so that there is
continuity in the chain of evidence. Ideally, we would like KGM to produce the
CD's and exhibit them but failing this we will try to get the CPS to agree the
CD's as produced from the email of Miss Cordell. We stress that the section in
relation to the search and retrieval of the KGM database is essential and
critical to ensuring that the chain of evidence is intact.
We can serve these recordings on
the CPS and the Court so that they are agreed in advance of the Appeal hearing.
We thank you in advance for your
anticipated co-operation in this matter and hope that we do not have to apply
for a Third-party Witness Summons to compel the attendance of a KGM employee at
the Appeal on the 5th March 2015.
We confirm that Miss Cordell is
forwarding an email confirming that we are instructed and authorised to request
this information.
673,
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO.
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
PROUD SPONSOR of TRAIL
LONDON
25 MAY
28 MAR
674,
Confidentiality Caution
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited Canopius Services Limited | registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
PROUD SPONSOR of
LONDON TRAIL
28 MAR - 25 MAY
CITY SUPPORTING IN HOSPITALS
® Shaun 1he Streep is a
registered trademark of Aardman Ammaliens Ltd.
Grand Anneal / Aardman A
Gromits, Children's Charily
Reg. LC4J&G1.
AH rights res-c
The information in this e-mail
and in any attachments is CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient,
please destroy this message and notify the sender immediately. Canopius may
monitor the content of e-mails sent and received via its network for viruses,
unauthorised use, or other lawful business purposes. E-mail sent for and on
behalf of a member of Canopius Group, which includes:
Canopius Holdings UK Limited |
registered number 04818520
Canopius Managing Agents Limited
| registered number 01514453 | Authorised by the Prudential Regulation
Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential
Regulation Authority
Canopius Underwriting Limited |
registered number 02473672 | appointed representative of Canopius Managing
Agents Limited
Canopius Services Limited |
registered number 02733994
KGM Motor Insurance is a brand
name for business written by Canopius Managing Agents Limited Registered
office: Gallery 9, One Lime Street, London, EC3M 7HA | Registered in England
and Wales
86.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 86
sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_04.02.2015_RE Simon Cordell
1403116916
04/04/2015
/ Page Numbers: 675,676,677,678
86.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 86
sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_04.02.2015_RE
Simon Cordell 1403116916
04/04/2015 02/04/2015
/ Page Numbers:
675,676,677,678
--
675,
From: Leslie,
Sandra <sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
on behalf of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Sent: 02 April 2015 11:04
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject:
RE: Simon Cordell 1403116916
Morning Mrs Cordell,
I have received a decision from
the Clerk he has advised that the case be put in court as an application to be
re-opened Mr Cordell will be sent a date in due course to attend, I apologise
for the delay.
Regards
Miss S E Leslie
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 01
April 2015 17:13
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Dear Miss S E Leslie
I still have not had any update
to this case could you please get back to me with what is going on as I would
like to get this addressed.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Leslie,
Sandra [mailto:sandra.leslie@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk] On Behalf Of GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Sent: 20
March 2015 14:42
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
Good afternoon Mrs Cordell,
Thank you for your email and may
to your query I apologise for the delay in replying to your query.
I have referred your complaint
to a Clerk of the court.
Regards
Miss S E Leslie
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 18
March 2015 17:38
To: GL-BROMLEYMCENQ
Cc: CO16Mailbox-.SouthProsecutionFN@met.pnn.police.uk
Southcju';
'O'Sullivan Emma'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 1403116916
To Whom It May Concern:
Complaint
I am writing this email due to
many problems with a case that has been ongoing for no insurance the old case
number was 1402647845 the new case number is 1403116916.
The Problem I have been having
is not getting a summon this was the 1st thing so did not know a court date and
was found guilty
676,
when I did not know I was due to
attend court.
Many emails have been sent
including my insurance I had a list of cases due to an insurance policy I had
with KGM this insurance did not show up on the MID database and I had my
vehicles seized around 9 times when in fact I had paid for my insurance.
Then this case happened on the
20/5/2014 this was on a new policy with a new insurance company please see
attached insurance document. The insurance started on the 19/05/2014 and I
believe this is why this one was not showing on the MID on the 20/05/2014 as it
was too short a time.
I have sent many emails to the
CPS who do not reply but I do get the read replies so I know the emails are
getting opened the only reason I got the above emails addresses was due to all
the email I was sending to the main CPS and calls I was making one day I was
put though to a manager of traffic CPS as I was so upset on the phone to what
was going on. I explained all the problems I was having all the calls and
emails that were being sent, her name was Emma O'Sullivan please see attached
email. The only traffic CPS that have replied was from CO16Mailbox-.NorthProsecutionFPN@met.pnn.police.uk a wonderful lady called Sharon Burns.
I have also been sending emails
to the court for the above listed case and have been including my insurance
policy, I have been getting replies to my emails were I was told to file a
statutory declaration which I did for this case on the 02/12/2014 at Highbury
Magistrates Court.
When I came out of court, I was
told to go to the court office where a lady took all the papers for the
statutory declaration including a copy of my insurance papers. I was told I
would get a date in the post with a new date hearing. I have been waiting for
the date to come but as of, yet I did not get one for this case.
I also did not get a date for
the other statutory declaration I done on the same date and that case was heard
again on the 26/01/2015 again I was found guilty and was very upset and just
filed an appeal which will be heard on the 14/05/2015 at Harrow crown court.
But for the Bromley Magistrates'
Court case I not had anything.
For the past 4 weeks I been
dealing with a lady called Tracey Bullock Administrative Officer, Court
Casework1 D9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY due to the CPS not getting back to me
with what was on my driving licence. today she sent me this over
Dear Mr Cordell
The Court case with the offence
date of the 20/05/2014 is as follows: -
South East London Magistrates' Court
Date of Conviction - 06/11/2014
Offence - IN10
Date of Offence - 20/05/2014
Fine - Ł600
Points - 6
South
East London Magistrates' Court Bromley Magistrates' Court London Road Bromley Kent
BR1 1RQ
Telephone no - 020 8437 3500
Hope this information is of help to you
Tracey Bullock
Administrative Officer
Court Casework
lD9 | DVLA | Swansea | SA99 1AY
677,
Now I got very upset as I knew I
had filed the statutory declaration for this case and seeing the conviction
date this was clearly wrong as I had filed the statutory declaration after this
date. I made a call to the court and was told that the statutory declaration
filed in error and was closed, so was never reopened. The lady I spoke to said
she was going to get the file out and get the right person to call me but give
me an update call just to let me know it had been done.
I then got a call from a lady
called Donna and while on the phone to her the other lady called me from the
court to say it had been done. I told her I was on the phone to Donna and she
told me that is who I needed to speak to.
I was shocked to hear the lady
say to me that the case was heard on the 18/12/2014 and I was found guilty
again as I did not turn up, but I have had no letters so how was I meant to
show up when I did not know I needed to. But this cannot be right as looking at
the information DVLA hold it is the old information to the 1st hearing, as far
as I have been told by the court when a statutory declaration is filed the
court would have to contact DVLA and remove the old conviction they had on file
this has not been done by the court. so how could the case have been heard on
the 18/12/2014. something is really not right here at all as it is all the old
information that DVLA have on file which should have been removed when the
statutory declaration was filed on the 02/12/2014.
I would like this case looked
into and set aside and it to be reopened.
I would also like the summons
sent to me for this case that was meant to have been sent out to me which I
have never had and the letter of a hearing for the 18/12/2014 could this please
be sent via email to this email address.
Also if the court is not willing
to deal with this could you please give me the right to appeal to the crown
court and I will file the correct paperwork to the court.
Could it also be made sure that
the right CPS get the files and my insurance policy so it can be checked I was
in fact insured.
And an update as to what will
happen as it is very upsetting that I am been found guilty for no insurance
when in fact I do pay for my insurance.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Simon Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
678,
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with
Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please
call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium.
Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please
bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this
message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender
or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the Ministry of
Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content
may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned
for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied
by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
87.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 87
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.11.2015_FW RE CPS Letter for
Appeal-Case Simon
11/05/2015
/ Page Numbers: 679,680
87.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 87
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.11.2015_FW
RE CPS Letter for Appeal-Case Simon
11/05/2015
/ Page Numbers:
679,680
--
679,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 11
May 2015 15:17
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: FW:
RE: CPS Letter for Appeal-Case Simon
Attachments: CPS-for-Appeal.pdf
Dear Josey
Please see attached letter from CPS I
made a mistake the other day thinking it was the court.
But how funny after me sending Simon insurance
to them about 100 and them finding him guilty 3 times at Willesden mag court
they are now saying oh you have insurance we will not be opposing the Appeal.
What a waste of money and time.
I should think this will mean Simon
does not need to attend court thank god but I will call the court to check I
just called them and they say he will still need to attend can you check if
that is correct for me please .
Regards
Lorraine
680,
88.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 88
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.11.2015_RE CPS Letter for
Appeal-Case Simon
05/05/2015
/ Page Numbers: 681,682
88.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 88
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.11.2015_RE
CPS Letter for Appeal-Case Simon
05/05/2015 11/05/2015
/ Page Numbers:
681,682
--
681,
From: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 11 May 2015 15:10
To: 'JOSEPHINE
WARD'
Subject: RE: CPS Letter
for Appeal-Case Simon
Attachments: CPS-for-Appeal.pdf
Dear Josie
Please see attached letter from
CPS I made a mistake the other day thinking it was the court.
But how funny after me sending
Simon insurance to them about 100 and them finding him guilty 3 times at
Willesden mag court t are now saying oh you have insurance; we will not be
opposing the Appeal. What a waste of money and time.
I should think this will mean
Simon does not need to attend court thank god, but I will call the court to
check.
Regards
Lorraine
682,
89.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 89
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.19.2015_Re Simon Cordell
05/05/2015
/ Page Numbers: 683,684
89.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 89
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_05.19.2015_Re
Simon Cordell
05/05/2015 19/05/2015
/ Page Numbers:
683,684
--
683,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 19
May 2015 17:13
To: enquiries@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
GL-BrentMCenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
LCCCCollectionUnit@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Won-Appeal.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a
case for using a vehicle without insurance that was heard at Harrow Crown Court
on the 14 May 2015 Case Number A20150049 the appeal against conviction was
allowed. Please see attached document from the court
When I was found guilty for this
case at Willesden Magistrates' Court the case numbers were 011403134612 and the
old case number to that was 011401596899.
When I was found guilty at
Willesden Magistrates' Court, I was given
Fine Ł600.00
Victim surcharge Ł60.00
Licence endorsed: 6 penalty
points
I am not sure who is to address
the points being removed from my driving licence and the Victim surcharge
Ł60.00 therefore could someone please explain if I need to do anything for
this.
Also, the fine of Ł600.00 the
court arranged this to be taken out of my benefits each week. this is still
being taken out I have today made a call to find out what I can do to get this
stopped to Willesden court and got cut of the phone. Also, I called the fines
people up who are collecting this fine and it is still being collected.
Could someone please get the
fine to be stopped being taken out of my benefits and also the money they have
collected from this fine which I believe started in Aug 2014 to be paid back to
me. I am not sure even how it would be paid back to me as it has been taken
direct from my benefit which has made me suffer when I did nothing wrong and
did in fact have insurance, could someone get back to me if I need to deal with
anything to get this fine stopped being taken and also the money that has been
taken paid back to me..
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ DOB: 26/01/1981
Regards
Simon Cordell
684,
90.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 90
enquiries@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk_05.20.2015_FW
Simon Cordell
20/05/2015
/ Page Numbers: 685,686,687,688
90.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 90
enquiries@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk_05.20.2015_FW
Simon Cordell
20/05/2015
/ Page Numbers:
685,686,687,688
--
685,
From:
Harrow Crown, Enquiries
enquines@harrow.crowncourt.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
May 2015 13:03
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: GL-BRENTMCENQ.
LCCC Collection Unit.
LCCC Enforcement
Unit.
LCCC Compliance Unit
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Won-Appeal.pdf
Hello Mr Cordell
Your email has been forwarded to
Willesden Magistrates Court.
When an appeal is finished, the
results go back to Magistrates Court and they are supposed to send notification
to London Collection and Compliance Centre and stop the payment of fine etc.
Please contact them to get this
amended.
Regards Bharti Shah Harrow Crown
Court 020 8424 2294
e-mail - bharti.shah@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
TO ENABLE US TO DEAL PROMPTLY WITH
YOUR ENQUIRY, PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE CASE NUMBER / INDICTMENT NUMBER IS QUOTED
IN ALL COMMUNICATIONS AND URGENT EMAILS ARE MARKED WITH "HIGH
PRIORITY".
COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO THIS COURT VIA ONLY ONE MEANS OF CONTACT AND TO ONLY ONE EMAIL ADDRESS.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM COPYING IT TO ADDITIONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES, FACSIMILE AND
POST.
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19 May
2015 17:13
To: Harrow
Crown, Enquiries
GL-BRENTMCENQ LCCC
Collection Unit
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email due to a
case for using a vehicle without insurance that was heard at Harrow Crown Court
on the 14 May 2015 Case Number A20150049 the appeal against conviction was
allowed. Please see attached document from the court
When I was found guilty for this
case at Willesden Magistrates' Court the case numbers were 011403134612 and the
old case number to that was 011401596899.
When I was found guilty at
Willesden Magistrates' Court, I was given
Fine Ł600.00
Victim surcharge Ł60.00
Licence endorsed: 6 penalty
points
I am not sure who is to address
the points being removed from my driving licence and the Victim surcharge
Ł60.00 therefore could someone please explain if I need to do anything for
this.
686,
Also, the fine of Ł600.00 the
court arranged this to be taken out of my benefits each week. this is still
being taken out I have today made a call to find out what I can do to get this
stopped to Willesden court and got cut of the phone. Also, I called the fines
people up who are collecting this fine and it is still being collected.
Could someone please get the
fine to be stopped being taken out of my benefits and also the money they have
collected from this fine which I believe started in Aug 2014 to be paid back to
me. I am not sure even how it would be paid back to me as it has been taken
direct from my benefit which has made me suffer when I did nothing wrong and
did in fact have insurance, could someone get back to me if I need to deal with
anything to get this fine stopped being taken and also the money that has been
taken paid back to me..
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ DOB: 26/01/1981
Regards
Simon Cordell
This email was scanned by the
Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in
partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may
be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by
687,
Vodafone in partnership with
Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified
virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
and/or recorded for legal purposes.
688,
91.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 91
William.Slade@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_06.18.2015_Simon Cordell
22.07.13 Waltham Forest MC
18/06/2015
/ Page Numbers: 689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697
91.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 91
William.Slade@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk_06.18.2015_Simon
Cordell 22.07.13 Waltham Forest MC
18/06/2015
/ Page Numbers: 689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697
--
689,
From: Slade,
William
William.Slade@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
on behalf of London East MC
<LondonEastMC@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 18
June 2015 16:28
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Simon
Cordell 22.07.13
Waltham Forest MC
Attachments: Cordell.pdf
Good Afternoon Lorraine,
Following our conversation earlier
today, please find attached details relating to your sons’ case to assist you
in making a Statutory Declaration. If your son decides to attend court to make
the declaration your sons local magistrates court is Tottenham MC and the
details are : https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/tottenham-magistrates-court-formerlyenfield-magistrates-court?aol=All&postcode=en3%207jq
Your sons case number is
1301713036 and it was heard at Waltham Forest MC on 22.07.13.
I hope you and your son are able
to get to the bottom of this matter.
Kind Regards
William Thames CSU
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
690,
Simon Cordell 22.07.13
Waltham Forest MC Cordell
MG4E
CHARGE(S)
On 05/02/2013 at Burncroft
Avenue EN3 7JQ having been required by or on behalf of the Chief Officer of
Police for METROPOLIS, failed to give information relating to the
identification of the driver of a vehicle , namely a FORD(EUROPE) VRM MA57LDY,
who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence. Contrary to section 172(3)
of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act
1988
[This offence carries penalty
points.]
[Statement of facts]
A brief statement of the case is
set out below. This statement may be used as a summary of the prosecution case
if you plead guilty.
On 05/02/2013 the defendant
having been required by or on behalf of Police for METROPOLIS failed to give
information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, namely ’
FORD(EUROPE) VRM MA57LDY, who
was alleged to have been guilty of an offence
If you are convicted the
Prosecution in this case will apply to the court for costs in the sum of Ł85.00
Charge Authorised by Niki Manson
for the Metropolitan Police Prosecution contact details:
Metropolitan Police, Camera
Offences Prosecution Section, PO Box 510 DA15 0BQ Date: Thursday, 20 June 2013
Post FTC
691,
692,
693,
694,
695,
696,
697,
92.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 92
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.18.2015_RE Simon Cordell
18/09/2015
/ Page Numbers: 698,699
92.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 92
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_09.18.2015_RE
Simon Cordell
18/09/2015
/ Page Numbers: 698,699
--
698,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 18
September 2015 15:00
To: benedicta.odjida@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Court-List-From-Benedicta.pdf
Dear Benedicta Odjida
Mr Simon Paul Cordell DOB
26/01/1981
I am writing this Email due to
some work you curry out in February/March 2014 in regard to looking up records
that are on my PNC record.
There was a list that took some
time for you to go over, and then my mother Lorraine Cordell came to the court
to pick them up once you had looked every up.
Since this time we have been
trying to get this addressed as there were a number that was not in the court
record, you gave my mother a print out that you had done with stars on the ones
that was not in the courts register, please see attached document.
Since this time, we have been
dealing with Flo at Highbury Corner court to get a letter done by you to say you
did in fact look at the court register and did not find these records on the
court register.
My Mother and I have sent many
emails to Highbury Corner Court and have gone to the court and spoke with Flo
and we see to not be able to get this issue addressed.
Therefore my mother came to
Enfield court on the 15/09/2015 to see if she could speak to you, but you was
on leave so she asked for your direct email, I am writing this email directly
to you to see if this issue can be addressed and a letter written saying you
looked at the courts registers and did not find the ones marked on the list you
gave my mother. As it seems the printout you gave her is not enough and it does
need a court headed letter to show in fact the work that you carried out
looking into my data the court holds.
Could you please look into this
issue and let me know if a court headed letter can be made up and if so my
mother Lorraine Cordell could come to the court and pick it up, if you could
let me know by replying to this email I would be most grateful.
Regards
Simon Cordell
699
93.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 93
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_10.20.2015_RE SIMON CORDELL
20/10/2015
/ Page Numbers: 700,701
93.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 93
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_10.20.2015_RE
SIMON CORDELL
20/10/2015
/ Page Numbers: 700,701
--
700,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 20
October 2015 17:48
To: 'Forster, John
Subject: RE:
SIMON CORDELL
Dear Mr Dear Forster
Could you please put this email in
front of the legal adviser, the alleged erroneous entries on my PNC as you have
put it, are made up from the court as the police would not be able to put
records on a person’s PNC record without a case being put in front of the
courts.
My Mother has asked the court to
check all the registries at the court against the records the police hold on my
PNC record. This showed the errors and as you said to my mother at the court if
a case is not listed at the court then it was never heard at the court.
There are 5 errors of no listing
on my PNC that the court does not have in the court register how can this be?
My mother has been to the police
who do not want to address this issue this is why she came to the court as the
court should hold all records.
By the legal adviser not wanting
to write a letter showing my records have been checked by the court what is
this saying. why should a person be able to ask the court to check their
records, yet the court does not want to get involved in errors they found?
This is a miscarriage of
justice; the court has not found records in the court registries that are on my
PNC record, yet the court does not want to do anything about it.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From:
Forster, John mailto: john.forster@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: 20
October 2015 16:03
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SIMON
CORDELL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Further to your request for a
letter from the court regarding the alleged erroneous entries on the PNC, the
legal adviser has stated that the court cannot supply this information: you
must make your request through the police.
Regards,
Customer Services Unit (8)
Highbury Corner Magistrates
Court 51 Holloway Road LONDON N7 8JA
701,
DX: 153700 Highbury 4
Tel: 0207-506
3109
e-mail: gl-hcornermcenq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Gold fax: 0870 739 5768
I am neither authorised to bind the
Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other
statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic
means.
This e-mail (and any attachment)
is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure
medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone
else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in
response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the
sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and retained by the
Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and
e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure
laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was
scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service
supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number
2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free. Communications via the
GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Headers
2016
1.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1.
2
Too
Smooth DPR Wholesalers - 03-01-2016 08-06
03/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 1
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1. 2
Too Smooth DPR Wholesalers -
03-01-2016 08-06
03/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 1
--
1
From: DPR
Wholesalers <sales@dprwholesalers.com>
Sent time: 03/01/2016 08:06:23 AM
Subject: Sale
now on at DPR Alpha Road
Sale now on at our Alpha Road
branch
Happy New Year!
Discounts on purchases at Alpha
Road
Our Alpha Road branch will be closing early in 2016
and with this in mind, we're offering all our customers discounts on any
purchase that totals over Ł100 plus VAT at this location.
Up to 20% off any purchase
invoice over Ł100+VAT *
*Minimum spend applies. Discount
dependent on total value of purchase. Please bring this email in to qualify.
This discount does not extend to our new home at Suez Road, where you will find many other offers
and multi-buy deals on new and expanded lines.
We're now back to normal hours
at both locations, which you can find on our website DPRWholesalers.com. As always, last entry is 30
mins before the listed closing times.
Happy New Year!
Wishing you a Very Happy &
Successful 2016
Stock up now with everything
needed to get the New Year started, including:
Diaries, calendars &
planners.
Household & cleaning; and
Happy new year!
Plastics & storage
containers.
For more offers, news and
information, find us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter and also please visit our
website www.DPRWholesalers.com.
This email was sent to re_wired@ymail.com
because you registered with us in store or on-line. Copyright © 2015 DPR
Wholesalers Ltd. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is DPR Wholesalers
Ltd., 17 Suez Road, Off Mollison Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7SN,
UK.
Click here to unsubscribe Sales@DPRWholesalers.com
| 020 8443 5221
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1.
2
LBE Right to buy -07-01-2016 03-00
07/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 2,3,4
2
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1. 2
LBE Right to buy -07-01-2016 03-00
07/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 2,3,4
--
2,
3,
4,
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 2
Asbo Mother -FW Simon o be done now
28-01-2016 11-46
28/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 2
Asbo Mother -FW Simon o be done
now 28-01-2016 11-46
28/01/2016
/ Page Numbers: 5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33
--
5,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 28/01/2016 11:46:17 AM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Attachments:
RE
FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] -11-01-2016.pdf
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
489414.pdf Document 1.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 28
January 2016 11:02
To: 'Josephine Ward'; 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
Can you please give me an update
you said on Thursday last week that you would reply to the below emails on the
Friday last week and I have not heard from you still.
I sent you the information you
asked for in the text on 22/01/2016 by email
Then some other information by
email on the 24/01/2016 which linked Scotland Yard again.
We need to know if you have
emailed Supt Adrian Coombs to get the statement he said he was willing to do
back in Sep2015, this is a very important statement as it will show all the
information about Essex we don't know how long he will take to reply and time
is running out. I would like to see the email that is written before it is sent
so I can see if there is anything that has been missed out, as there was a lot
he done and said to me when he called me and spoke to me.
Also have you put in the request
for the missing CAD's, and all the CADs for all the events that went on at
Crown Road, I have had an updated email from Enfield Council as I emailed them.
Or will this be done when we are served their updated file on the 02/02/2016
Attached is 2 emails updated
from Enfield Council
RE FOI 11845
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]-11-01-2016 = this is the reply to asking about the April
2014 event at Crown Road.
RE FOI 11845
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]-11-01-2016-01 = this is my reply to his email with more
dates that has never been said, which Enfield Council has not replied to.
I have also attached a letter
due to a FOI I put in to a next council = die to the FOI they sent me
information and a letter = 489414 = due to the FOI I put in they sent me =
Document 1 = which is copies of 2 Noise Abatement Notice that were served by their
council to 2 buildings. so, you can see how much power a Noise Abatement Notice
has.
Why did Enfield Council never
serve a Noise Abatement Notice on Crown Road it would have allowed them to take
sound systems so would have stopped events going on? Crown Road events were
going on for months and Enfield Council and the police did nothing allowed then
to go on, which was causing a huge problem to people that lived nearby. Yet as
soon as the police see Simon at progress way, they get Enfield council out to try
and serve paperwork. Why did the council only try to serve this on Simon when
there were loads of people at the gate of Progress Way and Simon was outside?
The paperwork could have been served on any person inside of Progress Way, yet
no paperwork was served, and Enfield Council just left.
Why also if Enfield Council went
out on the 08th June 2014 to serve paper work at Progress Way did they not do
the same to Crown Road at the same time they had police backup and an event had
been running the 6th 7th 08th June at Crown road the same as progress way.
And what will be the outcome due
to Val Tanner saying she could not give you the information you asked for via
email. what is going to be the plain of action on how we are going to deal with
this and the public order unit at Scotland Yard as they have a lot of
information on events even over the last months so how was they not involved in
these events like Steven Elsmore is trying to say in his last statement.
If you could give me an update
with anything else that needs to be done and a full update as to how we are
going to deal with everything I would be grateful.
I know that we are meant to be
served the file by the 02/02/2016 by them could you please let me know as soon
as it comes to the office so I can pick it up will need 2 copies one for me and
one for Simon. So, we can see what has been changed and updated, as we will
need to work fast as any other information, we want to put in will need to be
done fast.
I also need a copy of Simon
folder so he can see it as he has never seen it and he really need to go over
its ASAP.
Simon File was never completed
and he was never given a file for trial what if the file we made up before
Christmas does not match the one the court and the police had for trial and
they have more things in there's that we don't have in the file that been made
up.
Also have you sorted a barrister
out for the appeal I know before Christmas you said you did not have one yet
and needed to find one to do the appeal, the barrister will need time to go
over all this data to see if there is things we have missed and they need to
know the case before the appeal, Andy Locke will have information in his files
that would really help and he did agree to do the appeal hearing and he knows
the case already.
6,
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 19
January 2016 20:08
To: 'Josephine Ward'; 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
Please could you reply to the
below emails, this is making things harder for me with you not replying to my
emails.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 19
January 2016 13:39
To: 'Josephine Ward'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Dear Josey
I have not had a reply to the below
emails and was wondering what was going on could you please give me an update.
Also Simon wanted to get the
file that has been made up so he can see what has been done as he could not
look at the last set that was sent to the court and police as there was no time
in which to let him see.
Could you also please explain if
you have submitted the request for the information that we need. And also wrote
the email to Supt Adrian Coombs yet to get the witness statement, as that will
be needed.
Simon wants to know what is
going on and also the dates.
Could you please reply to my
emails so I can give him an update please.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 15
January 2016 16:34
To: 'Josephine Ward'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
can you please give me an
update.
Have you put into the police for
the missing CADs and everything else that needs to be asked for from the public
order unit.
Have you sent the email to Supt
Adrian Coombs to get him to do the statement yet I spoke to him in Sep 2015 and
I have been asking since then for an email to be sent to him as he said he was
willing to do a statement and got all his notes out to do one.
I have got the tickets from
Dwayne and the hall details they were not put in the file due to me not getting
them till after Christmas, as he had a problem with my email.
Can you give me the date that
the cps has to reply to us and send us any other information.
And can I have the date Simon
trial is due to happen, and if there anything else we need to do please.
Regards
|Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 13
January 2016 13:18
To: 'Josephine Ward'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
7,
Hi Josey
Can you please reply to what needs
to be done and if you sent the email to Supt Adrian Coombs to get his statement
which he said he was willing to do.
And can you reply to the below
emails.
Also, can I have all the dates
that things need to be done by.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 09
January 2016 14:51
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
I am sorry that I keep emailing
you, but I am trying to deal with things and Simon keeps asking for updates to
this appeal.
Just before Christmas you said
Simon trial date was meant to be set for the 6th Feb but I just checked and
that is a Saturday so that cannot be the date, Ben wants to take time of work,
could you please send me the full dates for everything so I know the dates as
to when things have to be done for this case I have asked before for this
information as when we were at court many dates were said and I did not take
them all in.
Also can you tell me if you have
written to Supt Adrian Coombs yet as Simon is asking everyday what is going on
with the case and what has been done and what has not been done, and how we are
dealing with this case and all the information that is needed, and the below
emails.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07
January 2016 12:45
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
Can you give me an update on the
below email and what needs to be done please.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 05
January 2016 17:59
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell What needs to be done now.
Hi Josey
I hope you had a nice Christmas
and New Year; I just wanted to know when you were back off holiday.
I was wondering if you had
written yet to get the statement from Supt Adrian Coombs.
And was wondering if also you
when you would be writing and asking for all the discloser.
We have just over 4 weeks left
to get all the information. I know you had the reply from Val tanner and said
you were going to deal with this.
Would it also please be possible
for you to write down everything that has been done and send it to Simon Email
so he can get an update as to what is going on with the case?
It is really hard for me dealing
with this case like this as I am not the one that this case is about. I am
trying to give Simon updates as to things that have and have not been done, but
with you only wanting to deal with me until just before the appeal it is hard
as I know
Simon wants to know things and
have things done. And he got a lot of input about things, that he wants to
include.
Like you were asking the order
of how things should be done.
8,
Simon spoke to me the other day and
told me, and I hope I have got this right what he said.
The environmental protection act
1990section 80 abatement notice should be put in place by the council. I have a
copy of one from a FOI I put in I will attach it here for you to see there is 2
in one file that they sent me.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/80
Above is some links that deals
with this.
The abatement notice then gives
them the right to take the sound systems, and then after this the section 63
can be put in place, I think but Simon understands all of this.
I not sure if I got all this
correct, but Simon understands it all, Simon has never been given any paperwork
from the council or the police, so no abatement notice or a section 63.
Even when they took his sound
system on the 20/06/2014 Simon has never had any paperwork.
Also, no abatement notice was
put in place for Crown Road by the council I have this in an email, and they
were having a great deal of problems as you know with Crown Road.
Crown road was going on for
months which we can prove, it was going on, on the 6th, 07th and 08th, and had
been going on for weeks before this at Crown Road, yet the police get the
council out on the 08th to serve an abatement notice for Progress Way but did
not do this for Crown Road?
The council knows that they can
put an abatement notice in place at any time, and the reason they gave me in an
email for no doing so is a joke tbh.
Can you give me an update on
what has to be done now please?
Regards
Lorraine
9,
Rachael Beck
By Email:
rachaelbeck100@gmail.com
31st July 2015
ISLINGTON
Environment & Regeneration
Municipal Offices 222 Upper Street London N1 1XR
T 020 752723216
F 020 75272732
E dawn-forte-khan@ islington.gov.uk
Dear Rachael Beck,
Subject: Freedom
of Information Request 489414
Thank you for your Freedom of
Information request received on the 3rd July 2015.
The information needed is regarding
Disused or abandoned buildings or any industrial estates buildings or office
buildings or open air land, or where occupiers/squatters were in building that
could have resulted in problems with Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties,
Illegal Squat Raves or Illegal Parties, for the dates of all of 2013 all of
2014,2015 to date.
Question 1: The Dates and times and
addresses to any Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves, or
Illegal Parties.
Question 2: Where the Noise and
Nuisance Team had such information that there was Illegal raves, Illegal Squat
Parties, Illegal Squat Raves or Illegal Parties was in progress or believed to
be in progress, within and around the Islington council area and wards
boundaries that the Islington council is part off.
Question 3: If any paperwork was
served to any person/persons/occupiers/squatters, on any dates when the Noise
and Nuisance Team was in attendance to any Illegal raves, Illegal Squat
Parties, Illegal Squat Raves or Illegal Parties, and copies of such paperwork.
Response 3: This information is
contained in document 1.
Question 4: All the calls that were
made on any dates to the Noise and Nuisance Team to make them aware that an
Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves, or Illegal Parties
was taking place or could be taking place. This would include all calls that
were made before any Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves,
or Illegal Parties took place. This would also include any calls the police
made to the Noise and Nuisance Team to make them aware that an Illegal raves,
Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves, or Illegal Parties was going to
take place.
Question 5: Any noise abatement
orders that was put in place on any addresses where an Illegal raves, Illegal
Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves, or Illegal Parties was taking place or
could take place. This would include any noise abatement orders that were put
in place before an Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves,
or Illegal Parties took place. This would include dates and times the noise
abatement, orders were served on an address and to whom and to forward copies
of any such noise abatement orders within this request.
Response 5: This information is
contained in document 1.
10,
Question 6: Person's names who attended
any addresses and times and dates from the Noise and Nuisance Team and any
police officer names or IDs that attended with the Noise and Nuisance Team to
any Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves
or Illegal Parties. If the names cannot be given for the Noise and Nuisance
Team offices that please just state how many Noise and Nuisance Team officers
were in attendance.
Response 6: Please note that in
responding to your request we have applied s. 40 (2)- exemption where the
information contains personal data; we have redacted the information provided
as it relates to third parties. This information is contained in document land
the attached spread sheet.
Question 7: Any information if the
police contacted the Noise and Nuisance Team about any information that an
Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves or Illegal Parties
was going to take place or could take place in the area or wards boundaries that
the council is part off.
Question 8: Any information if the
Noise and Nuisance Team contacted the police about any information they were
aware of that an Illegal raves, Illegal Squat Parties, Illegal Squat Raves or
Illegal Parties was going to take place or could take place in the area or
wards boundaries that the council is part off.
Responses 1,2, 4,7 & 8: This
information is contained on the attached spread sheet.
If you are not satisfied with the way
in which your request has been handled or the outcome, you may request an
internal review within two calendar months of the date of this response by
contacting: Information Complaints, Digital Services, Room G17, Town Hall,
Upper Street, London N1 2UD.
Email: infocomplaints@islinaton.aov.uk
mailto: infocomplaints@islinaton.aov.uk
Further information is also available
from the Information Commissioner's Office, at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone:
01625 545 700.
Web: www.ico.orq.uk
Khan Environment & Regeneration
Islington Council
11.
12,
13,
14,
Blank Page!
15,
16,
17,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
From: Ned Johnson
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Andy Hiaham
Subject: RE:
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: 11 January 2016 12:17:36
Attachments: image006.png
image007.png
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Cordell,
Thank you for your email; I have
rechecked our database and indeed, I did make a mistake and missed one complaint
which was received by our Residential Noise Team on 20/04/14, it was the only
complaint received by the Council prior to the ones listed in the FOI response
sent to you. The officer who received the complaint tried to contact the
customer who made it on several occasions but was unable to do so and as such
we were unable to verify the complaint. The next complaint received was then on
18/05/14 as stated in my original response.
We did not receive any further
complaints after June 2014 in regard to the Man Building and therefore
as far as we were aware the matter had been resolved.
A Noise Abatement Notice was not
served on the squatters as we would not have been able to verify any names
given, if indeed they would have given a name and it would have been
unenforceable as it is extremely unlikely that we would have been able to take
anybody to court who was squatting. The line taken was to pursue the owners of
the building who then needed to evict the squatters and secure the premises,
which they did; serving a Noise Abatement Notice would have had no effect on
the owners as they were already taking the necessary steps to stop the problem.
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Pollution
Control & Planning Enforcement Planning, Highways & Transportation
Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield Council
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
From: Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 05 January 2016 16:59
18,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
To: Ned Johnson
Subject: RE:
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Ned Johnson
I am writing this email due to a
FOI request I put in some time ago.
It has come to my attention that
some of the information you have given me in incorrect and was wondering if you
could comment on this.
In my FOI request you said that
Crown Road information started on the 18/5/2014, but I have found newspaper
information that this started much earlier than this.
I have a newspaper that is dated
the 25/04/2014 which was printed after a 15-hour rave took place there on the
19/04/2014, which is much earlier than the 18/05/2014 as the date you gave me
that this started.
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11172103.Residents
fume over 15 hour rave /
And one that was in printed on 9
September 2014 a paper saying The MAN building, in Crown Road, on the junction
with Southbury Road, Enfield, has also been used for illegal raves and parties
in the last few months which these words would say the events was going on much
later than June 2014 that you have given in the FOI request.
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11459487.Listed
building wrecked by graffiti/
I still also cannot understand
why an abatement notice order was not put
in place due to the number of events that took place there. I do understand on
the days of the events it could be classed as unsafe due to the amount of
people, but this site was being squatted and there would have been far less
people there during the weeks when these events were not going on. And cannot
understand why an abatement notice order was not put in place during the time
when these events were not going on.
On the 6th 07th and 08th June 2014 the
council were aware an event was ongoing at Crown Road.
On the 6th 07th and 08th June 2014 the
council were aware an event was ongoing at Progress way.
On the 08th June the council attended
with police to Progress Way to serve paperwork this was not served to any
persons within the site of Progress Way.
But if you were with police, which your
team was why was paperwork not tried to be served at Crown Road site also as
your team was aware off an event also going on there.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ned
Johnson
mailto:
Ned.Johnson@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 09
March 2015 12:21
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Esg
Complaints
Subject: RE:
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
19,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Cordell,
In terms of the number of events
there was one further rave that took place on 25th March 2013 at Progress Way,
other than this occurrence I have provided you with the dates and locations of
all the illegal raves/parties that are recorded on our database as well as all
other
data we hold that you requested.
The rave on March 25th, 2013 was attended by the Out of Hours Noise Team,
assistance was requested from the police, but they were unable to help on that
occasion.
The events at Crown Road were
over a period of several weeks not months, during which time we were in regular
contact with the new site owners who worked to get the site secured and the
power turned off. The Out of Hours Noise Team undertook observations of the
noise during
the event on May 31st/June 1st
but did not visit the party as the team decided that it was unsafe to do so due
to the nature and location of the event and provided information to the daytime
officer who ensured the owners undertook the necessary works.
The complaints received on
Sunday June 8th were all received after the council's Out of Hours Service had
finished at 03:00 and therefore no response was possible.
The Out of Hours Team respond to
all complaints received but will only visit a premises where it is safe for
them to do so and in the case of illegal raves/parties quite often there are
officer safety issues which prevent visits at night time during the event,
unless police support can be gained. Following illegal raves/parties we do make
every effort to get a building secured as soon as possible to prevent the same
thing happening again.
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Health Safety
& Pollution Control, Planning & Licensing Enforcement Planning,
Highways & Transportation Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield
Council
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@hlueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
March 2015 15:22
To: Ned Johnson
Subject: RE:
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
20,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
Dear Ned Johnson
Thank you for the reply to the freedom
of information act I put in.
I do however believe there is a
lot of data that has been left out, so maybe I need to clarify the data that is
being requested.
·
To information is regarding Disused or
abandoned buildings or any industrial estates buildings or open-air land. For
the dates all of 2013 to date.
·
This would include all data if there
were occupiers/squatters in said building/parties/raves. This would include the
dates these buildings/Disused or abandoned buildings/ or any industrial estates
was first known to the Environment & Street Scene Department.
·
All information would cover all wards
boundaries for Enfield Council.
Information is also needed for
some areas within the Enfield Council borough.
The information would cover if
police were in attendance, if calls were made to the Environment & Street
Scene Department by police, and any police officer information that the
Environment & Street Scene Department holds about any police officer.
This information would also
include any calls that were made from the Environment & Street Scene
Department to police in relation to any Disused or abandoned buildings or any
industrial estates buildings or open air land that the Environment & Street
Scene Department felt could have a problem with.
There is also an issue with the
information in your email
· 18/5/14: 3 calls
after event
· 19/5/14: 6 calls
after event
· 21/5/14: 1 call
after event
· But have not given the date of
the event itself, are the below layout ones was when events have taken place as
it just has calls at the end of the dates could you please clarify
· 31/5/14: 2 calls
· 1/6/14: 6 calls
Also in your email it seems that
there was more of a problem with crown road over some months but from how I am
reading your email it seems no one ever attended from the Environment &
Street Scene Department on any of the dates in your list can this also be
clarified in more detail.
I know you have until the
10/03/2015 to supply the information I have asked for. But I do feel your email
was very incomplete, I do hope that I have not got to wait 20 more days now as
I need all the data by 10/03/2015 and I did ask for all information and I feel
that has not been given.
Could you get back to me via
email as to the time it will take to get all the information I have asked for
within my request?
Regards
Lorraine
From: Ned Johnson
mailto:
Ned.Johnson@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 05
March 2015 16:39
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
21,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
Cc: Esg
Complaints
Subject: RE FOI 11845
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Miss Cordell,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 -
INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your email received on
February 10th, 2015 where you requested information regarding illegal
raves/parties. In response to your questions:
All dates and times and addresses to
any illegal rave/parties where the Noise and Nuisance Team attended:
· 8/6/14,
no time recorded, Progress Way, Enfield.
Any paperwork was served to any
person/persons and if need known. copies of any paperwork served:
No paperwork served.
All the calls that were made on any dates
to the Noise and Nuisance Team to make them aware that an illegal rave/parties
were taking place
Progress Way:
· 13/6/14:
1 call 12/6/14: 2 calls after event 9/6/14: 2 calls after event 8/6/14: 6 calls
7/6/14: 8 calls
Leeside Road:
· 15/7/13:
1 call after event
· 46
Crown Road:
· 18/5/14:
3 calls after event
· 19/5/14:
6 calls after event
· 21/5/14:
1 call after event
· 31/5/14:
2 calls
· 1/6/14:
6 calls
· 2/6/14:
4 calls after event
· 4/6/14:
1 call after event
· 6/6/14:
1 call
· 8/6/14:
3 calls
· 9/6/14:
1 call after event
· 13/6/14:
2 calls
--
22,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
Any noise abatement orders that was put
on any addresses where an illegal rave/parties was taking place. This would
include any noise abatement that were put in place before an illegal
rave/parties took place. This would include dates and times the noise
abatement, orders were served on an address and to whom and to forward copies
of any such noise abatement orders within this request:
No noise abatement notices served.
Personal names who attended the address
and times and dates of any person attending from the Noise and Nuisance Team
and any police officer names or IDs that attended with the Noise and Nuisance
Team:
Progress way: 2 Enforcement Officers
attended form the Out of Hours Noise Team, 8/6/14, no times noted.
Any reports made up for any of the
addresses in full for the dates listed above for any illegal rave/parties.
No reports made.
If you are dissatisfied with the
handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review.
Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of
receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:
Theresa Dodd
Correspondence & Complaints Manager
Environment & Street Scene
Department
PO Box 52
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XE
020 8379 3540
Email - theresa.dodd@enfield.gov.uk
Please remember to quote the reference number
above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the outcome
of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information
Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Pollution
Pollution Control, Planning &
Licensing Enforcement Planning, Highways & Transportation
23,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016.pdf
Regeneration & Environment
Department Enfield Council
Protect the Environment - Think Before
You Print.
"Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities."
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential information
and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error you must not
copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All traffic
handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This
email has been scanned for viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be
free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
24,
ENFIELD
Connected Create an account
today for quick and easy access to council services.
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
25,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
From:
Lorraine Cordell
To: Ned
Johnson"
Subject: RE:
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: 11
January 2016 15:25:00
Dear Ned Johnson,
Thank you for the reply email
and the update.
I have other information due to
investigations I have done and due to speaking to people within the area. That
it was not just the one date in April 2014 there were events at Crown Road.
The dates I have been given that
events took place at Crown Road are:
12th / 13th April 2014
19th / 20th April 2014 (confirmed)
26th / 27th April 2014
03rd / 04th May 2014
17th / 18th May 2014
(confirmed)
31st / 01st May and June 2014
(confirmed)
06th 07th 08th June 2014
(confirmed)
13th / 14th June 2014 (confirmed)
Some of these dates have already
been given that events took place within the FOI I requested.
Also you say you did not serve a
Noise Abatement Notice on the squatters / occupiers, as it would have had no
benefit to do so as you would not have been able to take anyone to court, and I
do understand that the council was working with the owners of the building to
deal with this problem.
But I am sure if you had served a
Noise Abatement Notice to the squatters / occupiers / Building, it would have
covered not just to take someone to court. It would have covered the council to
have seized sound equipment and due to this stopped the events far sooner with
a Noise Abatement Notice in place on the building then not having served one at
all.
I believe that is the reason a
Noise Abatement Notice can be served on occupiers / Buildings under
Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 80
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ned
Johnson [mailto: Ned.Johnson@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 11
January 2016 12:17
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Cc: Andy Higham; Robert Oles;
Theresa Dodd
Subject: RE: RE
FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Cordell,
Thank you for your email; I have
rechecked our database and indeed, I did make a mistake and missed one
complaint which was received by our Residential Noise Team on 20/04/14, it was
the only complaint received by the Council prior to the ones listed in the FOI
response sent to
26,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
you. The officer who received
the complaint tried to contact the customer who made it on several occasions
but was unable to do so and as such we were unable to verify the complaint. The
next complaint received was then on 18/05/14 as stated in my original response.
We did not receive any further
complaints after June 2014 in regard to the Man Building and therefore as far
as we were aware the matter had been resolved.
A Noise Abatement Notice was not
served on the squatters as we would not have been able to verify any names
given, if indeed they would have given a name and it would have been
unenforceable as it is extremely unlikely that we would have been able to take
anybody to court who was squatting. The line taken was to pursue the owners of
the building who then needed to evict the squatters and secure the premises,
which they did; serving a Noise Abatement Notice would have had no effect on the
owners as they were already taking the necessary steps to stop the problem.
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Pollution
Control & Planning Enforcement Planning, Highways & Transportation
Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield Council
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 05
January 2016 16:59
To: Ned
Johnson
Subject: RE: RE
FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Ned Johnson
I am writing this email due to a
FOI request I put in some time ago.
It has come to my attention that
some of the information you have given me in incorrect and was wondering if you
could comment on this.
In my FOI request you said that
Crown Road information started on the 18/5/2014, but I have found newspaper
information that this started much earlier than this.
I have a newspaper that is dated
the 25/04/2014 which was printed after a 15-hour rave took place there on the
19/04/2014, which is much earlier than the 18/05/2014 as the date you gave me
that this started.
27,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11172103.Residents_fume_over_15
hour rave /
And one that was in printed on 9
September 2014 a paper saying The MAN building, in Crown Road, on the junction
with Southbury Road, Enfield, has also been used for illegal raves and parties
in the last few months which these words would say the events was going on much
later than June 2014 that you have given in the FOI request.
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/11459487.Listed
building wrecked by graffiti/
I still also cannot understand
why an abatement notice order was not put in place due to the number of events
that took place there. I do understand on the days of the events it could be
classed as unsafe due to the amount of people, but this site was being squatted
and there would have been far less people there during the weeks when these
events were not going on. And cannot understand why an abatement notice order
was not put in place during the time when these events were not going on.
On the 6th 07th and 08th June
2014 the council were aware an event was ongoing at Crown Road.
On the 6th 07th and 08th June
2014 the council were aware an event was ongoing at Progress way.
On the 08th June the council
attended with police to Progress Way to serve paperwork this was not served to
any persons within the site of Progress Way.
But if you were with police,
which your team was why was paperwork not tried to be served at Crown Road site
also as your team was aware off an event also going on there.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ned
Johnson [mailto: Ned.Johnson@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 09
March 2015 12:21
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Cc: Esg
Complaints
Subject: RE: RE FOI
11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Ms. Cordell,
In terms of the number of events
there was one further rave that took place on 25th March 2013 at Progress Way,
other than this occurrence I have provided you with the dates and locations of
all the illegal raves/parties that are recorded on our database as well as all
other
data we hold that you requested.
The rave on March 25th, 2013 was attended by the Out of Hours Noise Team,
assistance was requested from the police, but they were unable to help on that
occasion.
The events at Crown Road were
over a period of several weeks not months, during which time we were in regular
contact with the new site owners who worked to get the site secured and the
power turned off. The Out of Hours Noise Team undertook observations of the
noise during
28,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
the event on May 31st/June 1st
but did not visit the party as the team decided that it was unsafe to do so due
to the nature and location of the event and provided information to the daytime
officer who ensured the owners undertook the necessary works.
The complaints received on
Sunday June 8th were all received after the council's Out of Hours Service had
finished at 03:00 and therefore no response was possible.
The Out of Hours Team respond to
all complaints received but will only visit a premises where it is safe for
them to do so and in the case of illegal raves/parties quite often there are
officer safety issues which prevent visits at night time during the event,
unless police support can be gained. Following illegal raves/parties we do make
every effort to get a building secured as soon as possible to prevent the same
thing happening again.
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Health Safety
& Pollution Control, Planning & Licensing Enforcement Planning,
Highways & Transportation Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield
Council
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@hlueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
March 2015 15:22
To: Ned
Johnson
Subject: RE: RE FOI
11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Ned Johnson
Thank you for the reply to the
freedom of information act I put in.
I do however believe there is a
lot of data that has been left out, so maybe I need to clarify the data that is
being requested.
To information is regarding
Disused or abandoned buildings or any industrial estates buildings or open-air
land. For the dates all of 2013 to date.
This would include all data if
there were occupiers/squatters in said building/parties/raves. This would
include the dates these buildings/Disused or abandoned buildings/ or any
industrial estates was first known to the Environment & Street Scene
Department.
All information would cover all
wards boundaries for Enfield Council.
29,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
Information is also needed for
some areas within the Enfield Council borough.
The information would cover if police
were in attendance, if calls were made to the Environment & Street Scene
Department by police, and any police officer information that the Environment
& Street Scene Department holds about any police officer.
This information would also
include any calls that were made from the Environment & Street Scene
Department to police in relation to any Disused or abandoned buildings or any
industrial estates buildings or open air land that the Environment & Street
Scene Department felt could have a problem with.
There is also an issue with the
information in your email
· 18/5/14: 3 calls
after event
· 19/5/14: 6 calls
after event
· 21/5/14: 1 call
after event
· But have not given the date of
the event itself, are the below layout ones was when events have taken place as
it just has calls at the end of the dates could you please clarify
· 31/5/14: 2 calls
· 1/6/14: 6 calls
Also in your email it seems that
there was more of a problem with crown road over some months but from how I am
reading your email it seems no one ever attended from the Environment &
Street Scene Department on any of the dates in your list can this also be
clarified in more detail.
I know you have until the
10/03/2015 to supply the information I have asked for. But I do feel your
email was very incomplete, I do hope that I have not got to wait 20 more days
now as I need all the data by 10/03/2015 and I did ask for all
information and I feel that has not been given.
Could you get back to me via
email as to the time it will take to get all the information I have asked for
within my request?
Regards
Lorraine
From: Ned
Johnson
mailto: Ned.Johnson@enfield.Gov.uk
Sent: 05
March 2015 16:39
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Esg
Complaints
Subject: RE
FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Miss Cordell,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 -
INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your email
received on February 10th, 2015 where you requested information regarding
illegal raves/parties. In response to your questions:
All dates and times and
addresses to any illegal rave/parties where the Noise and Nuisance
30,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
Team attended:
8/6/14, no time recorded,
Progress Way, Enfield.
Any paperwork was served to any
person/persons and if need known. copies of any paperwork served:
No paperwork served.
All the calls that were made on
any dates to the Noise and Nuisance Team to make them aware that an illegal
rave/parties were taking place
Progress Way:
13/6/14: 1 call 12/6/14: 2 calls
after event 9/6/14: 2 calls after event 8/6/14: 6 calls 7/6/14: 8 calls
Leeside Road:
15/7/13: 1 call
after event
46 Crown Road:
18/5/14: 3
calls after event
19/5/14: 6
calls after event
21/5/14: 1 call
after event
31/5/14: 2
calls
1/6/14: 6
calls
2/6/14: 4
calls after event
4/6/14: 1 call
after event
6/6/14: 1 call
8/6/14: 3
calls
9/6/14: 1 call
after event
13/6/14: 2
calls
Any noise abatement orders that
was put on any addresses where an illegal rave/parties was taking place. This
would include any noise abatement that were put in place before an illegal
rave/parties took place. This would include dates and times the noise
abatement, orders were served on an address and to whom and to forward copies
of any such noise abatement orders within this request:
No noise abatement notices
served.
Personal names who attended the
address and times and dates of any person attending from the Noise and Nuisance
Team and any police officer names or IDs that attended with the Noise and
Nuisance Team:
Progress way: 2 Enforcement
Officers attended form the Out of Hours Noise Team, 8/6/14, no
31,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
times noted.
Any reports made up for any of
the addresses in full for the dates listed above for any illegal rave/parties.
No reports made.
If you are dissatisfied with the
handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review.
Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of
receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:
Theresa Dodd
Correspondence & Complaints
Manager
Environment & Street Scene Department
PO Box 52
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XE
020 8379 3540
Email - theresa.dodd@enfield.gov.uk
Please remember to quote the
reference number above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the
outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water
Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Ned Johnson
Principal Officer Pollution
Pollution Control, Planning
& Licensing Enforcement Planning, Highways & Transportation
Regeneration & Environment Department Enfield Council
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
32,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
Be part of
Make one change
move more &at well think
less stop smoking
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential
and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
ENFIELD
Connected
Create an account today for
quick and easy access to council services.
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy,
33,
RE FOI 11845 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
-11-01-2016-01.pdf
distribute or use the communication
in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1.
2
Too
Smooth -1-2237 01-02-2017 04-16
01/02/2016 20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 34
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1. 2
Too Smooth -1-2237 01-02-2017
04-16
01/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 34
--
34
From: Rewired
Sent time:
20/02/2016 03:48:22 PM
To: Josephine Ward
Subject: Re:
Appellant response to respondent's
updated I made a typo error at the
bottom of the first copy I sent.
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a copy
of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a copy of
a section 144 a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice, Adr
carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation regarding the
word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly state out the points of law
relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like it noted that I do not
think that I can stand a fair trial with the time stamps being the way that
they are under article 6 of my human rights and I have drafted a letter in
regards to this which I would like to go over with yourself. I have made a
bundle of all the relevant documentation oi think is relevant towards my case
but would like to go over it with you if and when possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
15:41, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com> wrote:
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a section 144 a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice,
Adr carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation regarding
the word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly state out the points of law
relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like it noted that I do not. I
have made a bundle of but would like to go over it with you if and when
possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
14:29, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
wrote:
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to
the Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
Thanks
Josephine
5.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother -FW Simon argument Papers 04-02-2016 21-08
04/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 35,36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51,52,53,54
55,56,57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69,70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82,83,84
85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176,177,178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195
5.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2
Asbo Mother -FW Simon argument
Papers 04-02-2016 21-08
04/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 35,36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51,52,53,54
55,56,57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69,70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82,83,84
85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176,177,178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195
--
35,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 04/02/2016 09:08:23 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument Papers
Attachments: Simon Cordell
Skeleton Argument.pdf
Simon Cordell
Skeleton Argument (2).pdf
Simon Cordell
Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
here just got from Josey well
Patrick
From: Patrick
Mc Elligott
mailto: patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com
Sent: 04
February 2016 17:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com;
clarence@michaelcarrollandco.com
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell Skeleton Argument Papers
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find the papers attached.
Could you please provide us with your son's email address as well too.
Regards.
36,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 820
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
This view as to the meaning of
the phrase “criminal charge” is
reinforced by the third
criterion, which is the nature and degree of severity of the penalty. The
formulation of this criterion in the early case of Engel v The
Netherlands (No 1) r EHRR 647, 678-679, para 82 is instructive:
“['Supervision by the court]
would generally prove to be illusory if it did not also take into consideration
the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks
incurring. In a society subscribing to the B rule of law, there belong to the
‘criminal’ sphere deprivations of liberty liable to be imposed as a punishment,
except those which by their nature, duration or manner of execution cannot be
appreciably detrimental. The seriousness of what is at stake, the traditions of
the contracting states and the importance attached by the Convention to respect
for the physical liberty of the person all require that this should be so.”
The underlying idea is that
proceedings do not lie within the criminal sphere for the purposes of article 6
unless they are capable of resulting in the imposition of a penalty by way of
punishment. In B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
[2001] 1 WLR 340, 353, para 28 Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ said that he was
aware of no case in which the European Court has held a proceeding to be
criminal even though an adverse outcome for the defendant cannot result in any
penalty. I agree. Although there are other aspects of the procedure which
suggest that in proceedings for the imposition of an anti-social behaviour
order the person Is not “charged with a criminal offence”, the critical
question as 1 see it is whether the making of such an order amounts to the
imposition of a penalty. But it is first necessary to consider whether either
of the first two criteria are satisfied.
The first criterion:
classification in domestic law
A finding that the proceedings
were classified as criminal in domestic law is likely to be conclusive. But a
finding that they are civil is of relative weight and serves only as a starting
point: Benham v United Kingdom 22 EHRR 293, 323,
para 56. In Lauko v Slovakia (1998) 33 EHRR 994,
1010-1011, para 57 the court observed that the criteria are alternative and ^
not cumulative: see also Garyfallou
AEBE v Greece (1997) EHRR 344. As it was put in Ozturk v
Germany 6 EHRR 409, 424, para 54, one criterion cannot be applied
so as to divest an offence of a criminal character if that has been established
under another criterion. But it was recognised in Lauko v Slovakia,
at p ion, para 57, that a cumulative approach may be adopted if the separate
analysis of each of them does not lead to a clear conclusion as to the
existence of a “criminal charge”. For the reasons already given, I consider
that the position under domestic law is that the proceedings are classified as
civil proceedings and not criminal. In their helpful written submissions which
were developed before us in oral argument Liberty, to whom leave was given to
intervene in these appeals, have contended that the essential question is how
domestic law classifies the conduct which is at issue, not the proceedings
themselves, d hey submit that the conduct which requires to be demonstrated
falls within the scope of the criminal law, and that for this reason the
proceedings should be treated as criminal proceedings in domestic law for the
purposes of the Convention. They point out that the definition of “anti-social
behaviour” in section 1(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is modelled on
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
37,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 821
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
A “harassment” in the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997, which is a criminal offence under section z of that
Act, and that such conduct may also be treated as criminal under section 5 of
the Public Order Act 1986 and a variety of other statutory provisions dealing
with offences such as assault, theft and burglary. They also invoke section 3
of the Human Rights Act 1998 in support of the proposition that an application
made under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 3 998 should be construed in
domestic law as 6 criminal proceedings in the absence of an express provision
in the legislation to the contrary.
· 1
would reject these arguments. The question is whether, as it was put in Engel
v The Netherlands (No 1) 1 EHRR 647, 678, para 81, the provision
defining the offence belongs to criminal law, disciplinary law or both
concurrently. It cannot be answered without examining the nature and purpose of
the proceedings in which the conduct is alleged. The analogies to which Liberty
refer are all examples of situations in which the conduct described is defined
in the statute for the purpose of enabling a charge to be brought with a view
to the imposition of a penalty. In Engel v The Netherlands
(No 1), at p 677, para 79 the court described the aim of repressing the
applicants’ conduct through penalties as an objective which was analogous to
the “general goal of the criminal law”. I hat is not the 0 purpose for which
proceedings for the imposition of an anti-social behaviour order are brought.
Their purpose is to protect the public from further antisocial acts by the
defendant. As for the argument regarding section 3 of the Human Rights Act
1998, it is, as Liberty themselves recognise, circular. According to the
jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, the first criterion is how the
proceedings are classified according to the legal system of the Ł respondent
state: Engel v The
Netherlands (No 1), at p 678, para 8z. Section z of the Human
Rights Act 1998 provides that a court or tribunal determining a question which
has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take the Strasbourg
jurisprudence into account. Strasbourg jurisprudence tells us that the question
of classification is a matter for our own domestic system. Under our system,
for the reasons already given, the proceedings arc civil proceedings and not
criminal.
The second criterion: the nature
of the offence
· This
question looks to the nature of the offence charged. But there is a preliminary
question that has to be examined. Do proceedings for the imposition of an
anti-social behaviour order involve the bringing of a charge at all? For the
reasons already given, 1 think that the answer to this question in domestic law
is clear. They do not involve the bringing of a charge because the purpose of
the procedure is to impose a prohibition, not a penalty. But the domestic
answer to this question does not resolve the issue, because for tire purposes
of the Convention it is necessary to look at the substance of what is involved
and not the form. Moreover, the question cannot be answered according to what
Parliament is thought to have intended. In this context it is the effect of
what Parliament has done that has H to be examined. The court looks behind the
appearances and investigates the realities of the procedure: Deweer
v Belgium (1980) z EHRR. 439, 438, para 44.
· The
grounds for making the application involve making an allegation against the
defendant that he has acted in a manner which may
PART
5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
38,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 822
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL)
Lord Hope of Craighead
we’ll have involved criminal conduct. A
formal accusation is made, and the court to which it is made has to reach a
decision as to whether or not the allegation has been made out. The situation
can be distinguished from that where a sex offender order is sought under
section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as it is a precondition for the
making of the application that the defendant is already a sex offender as
defined in section 3(1) of the Act. It can also be distinguished from that
where a confiscation order is sought under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act
1986, as it is a precondition for the making of an application for such an
order that the person against whom the order is sought has been convicted of a
drug trafficking offence as defined in the Act. A previous conviction for the
acts which are said to have amounted to anti-social behaviour is not required
for the purposes of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. For the
defendants it was contended that these features of the proceedings showed that
they were directed
at the world at large, rather than a pre-defined or limited class of persons,
and that offences which were of this character were apt to be regarded as
involving a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6.
· I do not think that the fact that no
previous criminal conviction is required before an application for an
and-social behaviour order can be made under section 1 of the Crime and
Disorder Act .1998 has the significance which the defendants seek to attach to
it. A distinction is drawn in the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court between
charges which are addressed to a pre-defined or limited class of persons, such
as those who are serving in the armed forces or are serving sentences of
imprisonment as in Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) 1 EHRR
647 and McEeeley v United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 161 or
those who take part in proceedings before
a court as in Ravnsborg v Sweden 18
EHRR 38, on the one hand and charges which are directed to the world at large
on the other, as in Ben denoun u France (1994) 18 EHRR 54
which was concerned with a provision in the tax code applicable to all
citizens. The distinction which is drawn here is between proceedings which are
disciplinary in character and those which are criminal. Where a limited group
of persons possessing a special status is involved the conclusion is more
readily drawn that the proceedings are ^ disciplinary. But
that is not a distinction which falls to be drawn in this case.
The question is whether the person
against whom an anti-behaviour order is being sought is “charged” with an
offence at all. There are several indications that this is not so.
· The conduct which requires to be
demonstrated is not necessarily conduct which would be capable of being treated
as criminal. It has to be shown that the defendant has acted in a manner that
caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm, or
distress. But in order to prove that an offence under section 1of the Public
Order Act 1986 was committed by him it would be necessary to go further and
prove that he intended to cause these consequences. In order to prove that an
offence was committed under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act
1997 it would be necessary
to prove that he was engaged in a
course of conduct which in fact amounted to harassment and that he knew or
ought to have known that his conduct amounted to harassment.
· Furthermore, the decision whether or
not to make the order does not depend solely on proof of the defendant’s
conduct. The application may only be made if it appears to the local council or
the chief constable that an
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
39,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 823
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL
(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
An order is necessary to protect
persons in the area, and consultation between them is required before the
application is made. Thus, the proceedings are identified from the outset as
preventive in character rather than punitive or disciplinary. This is a strong
indication that they are not proceedings for the determination of a criminal
charge against the defendant. In Lattko v Slovakia 33 EHRR
9514, ion, para 58 the court said that the fine imposed in that case was
intended as a punishment to deter re-offending and that it had 6 “a punitive
character, which is the customary distinguishing feature of criminal
penalties”. In Guzzardi v Italy (3980) 3 EHRR 333,
369-37°, para o the court said that proceedings under which the applicant, as a
suspected Mafioso, had been placed under special supervision with an obligation
of compulsory residence within a restricted area did not involve the
determination of a criminal charge against him within the meaning of C article.
see also Raimondo v Italy 18 EHRR 137. In M v
Italy (199r) 70 DR 59, the commission held that article 6(2) did
not apply to confiscation of property belonging to a person suspected of being
a member of a mafia- type organisation. In neither of these cases was the
imposition of the order regarded as being punitive. In Gough v Chief
Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary [2002] QB 459 the
Divisional Court held that the imposition of a banning order under the Football
(Spectators) Act 1989 as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which was
designed to combat what Laws I.J described as “the shame and menace of football
hooliganism”, was not in conflict with article 6. This decision has been
affirmed by the Court of Appeal [2002] QB 1 2t
3.
· In contrast to those decisions, which
support the proposition that a distinction is drawn between proceedings for the
imposition of preventive measures and those for the imposition of a penalty or
punishment, there is Steel v United Kingdom 28 FJIRR 603,
In that case the court held that article 6(3) applied to proceedings in which
the applicants, who had been arrested and charged with breach of the peace,
were brought before a magistrate and bound over to keep the peace. As in the
case of applications for an anti-social behaviour order, the procedure is
initiated under section 51 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 by a complaint,
and a bind over order ^ does not constitute a criminal
conviction. It was contended foi the defendants that
that decision is directly in point in this case and indistinguishable, and that
contention was strongly supported by Liberty.
· But I would hold that it is
distinguishable, for the reasons which were given by Lord Phillips of Worth
Matravers MR. in the Court of Appeal in the McCann case [2001] rWLRro84, 1100H—1 to b. As
he pointed out, in contrast to proceedings for breach of the peace, there is no
power of arrest for the purpose of proceedings under section 1 of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998. The fact that a warrant may be issued for the defendant’s
arrest if he fails to attend the hearing or an adjourned hearing does not show
that they are criminal proceedings. Rather it shows that he has failed to
respond to a summons by the court. In itself this is far from conclusive, as
there are numerous offences in English law which are non-arrestable. But it has
to be ^ taken together with the other factors. Proof of
anti-social behaviour is not the only criterion for the making of the order,
nor is proof that the defendant is likely to cause further anti-social acts in
the future. 'the orders must be shown to be necessary for the purpose of
protecting people against further such behaviour by him. This is not a
distinction of form rather than
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
40,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 824
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
substance at all. The last
criterion is of fundamental importance to the A decision as to the prohibitions
that are required. And in contrast to proceedings for breach of the peace,
which can lead to the immediate imposition of a sentence of imprisonment under
section 11.5(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 for up to six months if the
defendant fails to comply with the order because he does not agree to enter
into a recognisance to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, proceedings
under section 1 of g the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 cannot in themselves
result in the immediate imposition of a penalty.
The third criterion: is an
antisocial behaviour order a penalty
· This question looks to the nature of
the penalty. But here again there is a preliminary question that has to be
examined. Is an anti-social behaviour order a penalty at all? The essential
characteristics of an antisocial behaviour order are that the defendant is
prohibited from doing something. The purpose of the prohibition is to protect
people in the area to which the order relates. Section 1(6) of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 provides that the prohibitions that may be imposed are those necessary
for the purposes of protecting persons from further anti-social conduct that
is, from conduct which will cause, or is likely to cause, them harassment,
alarm D or distress. It is true that no limits are set as to the prohibitions
that may he imposed, so long as they are found to be necessary. The defendants
say that prohibitions which banish the defendant from an area of the city where
he lives, or which expose him to harsher penalties than he would normally face
if he commits an offence, have all the characteristics of a penalty for the
antisocial acts which he is found to have committed.
· An anti-social behaviour order may well
restrict the freedom of the defendant to do what he wants and to go where he
pleases. But these restrictions are imposed for preventive reasons, not as
punishment. 1 he tests that has to be applied under section 1(6) is confined to
what is necessary foi the purpose of protecting
persons from further anti-social acts by the defendant. The court is not being
required, nor indeed is it permitted, to consider what an appropriate sanction
would be for his past conduct. Moreover,
while the court may restrict the defendant’s liberty where this is shown to be
necessary to protect persons in the area from further anti-social acts by him,
it may not deprive him of it nor may it impose a fine on him.
Conclusion on classification
· For these reasons I do not think that
any of the criteria for a finding c that proceedings under
section r of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have the character of criminal
proceedings for the purposes of article 6 are satisfied. The consequence of so
holding is of fundamental importance to the future of this legislation. Cases
such as Unterpertinger v Austria (1986) 13 FURR .175,
Kostovski v The Netherlands (1989) 1.1 F.HRR 434 and Saidi v France
(1993) 17 EHRR 2.51 illustrate the reluctance of the Staatsburg court to accept
that the use of hearsay evidence is compatible with a defendant’s right under
article 6(3)(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him. But I would
hold that article 6(3) does not apply to these proceedings and that the rules
of evidence that are to be applied are the civil evidence rules. This means
that hearsay evidence under the Civil
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
41,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 825
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hope of Craighead
A Evidence Act 1995, the use of which
will be necessary in many cases if the magistrates are to be properly informed
about the scale and nature of the anti-social behaviour and the prohibitions
that are needed for the protection of the public, is admissible.
Are the proceedings civil proceedings?
Counsel for the respondents and the
Secretary of State were agreed that, if your Lordships were to hold that the
specific guarantees in article 6(2.) and article 6(3) did not apply to these
proceedings, they were nevertheless subject to the provisions of article 6(1).
The question of classification is critical in this case, so it is important
that the basis for these concessions should be clearly understood. They could
only be accepted as well-founded if it was clear that the proceedings involved the
determination of the defendant’s civil rights and
obligations.
· At first sight an order which prohibits
a person from behaving in an anti-social manner has nothing to do with his
civil rights and obligations. He has no right in domestic private law to use or
engage in abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening language or behaviour or
to threaten or engage in violence or damage against any person or property,
which are among the acts which the defendants have been prohibited from doing
in the McCann case. But, as Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
said in In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan)
[2002] AC 291, 32,0, para 71., by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 the right
to respect for private and family life which is guaranteed by article 8 of the
Convention is now part of a person’s civil rights in domestic law for the
purposes of article 6(1}. In my opinion the same can be said of the rights to
freedom of expression and of assembly and association
which are guaranteed by articles 10 and 1 r.
· Section 1(6) of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 sets no limits to the prohibitions that may be imposed, except that
they must be necessary for the protection of people in the local government
area against further anti-social acts by the defendant. Among the range of
orders that might reasonably be thought to be necessary are orders which may
interfere with the defendant’s private life, his freedom to express
himself either by words or conduct and his freedom to associate with other
people. Although the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court appears to me as yet
to be unclear on this point, 1 would hold that the fact that prohibitions made
under section I(d) of that Act may have this effect is sufficient to attract
the right to a fair trial which is guaranteed by article 6(1). This means that
the court must act with scrupulous fairness at all stages in the proceedings.
When it is making its assessment of the facts and circumstances that have been
put before it in evidence and of the prohibitions, if any, that are to be
imposed, it must ensure that the defendant does not suffer any injustice.
Standard of proof
· As Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR
observed in the Court of Appeal in the McCann case [2001I
t WLR 1.084, riot, para 65, anti-social behaviour orders have serious
consequences. It was with this point in mind that', at p 1101, para 67, he
commended the course which, the Recorder of Manchester followed in the Crown
Court when he said that, without- intending to lay down any form of precedent,
the court had decided to apply
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
42,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:826
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hope of Craighead
the standard of being satisfied so that
they were sure that the statutory conditions were
fulfilled before they would consider the making of an order in the case of each
defendant. I too would endorse this approach, for the following reasons.
· Mr Crow for the Secretary of State said
that his preferred position was that the standard to be applied in these
proceedings should be the civil standard. His submission, as it was put in his
written case, was that g although the civil standard was a single, inflexible
test, the inherent probability or improbability of an event was a matter to be
taken into account when the evidence was being assessed. He maintained that
this view was consistent with the position for which lie contended, that these
were civil proceedings which should be decided according to the civil evidence
rules. But it is not an invariable rule that the lower standard of proof must
be applied in civil proceedings. I think that there are good reasons, in the
interests of fairness, for applying the higher standard when allegations are
made of criminal or quasi-criminal conduct which, if proved, would have serious
consequences for the person against whom they are made.
· This, as I have already mentioned, was
the view which the Court of Session took in Constanda v M
1997 SC 217 when it decided that proof to the criminal standard was required of
allegations that a child had engaged in p criminal conduct although the ground
of referral to a children’s hearing was not that he had committed an offence
hut that he was exposed to moral danger. There is now a substantial body of
opinion that, if the case for an order such as a banning order or a sex
offender order is to be made out, account should be taken of the seriousness of
the matters to be proved and the implications of proving them. It has also been
recognised that if this is done the civil standard of proof will for all
practical purposes be E indistinguishable from the
criminal standard: see B u Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340, 354, para 31, per Lord Bingham of
Cornlii.il CJ; Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary
[2002] QB 1213, 1242-1243, para 90, per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
MR. As Mr Crow pointed out, the condition in section I( 1 )(b) of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 that a prohibition order is necessary to protect persons in
the local government area from further anti-social acts raises a question which
is a matter for evaluation and assessment. But the condition in section I(I)(a)
that the defendant has acted in an anti-social manner raises serious questions
of fact, and the implications for him of proving that he has acted in this way
are also serious. I would hold that the standard of proof that ought to be
applied in these cases to allegations about the defendant’s conduct is the
criminal standard.
Conclusion
· In the Clingham
case I would make the same order as that proposed by Lord Steyn. In the McCann
case I would dismiss the appeals.
Lord
Hutton
My Lords, section 1 of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 was enacted to remedy a grave social problem. In some parts
of England, particularly in urban areas, there are vulnerable people who live
in constant fear and distress as a result of the anti-social behaviour of
others.
The anti-social behaviour can take
different forms and may consist of
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
43,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 827
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL)
Lord Hutton
Insults and abuse and threats or
assaults or damage to houses by stone throwing or the painting of graffiti.
Those who are victims of such behaviour are often too frightened to be willing
to go into the witness box in criminal proceedings to give evidence against
those who make their lives a misery, because they fear that they will be
harassed or intimidated for so doing.
· The remedy provided by section I of the
1998 Act is to give power to a magistrates’ court to make an order which
imposes on the defendant the prohibitions which are necessary for the purpose
of protecting persons in the local area from further anti-social, acts by him.
Such an order will frequently prohibit the defendant from entering a defined
area where he has been particularly troublesome and from using or engaging in
any abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or intimidating language or
behaviour or from threatening or engaging in violence or
damage against any person or property within a somewhat wider area.
· Section 1 (to) provides that if a
person does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an anti-social
behaviour order he shall be liable oil summary conviction to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding a specified amount, or
to both, or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
· The remedy given by section 1 has
operated effectively because the courts have held that proceedings under
section 1 are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings. Therefore, it has
not been necessary for those who allege that they have suffered as a result of
anti-social behaviour on the part of the defendant to go into the witness box
to give evidence against him, because hearsay evidence can be given of their
complaints and allegations pursuant to section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995
which provides that in civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the
ground that it is hearsay.
· It is rulings that applications for
anti-social behaviour orders are civil proceedings which are challenged by the
defendants in these appeals. They submit that both under domestic law and under
the jurisprudence of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) the proceedings against them under
section 1 of the 1998 Act are criminal proceedings and constitute criminal
charges against them so that hearsay evidence is not admissible.
They contend in their submissions in reliance on the Convention that the
use of hearsay evidence against them violates their human rights.
The facts of the present cases and the
proceedings before the magistrates and on appeal have been fully set out in the
speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead.
I gratefully adopt their accounts and I therefore turn to consider the
submissions advanced on behalf of the defendants.
Domestic law
Counsel for the defendants submitted
that an application for an antisocial behaviour order is a criminal proceeding
because the complaint against the defendant alleges anti-social behaviour
which, in effect, is an allegation of the commission of criminal offences. 1
bus the complaint against the defendant Clingham alleged:
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
44,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 828
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E)) Lord Hutton
It appears to the local authority, the
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that the following conditions are
fulfilled with respect to you, namely—(a) chat you have acted between 9
December 1999 and 15 April 2.000 on or in the vicinity of the Wornington Green
Estate, London W10 in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that
caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more
persons not of the same household as yourself, namely by: assaulting residents,
threatening to assault children of residents, verbally abusing residents and
police officers, threatening and intimidating shopkeepers, engaging in car
related crime, throwing objects at persons and property and entering property
as a trespasser; and (b) that an anti-social behaviour order is necessary to
protect persons in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in which the
harassment, alarm or distress was caused, or was likely to be caused from
further anti-social acts by you .
· Counsel submitted that the great
majority of this conduct constituted the commission of separate criminal
offences. They also relied on the dose similarity between the wording of
section I(I)(a) of the 1998 Act and the wording of sections 4A and 5 of the
Public Order Act 1986. Section 4A, as inserted by section 154 of the Criminal
justice and Public- Order Act 1994, provides:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if,
with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—(a) uses
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour,
or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is
threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person
harassment, alarm or distress.”
Section 5 provides:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence
if he—(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible
representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing
or sight of a person likely to be p caused harassment, alarm or distress
thereby.”
Section 1. (1) of the 1998 Act
provides:
“An application for an order under this
section may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority that
the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any person aged ten or
over, namely—(a) that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an
anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household as himself. .
· In reliance on authorities, the majority
of which were considering the meaning of the term “criminal cause or matter”,
counsel further submitted that an application under section r of the 1998 Act.
is a criminal proceeding because it can result under section 1(10) in the
imposition of a term of imprisonment. Counsel cited Proprietary
Articles Trade Association v Attorney General for Canada [1-931] AC
310, 324 where Lord Atkin stated:
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
45,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 829
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
“It appears to their Lordships to be of
little value to seek to confine
crimes to a category of acts which by
their very nature belong to the domain of ‘criminal jurisprudence1; for the
domain of criminal jurisprudence can only be ascertained by examining what acts
at any particular period are declared by the state to be crimes, and the only
common nature they will be found to possess is that they are prohibited by the
state and that those who commit them are punished.”
In Exp Alice Woodbail (1888)
io QBD 832, 837-838, Lindley LJ stated:
“Can we say that the application in the
present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that
in substance it certainly is. Its whole object is to enable the person in
custody to escape being sent for trial in America upon a charge of forgery.”
In Amand v Home Secretary
[1943] AC 147,156 Viscount Simon LC stated:
“If the matter is one the direct outcome
of which may be trial of the applicant and his possible punishment for an
alleged offence by a court claiming jurisdiction to do so, the matter is
criminal.”
Lord "Wright stated, at p 162:
“if the cause or matter is one which,
if carried to its conclusion, might
result in the conviction of the person
charged and in a sentence of some punishment, such as imprisonment or fine, it
is a ‘criminal cause or matter’.” I am unable to accept
these submissions. The application for an anti-social
behaviour order does not charge the defendant with having committed a crime.
The purpose of the application is to obtain an order prohibiting the defendant
from doing anti-social acts in the future and its object is not the obtaining
of a conviction against him resulting in the imposition of a punishment. I am
in respectful agreement with the statement of Lord Bingham of Cornhili CJ in Customs
and Excise Comrs v City of London Magistrates' Court [2000] 1 WLR
2020, 2025 that:
“criminal proceedings involve a formal
accusation made on behalf of the state or by a private prosecutor that a
defendant has committed a breach of the criminal law, and the state or the
private prosecutor has instituted proceedings which may culminate in the conviction
and condemnation of the defendant.” The passages in the
judgments relied on by the defendants do not, in my opinion, assist them
because they emphasise that the imposition of a conviction may be a consequence
of the proceedings in which the application is brought. Thus in the Proprietary
Articles Trade Association case j t
9 31 ] AC 310, 324 Lord Atkin stated that “those who commit them are punished”;
in Ex p Alice Woodball 20 QBD 832, 838 Lindley LJ stated:
“[the] whole object [of the application] is to enable the person in custody to
escape being sent for trial in America upon a charge
of forgery”; in Amand s case 11:9431 AC 147 Viscount Simon
LC stated, at p t 56, that the
matter is criminal if it is one “the direct outcome of which may be trial of
the applicant and his possible punishment”; and Lord Wright stated, at p 162,
that a matter is a criminal one which, “if carried to its conclusion, might
result in
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
46,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 830
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
conviction and punishment. But an
application for an anti-social behaviour order, if carried to its conclusion,
will not result in conviction and punishment, it will result in the making of
an order which cannot be regarded as a punishment. A conviction and punishment
will only be imposed if the defendant, by his own choice, subsequently breaches
the order and separate and distinct proceedings are brought against him.
· I further consider that a complaint
brought against a defendant under section 1(3} of the 1998 Act does not
constitute an allegation of a crime. The fact that the background to the
complaint will very often be the alleged commission of a number of criminal
offences does not mean that the complaint constitutes a charge of a criminal
offence: see S v Miller
2001 SC 977, 989-990, para 23 cited subsequently in paragraph 1.02 of this
opinion.
· There are two further considerations
which support the conclusion C that an application for an anti-social behaviour
order is a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. First, section 1 is
contained in Part I of the Act under the heading “Prevention of crime and
disorder” whereas Part II under the heading “Criminal law” creates a number of
offences and provides for their punishment. Secondly, section 1(3) provides
that an application for an anti-social behaviour order shall be made by
complaint to a magistrates’ court, and a complaint is the appropriate procedure
for commencing civil proceedings in a magistrates’ court: see section 51
of the Magistrates ‘Courts Act 1980.
· Accordingly, I conclude that under
domestic law an application for an anti-social behaviour order is not a
criminal proceeding but is a civil proceeding.
The European Convention on Human Rights
· Article 6(1) provides: “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. Article 6(3)
provides: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum
rights . . . (d) to examine . . . witnesses against him . . .” The defendants
submitted that under the jurisprudence of the Convention an application for an
anti-social behaviour order is a criminal charge, and accordingly the
defendants will not have a fair hearing under article 6 if the evidence against
them of anti-social behaviour is hearsay evidence and they do not have the
opportunity to cross-examine in court the persons who have made allegations of
such behaviour against them. In these submissions the defendants were supported
by the submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of Liberty which was given
leave to intervene in these appeals.
room in deciding whether there is a
criminal charge for the purposes of article 6 the European Court
of Human Rights stated in Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) r
EHRR 647, 678, para 82. that it has regard to three criteria, which are the
classification of the proceedings in domestic law, the nature of the offence,
and the severity of the penalty which may be imposed. Whilst I am satisfied
that the application for an anti-social behaviour order is a civil proceeding
in domestic law the European Court has stated that the classification of the
proceedings in domestic law is of limited value and that the other two criteria
are considerations of greater weight: see Oztiirk v Germany
6 EHRR 409, 422, para 52.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
47,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 831
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
rot in relation to the second and third
criteria the European Court stated in Qztiirk, at pp
423-414, para 53:
“according to the ordinary meaning of
the terms, there generally come within the ambit of the criminal law offences
that make their perpetrator liable to penalties intended, inter alia, to be
deterrent and usually consisting of fines and of measures depriving the person
of his liberty . . . the general character of the rule [of law infringed by the
applicant] and the purpose of the penalty, being both deterrent and punitive,
suffice to show that the offence in question was, in terms of article 6 of the
Convention, criminal in nature.”
· The complaints against the defendants
under section 1 of the 1998 Act do not allege the commission of criminal
offences for which punishment is sought. The fact that the backgrounds to the
complaints were the alleged commission of a number of criminal offences does
not mean that the complaints constituted charges of criminal offences. In LS’ v
Miller 2001 SC 977, the Inner House was considering section
52.(a.)(I) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 which provides that a child may be
in need of compulsory measures of supervision where he “has committed an
offence”, and Lord President Rodger stated, at pp 989-990, para 23:
“In my view, once the procurator fiscal
has decided not to proceed with the charge against a child and so there is no
longer any possibility of proceedings resulting in a penalty, any subsequent
proceedings under the 1995 Act are not criminal for the purposes of article 6.
Although the reporter does indeed intend to show that the child concerned
committed an offence, this is not for the purpose of punishing him but in order
to establish a basis for taking appropriate measures for his welfare. That
being so, the child who is notified of grounds for referral setting out the
offence in question is not thereby ‘charged with a criminal offence’ in terms
of article 6.”
· In relation to the third criterion, I
consider that the making of an anti-social behaviour order does not constitute
a punishment or penalty imposed on the defendant. In my opinion the magistrate
who heard the complaint against the defendant Clingham was correct when in the
case stated for the opinion of the High Court he stated:
“These were civil proceedings of an
injunctive nature imposing no penalty on the appellant but providing such
measure of restraint as the court may find necessary to protect members of the
public from his misbehaviour.”
· The defendants relied on the decision
of the European Commission of Human Rights (“the commission”) and of the
European Court in Steel v United Kingdom 28 EHRR 603. In that
case some of the applicants who had been charged with a breach of the peace
were committed to prison for refusing to agree to be bound over to keep the
peace. The applicants complained (inter alia) that their rights under article 5
and article 6(3)(a) had been violated. In considering the claims of the
applicants both the commission and the European Court expressed the opinion
that, notwithstanding that breach of the peace is not classified as a criminal
offence under English law, breach of the peace must be regarded as an
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
48,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 832
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
“offence” within the meaning of article
y (I)(c). The commission stated in its A opinion, at pp 61 5-616:
The commission notes that under the
domestic legal system, breach of the peace is not a criminal offence and
binding over is a civil procedure. However, as the European Court of Human
Rights has held [Ozturk v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 409,
4x3-424, para 53]: ‘[There generally come within the ambit of the criminal law
offences that make their perpetrator liable to penalties intended, inter alia,
to be deterrent and usually consisting of fines and of measures depriving the
person of his liberty. The rule at issue prescribes conduct of a certain kind
and makes the resultant requirement subject to a sanction that is punitive . .
. the general character of the rule and the purpose of the penalty, being both
deterrent and punitive, suffice to show that the offence was, in terms of
article 6 of the Convention, criminal in nature.’
“67. The proceedings brought against
the first applicant for breaching the peace also display these characteristics:
their deterrent nature is apparent from the way in which a person can be
arrested for breach of the peace and subsequently bound over ‘to keep the peace
or be of good behaviour’, in which case no penalty will be enforced, and the
punitive element derives from the fact that if a person does not agree to be
bound over, he will be imprisoned for a period of up to six months.
“68. In these circumstances, the
commission considers the charge of breach of the peace to be a criminal offence
and binding over proceedings to be ‘criminal’ in nature, for the purposes of
article 6 of the Convention.”
The court stated, at pp 63 5-636:
“48. Breach of the peace is not classed
as a criminal offence under ^ English law. However, the court observes that the
duty to keep the peace is in the nature of a public duty; the police have
powers to arrest any person who has breached the peace or whom they reasonably
fear will breach the peace; and the magistrates may commit to prison any person
who refuses to be bound over not to breach the peace where there is evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that his or her conduct caused or was likely to cause a
breach of the peace and that he or she would otherwise cause a breach of the
peace in the future.
“49. Bearing in mind the nature of the
proceedings in question and the penalty at stake, the court considers that
breach of the peace must be regarded as an ‘offence’ within the meaning of
article 5(r)(c).”
· The defendants’ principal submission in
reliance on Steel was that both in proceedings for a
breach of the peace and in proceedings for an antisocial behaviour order there
was a two-stage process. First, there was a finding of a breach of the peace or
a finding of anti-social behaviour and, secondly, there was imprisonment if the
defendant refused to be bound over
or if the defendant chose to disobey
the anti-social behaviour order. Accordingly, if binding over proceedings are
criminal proceedings for the purposes of article 6 it follows that an
application for an anti-social behaviour order is also a criminal proceeding
within the meaning of article 6.
· I am unable to accept the defendants’
submissions for the reasons given by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR in his
judgment in McCann
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
49,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 833
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
[zoo1] I WLR 1084, 1100-1101, para 62,
with which I am in respectful agreement. In particular I consider that the view
expressed by the European Commission and the court is primarily based on the
consideration that in the proceedings for breach of the peace before the
magistrates’ court the court has power in those proceedings themselves to
commit the defendant to prison if he or she refuses to be bound over. Thus the
commission stated, at 28 EHRR 603, 616, para 67: “the
punitive clement derives from the fact that if a person does not agree to be
bound over, he will be imprisoned for a period of up to six months” and the
court stated, at p 636, para 45:
“Bearing in mind the nature of the
proceedings in question and the penalty at stake, the court considers that
breach of the peace must be regarded as an ‘offence’ within the meaning of
article 5 (1) (c) The importance of the distinction between the
power to commit to prison immediately on refusal to be bound over and the need
for a subsequent prosecution to impose a punishment for breach of an
anti-social behaviour order or a sex offender order under section 2 of the 1998
Act is referred to by Lord Bingham of Cornhill C] in B v Chief
Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340, 353,
para 27:
“In Percy v Director of Public
Prosecutions I1995I 1 WLR 1382 the defendant had a choice
between agreeing to be bound over and going to prison. Her refusal to agree to
be bound over had an immediate and obvious penal consequence without any
intervening stage. The threat of imprisonment was no doubt intended to be
coercive, but it was also punitive, in my judgment that is a crucial
distinction between Percy’s case and any injunctive
procedure such as in play here.”
· The fact that the defendant would be
liable to imprisonment under section 1(10) of the 1:998 Act if he chooses
within the period specified in the order without reasonable excuse to do
anything which he is prohibited from doing by the order, does not mean that the
order itself constitutes a punishment or penalty. In my opinion, the reasoning
of Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in B v Chief Constable of Avon and
Somerset Constabulary [Loot] IWLR 340, 3 52, para 25 in
respect of a sex offender order made under section 2 of the 1998 Act applies
with equal force to section 1: “The rationale of section 2
was, by means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any
further suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the
advantage of a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in
the case of a civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may
attract a sanction. But, also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order,
although restraining the defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes
no penalty or disability upon him.”
· The jurisprudence of the European Court
recognises that proceedings taken to obtain an order designed to prevent future
harmful conduct, but not to impose a penalty for past offences, does not
constitute the bringing of a criminal charge. In Guzzardi v Italy
3 EHRR 333 the complainant, a suspected Mafioso, by an order of the Milan
Regional Court was placed under special supervision for three years with an
obligation to reside within an area of 2.5 square kilometres on an island. He brought
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
50,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 834
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
proceedings challenging the order and the
proceedings terminated in the Court of Cassation which
dismissed Guzzardi’s appeal. The European Court held that article 6 was not
engaged and stated, at pp 369-370, para 108:
“In the court’s opinion, those
proceedings did not involve the ‘determination ... of a criminal charge’, even
when these words are construed within the meaning of the Convention. Whether
the right to liberty, which was at stake (see paragraph 62 above), is to be
qualified as a ‘civil right’ is a matter of controversy; in any event, the
evidence does not reveal any infringement of paragraph 1 of article 6.”
no In Raimondo v Italy
18 F.HRR 237 the applicant who was suspected of association with a Mafia-type
organisation, was made subject to preventive measures which included being placed
under special police supervision. He complained (inter alia) that the
proceedings relating to his appeal against the special supervision had taken an
unreasonable time in violation of article 6(1) of the Convention. The European
Court rejected his complaint and held, referring to Guzzardi,
at p 264, para 43 of its judgment:
“The court shares the view taken
by the Government and the commission that special supervision is not comparable
to a criminal sanction because it is designed to prevent the commission of
offences. It follows that proceedings concerning it did not involve ‘the
determination, of a criminal charge’.”
in in the present cases the
determination of the applications did not involve “the determination, of a
criminal charge” and the orders were designed to prevent the commission of
anti-social behaviour in the future.
A fair bearing in the determination of
civil rights
1.12 A further question arises whether the
admission of hearsay evidence against the defendants constitutes a violation of
their rights under article 6 to have a fair hearing in the determination of
their civil rights.
A person against whom an anti-social
behaviour order is made can have no valid claim that those parts of the order
which prohibit him from using or engaging in any abusive, insulting, offensive,
threatening or intimidating language or behaviour or from threatening or
engaging in violence or damage against any person or property relate to his
civil rights. A person has no civil right under domestic law to engage in such
behaviour. To the extent that the order prohibits a defendant from entering a
particular area or engaging in some activity which is prima facie lawful it can
be argued that part of the order affects his civil rights so that article 6(1)
is engaged. Articles 8(2) and 11(2} of the Convention permit such restrictions
on the rights specified in them as are necessary in a democratic society for
the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others, and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead has discussed the
relationship between civil rights under domestic law {to which article 6(1)
relates) and the rights guaranteed by the Convention in paragraphs 65 to 72 of
his judgment in In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care
Rian) [ 2002] 2 AC 291, 319-3 20. I wish to reserve my opinion on
the question whether article 6(r) is engaged, but if there is a valid argument
that the hearing of an application for an anti-social
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
51,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 835
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
behaviour order against a defendant involves
a determination of his civil rights and engages article 6(I), I am of the
opinion that there is no unfairness in the admission of hearsay evidence
against him, because the provisions of section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995
lay down considerations which ensure that hearsay evidence is fairly weighed
and assessed, section 4 providing:
“(1) In estimating the weight (if any)
to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have
regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as
to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.
“(z) Regard may be had, in particular,
to the following—(a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for
the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the
original statement as a witness; (b) whether the original statement was made
contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated; (c)
whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay; (d) whether any person involved
had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters; (e) whether the original
statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or
for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence
is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper
evaluation of its weight.”
· The submissions of counsel on behalf of
the defendants and on behalf of Liberty have laid stress on the human rights of
the defendants. However the European Court has frequently affirmed the
principle stated in Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden 5 F.HRR
35, 52, para 69, that the search for the striking of a fair balance “between
the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of
the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights” is inherent in the whole
of the Convention. In these cases which your Lordships have held are not
criminal cases under the Convention and therefore do not attract the specific
protection given by article 6(3)(d) (though even in criminal cases the European
Court has recognised that “principles of fair trial also require that in
appropriate cases the interests of the defence are balanced against those of
witnesses or victims called upon to testify”: see Doorson v The
Netherlands (1996) F.HRR 330, 358, para 70), and having regard to
the safeguards contained in section 4 of the 1995 Act, I consider that the
striking of a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the
community (the community in this case being represented by weak and vulnerable
people who claim that they are the victims of anti-social behaviour which
violates their rights) and the requirements of the protection of the
defendants’ rights requires the scales to come down in favour of the protection
of the community and of permitting the use of hearsay evidence in applications
for anti-social behaviour orders.
The standard of proof
· I am in agreement with the opinions of
my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead on this
point and for the reasons which they give I would hold that in proceedings
under section 1 of the 1998 Act the standard of proof that ought to be applied
to allegations about the defendants’ past behaviour is the criminal standard.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
52,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 836
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E)
Lord Hutton
· For the reasons which I have
given I would dismiss the appeals of A the McCann defendants and would declare
that the House had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the defendant
Clingham.
LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH
· My Lords, for the reasons given
by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord Hope of Craighead and in
agreement with the opinion
of my noble and learned friend
Lord Hutton, in particular what he has said e in paragraph 113 of his opinion,
I too would make the orders proposed.
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE
· My Lords, I agree that for the reasons
given in the opinions of my noble and learned friends, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of
Craighead and Lord Hutton, the appeal in the McCann case should be dismissed
and in the Clingham case the House should make the order proposed by Lord
Steyn.
I, like my noble and learned
friend Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, am in full agreement with what Lord Hutton
has said in paragraph 1.13 of his opinion.
Appeals in McCann case
dismissed. Declaration that no jurisdiction to hear appeal in Clingham case.
Solicitors: Peter
Kandler & Co; Burton Copeland, Manchester; James Welch; Director of Legal
Services, Kensington, and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council; Winckworth
Sherwood; Treasury Solicitor.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
53,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 690
R. v DEAN BONESS AND OTHERS
Court of
Appeal (Lord Justice Hooper, Mr Justice Roderick Evans,
and Mr Justice Pitchers): October 14, 2005
[2005] EWCA Crim 2395; [2006] I Cr.
App. R. (S.) 120
Anti-social behaviour orders;
Sentencing guidelines
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, S. 1
C—antisocial behaviour order on conviction—general considerations
H2 Observations on the considerations
which are relevant to the making of orders under the Crime and Disorder Act
1998, s. 1C.
H3 Bones:
the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary of a dwelling and
one of handling stolen goods. The
appellant and another person entered an unoccupied house and stole items to
the value of Ł4,800. Following another burglary, the next day, a search of the
appellant’s home resulted in the discovery of property stolen in that burglary.
The appellant had six previous appearances for offences involving vehicle
crime, attempted burglary, violence, handling stolen goods and using
threatening behaviour. He was subject to two community orders at the time of
the offences. Sentenced to three years’ detention in a young offender institution,
and subjected to an order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, S.1 for a period of five years’ prohibiting him
from entering any public car park within a specified area except in the course
of lawful employment, entering any land or building on land which formed part
of educational premises except as an enrolled pupil, wearing or having with him
in any public place anything which covered or could be used to cover the face
or part the face, having with him in a public place any item which could be
used in the commission of a burglary or theft from vehicles except one door or
bicycle lock key, having possession of any article or carried in public any
vehicle that could be used as a weapon, remaining on any shop, commercial or
hospital premises if asked to leave by staff or entering any premises from
which he was barred, entering any private land adjoining any dwelling premises
or commercial premises outside the opening hours of those premises without
express permission, touching or entering any unattended vehicle without the
express permission of the owner, acting or inciting others to act in an
anti-social manner, congregating in
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
54,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 691
R. v Dean Bones and Others
groups in a manner causing or likely to
cause any person to fear for their safety or congregating in groups of more
than six persons in an outdoor public place, doing anything which might cause
damage, not being anywhere but his home address or at an alternative address
agreed in advance between the hours of 23.30 and 07.00, being carried on any
vehicle other than a vehicle in lawful use, and being in company with 12 named
individuals. The order was to run for five years from the appellant’s release
from custody.
H4 Bebbington and others: nine
appellants pleaded guilty and one was convicted of affray or, in the case of
Bebbington, threatening behaviour. The appellants with others were supporters
of Chester City EC. They were drinking in a public house in Chester when a
group of supporters of Wrexham EC. arrived at Chester station on their way home
from a match. The appellants were warned by police not to leave the public
house. The appellants did leave the public house and a confrontation occurred
between them and the Wrexham supporters. The confrontation involved the singing
of loud and abusive songs and threats of violence. Sentenced (except in the
case of the appellant Bebbington) to custodial sentences of between four months
and two years’ imprisonment, with an order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
S.1C prohibiting the defendant from entering any premises for the purpose of
attending any football matches in England and Wales which were regulated for
the purposes of the Football Spectators Act 1989, entering a specified area on
any day on which Chester City were playing at home, during a period beginning
three hours before kick-off and ending six hours after kick off, attending
within a 10-mile radius of any premises outside Chester at which Chester City
were playing on the day of any away match, and on any day on which England or
Wales played a regulated football match in England or Wales, going within a
three-mile radius of the stadium where the match was being played during the
period commencing three hours before kick-off and ending six hours after kick
off. The orders were to last between four years and eight years in the
different cases.
Held: the
power to make an anti-social behaviour order was introduced by the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, which came into force on April 1, 1999. There were various
procedures which could lead to the making of an order, in particular one which
involved an application by a relevant authority to a magistrates’ court. The
Court was concerned with the power to make an order following a conviction for
a relevant offence. The power was granted by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.
1C, as inserted by the Police Reform Act 2002, and subsequently amended by the
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, s.86. The section provided that if the court
considered that the offender had acted, at any time since April 1, 1999, in an
anti-social manner, and that an order under the section was necessary to protect
persons in any place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him,
the court might make an order prohibiting the offender from doing anything
described in the order. It had been held in McCann v Manchester
Crown Court [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 that proceedings on complaint
under s. 1 of the Act were civil in nature, that hearsay evidence was admissible, and that the magistrates’ court had to be
satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant had acted in an
anti-social manner. The test for whether the order was necessary
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
55,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 692
R. v Dean Bones and Others
required an exercise of judgement or
evaluation. That did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In A
v Acton Youth Court (unreported, April 26, 2005) it had been
said that the actual and potential consequences of an order made it
particularly important that procedural fairness should be scrupulously
observed. In (Shane Tony) [2004] 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 63
(p.343) the Court had stated that the terms of the order must be precise and
capable of being understood by the offender, the findings of fact giving rise
to the making of the order must be recorded, the order must be explained to the
offender, the exact terms of the order must be pronounced in open court and a
written order must accurately reflect the order as pronounced. Because an order
must be precise and capable of being understood, a court should ask itself
before making an order “are the terms of this order clear so that the offender
will know precisely what it is that he is prohibited from doing?” The Home
Office had published guidance on the use of anti-social behaviour orders.
H6 An order under s. 1C took effect on
the day on which it was made, but a court might provide that requirements be
suspended until the offender was released from custody. The Court had observed
that where custodial sentences in excess of a few months were passed and
offenders were liable to be released on licence, the circumstances in which there
would be a demonstrable necessity to make a suspended anti-social behaviour
order to take effect on release would be limited, although there would be cases
in which geographical restraints could properly supplement licence conditions.
In Vittles [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 8 (p.3!) a suspended
order had been upheld.
An order had effect for the period
specified, not less than two years, or until further order. In lonergan
v Lewes Crown Court [2005] EWHC 457 (Admin), it was said
that just because an order must run for a minimum of two years, it did not
follow that each prohibition must endure for the life of the order.
H8 The essential requirement of the
section was that an order could be made only if it was necessary to protect
persons in any place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by the
offender. The lest for making an order prohibiting the offender from doing
something was necessity. Each separate order prohibiting a person from doing a
specified thing must be necessary to protect persons from further anti-social
acts by him. Any order should be tailor-made for the individual offender, not
designed on a word processor for use in every case. The court must ask itself
when considering any specific order prohibiting the offender from doing something,
“is this order necessary to protect persons in any place in England and Wales
from further anti-social acts by him?” The purpose of an order was not to
punish an offender. This followed from the requirement that the order must be
necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by him. The Court
had been told that the imposition of an order was sometimes sought by the
defendant’s advocate at the sentencing stage, in the hope that the court might
make an order as an alternative to a custodial sentence. A court must not allow
itself to be diverted in this way—it might be better to decide the appropriate
sentence and then move on to consider whether an order should be made or not
after the sentence had been passed, albeit at the same hearing.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
56,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 693
R. v Dean Bones and Others
H9 It followed from the requirement that
the order must be necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by
the offender, that the court should not impose an order which prohibited an
offender from committing a specified criminal offence if the sentence which
could be passed following a conviction for the offence should be a sufficient
deterrent. If following a conviction for the offence, the offender would be
liable to imprisonment, then the order would add nothing other than to increase
the sentence, if the sentence for the offence was less than five years’
imprisonment. If the offender was not deterred from compelling the offence by a
sentence of imprisonment for the offence, the order was not likely further to
deter and therefore was not necessary. It had been said in that the Court was
not persuaded that the inclusion of matters among the prohibitions which were
criminal offences was to be actively discouraged. The Court in that case took
the view that there was no harm in reminding offenders that certain matters did
constitute criminal conduct. The Court would only comment that the test for
making an order was not whether the offender needed reminding that certain
matters did constitute criminal conduct, but whether the order was necessary.
H10 It had been held, rightly in the Court’s view, that an order should not
be used merely to increase the sentence of imprisonment which an offender was
liable to receive. In Kirby [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. f S.) 26
(p. 151) an order had been made prohibiting the offender from driving, attempting
to drive or allowing himself to be carried in any motor vehicle which been
taken without the consent of the owner, and driving or attempting to drive a
motor vehicle until the expiration of the appellant’s period of
disqualification. The judge’s purpose in making the order was to secure the
result that if the appellant committed such offence again the court would not
be limited to the maximum penalty for the offences themselves but would be able
to impose up to five years’ imprisonment for breaches of the anti-social
behaviour order. The Court in Kirby considered that this
was not a way in which the power should normally be exercised. This decision
was in conflict with Hall |2005] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 118
(p.671), but in Williams [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. f S.) 56
(p.305) the Court preferred Kirby to Hall.
The Court in the present case also agreed with Kirby.
Different considerations might apply were the maximum sentence was only a fine,
but the court must still go through all the steps to make sure that an order
was necessary.
HI I The aim of an order was to prevent
anti-social behaviour. What the police or other authorities needed was to be
able to lake action before the anti-social behaviour look place. If for
example a court was faced by an offender who caused criminal damage by spraying
graffiti, then the order should be aimed at facilitating action to be taken to
prevent graffiti being sprayed by him or others. An order in clear and simple
terms preventing the offender from being in possession of a can of spray paint
in a public place gave the police or others responsible for protecting
property an opportunity to take action in advance of the actual spraying and
made it clear lo the offender that he had lost the right to carry such a can
for the duration of the order.
H12 In addition to the court
considering that the order prohibiting the offender from doing something was
necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by the offender, the
terms of the order must be proportionate in the sense that they
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
57,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 694
R. v Dean Bones and Others
must be commensurate with the risk to be
guarded against. This was particularly important where the order might
interfere with Convention rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. In
considering the order made against the appellant Bones, the Court accepted that
the appellant had consistently engaged in antisocial behaviour over a period
of approximately three years. He was a persistent prolific offender. His
anti-social behaviour included threatening behaviour, vehicle crime and
offences of dishonesty including burglary. He was sentenced to a custodial
sentence of three years’ detention and was thus subject to a period on licence
subject to recall or return to custody. It was far from clear that it was
necessary to make an order in respect of the appellant. Considering the
detailed terms of the order, some of the terms were unnecessary or unclear. The
order would be quashed. In the case of Bebbington and others it was not
necessary to make an order in respect of all but two of the appellants in view
of their antecedent history. So far as the other two appellants were
concerned, all the prohibitions would be quashed except the prohibitions
relating to attending football matches played at the home ground of Chester
City, and orders would be added in both cases restricting the appellants concerned
from entering a specified area in the vicinity of Chester railway station on
any day on which Wrexham were playing a regulated football match away from
their home stadium, during a period commencing three hours before the beginning
of that match and ending six hours after the beginning of that match.
Cases cited:
· McCann
v Manchester Crown Court [2002] UKHL 39; [2003] 1 A.C. 787;
[2003] 1Cr.App. R. 27 (p.419),
· Lonergan
v Lewes Crown Court [2005] EWHC 457.1 W.L.R. 2570; [2005]
A.C.D. 84,
· Kirby
[2005] EWC1A Crim 1228.I Cr. App. R. (S.) 26 (p. 151),
· Hall
[2004] EWCA Crim 2671; [2005]! Cr. App. R. (S.) 118 (p.671),
· Williams
[2006] EWCA Crim 1796; [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 56 (p.305)
References: orders
under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Current Sentencing Practice
Commentary: [2006]
Crim. L.R 160
J.G.J. Sharp
for the appellant Bones.
CLP. Hennell
for the appellants in Bebbington and others.
M. Sullivan
and./. Rees for the Crown in the appeal of Bones.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
58,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 695
JUDGMENT
Hooper L.J.: On April 7, 2005 we
reduced the sentence of imprisonment passed on the appellant Dean Bones and
adjourned the appeal against the making of an anti-social behaviour order
(“ASBO”) to enable the CPS to instruct counsel who would be able to give us
both general assistance about ASBOs and specific assistance about the ASBO in
this case. We resumed the hearing on July 5, 2005 and announced, at the
conclusion, that the ASBO was quashed for reasons which we would give later. Mr
Rees had prepared a comprehensive skeleton argument and we are particularly
grateful to him for his help and to those in the Home Office who have assisted
him. We have incorporated much of what he wrote into the judgment.
· On July 5, we also heard the appeals of
Shaun Anthony Bebbington and others.
We granted leave to appeal and any
necessary extensions of time. At the conclusion of the hearing we announced
our decision to reduce the sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment passed on Lee
William Schofield and substitute for it a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
We look the view that a sentence of that length was sufficient. That was the
only sentence of imprisonment which we were asked to consider (the other
appellants had served their sentences). We quashed all the ASBOs other than
those in respect of Schofield and Ian Jeremy Stuart Bruce. In these two cases
we announced that we would alter the terms of the orders substantially but,
given that we needed further material, we said that the precise detail of the
amended orders would be announced with our reserved judgment. We have now
received that detail.
Bones
· On April 7, Pilchers J. gave the
following reasons for reducing the sentence of imprisonment passed on Bones:
a.
This 18-year-old appellant pleaded
guilty to one count of dwelling house burglary and one of the handing stolen
goods in the Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court and was committed to the Crown
Court for sentence. On 17th December 2004 at the Crown Court at Winchester he
was sentenced to a total of three years’ custody and made subject to an
Anti-Social Behaviour Order for a period of five years to run from the date of
his release.
b.
The events of burglary were committed
during the morning of 23rd October 2004 at an unoccupied house in Basingstoke.
The appellant and another entered through a kitchen window and carried out an
untidy search, stealing items to the value of Ł4,800, some of which were of
great sentiment value to the owner. When the appellant was arrested a watch,
which had been taken during the burglary was recovered from him.
c.
There was another burglary the next day
from a house in Basingstoke. When the appellant was arrested, his home was
searched and property from that burglary was recovered. He admitted buying
these items knowing they were stolen.
PART
5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
59,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 696
R. v Dean Bones and Others
· The appellant has a number of previous
convictions. He was before the courts on six occasions during 2002, 2003 and
2004 for offences involving vehicle crime, attempted burglary, an offence of
violence, handling stolen goods and using threatening behaviour. He received a
series of community orders and in respect of two of them he was in breach by
reason of these offences.
· The judge heard evidence in addition to
that which he found sufficient to make the ASBO as we have indicated. That, as
we have also indicated, will be considered in detail and in principle on a
later occasion.
· For the purposes of today’s hearing we
deal simply with the custodial sentence. It is argued by counsel that the sentence
of three years was loo long following a very early plea of guilty. Applying the
principles contained in the well-known case of Mainerney
we are satisfied that this sentence for offences in respect of which early
pleas had been entered is too long. Bearing in mind the clear refusal of the
appellant to comply with community orders, a sentence of custody was
inevitable.
· However, the dwelling house burglary,
although of quite high value and causing considerable distress, fell into the
category of an offence committed by a first-time burglar, albeit with those two
aggravating features. There was also the receiving of stolen goods which the
appellant must have known had come from a dwelling house burglary. The total
sentence appropriate for that offending, in our judgment, would be one of 18
months.
· We therefore allow the appeal to the
extent of reducing the sentences to 18 months and six months concurrently. To
that extent, as we say, the appeal in relation to the custodial term is
allowed.”
The ASBO was in the following form:
“The court found that
(i)
The defendant had acted in an anti-social manner
which caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or
more persons not of the same household as himself as shown by:
a. The
present conviction.
b. His
previous convictions; and
c. The
summary of anti-social behaviour acts set out in the request form attached
And that
(ii)
an order was necessary to protect persons in
England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him.
It is ordered that the defendant, Dean
Bones is prohibited from:
In England and Wales:
Entering any public car park within the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council area, except in the course of lawful
employment.
Entering any land or building on the
land which forms a part of educational premises except as an enrolled pupil
with the agreement of the head of the establishment or in the course of lawful
employment.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
60,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 697
R, v Dean Bones and Others
In any public place, wearing, or having
with you anything which covers, or could be used to cover, the face or part of
the face. This will include hooded clothing, balaclavas, masks, or anything
else which could be used to hide identity, except that a motorcycle helmet may
be worn only when lawfully riding a motorcycle.
Having any item with you in public
which could be used in the commission of a burglary, or theft of or from
vehicles except that you may carry one door key for your house and one motor
vehicle or bicycle lock key. A motor vehicle key can only be carried if you are
able to inform a checking officer of the registration number of the vehicle and
that it can be ascertained that the vehicle is insured for you to drive it.
Having possession of any article in
public or carried in any vehicle, that could be used as a weapon. This will
include glass bottles, drinking glasses and tools.
Remaining on any shop, commercial or
hospital premises if asked to leave by staff. Entering any premises from which
barred.
Entering upon any private land
adjoining any dwelling premises or commercial premises outside of opening
hours of that premises without the express permission of a person in charge of
that premises. This includes front gardens, driveways and paths. Except in the
course of lawful employment. Touching or entering any unattended vehicle
without the express permission of the owner.
Acting or inciting others to act in an anti-social
manner, that is to say, a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment,
alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household.
Congregating in groups of people in a
manner causing or likely to cause any person to fear for their safety or
congregating in groups of more than SIX persons in an outdoor public place.
Doing anything which may cause damage.
Not being anywhere but your home
address as listed on this order between 2330 hours and 0700 hours or at an
alternative address as agreed in advance with the prolific and priority
offender officer or anti-social behaviour coordinator at Basingstoke Police
Station.
Being carried on any vehicle other than
a vehicle in lawful use.
Being in the company of Jason Arnold,
Richard Ashman, Corrine Barlow, Mark Bicknell, Joseph (Joe) Burford, Sean
Condon, Alan Dawkins, Simon Lee, Daniel (Danny) Malcolm, Michael March, or
Nathan Threshie. This order to run for 5 years after release from custody.”
Bebbington and others
· The appellants are: Regina v Shaun
Anthony Bebington (21), Mark Graham Bateman (19); Lee William Schofield (37);
Ian Jeremy Stuart Bruce (now 36); Dale Anthony Cooper (19); Howard John
Stocking (19); Thomas Philip Sheridan (17); Russell Keeley (now 20); Thomas
Turner (now 18) and John O’ Hanlon (17)
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
61,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 698
R, v Dean Bones and Others
· On September 13, 2004 at the Crown
Court at Chester Bateman, Bruce, Cooper, Stocking, Sheridan, Keeley, Turner and
O’Hanlon pleaded guilty. On November 17, 2004 Bebbington pleaded guilty on
re-arraignment. On January 5, 2005 Schofield was convicted. On January 7, 2005
(H.H. Judge Woodward) they were sentenced as follows:
Bebbington
Threatening behaviour—Community
Punishment Order for 160 hours; anti-social behaviour order for four years.
Bateman
Affray—five months’ detention in a
young offender institution; anti-social behaviour order for
eight years
Schofield
Affray—two years’ imprisonment;
anti-social behaviour order for 10 years
Bruce
Affray—eight months' imprisonment
(E.D.R. 7/5/2005); anti-social behaviour order for 10 years
Cooper
Threatening behaviour—Community
Punishment Order for 160 hours; anti-social behaviour order for four years.
Stocking
Affray—five months’ detention in a
young offender institution; anti-social behaviour order for
eight years
Sheridan
Affray—four months’ detention and training
order; anti-social behaviour order for six years
Keeley
Affray—five months’ detention in a
young offender institution; anti-social behaviour order for
eight years
Turner
Affray—four months’ detention and
training order; anti-social behaviour order for six years
O’Hanlon
Affray—four months’ detention and
training order; six-year anti-social behaviour order.
· There were three convicted
co-defendants:
Carl Graham Wood (d.o.b. 9/10/70)
pleaded guilty to affray and was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment and a
10-year anti-social behaviour order.
Graham Jones (d.o.b. 7/12/71) pleaded
guilty to affray and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment and a 10-year
anti-social behaviour order. Adam Paul Fulcher (d.o.b. n/k) pleaded guilty to
affray and was sentenced to a four-month detention and training order and a
six-year anti-social behaviour order.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
62,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 699
R, v Dean Bones and Others
The ASBOs were in the terms of a
football banning order, the court having no jurisdiction to pass an actual
football banning order.
“The defendant must not for the
duration of the order,
· Enter any premises for the purpose of
attending any football matches in England and Wales that are regulated for the
purposes of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
· On any day that Chester City AFC play
at a regulated football match at the Deva Stadium during the period commencing
three hours prior to kick off and ending six hours after kick-off, enter any
area inside the shaded boundary as defined in the two attached maps.
· Attend within a 10-mile radius of any
premises outside Chester at which football matches are played by Chester AFC on
the day of any away match.
· On any day that England or Wales play a
regulated football match in England or Wales, during the period commencing
three hours prior to kick-off and ending six hours after lick-off, go within a
3-mile radius of the relevant stadium where the match is being played.
We take the facts from the CACD
summary:
“At about 7pm on 10 January 2004, there
was a confrontation between supporters of Wrexham football club and Chester
City football club in the centre of Chester. The applicants were all supporters
of Chester City and some members of the two rival groups associated themselves
with the hard core of the hooligan element attached to both football clubs. The
two rival gangs came together through a mutual interest in football and they
had stayed together because of a mutual interest in hooliganism and there had
been a long-standing and deep antipathy between the two groups. The supporters
of Wrexham had travelled back from a game at Chesterfield and had alighted at
the station in Chester. The applicants were drinking in a public house and had
been warned by the police not to leave the public house when the police became
aware that the Wrexham group were at the station. However, the group did leave
the public house and went across the road to the station with the intention of
fighting with the group from Wrexham. There was an element of pre-meditation
about the incident because the group left the public house as the group of
Wrexham supporters arrived at the station and attempted to leave the station.
The group from Chester did not enter the station because the groups were kept
apart by police officers. The actions of the Chester group were caught on CCTV,
they were heard responding to the taunts of the Wrexham group and began singing
loud and abusive songs. Members of the public, employees at the station and the
police officers felt threatened by their actions.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
63,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:700
R. v Dean Bones and Others
The applicants all played different
roles in the incident, some having substantially more involvement than others
and, on the prosecution’s case, some of the defendants, particularly Wood and
Schofield, were the ringleaders and orchestrated the threats of violence. The
CCTV evidence was the basis of the prosecution case against the applicants.”
· We have watched the CCTV evidence.
· All of the appellants were of good
character other than Schofield and Bruce. Schofield had a previous conviction
for affray as well as other offences. Bruce had one relevant previous
conviction in 2004 for being drunk and disorderly. The authors of the various
pre-sentence reports recommended non-custodial sentences given the low risk of
reoffending. As the judge said in passing sentence all of the defendants other
than Schofield had expressed remorse. Some of the appellants had good
character references, including Bruce.
· In passing sentence, the judge said
that the defendants had deliberately left the public house with the intention
of fighting the group from Wrexham. There could be no other sensible
explanation as to what happened that day and it was clearly shown on the video.
He said that the people of Chester and visitors to the city had to know that
the courts would take a firm stand against this type of criminal behaviour. In
addition, the evidence at Schofield’s trial indicated that the numbers of the
younger element in the football hooligans in Chester had grown significantly
over the last two years and that was an issue that could not be ignored. The
courts would not tolerate such behaviour and a message had to be sent out to
people like them that such behaviour would not be tolerated. All bar Schofield
had pleaded guilty and they would receive credit for those pleas. Wood was the
most prominent of the protagonists. He threw a bottle at the police and he had
a bad record for offences of violence, including one for an offence very
similar to this. Schofield was not only the oldest of the defendants, but he
also directed others. He was not shown outwardly playing an active role, but by
his mere presence he made sure that others were there. He was seen shouting and
on a number of occasions had clearly instructed others to do things and they
had followed his lead and instructions. He was the controlling mind behind what
was going on. He also had a previous conviction for a very similar offence. The
others had all expressed their remorse and had acted out of character.
· ASBOs
· The power to make an ASBO was
introduced by s. 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998) which came
into force on April 1, 1999. In McCann v Manchester Crown Court
[2002} UKHL 39; [2003] 1 A.C. 787; [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 (p.419) Lord Sleyn
described the social problem that S.1 of the 1998 Act was designed to address.
He referred to the fear, misery and distress that might be caused by outrageous
anti-social behaviour, usually in urban areas, often by young persons and
groups of young persons. He said:
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
64,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:701
“In recent years this phenomenon became
a serious problem. There appeared to be a gap in the law. The criminal law offered
insufficient protection to communities. Public confidence in the rule of law
was undermined by a not unreasonable view in some communities that the law
failed them.”
· There are various procedures which can
lead to the making of an ASBO, in particular, that which involves an
application by a relevant authority (e.g. a local authority) to a magistrates’
court. We are concerned with the power to make an ASBO following conviction for
a relevant offence, a power granted to avoid the need to invoke the procedure
in the magistrates’ court and thus a further hearing. The power was granted by
s. 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 (“CDA 1998)”, as inserted by s.64 of
the Police Reform Act 2002 and amended by s.86 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act
2003. However, the principles are the same irrespective of the procedural
route.
· Section 1 C (2) of CDA 1998 provides:
“If the court considers—
3. that
the offender has acted, at any time since the commencement date [1st April
1999] in an anti-social manner, that is to say in a manner that caused or was
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the
same household as himself; and
4. that
an order under this section is necessary to protect persons in any place
in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him,
it may make an order which prohibits
the offender from doing anything described in the order.” (Underlining added)
· An ASBO is an order prohibiting a
person from doing the “thing” described in the order.
· We deal first with some procedural
points. In McCann the House of Lords held that the
proceedings on complaint by a relevant authority under s. 1 of CDA 1998 were
civil in nature, that hearsay evidence was admissible, that the magistrates’
court had to be satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant had acted
in an anti-social manner, The test for whether the order was necessary required
an exercise of judgment or evaluation and did not require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. In W. v Acton Youth Court [2005] EWHC
954 (Sedley L.J. and Pitchers J.) confirmed that proceedings under s. 1C are
civil proceedings.
· In that case Pitchers J. said that:
“The actual and potential consequences
for the subject of an ASBO make it particularly important that procedural
fairness is scrupulously observed.”
· (Shane
Tony) [2004] EWCA Grim 287; [20041 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 63
(p.343) Henriques J. giving the judgment of the Court (presided over by Lord
Woolf C.J.) said (para.[34]):
“In our judgment the following
principles clearly emerge:
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
65,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:702
R. v Dean Bones and Others
· The terms of the order must be precise
and capable of being understood by offender.
· The findings of fact giving rise to the
making of the order must be recorded.
· The order must be explained to the
offender.
· The exact terms of the order must be
pronounced in open court and the written order must accurately reflect the
order as pronounced."
Because an ASBO must obviously be
precise and capable of being understood by the offender, a court should ask
itself before making an order: “Are the terms of this order clear so that the
offender will know precisely what it is that he is prohibited from
doing?"
The Home Office in a 2002 publication
entitled “A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour
Contracts” gave examples of the types of anti-social behaviour which the Home
Office considered could be tackled by ASBOs. The list (which does not purport
to be exhaustive) comprises: harassment of residents or passers-by, verbal
abuse, criminal damage, vandalism, noise nuisance, writing graffiti, engaging
in threatening behaviour in large groups, racial abuse, smoking or drinking alcohol
while under age, substance misuse, joyriding, begging, prostitution,
kerb-crawling, throwing missiles, assault and vehicle crime.
Home Office guidance suggests that
prohibitions, should amongst other things:
be reasonable and proportionate; be
realistic and practical.
be in terms which make it easy to
determine and prosecute a breach.
In the report of the working group set
up under Thomas L.J. there is a section which identifies elements of best
practice adopted within the courts when dealing with the terms of an ASBO.
Included amongst these elements are:
the prohibition should be capable of
being easily understood by the defendant.
the condition should be enforceable in
the sense that it should allow a breach
to be readily identified and capable of
being proved.
exclusion zones should be clearly
delineated with the use of clearly marked
maps.
individuals whom the defendant is
prohibited from contacting or associating with should be clearly identified.
in the case of a foreign national,
consideration should be given to the need for the order to be translated.
The report of the working group also
provides examples of general prohibitions imposed by the courts which in their
view were specific and enforceable and could be incorporated in ASBOs in order
to protect persons from a wide range of anti-social behaviour. These include
conditions prohibiting the offender from.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
66,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument
(2) Pdf
Page: 703
R. v Dean Bones and Others
living anywhere other than a specified
address without the permission of a nominated person.
entering an area edged in red on the attached
map including both footways of any road which forms the boundary area.
visiting a named individual unless
accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
associating with a named individual in
a public place.
leaving his home between certain hours
except in the case of emergency etc.
An order made under s. 1C lakes effect
on the day on which it was made, but the court may provide in any such order that
such requirements of the order as it may specify shall, during any period when
the offender is detained in legal custody, be suspended until his release from
that custody (S.1C(5)). In the Court observed that where custodial sentences in
excess of a few months were passed and offenders were liable to be released on
licence (and therefore subject to recall) the circumstances in which there
would be a demonstrable necessity to make a suspended anti-social behaviour
order, to take effect on release, would be limited, although there would be
cases in which geographical restraints could properly supplement licence
conditions.
Anthony Malcolm Vittles
]2004]
EWCA Crim 1089 [20051 1 Cr. App. R.(S.) 8 is an example of a case in which the
Court of Appeal decided that there was a demonstrable necessity to make a
“suspended” ASBO, despite the fact that the appellant was sentenced to a total
of three years and 10 months' imprisonment, The appellant, who was a heavy
drug user, admitted breaking into between 10 and 30 vehicles belonging to
American servicemen who lived off airbases used by American forces. The
offences involved theft of items from the motor cars to a value of Ł3,500. In
upholding the making of the order, although reducing the term, the Court of
Appeal referred to and said that they took the view that the transient,
vulnerable, nature of the American population, specifically targeted by the
appellant, made it appropriate that, exceptionally, an antisocial behaviour
order should be made, notwithstanding the imposition of a substantial prison
sentence.
An order shall have effect for a period
(not less than two years) specified in the order or until further order (S, l C
(9) and 1C (7)). In Lonergan v Lewes Crown Court
|20()5] EWHC 457; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2570; [2005] A.C.D. 84 (Admin) Maurice Kay
L.J. said in the course of delivering the judgment that just because an ASBO
must run for a minimum of two years, it does not follow that each and every
prohibition within a particular order must endure for the life of the order.
Although doubt was expressed about this in the report of the working group set
up by Thomas L.J., in our view Maurice Kay L.J. is right. It may be necessary
to include a prohibition which would need to be amended or removed after a
period of Lime for example when the offender starts work (provided that at
least one prohibition is ordered to have effect for at least two years).
Maurice Kay L.J. also said (para. [7)] that the statute requires the order to
be “substantially and not just formally prohibitory.”
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
.67,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 704
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
· There are provisions for applications to
vary or discharge an order (see s. 1 C (6) and s. 140 of the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 which inserts s. 1CA of the CD A 1998).
· We turn to the requirement that an
order can only be made if it is necessary to protect persons in any
place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by the offender.
Following a finding that the offender has acted in an anti-social manner
(whether or not the act constitutes a criminal offence), the lest for making an
order prohibiting the offender from doing something is one of necessity.
Each separate order prohibiting a person from doing a specified thing must be
necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by him. Any order
should therefore be tailor-made for the individual offender, not designed on a
word processor for use in every case. The court must ask itself when
considering any specific order prohibiting the offender from doing something,
“Is this order necessary to protect persons in any place in England and Wales
from further anti-social acts by him?”
· The purpose of an ASBO is not to punish
an offender (see Lonergan, para.[10]}. This principle
follows from the requirement that the order must be necessary to protect
persons from further anti-social acts by him. The use of an ASBO to punish an
offender is thus unlawful. We were told during the course of argument that the
imposition of an ASBO is sometimes sought by the defendant’s advocate at the
sentencing stage, hoping that the court might make an ASBO order as an
alternative to prison or other sanction. A court must not allow itself to be
diverted in this way—indeed it may be better to decide the appropriate sentence
and then move on to consider whether an ASBO should be made or not after
sentence has been passed, albeit at the same hearing.
· It follows from the requirement that
the order must be necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts
by him, that the court should not impose an order which prohibits an offender
from committing a specified criminal offence if the sentence which could be
passed following conviction for the offence should be a sufficient deterrent.
If following conviction for the offence the offender would be liable to
imprisonment, then an ASBO would add nothing other than to increase the sentence
if the sentence for the offence is less than five years’ imprisonment. But if
the offender is not going to be deterred from committing the offence by a
sentence of imprisonment for that offence, the ASBO is not likely (it may be
thought) further to deter and is therefore not necessary. In,
Henriques J. said (para. [3()]):
“Next, it is submitted that (two of]
the prohibitions are redundant as they prohibit conduct which is already
subject to a general prohibition by the Public Order Act 1986 and the Prevention
of Crime Act 1953 respectively. In that regard we are by no means persuaded
that the inclusion of such matters is to be actively discouraged. So far as
more minor offences are concerned, we Lake the view that there is no harm in
reminding offenders that certain matters do constitute criminal conduct,
although we would only encourage the inclusion of comparatively minor criminal
offences in the terms of such orders.”
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
68,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 705
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
We would only make one comment on this
passage. The test for making an order is not whether the offender needs
reminding that certain matters do constitute criminal conduct, but whether it
is necessary.
It has been held, rightly in our view,
that an ASBO should not be used merely to increase the sentence of imprisonment
which an offender is liable to receive. In Kirby [2005]
EWCA Crim 1228; [2006] I Cr. App. R.(S.)
26 (p.S51) an ASBO had been made prohibiting the offender from driving,
attempting to drive or allowing himself to be carried in any motor vehicle
which had been taken without the consent of the owner or other lawful
authority, and driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle
until after the expiration of his period of disqualification. As the Court
(presided over by Maurice Kay LJ) found, the judge’s purpose in making this
order was to secure the result that if the appellant committed such offences
again the court would not be limited to the maximum penalty for the offences
themselves but would be able to impose up to five years’ imprisonment for
breach of the anti-social behaviour order. David Clarke J giving the judgment
of the Court said:
“In our judgment this decision of the
court [in R. r P] and the earlier case of [C v Sunderland
Youth Court [2003] EWHC 2385; [2004]
1 Cr.
App. R.(S.)
76 (p.443) ] serve to demonstrate that to make an anti-social behaviour order
in a case such as the present case, where the underlying objective was to give
the court higher sentencing powers in the event of future similar
offending, is not a use of the power which should normally be exercised.”
· That decision was in conflict with an
earlier decision Hall [2004] EWCA Crim 2671; [2005] 1 Cr.
App. R. (S.) 118 (p.671) (Hunt and Tugenhat J. J.), the correctness of which
was doubled by Dr Thomas ([2005] Crim. L.R. 152). In Williams [2006]
1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 56 (p.305), the Court (Mance L.J., Elias J. and Sir Charles
Mantell) preferred Kirby to Hall. We
also agree with the decision in Kirby.
· Different considerations may apply if the
maximum sentence is only a fine, but the court must still go through all the
steps to make sure that an ASBO is necessary.
· There is another reason why a court
should be reluctant to impose an order which prohibits an offender from, or
merely from, committing a specified criminal offence. The aim of an ASBO is to
prevent anti-social behaviour. To prevent it the police or other authorities
need to be able to take action before the anti-social behaviour it is designed
to prevent takes place, if, for example, a court is faced by an offender who
causes criminal damage by spraying graffiti then the order should be aimed at
facilitating action to be taken to prevent graffiti spraying by him and/or his
associates before it takes place. An order in clear and simple terms preventing
the offender from being in possession of a can of spray paint in a public place
gives the police or others responsible for protecting the property an
opportunity to lake action in advance of the actual spraying and makes it clear
to the offender that he has lost the right to carry such a can for the duration
of the order.
· If a court wishes to make an order
prohibiting a group of youngsters from racing cars or motor bikes on an estate
or driving at excessive speed (anti-social
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
69,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 706
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
behaviour for those living on the estate),
then the order should not (normally) prohibit driving whilst disqualified. It
should prohibit, for example, the offender whilst on the estate from taking
part in, or encouraging, racing, or driving at excessive speed. It might also
prevent the group from congregating with named others in a particular area of
the estate. Such an order gives those responsible for enforcing order on the
estate the opportunity to take action to prevent the anti-social conduct, it is
to be hoped, before its takes place. Neighbours can alert the police who will
not have to wait for the commission of a particular criminal offence. The ASBO
will be breached not just by the offender driving but by his giving
encouragement by being a passenger or a spectator. It matters not for the
purposes of enforcing the ASBO whether he has or has not a driving licence entitling
him to drive.
· Not only must the court before imposing
an order prohibiting the offender from doing something consider that such an
order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by him; the
terms of the order must be proportionate in the sense that they must be
commensurate with the risk to be guarded against. This is particularly
important where an order may interfere with an ECHR right protected by the
Human Rights Act 1998, e.g. Arts 8, 10 and 11.
· We think that bail conditions provide a
useful analogy. A defendant may be prohibited from contacting directly or
indirectly a prosecution witness or entering a particular area near the
alleged victim’s home. The aim is to prevent the defendant trying to tamper
with witnesses or committing a further offence. But the police do not have to
wait until he has tampered or committed a further offence and thus committed a
very serious offence. If he breaks the conditions even without intending to
tamper, he is in breach of his bail conditions and liable to be remanded in
custody. The victim has the comfort of knowing that if the defendant enters the
prescribed area, the police can be called Lo Lake action. The victim does not
have to wait for the offence to happen again.
· We look at some examples of how the
Divisional Court and this Court have approached ASBOs.
· In McGrath [2005]
EWCA Crim 353; [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 85 (p.529) considered the terms of an
ASBO made under s. 1C in respect of an appellant, aged 25, with an appalling
record who pleaded guilty to a count of theft which involved breaking into a
car in a station car park and stealing various compact discs. The ASBO
contained (amongst others) the following prohibitions:
Entering any other car park whether on
payment or otherwise within the counties of Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, or
Buckinghamshire.
Trespassing on any land belonging to
any person whether legal or natural within those counties.
Having in his possession in any public
place any window hammer, screwdriver, torch or any tool or implement which
could be used for the purpose of breaking into motor vehicles.”
· In respect of term 2, the Court of
Appeal held that it was unjustifiably draconian and loo wide; it would, for
example, prevent the appellant from entering, even as a passenger, any car park
in a supermarket. Similar considerations
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
70,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:707
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
applied lo term 3.11"the appellant
look a wrong turn on a walk and entered someone’s property, he would be at
risk of a five-year prison sentence. The Court of Appeal look the view that
term 4 was unacceptably wide. The meaning of the words “too! or implement” was
impossible to ascertain. Insofar as the wording of term 4 was sufficiently
qualified by the final wording “which could be used for the purpose of breaking
into motor vehicles”, the Court of Appeal observed that, effectively, the term
overlaps with the offence of going equipped.
· In IV v DPP [2005]
EWHC 1333 held that a clause in an ASBO made in respect of a young offender
which prohibited him from committing any criminal offence was plainly loo wide
and unenforceable. There was a danger that W would not know what a criminal
offence was and what was not. It was well established that an order had to be
clear and in terms that would enable an individual to know what he could and
could not do. A general restriction was not necessary where specific behaviour
restrictions were in place. Brooke L.J. said (para.[8]) that, given the
offender’s previous convictions for theft, a prohibition against committing
theft “might not have been inappropriate”. We have already expressed our
reservations about such a prohibition.
· In the Court expressed doubt about
whether an ASBO is appropriate if the anti-social conduct is itself a serious
offence, such as robbery. The Court reviewed the propriety of making an
anti-social behaviour in respect of an appellant, aged 15 at the Lime of the
offences, who pleaded guilty to assault with intent to rob, robbery, theft,
false imprisonment, and attempted robbery. He was involved in a number of
incidents in which he approached younger boys, threatened them and in one case
struck a boy with a stick and stole their mobile phones. The appellant was made
the subject of an order under S.1C of CDA 1998. The effect of the order was Lo
prevent the appellant from acting in various ways, principally excluding him
from two parks and an airport. In the course of the judgment, Henriques J.
giving the judgment observed:
“It will be readily observed from a
consideration of the Home Office ‘Guide Lo anti-social behaviour orders’ that
the conduct primarily envisaged as triggering these orders was for a less
grave offence than street robbery, namely graffiti, abusive and intimidating
language, excessive noise, fouling the street with litter, drunken behaviour
and drug dealing. Doubtless in drafting that report the Home Office had in mind
that courts have considerable powers to restrain robbers. We do not go so far
as to suggest that anti-social behaviour orders are necessarily inappropriate
in cases with characteristics such as the present.”
· We see no reason why, in appropriate
circumstances, an order should not be made of the kind in excluding an offender
from two parks and an airport if that is where he is committing robberies (or
committing other anti-social behaviour). Such an order enables those
responsible for the safety of the prescribed areas an opportunity to act before
a robbery is committed by the offender.
· In Werner [2004] EWCA
Grim 2931 the female appellant had committed a number of offences over a
relatively short period of time which involved stealing credit cards, a cheque
book, and other items from hotel rooms while the occupants
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
71,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:708
R. V Dean
Bones and Other’s
were out and using the cards to obtain
services and goods. In addition to passing a sentence of imprisonment, the
judge made the appellant the subject of an ASBO under s. 1C of CDA 1998,
prohibiting her from entering any hotel, guesthouse, or similar premises
anywhere within the Greater London Area, It was submitted on the appellant’s
behalf that this was an inappropriate and improper use of the power because the
behaviour it sought to protect the public from was only anti-social in the
sense that all criminal offences were anti-social and it was not the sort of
behaviour that ASBOs were meant to target. The Court of Appeal declined to
express a definitive view on this issue and quashed the order on a different
ground, but they did make the following observations. The forms of conduct
listed on p.8 of the 2002 Home Office guide have a direct or indirect impact on
the quality of life of people living in the community. They are different in
character from offences of dishonesty committed in private against individual
victims, distressing though such offences are to the victims. The Court said
that it would not like Lo be taken to say that in no case could offences of
this sort attract such an order.
· It seems to us that there is another
problem with the kind of order in Werner. In the absence
of a system to warn all hotels, guesthouses, or similar premises anywhere
within the Greater London Area, there is no practical way of policing the
order. The breach of the ASBO will occur at the same time as the commission of
any further offence in a hotel, guesthouse, or similar premises. The ASBO
achieves nothing— if she is not to be deterred by the prospect of imprisonment
for committing the offence, she is unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of
being sentenced for breach of the ASBO. By committing the substantive offence,
she will have committed the further offence of being in breach of her ASBO, but
to what avail? The criminal statistics will show two offences rather than one.
If on the other hand she “worked” a limited number of establishments, it would
be practical to supervise compliance with the order. The establishments could
be pull on notice about her and should she enter the premises the police could
be called, whether her no Live in entering the premises was honest or not.
· In Rush 12005]
EWCA Grim 1316; [2006] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 35 (p.200) the appellant appealed
against a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and an ASBO of 10 years’ duration
following a plea to burglary. The burglary involved pushing into his parents’
house (where he no longer lived) and stealing cigarettes from a cupboard. The
appellant had a history of previous offending that was almost entirely targeted
at his parents. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence for the burglary to 12
months’ imprisonment and the duration of the ASBO to five years. In so doing,
they said that the making of an ASBO should not be a normal part of the
sentencing process especially if the case did not involve harassment or
intimidation. Imposing an ASBO was a course to be taken in particular circumstances.
· In McGrath the
Court observed that ASBOs should be treated with a proper degree of caution and
circumspection. They were not cure-alls and were not lightly to be imposed
(para.fi 2]),
PART
5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
72,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:709
R. V Dean
Bones and Other’s
In Lonergan the
Divisional Court held that it was lawful for a prohibition in the nature of a curfew
to be included in an ASBO made under s. 1 CDA 1998 if its imposition was
necessary to provide protection for others.
With these general observations in
mind, we turn to the appeals against the ASBOs.
The Dean Bones ASBO
· In favour of making an ASBO was the
fact that the appellant had consistently engaged in anti-social behaviour over
a period of approximately three years. He was a persistent prolific offender
and had admitted to drug misuse in the community. There were three main
aspects to his anti-social behaviour: threatening behaviour (two incidents),
vehicle crime (three incidents) and other offences of dishonesty such as
burglary and theft (three incidents and other incidents of handling stolen
goods). On the other hand, he was being sentenced to a custodial sentence of
three years’ detention in a young offender institution and was thus subject to
a period on licence and subject to recall or return to custody.
· The respondent accepts, on the
authorities and in particular having regard to (para.[25] above) that it is far
from clear that it was necessary to make an ASBO in
respect of the appellant. We agree.
· We turn to the various orders. The
first order prohibited the appellant from:
Entering any public car park within the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council area, except in the course of lawful
employment.
· The respondent submits:
“The antecedent information does not
state whether any of the vehicle crimes committed by the appellant took place
in a public car park. However, it is submitted that it could sensibly be argued
that a person intent on committing vehicle crime is likely to be attracted to
car parks. The prohibition as drafted does not appear to allow the offender to
park his own vehicle in a public car park or, for example, to be a passenger in
a vehicle driven into a public car park in the course of a shopping trip. Thus,
in the absence of evidence showing that the appellant committed vehicle crime
in car parks, there would appear to be a question mark over whether the
prohibition is proportional, particularly as prohibition (3) seems to be
drafted with a view to allowing the appellant to ride a motorcycle. If the
court contemplated the lawful use of a motorbike as an activity which the
appellant could pursue, then this prohibition would significantly limit the
places he might be able to park it. It is of note that in McGrath
the Court of Appeal held a similar prohibition to be too wide, although it
covered a much larger geographical area.”
· We agree. Even if the order was
necessary to prevent anti-social behaviour by the appellant, it was not
proportionate.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
73,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page 710
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
· The second order prohibited the
appellant from:
Entering any land or building on the
land which forms a part of educational premises except as an enrolled pupil
with the agreement of the head of the establishment or in the course of lawful
employment.
· As to this the respondent submits:
“It is not clear what information
provided the basis for making this prohibition. There is nothing in the
appellant’s previous offending history which suggests that he engages in
anti-social behaviour in educational premises. It is submitted that the term
‘educational premises’ arguably lacks clarity; for example, does it include
teaching hospitals or premises where night classes are held? There also
appears to be a danger that the appellant might unwittingly breach the terms of
the order were he, for example, to play sport on playing fields associated with
educational premises.”
· We agree with this analysis.
The order was not necessary and is, in
any event, unclear.
· The third order prohibited the
appellant from:
In any public place, wearing, or having
with you anything which covers, or could be used to cover, the face or part of
the face. This will include hooded clothing, balaclavas, masks, or anything
else which could be used to hide identity, except that a motorcycle helmet may
be worn only when lawfully riding a motorcycle.
· The respondent submits:
“It is presumed that this prohibition
was based upon the assertion that the appellant is forensically aware and will
use items to attempt to prevent detection. It is submitted that the terms of
the prohibition are too wide, resulting in a lack of clarity and consequences
which are not commensurate with the risk which the prohibition seeks to
address. The phrase “having with you anything which could be used to cover the
face or part of the face” covers a huge number of items. For example, it is not
unknown for those seeking to conceal their identity to pull up a jumper to
conceal part of the face, but surely the prohibition cannot have been intended
to limit so radically the choice of clothing that the appellant can wear? It
seems that the appellant would potentially be in breach of the order were he to
wear a scarf or carry a newspaper in public.”
· We agree.
· The fourth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Having any item with you in public
which could be used in the commission of a burglary, or theft of or from
vehicles except that you may carry one door key for your house and one motor
vehicle or bicycle lock key. A motor
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
74,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 710
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
vehicle key can only be carried if you are
able to inform a checking officer of the registration number of the vehicle and
that it can be ascertained that the vehicle is insured for you to drive it. We agree with the respondent’s submission that: the
first part of this prohibition has been drafted too widely and lacks clarity.”
The respondent points out that there
are many items that might be used in the commission of a burglary, such as a
credit card, a mobile phone, or a pair of gloves. Was the appellant being
prohibited from carrying such items? If so, the order is neither clear nor
proportionate,
The fifth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Having possession of any article in
public or carried in any vehicle, that could be used as a weapon. This will
include glass bottles, drinking glasses and tools.
· The respondent submits and we agree:
“that the necessity for such a
prohibition is not supported by the material pull forward in support of the
application. There is very Little in the appellant’s antecedent history which
indicates a disposition to use a weapon. Furthermore, it is submitted that the
wording of the prohibition is obviously too wide, resulting in lack of clarity
and consequences which are not commensurate with the risk. Many otherwise
innocent items have the capacity to be used as weapons, including anything hard
or with an edge or point. This prohibition has draconian consequences. The
appellant would be prohibited from doing a huge range of things including
having a drink in a public bar.”
· We have already noted judicial
criticism of the use of the word “tool” (see para.[42] above).
· The sixth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Remaining on any shop, commercial or
hospital premises if asked to leave by staff. Entering any premises from which
barred.
· The respondent submits:
“The appellant has convictions for
offences of dishonesty, including an attempted burglary of shop premises and he
has been reprimanded for shoplifting. Thus, there appears to be a foundation
for such a prohibition. It is submitted that this term is capable of being
understood by the appellant and is proportionate given that it hinges upon
being refused permission to enter/ remain on particular premises by those who
have control of them.”
· We agree, although we wonder whether
the appellant would understand the staccato sentence: “Entering any premises from which barred.”
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
.75,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 712
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
· The seventh order prohibited the
appellant from:
Entering upon any private land
adjoining any dwelling premises or commercial premises outside of opening
hours of that premises without the express permission of a person in charge of
that premises. This includes front gardens, driveways and paths. Except in the
course of lawful employment.
· The respondent points out that in McGrath
the Court of Appeal held that a term which prohibited the appellant from
“trespassing on any land belonging to any person whether legal or natural
within those counties” was too wide and harsh. If the appellant looks a wrong
turn on a walk and entered someone’s property, he would be at risk of a
five-year prison sentence. In our view this prohibition, albeit less open to
criticism than the one in McGrath is also loo wide and
harsh. Although certain pieces of land might easily be identified as being
caught by the prohibition (such as a front garden, driveway, or path) it might
be harder to recognise, say, in more rural areas. The absence of any geographical
restriction reinforces our view. Furthermore, there is no practical way that
compliance with the order could be enforced, at least outside the appellant’s
immediate home area (see para.[47] above).
· The eighth order prohibited the
appellant, from:
Touching or entering any unattended
vehicle without the express permission of the owner.
· The respondent submits:
“The appellant has previous convictions
for aggravated vehicle taking and interfering with a motor vehicle and has been
reprimanded for theft of a motorcycle. It is submitted that the prohibition is
sufficiently clear and precise and is commensurate with the risk it seeks to
meet.”
· We agree generally but we would have
preferred a geographical limit so as to make it feasible to enforce the order.
Local officers, aware of the prohibition, would then have a useful weapon to
prevent the appellant committing vehicle crime. They would not have to wait
until he had committed a particular crime relating to vehicles,
· The ninth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Acting or inciting others to act in an
anti-social manner, that is to say, a manner that causes or is likely to cause
harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household.
· The respondent submits that this was a
proper order to make and is in accordance with the Home Office guidance. We
would prefer some geographical limit, in the absence of good reasons for having
no such limit.
· The tenth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Congregating in groups of people in a
manner causing or likely to cause any person to fear for their safely or
congregating in groups of more than six per- sons in an outdoor public place.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
76,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 713
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
Given the appellant’s previous history
the first part of the prohibition can be justified as necessary. As the
respondent points out, the final clause would appear to prohibit the appellant
from attending sporting or other outdoor events. Such a prohibition is, in our
view, disproportionate. Although, as the respondent points out, the appellant
would be able to argue that he had a reasonable excuse for attending the event,
this is, in our view, an insufficient safeguard.
The eleventh order prohibited
the appellant from:
Doing anything which may cause
damage.
The respondent submits that this
prohibition, even if justified (which is far from clear), is far too wide. In
the words of the respondent: “Is the appellant prohibited from scuffing
his shoes?” We agree.
The twelfth order prohibited the
appellant from:
Not being anywhere but your home
address as listed on this order between 2330 hours and 0700 hours or at an
alternative address as agreed in advance with the prolific and priority
offender officer or anti-social behaviour coordinator at Basingstoke Police
Station.
Although curfews can properly be
included in an ASBO, we doubt, as does the respondent, that such an order was
necessary in this case. Although the offences of interfering with a motor
vehicle and attempted burglary (for which the appellant was sentenced on
16/5/02) were both committed between 10pm and midnight on the same evening,
there is no suggestion that other offences have been committed at night.
Moreover, the author of the pre-sentence report states that the appellant’s
offending behaviour did not fit a pattern which could be controlled by the use
of a curfew order.
We would go further than the
respondent. Even if an ASBO was justified a 5-year curfew to follow release is
not, in our view, proportionate.
The thirteenth order prohibited
the appellant from:
Being carried on any vehicle
other than a vehicle in lawful use.
The respondent submits this
prohibition is sufficiently clear and proportionate. We are not convinced. We
do not find the expression “lawful use” to be free from difficulty. If “the
carrying” is likely to constitute a specific criminal offence (e.g. one of the
family of taking without consent offences), what does this order add? We would
also have preferred some geographical limit.
The final order prohibited the
appellant from:
Being in the company of Jason
Arnold, Richard Ashman, Corrine Barlow, Mark Bicknell, Joseph (Joe) Burford,
Sean Condon, Alan Dawkins, Simon Lee, Daniel (Danny) Malcolm, Michael March, or
Nathan Threshie.
The respondent submits:
“This prohibition seems to be
based on the assertion in PC Woods’ document that the appellant is associating
with other criminals who were also nominated as persistent prolific offenders.
The appellant admitted that the
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
77,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page:714
R. v Dean
Bones and Others
offending spree which recently brought
him before the court was the result of being contacted by an old friend. It is
submitted that care has been taken to identify the individuals with whom the
appellant is not to associate.”
· The respondent, however, has doubts
whether a prohibition that prevents the appellant from associating with any of
the named individuals for five years after his release, even in a private residence
where one or more resides, is disproportionate to the risk of anti-social
behaviour it is designed to prevent. We share those doubts.
Bebbington and others— the ASBOs
· We have no doubt that in respect of all
the appellants, other than Schofield and Bruce, it was not “necessary” to make
any ASBO, given their antecedent history, reports, and references.
· Counsel on behalf of Schofield attacked
the judge's findings of fact. The judge conducted the trial and was in the best
position to decide upon Schofield’s role.
· For Scofield and Bruce, given their
history and the judge’s findings, an order could properly have been made to prevent
a repetition of the disgraceful conduct of that night. The judge was entitled,
absent any special circumstances, to make only one of the orders, namely:
On any day that Chester City AFC play
at a regulated football match at the Deva Stadium during the period commencing
three hours prior to kick off and ending six hours after kick-off, enter any
area inside the shaded boundary as defined in the attached map.
· We amend the ASBO made in respect of
Bruce by quashing the other orders and confirming this part only of the
original order. In so far as Schofield is concerned, he will be living and
working within the exclusion zone, so the order made is inappropriate. In his
case the order will read:
On any day that Chester City AFC play
at a regulated football match at the Deva Stadium during the period commencing
three hours prior to kick off and ending six hours after kick-off, enter any
area which is within 100 yards of the main entrance to Chester Station except
for the purposes of his work with the Royal Mail.
· As the trouble that arose in this case
did so on a day when Wrexham AFC was playing away and the club’s supporters
were returning home via Chester railway station there will be in the case of
both Bruce and Schofield an additional term in the ASBO as follows.
· In the case of Bruce:
On any day that Wrexham Town AFC play a
regulated football match away from their home stadium during the period commencing
three hours prior to kick off and ending six hours after kicking off, enter any
area inside the shaded boundary as defined in the attached map.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
78,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 7 85
In the cases of Schofield:
On any day that Wrexham Town AFC
play a regulated football match away from their home stadium during the period
commencing three hours prior to kick off and ending six hours after kick-off,
enter any area which is within 100 yards of the main entrance to Chester
railway station except for the purposes of his work with the Royal Mail,
The period of 10 years for which
the judge ordered the ASBOs to run is manifestly excessive. In the case of
each appellant the order will last for four years from January 7, 2005, the
date when they were sentenced.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
79,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page 1
Status: S Law in Force © Amendment(s)
Pending
Criminal
Justice and Public Order Act 1994 c. 33 Part V PUBLIC ORDER: COLLECTIVE TRESPASS
OR NUISANCE ON LAND
Powers
in relation to raves
This version in force from: January
1, 2006 to present (version 4 of 5)
The text of this provision varies depending
on jurisdiction or other application, see parallel texts relating to:
England and Wales
| Scotland
England and Wales
63.— Powers to remove persons attending
or preparing for a rave.
1.
This section applies to a gathering on
land in the open air of 20 or more persons (whether or not
trespassers) at which amplified music is played during the night (with or
without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration
and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the
inhabitants of the locality; and for this purpose—
A. such
a gathering continues during intermissions in the music and, where the
gathering extends over several days, throughout the period during which
amplified music is played at night (with or without intermissions); and
B. "music
includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a
succession of repetitive beats.
(1 A) This
section also applies to a gathering if-
a.
it is a gathering on land of 20 or more
persons who are trespassing on the land; and
b.
it would be a gathering of a kind
mentioned in subsection (1} above if it took place on land in the open air.
2.
If, as respects any land, a police
officer of at least the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that—
(a) two
or more persons are making preparations for the holding there of a gathering to
www.WestLaw.uk
80,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page2
which this section applies,
(b) ten
or more persons are waiting for such a gathering to begin there, or
(c) ten
or more persons are attending such a gathering which is in progress,
he may give a direction that those
persons and any other persons who come to prepare or wait for or to attend the
gathering are to leave the land and remove any vehicles or other property which
they have with them on the land.
3.
A direction under subsection (2) above,
if not communicated to the persons referred to in subsection (2) by the police
officer giving the direction, may be communicated to them by any constable at
the scene.
4.
Persons shall be treated as having had
a direction under subsection (2) above communicated to them if reasonable steps
have been taken to bring it to their attention.
5.
A direction under subsection (2) above
does not apply to an exempt person.
6.
If a person knowing that a direction
has been given which applies to him—
a.
fails to leave the land as soon as
reasonably practicable, or
b.
having left again enters the land within
the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the direction was given,
he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard
scale, or both.
7.
In proceedings for an offence under
subsection (6) above it is a defence for the accused to show that he had a
reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land as soon as reasonably
practicable or, as the case may be, for again entering the land.
(7
A) A person commits an offence if-
a.
he knows that a direction under
subsection (2) above has been given which applies to him, and
b.
he prepares for or attends a gathering
to which this section applies within the period of 24 hours starting when the
direction was given.
(7B) A person guilty of an offence under
subsection (7A) above is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard
scale, or both.
(8) ...l
www.WestLaw.uk
81,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page3
(9) This section does not apply—
(a) in England and Wales, to a gathering
in relation to a licensable activity within section 1(1 Vet of the Licensing
Act 2003 (provision of certain forms of entertainment) carried on under and in
accordance with an authorisation within the meaning of section 136 of
that Act.
2
(b) in Scotland, to a gathering in
premises which, by virtue of section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act
1982, are licensed to be used as a place of public entertainment.
(10) In this section—
“exempt person",
in relation to land (or any gathering on land), means the occupier, any member
of his family and any employee or agent of his and any person whose home is
situated on the land.
"land in the open
air” includes a place partly open to the air.
2
"occupier”
"trespasser”
and “vehicle ‘have
the same meaning as in section 61.
Back to Top
Scotland
63.— Powers to remove persons attending
or preparing for a rave.
· This section applies to a gathering on
land in the open air of 100 or more persons (whether or not trespassers) at
which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions)
and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at
www.WestLaw.uk
82,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Page4
which it is played, is likely to cause serious
distress to the inhabitants of the locality, and for this purpose—
(a) such a gathering continues during
intermissions in the music and, where the gathering extends over several days,
throughout the period during which amplified music is played at night (with or
without intermissions); and
(b) “music" includes sounds wholly or
predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive
beats.
· If, as respects any land
I
a police officer of at least the rank
of superintendent reasonably believes that—
(a)
two or more persons are making
preparations for the holding there of a gathering to which this section
applies,
(b) ten
or more persons are waiting for such a gathering to begin there, or
(c)
ten or more persons are attending such
a gathering which is in progress,
he may give a direction that those
persons and any other persons who come to prepare or wait for or to attend the
gathering are to leave the land and remove any vehicles or other property which
they have with them on the land.
(3) A direction under subsection (2) above,
if not communicated to the persons referred to in subsection (2) by the police
officer giving the direction, may be communicated to them by any constable at
the scene.
(4) Persons shall be treated as having had
a direction under subsection (2) above communicated to them if reasonable steps
have been taken to bring it to their attention,
(5) A direction under subsection (2) above
does not apply to an exempt person.
(6) if a person knowing that a direction
has been given which applies to him—
(a)
fails to leave the land as soon as
reasonably practicable, or
(b) having
left again enters the land within the period of 7 days beginning with the day
on which the direction was given,
he commits an offence and is liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a
fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
(7) In proceedings for an offence under
this section it is a defence for the accused to show that he had a reasonable
excuse for failing to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable or, as
the case may be, for again entering the land.
www.WestLaw.uk
83,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (2).pdf
Pages
(8) A constable in uniform who reasonably
suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest
him without a warrant.
(9) This section does not apply—
(a) in England and Wales, to a
gathering in relation to a licensable activity within section 1(1fc) of
the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of certain forms of entertainment)
carried on under and in accordance with an authorisation within the meaning of section
136 of that Act.
(b) in Scotland, to a gathering in premises
which, by virtue of section 41 of the Civic Government (Scotland^ Act
1982. are licensed to be used as a place of public entertainment.
(10) In
this section—
2
"exempt person",
in relation to land (or any gathering on land), means the occupier, any member
of his family and any employee or agent of his and any person whose home is
situated on the land.
“land in the open
air includes a place partly open to the air.
3
"occupier"
"trespasser"
and “vehicle' have
the same meaning as in section 61.
4
[Back to Top]
Notes
Words repealed by Anti-social Behaviour
Act 2003 c. 38 Sc.h.3 oara.1 (January 20, 2004 as Si
2003/3300)
www.WestLaw.uk
84,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Paged
Substituted by Licensing Act 2003 c. 17
Sch.6 oara.111 (November 24. 2005)
(a)
Definition repealed by Licensing Act
2003 c. 1. Sch.7 oara.1 (November 24, 2005 as SI 2005/3056)
(4) Repealed by Licensing Act 2003 c, 17 Sch.7
para.1 (November 24, 2005 as SI 2005/3056)
(5) Amended by Anti-social Behaviour Act
2003 c. 38 PI 7 s.58 (January 20, 2004)
(6) Repealed subject to
transitory provisions specified in SI 2005/3495 art.2(2) by Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 c. 15 Sch.17f2t para.1 (January 1,2006: repeal
has effect subject to transitory provisions specified in SI 2005/3495 art.2(2))
(7) Note not available
Crown Copyright material is reproduced with
the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland
Subject: Criminal
law Other related subjects: Penology and criminology
www.WestLaw.uk
85,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
86,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (2).pdf
Contents
Ministerial foreword 4
Introduction 6
(11) Anti-social
behaviour orders: the basics 8
What are anti-social behaviour orders? 8
What sort of behaviour can be tackled
by ASROs? 8
Legal definition of anti-social
behaviour for the purpose of obtaining an order 9
Standard of proof 9
Against whom can an order be made? 10
Who can apply for an order? 10
Which courts can make ASBOs? 11
Length of orders 11
Anti-social behaviour response courts 11
Orders made in county court proceedings
(section IB of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) 13
(12) Taking
a strategic approach 14
Orders made on conviction in criminal
proceedings 14
Where is an ASBO valid? 14
Can interim orders be made? 15
Interim orders made in the county
courts 16
Orders against children and young
people 16
Breach of an order 16
Expert prosecutors 16
Standard ASBO form 17
Disposals 17
(13) Managing
the application process 19
Partnership working 19
Taking ownership 20
Other considerations 21
Collection of evidence 22
Together campaign fact sheet 23
(14) Time
limits 24
Magistrates’ courts (acting in their
civil capacity) 24
(15) Use
of hearsay and professional witness evidence 25
Hearsay evidence 25
Professional witnesses 25
Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses 25
Witness development and support 26
Improving protection of witnesses in
court 27
(16) Information
sharing 28
Information sharing and registered
social landlords 28
Information sharing protocols 28
87,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Contents
(17) The
terms of the order (the prohibitions) 29
The role of the agencies 29
The courts 29
Effective prohibitions 30
Length of prohibitions 31
Targeting specific behaviour 31
Duration of an order 32
(18) Applying
to the courts 33
Summons procedure 33
Disclosure 33
Court procedures 33
Orders made on conviction in criminal
proceedings 33
Interim orders on conviction 36
Step-by-step guide 37
Public funding for defendants 37
(19) Children
and young people 38
Who can apply for an order? 38
Individual support orders 41
(20) Immediate
post-order procedure (adults and young people) 44
Good practice - managing procedures and
timescales 44
Enforcing the order 45
One-year review of juveniles’ ASBOs 45
Police National Computer (PNC) 45
(21) Appeals 46
Magistrates’ court (acting in its civil
capacity) and orders on conviction in criminal proceedings 46
County court 46
Appeals to the High Court by case
stated 46
Appeals before the Crown Court 47
Rectification of mistakes 47
Application for judicial review 47
(22) Breaches 48
Breaches by adults 48
Breaches by children and young people 48
(23) Variation
and discharge of an order 50
(24) Monitoring
and recording 51
(25) Promoting
awareness of orders 52
Suggested aims of the strategy 52
Publicity 52
Principles 52
Benefits of publicity 53
The decision to publish 53
The decision-making process 53
What publicity should look like: are the contents proportionate? 54
Type of information to include in
publicity 54
Age consideration 54
Photographs 55
Distribution of publicity 55
Consideration of human rights 56
Consideration of data protection 56
Type of publicity 56
Working with the media 56
2
88,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
IN
THE WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
Case
No A2Q150064
IN
THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDER
BETWEEN:
SIMON
CORDELL -and-
Appellant
THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
Respondent
SKELETON
ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT
References to page numbers are in
[square brackets], [AX] being the Appellant’s bundle and [RX] being
the Respondent’s bundle
1
Listing; For appeal hearing, 22-24.02,16
for 3 days
Issues: (I)
whether the Appellant has acted in an anti-social manner
(ii) whether an ASBO
necessary Recommended
pre-reading: For an Application for the
ASBO [Rl-3]
The ASBO made on
04.08.15 [R13]
The statements of
DC
Elsmore, the OIC [R14-35]
Statements of R’s witnesses
[R36-66]
A’s statements [A1-X5]
Statements of A’s witnesses
[A16-30, A258-272]
Introduction
(1) The Appellant is appealing against a decision
made by the district judge at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 4 August
2015 pursuant to S.1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”) to
make him subject to an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) to last for 5 years.
(2) The facts relied upon by the Respondent
are set out in the bundle of evidence placed before the court and, in
particular, the witness statements of the Respondent’s officers [R.14-35]. The
Appellant has also provided a bundle for this appeal hearing [A],
89,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument.pdf
(3) The
Respondent’s case is that the Appellant has been integrally involved in the
organisation of raves in London, particularly Enfield, and/or the supply of
sound equipment to those raves. The Respondent relies on each incident set out
in the application notice to support his case [Rl-3]. 'The Respondent submits
that it is necessary for an ASBO to be in place to protect the public from
further anti-social acts, specifically the organisation of raves, done by the
Appellant.
(4) A
chronology of events is appended to this Skeleton Argument.
(5) Legal
framework
(6) Whilst
the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act were repealed by the Anti-social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, s.21 of that Act provides that these
proceedings are unaffected except that, on 23 March 2020, the Appellant’s ASBO
will automatically become an Injunction under as if made under S.1 of that Act.
(7) Section
4 of the 1998 Act provides that an appeal against the making of an ASBO lies to
the Crown Court.
(8) Section
79(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that an appeal to the Crown Court
is by way of a re-hearing. The relevant test, therefore, is that set out in S.1
of the Act.
(1) Pursuant
to S.1 (4) of the 1998 Act, the court may exercise it discretion and make an
ASBO if the two-part test set: out in S.1(l) is satisfied. Section 1(1)
states:
a.
An application for
an order under this section may be made by a relevant: authority if it:
appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with
respect to any person aged ID or over, namely—that the person has acted, since
the commencement date, in an and-social manner, that is to say, in a manner
that caused or was likely to cause harassment:, alarm or distress to one
or more persons not of the same household as himself; and
b.
that such an order
is necessary to protect relevant persons from further antisocial acts by him.
2
90,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
(9) It is for the Respondent to satisfy the court to
the criminal standard that the Appellant has acted in a manner that caused or
was likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not
of the same household as himself. However, the second limb of the test “does
not involve a standard of proof: it is an exercise of judgment or evaluation”
(R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Court [2003] l A.C. 787 at
[371).
(10) In R v Dean lioness
[2006] 1 Cr. App. II. (S.) 120, the Court of Appeal provided general guidance
as to the creation of prohibitions forming an ASBO. the court held that:
5. prohibitions
should be individually tailored to the individual and that each individual
prohibition must be necessary [28].
(ti) an ASBO can include prohibitions not to undertake minor
criminal activity that may be covered under separate legislation [30-1].
However, an ASBO should seek to prevent a person from being able to commit that
offence, rather than further penalise him when he does commit it [35]; and
(iii)
the terms of the ASBO must be proportionate so as to be commensurate with the
risk identified [37],
Submissions
The
first limb of the test under S. 1 (l)(a) of the 1998 Act
(11) The organisation of large-scale raves, whether
or not they fall within the parameters of s.63 of the Criminal justice and
Public Order Act 1994 and whether on private property or common land, fall
within the definition of anti-social behaviour. 1 he Home Office Guidance: ‘A Guide to antisocial
beamer orders’ specifies noise nuisance, particularly when late at
night, as an example of anti-social behaviour.
5. It
is submitted that, a person who helps organise or supplies equipment for a
rave, where there is loud music late at night (except where there is a licence
to do so and/or the music is played on licensed premises), has prana
jade done an act in contravention of S.1(l)(a) of the 1998 Act.
3
91,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument.pdf
(12) The
Respondent relies on the evidence provided in die witness statements provided
by various officers as well as supporting intelligence reports, the page
references for this evidence are set out in the appended chronology. The court
is invited to take particular note of the evidence supporting the conclusion
that the Appellant was integrally involved in the organization of raves and/or
the supply of equipment:
6. The
Appellant was identified by gate security as the organizer of a rave of about
300 people on 7/8 June 2014 (see evidence of Insp. Hamill JR38] and
supporting evidence of PS Miles [R36]).
7. The
Appellant admitted to Insp. Skinner that he was the organiser of the rave on
7/8 June 2014 [R41].
8. The
Appellant admitted to Insp. Skinner that he was the organiser of the rave
organised and prevented on 19 July 2014 [R39, R41].
9. The
Appellant admitted to PC Edgoose that he lent his sound equipment for use at
raves and that he could get a significant number of people to turn out for a
rave [R48, R88]; and
10. The
Appellant was the organiser of the rave on 9 August 2014 and provided the sound
equipment as well as laughing gas [R42, R44-5, R47]. When a crowd turned
up and tried to force entry, the Appellant encouraged them to break the police
line [R43, R45-6].
(13) The
Respondent further relies on the information set out in the intelligence
reports and the documents provided to the court in the Respondent’s bundle. The
evidences show the Appellant has witnessed by many different police officers
supplying equipment for or helping to organise a rave.
(14) The
court will be invited to reject the Appellant’s account as t:o his
activities on the relevant, days as not credible.
The second limb of the test under
section 1 of the Act
(15) It
is first submitted that an ASBO is, in general terms, necessary.
4
92,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument.pdf
(16) There
is a significant body of evidence showing the impact of raves on people who
live near where they occur [R51-66, R155-298]. The level of distress
that these individuals suffered as a result of the raves organised by the
Appellant was high. 'There is a need to prevent these events occurring in the
future.
(17) The
ASBO (and interim ASBO beforehand) have been effective. The
only time where the. Appellant’s behaviour has improved is when these
proceedings were commenced, and it was made clear to the Appellant
that his actions could not be tolerated.
(18) "The
Appellant has denied the acts alleged by the Respondent. He has shown no
acknowledgment or desire to change his ways that might make an ASBO
unnecessary.
(19) As
to the particular prohibitions on the ASBO, significant effort was made by the
Respondent and by the court to ensure that any legitimate business activities
that the Appellant wished to undertake would in no way be inhibited by this
order. Tor the Appellant to provide recorded music to a
gathering of people he would either need to have a licence for that event or to
provide the music on a licensed premises for fewer than 500 people with, a
general licence to play recorded music (see s. 1 and Sch.l of the Licensing Act
2003). This order specifically does not preclude him from providing regulated
entertainment under the auspices of a valid licence.
(20) The
only amendment that the Respondent would seek is that the words “or s.63(l. A)”
be added after the words “s.63(l)” in prohibitions a, b, and c of the ASBO.
(21) It
is submitted that the terms of the ASBO as drafted are necessary and
proportionate in that they should have minimal impact on the Appellant’s life and legitimate
business activities.
Robert Talalay
Chambers of 1 'torus Barton OC 5 Essex Court "I’rnrpk
January
2016
5
93,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
6
Case No A20150064
IN THE
WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT
IN THE
MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDER
BETWEEN:
SIMON
CORDELL
Appellant
-and-
THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
Respondent
SKELETON
ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT
1C Essex Court
Hugh Giles (Director)
Metropolitan Police Service
Directorate of Legal Services
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H OBG
94,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
IN
THE WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT Case No
A2Q15P064
IN
THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
ORDER
BETWEEN:
SIMON
CORDELL
Appellant
-and-
THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
Respondent
CHRONOLOGY
12/01/13
Information pertaining to this
date entered by PC Purcell that a vehicle
belonging to the Appellant (Ford hocus Silver MA57LDY) was
supplying equipment for a rave in Canary Wharf [R152-4]. Appellant
accepts attendance but. denies any organisational/supply role for a rave [A3]
24/05/13
Information pertaining to this date
entered by PC- Jackson that the
Appellant was seen with another
individual who told PC- Jackson that they were looking for a place to set. up a
rave over the ban holiday [R118- 120]. Appellant’s account at [A4]
25/05/14
Information pertaining to this date
entered by PC Hoodless concerning a
report that there were trespassers on
private premises. The Appellant was spoken to and had a set of large speakers
in his van (White Ford I transit CX52JPZ) [R112-4]. Appellant accepts
attendance but denies any organisational/supply role for a rave [A4]
6-8/06/14
Police attended and broke up a rave at
Progress Way, Enfield. Evidence of the Appellant’s alleged organisational
involvement [R36-41, 110]; impact statements [R51-66]; CAD
reports [R155-298]. Appellant denies attendance on 6 or 8 June 2014 and
admits attendance on 7 June 2014 but denies any organisational/supply role for
a rave [A5]
95,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
20/06/14
Rave in Neasden closed down. White
Fold Transit CX52JRZ removed from the site [R102]. Appellant’s account
is that he provided sound equipment for a gentleman’s birthday party and was
informed the following day that his equipment had been seized [A5, A253-6]
19/07/14
Police attended and closed down a
putative rave on Great Cambridge
Road, Enfield. Evidence of the
Appellant’s alleged organisational involvement [R39-41, R91]. Appellant’s
account is that stopped his car to help a homeless person from being arrested
when he was arrested for a breach of the peace; he denies any
organisational/supply role for a rave
[A6]
24/07/14
Conversation reported by PC Edgoose in
which the Appellant is alleged
to have bragged about organising raves [R48,
R88]. I he Appellants account is at [A6-7]
27/07/14
Information pertaining to this
date entered by PC Chandler that the Appellant driving a White herd transit CX52JRZ
was present at powering speakers at a rave on Millmarsh Lane, Enfield [R83-6J.
Appellant, accepts attendance at a birthday party but denies any
organisational/supply role for a rave [A7]
09-10/08/14
Police attended and broke up a rave on
Millmarsh Lane, Pm field.
Evidence of the Appellant’s alleged
organisational involvement [R42-7, R80-1]. Appellant accepts attendance
at a birthday dinner but denies any organisational/supply role for a rave
96,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
787
[R (McCann) v Manchester Crown
Ct (HL(E))
House of Lords
Regina
(McCann and others) v Crown Court at Manchester
and
another
Clingham
v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough fi Council
[2002.] UKHL 39
2002 May 27,28; Lord Steyn, Lord
Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton,
Oct 17 Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and
Lord Scott of Foscote
Crime — Crime and disorder —
Antisocial behaviour order — Applications for antisocial behaviour orders
relying on hearsay evidence — Whether proceedings civil or criminal — Whether
hearsay evidence admissible — Whether criminal standard of proof to be
satisfied — Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c 37J, s r — Human Rights Act 1998
(042), Sch 1, Ft 1, act
In the first case the Chief
Constable applied to the magistrates’ court for anti- social behaviour orders
to be made against each of the defendants, three brothers aged 16, 15 and 13,
pursuant to section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998'. The stipendiary
magistrate made the orders, which, inter alia, prohibited the defendants from
entering a particular area of the city in which they lived. On the defendants’
appeal to the Crown Court, the judge held chat the proceedings for the making
of an order were civil rather than criminal and
that, therefore, they were not subject to the rules of evidence which applied
in criminal prosecutions or to the protection of article 6(2) of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to
the Human Rights Act 1.998c However, the court applied the standard of proof of
being “satisfied so that it was sure” that the orders should be made and,
having done so, dismissed the appeals.
The defendants brought judicial
review proceedings seeking an order of certiorari to quash the judge’s
decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed
the application and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The defendants
appealed.
In the second case the local
authority applied to the magistrates’ court for an antisocial behaviour order
to be made against the defendant. The application was based primarily on
hearsay evidence including evidence from anonymous complainants and evidence
from complainants whose identities were not disclosed. A hearsay notice under
the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 was
served on the defendant, who challenged its validity. Following a pre-trial
review, the district judge stated a case for the Divisional Court raising
questions about the admissibility of hearsay evidence in the proceedings. The
Divisional Court, in reliance on the decision of the Divisional Court in the
first case, ruled that the proceedings were civil and that the hearsay evidence
could be admitted. The defendant appealed pursuant to a certificate granted
under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
On the appeals—
Held, dismissing the appeal in
the first case and declaring that the house had no jurisdiction to hear the
appeal in the second case, that since applications for antisocial behaviour
orders under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1 998 were initiated by
the civil process of complaint and did not charge the defendant with any
· Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s
r: see post, para 6.
· Human Rights Act 1998, Sell 1,
Pt., art 6: see post, para 7.
97,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
788
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E)
(2003] 1 AC
crime or involve the Crown Prosecution
Service, and since the making of such an order, the purpose of which was
preventive not punitive, was not a conviction, did not appear on the
defendant’s criminal record and resulted in no penalty, the proceedings were
civil under domestic law; that, since the proceedings did not involve the
determination of a criminal charge and could not result in the imposition of an
immediate penalty on the defendant, they therefore could not be classified as
criminal for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention; that, in so far as
the proceedings involved a determination of the defendants’ civil rights and
thereby engaged the right to a fair trial under article 6(r),
the use of hearsay evidence
admissible under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 in such proceedings was not unfair
and involved no violation of that right; that hearsay evidence under the 1995
Act and the 1999 Rules was therefore admissible on an application for an
anti-social behaviour order under section 1 of the 1998 Act; but that, given
the seriousness of the matter involved, the court should be satisfied to the
criminal standard of proof that a defendant had acted in an anti-social manner
before making such an order; and that, accordingly, in rile first case the
appropriate standard of proof had been applied, and since the second case was
not a “criminal cause or matter” the House had no jurisdiction to hear the
appeal under section 1 of the 1960 Act (post, paras 22, 2627, 30, 33-35, 36,
37, 39-40, 5H 55-5h, 64, 67, 68, 74, 76-77, 81-84, 94-98, 102103, 105-106,
108, 111, 112, 11 3-117).
(22) Dicta
of Lord Atkin in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney
General for Canada [1.931] AC 310, 324,
(23) PC, of
Lord Bingham of Cornhili CJ in Customs and Excise Comrs v City of London
Magistrates' Court [2000] 1 WLR 2020, 2025,
(24) DC, B
1 > Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
[2001] 1 WLR 340, DC, S v Miller 2001 SC 977 and
(25) Gough
v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary
[2002] QB 1213, CA applied.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
[2001] EWCA Civ 281; [2001] 1. WLR 1084; [2001] 4 All ER 264 affirmed.
The following cases are referred
to in the opinions of their Lordships.
Adolf v Austria
(1982) 4 EHRR 313
Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983)5
EHRR 533 ^
Amand v Home Secretary 1943
| AC 147; [1942] 2 All ER 381, HL(E)
B v Chief Constable of Avon and
Somerset Constabulary [200 t] I WLR 340; [2001] 1 All ER
562, DC
B endenoun v France (19 9
4) 18 EHRR 5 4
Bcnham v United Kingdom
(1996) 22 EHRR 293
Brown v Stott (2003]
t AC 68 r; [1001] 2 WLR 817; [2001] 2 All ER 97,
PC Cons tanda v M 19 9 7
S C 217
Customs and Excise Comrs v City
of London Magistrates’ Court [2000] 1 WLR Z020; 120001 4 All
ER 763,
DC Deweer u Belgium (1980)
2 EHRR 439
Dumbo Beheer BV v The
Netherlands (1993) 18 EHRR 213
Doorson v The Netherlands (1996)22
EHRR 3 30 Engel t/
The Netherlands (No
1) (1976) > EHRR 647
Garyfallou AEBE v Greece (1997)
28 EHRR 344
Gough v Chief Constable of the
Derbyshire Constabulary [2001 j EWITC Admin 554; [2002] QB 459;
[2001] 3 WLR T392; [2001] 4 All ER 289, DC; [2002] EWCA Civ 351; 12002] QB tzr
3; (2002] 3 WLR 289; [2002] 2 All ER 985,
CA Guzzardi v Italy
(1980) 3 EHRR 3 3 3
H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse:
Standard of Proof), hi re [ 1996] AC 563; (1996] 2 WLR 8; [
1996] 1 All ER 1, HI. (E)
Han v Customs and Excise Comrs {200:]
EWCA Civ 1040; [2001] 1 WLR 2253; [2001] 4 All ER 687, CA
Kostovskt v The Netherlands
(5989) 12 EHRR 434
Lauko v Slovakia (1998)
33 EHRR 994
98,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] I AC
789
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lutz v Germany (1987) Ro EHRR 181
M v Italy (1991) 70 DR 59
McFeeley v United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 161
M'Gregor v D 1977 SC 3 30
Official Receiver v Stern \2.000] 1 WLR 22.30; [2001] 1 All ER633, CA Qztiirk
v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 409 ^
Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions [r995l 1 WLR 1381; l.t.995] 3 All ER 124, DC
Proprietary Articles Trade Association
v Attorney General for Canada [1931] AC 310, PC
R v Kansa! (No z) [2001] UKHL 62; [2002] 2 AC 69; [2001] 3 WLR
1.562; [2002]
· All ER 257, HL{E)
R v Secretary of State for Trade and
Industry, Ex p McCormick [1998] BCC 379 Raimondo v Italy (1994) 18 EJHRR 137
Ravnsborg v Sweden (1994) r 8 EHRR 3 8
S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation
of Care Plan), In re [2001] UKHL 10.
12002] 2 AC 291;
[2002] zWLR 720; [2002] 2 All ER 5:92, HL(E)
S v Miller 200 s SC 977
Saidi v France {1993} 17 EHRR 251
Sporrong and Ldnnrotb v Sweden (1981) j EHRR 35
Steel v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603
Unterpertinger v Austria (1986) 13 EHRR 175
Woodball (Alice), Ex p (1888) 20 QBD 83 2,
CA
The following
additional cases were cited in argument:
Bonalmm v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [1985] QB 675;
[1985]
· WLR 712; 11.985] 1.
AUER797, CA ^
Botross v Hammersmith and Fulham London
Borough Council (1994} 93 LGR 268,
DC , .
Carr v Atkins [1987] QB 963;
[1987] 3 WLR 529; [1987] 3 All LR 684, CA Ihhotson v United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR CD 332
Krone-Verilog GmbH v Austria (Application No 28977/95) (unreported) 21 May
1997, E Com HR
Nottingham City Council v Zain (A
Manor) I2001j EWCA Civ 1248; [2002] 1
WLR 607, CA
Pelle v France (1986) 50 DR 263
R v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison,
Ex p St Germain [1.979] QB 42S; 119791
1 WLR 42; [1979] 1 AUER 701, CA
R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester APPEAL
from the Court of Appeal
This was an appeal, with leave of the
House (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn and Lord Rodger of Earls ferry) granted
on 25 April 2002, by the defendants, Sean McCann, Michael McCann and Joseph
McCann, against a decision of the Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips of Worth
Matravers MR, Kennedy and Dyson LJj) dated 1 March 2001 dismissing their appeals from
a decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division (Lord Woolf CJ
and Rafferty j) on 22 November 2000 to refuse the defendants’ application, by
their mother and litigation friend Margaret McCann, for judicial review by way
of an order of certiorari to quash the decision of Judge Rhys Davies QC, the
Recorder of Manchester, and justices sitting in the Crown Court at Manchester
on 16 May 2000 to uphold a decision of a stipendiary magistrate to make
anti-social behaviour orders against the defendants on the application of the
Chief Constable of Greater Manchester.
99,
Simon
Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
790
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] 1 AC
The facts are stated in the opinion of
Lord Hope of Craighead.
Clingham v Kensington and Chelsea Royal
London Borough Council
APPEAL from the Divisional Court of the
Queen’s Bench Division
This was an appeal, with leave of the
House granted on 23 October 2001, by the defendant, Andrew George Clingham,
against a decision of the Divisional Court (Schiemann LJ and Poole J) dated 11
January 2001 dismissing his appeal by way of case stated against a decision on
the admissibility of evidence by District Judge David Kennett Brown, sitting as
a magistrate at Marylebone Magistrates’ Court on 14 September 2000
at a pre-trial review of an application by Kensington and Chelsea Royal London
I3orough Council for an anti-social behaviour order against the defendant.
In refusing leave to appeal the
Divisional Court certified, under section 1(2) c of the
Administration of justice Act i960, that the following point of law of general
public importance was involved in its decision: “Whether hearsay evidence is
admissible in proceedings to secure the making of an anti-social behaviour
order under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998?”
The facts are stated in the opinion of
Lord Steyn.
Stephen Salley QC
and Alan Fraser for Clingham. Seen as a whole, the scheme
provided for by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for the making of and
enforcement of anti-social behaviour orders is punitive, rather than
preventative, and therefore truly criminal. The sanctions for breach of such an
order, which include imprisonment for a maximum of five years, are clearly
penal in nature. The proper application of the relevant criteria leads to the
conclusion that it is properly categorised as criminal even in respect of ^ the
initial imposition of the order looked at alone. Consequently, the usual,
criminal procedures apply and the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the Magistrates’
Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 (SI 1999/681) do not.
The absence of any real restriction on
the possible ambit of anti-social behaviour orders also presents the risk of ad
hoc, novel and ill-defined “criminal offences” (founded on the terms of any
such order), that is a matter of concern and possible injustice in that it is
effectively creating “offences” attracting substantial penalties without the
direct involvement of Parliament and in circumstances lacking the sort of
certainty that should characterise any prohibition carrying such penal
sanctions. The fact that the conduct originally complained of is inevitably
reflected in the formulation of the “offence”, it is an integral and
inextricable part of a single process with punitive sanction.
Geographical exclusion from a
particular area is also properly regarded as punitive. It encroaches on freedom
of movement and may in some circumstances amount to an infringement of the
right to respect for private and family life (contrary to article 8 of the
Convention) and/or freedom of association (contrary to article 11). Although
each of these rights is subject to restriction for reasons including the
“prevention of crime and disorder” and the “protection of rights of others”
that reinforces the argument that such, a sanction is a punitive order.
Even if it is held that the proceedings
are properly characterised as “civil”, defendants are entitled to a “fair”
hearing in accordance with article 6 (R) “in
100,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
791
[2003] 1 AC R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
A determination of his civil] rights and
obligations”. In determining what is “fair” in this context an almost (or
“quasi”) criminal approach should be adopted not only in relation to the
standard of proof but in interpretation of wider procedural issues. In the
circumstances that would include having particular regard to the minimum
requirements that would attach to criminal proceedings under article 6(3), even
if those did not directly apply g by virtue of criminal status. In particular
this should include the right to examine witnesses pursuant to article
<5(3){d).
The application of the criminal
standard of proof as being “likely to be appropriate” in the majority of
applications for an anti-social behaviour order was accepted by the Court of
Appeal in McCann. That is an unsatisfactory approach in relation
to the appropriate standard of proof. It would lead to a lack of clarity and
certainty, which in turn is likely to cause C injustice, actual
or perceived. The proper interpretation is that the appropriate standard of
proof to be applied in relation to the making of any anti-social behaviour
order is the criminal standard. It is unrealistic to suggest some sort of
sliding scale between the criminal and civil standard of proof. Application of
the criminal standard of proof would go a long way to achieving a fair trial.
In Clingham the
allegations involve serious criminal conduct including burglary, dealing in
drugs and assaults. One of the consequences of this is that a person may find
himself having to attempt to answer an allegation founded on multiple hearsay
to resist an application for an order, only to later have to answer a formal
criminal charge founded on the same “facts” which were only proved to the civil
standard. Anything said in the course of the first proceedings could be used
against hint in respect of the later criminal charge. This also has the
potential of effectively depriving the person of his right to silence under
article 6(2) in any such subsequent proceedings. If he is to seek to preserve
this right by not exposing himself to such risk, by not seeking to challenge
the basis on which the anti-social behaviour order is sought, he would be
compelled to constrain himself in the initial proceedings such that his general
right to a “fair” hearing under article 6(1) in determination of his “civil
rights and obligations” regardless of any minimum guaranteed rights afforded in
respect of a “criminal charge” under article 6(3}, would be compromised. Anonymity
of witnesses probably will not be achievable in these circumstances. The
problem of fearful witnesses can be dealt with improving the role of the CPS
and police rather than reducing the threshold required for an order to be made.
The jurisdiction to accept Clingham
is properly exercised. The definition ^ of “criminal cause or matter in section
r(I)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1.960, for the purpose of appeal
to the higher courts, is wider than the phrase “criminal proceedings”: see Exp
Alice Woodhall (1888} 20 QBD 832; Amand v Home Secretary [1943]
AC 1:47; Bonalwni v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1985]
QB 675; Carr v Atkins f 1 987] r. QB 963; Customs and
Excise Comrs v City of London Magistrates’ Court H [2000] 1 WLR 2020.
Applying that approach the making of an anti-social behaviour order would
clearly be a criminal cause or matter, as is everything that flows from it.
Adrian Eulford QC
and fames Stark for the Mc Cans. Anti-social behaviour orders
require proof of conduct that is criminal in nature, closely
101,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] 1 AC
akin to offences under sections 4A and
5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 1 of the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 and may lead to restrictions on liberty that constitute a punishment.
Although the wording of sections 4A and 5 Public of the 1986' Act is not
identical to section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act .1998, the conduct
involved all falls within section 1. Furthermore, there is no limitation placed
on the definition of harassment in section 7(2) of the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997.
English law contains a number of strict
liability offences. The lack of a requirement of intent cannot render the
proceedings civil. Furthermore, men’s rea in both section 5 of the Public Order
Act 1986 and section 2. of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 offences is
knowledge based i.e. knew or ought to have known. Most tellingly of all section
1(10) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 itself creates an offence without the
requirement of intent- It is subject only to a reasonable excuse defence.
Whether a prohibited act leads to
criminal proceedings depends upon the consequences arising from the act not the
form of the statute within which it is described or the procedure by which
proceedings are commenced. The procedure must be looked at in its totality from
the beginning to the end. Although proceedings are started by complaint that is
not conclusive. An anti-social behaviour order makes those against whom they
are made subject to the risk of criminal sanctions in respect of conduct that
would not otherwise be criminal. Conduct which is criminal in character may
well take place only at the stage of breach of an order. Prohibitions against
committing criminal offences or defined types of anti-social behaviour can be
made, breach of which may expose the individual to far more serious penalties
than the offence itself. Although it may have been Parliament’s intention to
create civil rather than criminal proceedings, one has to look at what has been
created not what it was intended to create. The fact that there are different
stages to the proceedings does not prevent both stages being criminal causes or
matters: see Amand v Home Secretary [r 943] AC 147; R v
Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex p St Germain [1979] QB 425-
Consequently, applications for anti-social behaviour orders are the initial
step in a criminal cause or matter.
The second limb of section 1(1) of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the requirement of it being “necessary” to make an
order is not at odds with the character of the proceedings being criminal Those
elements come into play in other criminal proceedings. The first limb
constitutes the “offence’ the second limb the need for a “penalty”.
The fact that a penalty, which may have
severe consequences, is described as being imposed to protect the public in the
future, and not as a punishment for a crime already committed does not prevent
the proceedings being criminal proceedings when the correct test is applied:
see Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Attorney General for Canada
[1.931! AC 310; Customs and Excise Comrs v City of London Magistrates’
Courts [2000] 1: WLR 2020. The object of a penalty by way of sentence
is that it seeks to “protect” as well as to “punish” e.g. removing an offender
from society by custody to prevent further offending. In sentencing protective
considerations, rather than society’s
need to punish the individual, often play the major role in deciding what
penalty to impose. Thus, to define an anti-social behaviour order as protective
does not in any way diminish its punitive effect.
102,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
793
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
The conditions that may be attached to
an anti-social behaviour order are unlimited. Curfews and orders banning people
from certain areas are now expressly recognised as criminal penalties under
sections 37 and 40A of the Powers of the Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Restrictions upon liberty have also included a limit upon the number of
visitors a person can have to their home or the number of persons with whom
they may congregate.
The injunction analogy is a false one.
Injunctions seek to prevent the interference by one person with another’s civil
rights whether in contract, tort, or equity or to ensure that civil obligations
are carried out as in the case of a mandatory injunction. They are not aimed at
preserving public order or containing anti-social behaviour. Committal is in
consequence of disobedience to the court not as a punishment or penalty for the
actual conduct involved. Furthermore, a contempt can be purged but an
anti-social behaviour order last for two years.
There are fundamental differences
between an anti-social behaviour order and a sex offender order under section 2
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 1 requires proof. Section 2 only
requires “reasonable cause to believe”. Thus the court does not, under section
2, apply a simple objective test of whether acts took place as in section 1 but
has a further subjective element to apply that is not consistent with a
criminal offence. Furthermore, the sex offender has already had his fair trial
to the criminal standard of proof on the conduct which gave rise to the
jurisdiction to make an order. The sex offender order is a mechanism to control
the further conduct of those already convicted of criminal offences. The
essential prerequisite for the order does not need to be proved in proceedings
for making the order. In the context of European jurisprudence a sex offender
order is made against a very limited class of persons, those already convicted
of sex offences while the anti-social behaviour order is of general
application. That is a significant factor: see Benbam v United Kingdom
(1996) 22 EHRR 293
The relevant criteria for the
consideration of whether proceedings are criminal for the purpose of article 6
of the Convention rights are: (a) the domestic classification; (b) The
nature of the proceedings; (c) The nature and severity of the punishment:
see Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) (1976) I EHRR 647. Those criteria
are not cumulative. Any one of the three may render the proceedings as being in
respect of criminal charge: see Garyfallou
AEBE v Greece (1997) 28 EHRR 344; Lauko v Slovakia (1998)
33 EHRR 994. There does not have to be tile formal constituent elements of an
offence as recognised in domestic law: see Deiveer v Belgium
(1980) 2 EHRR 439. There is a broad similarity between proceedings for
anti-social behaviour orders and breach of the peace. In both cases what is
effectively sought is an order prohibiting a certain kind of behaviour. The
intention was almost certainly to create a civil procedure, but it did not
actually achieve that: see Steel v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR
603. A penalty is still a penalty even when it takes a novel form. See also Han
v Customs and Excise Gamuts [
2001 j 1 WFR 2253 for a review of the European jurisprudence.
The original anti-social behaviour is
the most significant element of the criminal conduct leading to a criminal
sanction under section 1(10). Thus the crucial conduct of a criminal nature
that lies at the heart of the order and to which it is most important for the
procedural safeguards of article 6(2) and (3) to be applied occurs at the first
stage on the application for an order. It is
103,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
794
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] AC
thus impossible, when applying the autonomous
test from the Convention as A to the genera! nature of the proceedings, to
escape the conclusion that they are in respect of a criminal charge. Thus, the
orders made in the instant proceedings on the basis that they were civil
proceedings not subject to such safeguards should be quashed.
Having a shifting or varying burden of
proof may impose on justices an almost impossible task and could lead to the
wholly undesirable practice of g justices being asked about the approach they
are going to adopt.
A professional judge could mould
proceedings to meet the particular dictates of the case more easily: see Official
Receiver v Stern I2000] I WLR 2230,
2257-2258. Other issues also arise: the protections under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would not apply and there could be profound problems
regarding the weight to be given to identification evidence.
Brodie Thompson QC
for Liberty. There are fundamental implications in the development of criminal
law involved in the use of anti-social behaviour orders. It is important that
all the full protections of criminal procedure are maintained when people are
in effect accused of criminal conduct. Under section I(I){a) of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 a person with no previous convictions can be accused of
conduct which could equally well have been prosecuted under section 5 of the
Public Order Act 1986. An individual can thus be brought before the court for
the first time under section 1 (I)(a). The penalties that can be imposed are in
reality much more severe than those under section 5 or under the procedure of
binding over the keep the peace, which is a criminal matter under the
convention: see Steel v United Kingdom 28 EHRR 603. The protections under criminal law are designed to
protect the liberties of persons accused of such conduct. It is Ł important
that such protections exist and are changed only by the express will of
Parliament. The analogies with sex offenders etc concern people who have
already been convicted. It is quite different to impose a similar regime on
someone who has no convictions. There is no objection to simple procedures to
deal with public order disturbances. There is a long history of such powers see
summary in: Percy v Director of Public Prosecutions [ 19 9 5 3 1 WLR 1382. The proper approach
to anti-social behaviour is for principled changes in die criminal law to be
made by Parliament. The alternative of regarding the matter as civil but
reading in criminal protections on an “ad hoc” basis is conceivable hut less
desirable in that it left to the Courts to define the protections traditionally
provided by the criminal law.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998
imposes on the courts a broad general duty to construe primary, as well as
secondary, legislation to accord c with Convention rights. In
that respect the strong interpretive obligation imposed by section 3
necessarily subordinates the narrow intention of Parliament in the adoption of
particular measures to its broader intention to avoid any implied inconsistency
with protection of the Convention rights, even in primary legislation. Thus,
section 3 introduces a degree of circularity into the position under domestic law,
requiring the position under the Convention to be considered even in respect of
the proper classification of anti-social behaviour orders in. the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 under domestic law principles. Such orders should be
construed as criminal if a civil classification would fail to provide all the
protections required by the Convention under a criminal classification.
104,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
795
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
John Bowers QC and Richard Banwell for Kensington and Chelsea Royal London
Borough Council. Anti-social behaviour orders were specifically introduced in
section x of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as a novel method for the police
and local authorities to deter anti-social behaviour and prevent its
escalation, without recourse to criminal sanctions. They are a reaction to a
widely perceived social problem of crime and disorder. They were not intended
to replace or modify existing criminal offences; rather they are primarily
preventative in nature.
A useful contrast may be made between
anti-social behaviour orders and:
· curfew orders under sections 12 and 13
of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which are available to the court upon
conviction of an offence; and (b) the terms of the Protection from Harassment
Act 1997 which specifically creates a criminal offence.
An anti-social behaviour order may be
properly characterised in effect as, or by analogy, to a quick time injunctive
order made in civil proceedings, used to restrain further behaviour which may
cause harassment, alarm or distress to the relevant persons in the local
government area concerned. Section 1(4) of the 1998 Act thus provides that an
order may prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order in
the future. An order is in terms restricted to the prohibition(s) necessary to
protect persons in a defined area from anti-social behaviour (section 1(6)) and
is manifestly an order designed to protect in the future, not to punish past
misconduct. An analogy to the anti-social behaviour order is the banning order,
which may be made by a magistrates’ court under section 14B of the Football
Spectators Act 1989. Such an order is civil in nature: see Gough u
Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary [2002] QB 459. A similar comparison can be made with
disqualification orders under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which are also not criminal: see R v
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex p McCormick [ 1998] BCC 379.
The making of an anti-social behaviour
order does not involve a trial and punishment of the individual concerned.
Indeed, section I{r){a) of the 1998 Act does not require that a person has
caused harassment, alarm, or distress, only that the same may be likely to be
caused. The contrast between the provisions of an anti-social behaviour orders
and section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is also instructive. Section 5
expressly provides that a person using threatening, abusive, or insulting words
or behaviour within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment,
alarm and distress is guilty of an offence. There is no attribution of an
offence to an anti-social behaviour order.
There is no “overall scheme” to section
r. to which the application for an anti-social behaviour order can be seen as a
“preliminary” (non-criminal proceeding) stage, Instead anti-social behaviour
orders, like an injunction may be a possible precursor to separate penal
proceedings to enforce them as a distinct second stage, but they do not
constitute penal proceedings in themselves. Subsequent enforcement proceedings
under the 1998 Act for breach are quite separate from the initial application
and order. There is no immediate danger of an individual losing his liberty
merely because an order is made.
There are other features of the
application for an anti-social behaviour order which tend towards it being a
civil procedure: (a) Under Section 1(3) of the 1998 Act proceedings are
initiated by complaint, the appropriate
105,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
796
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL
(Ł)
[2003] 1 AC
procedure for commencing civil
proceedings in the magistrates’ court.
· The requirement to consult each other
“relevant authority” and adjoining authorities where an order specifies
neighbouring areas, demonstrates that it is not contemplated that penal
sanctions be imposed.
· Criminal sanctions are found in Part I
of the 1998 Act under the heading “Crime and Disorder: general” which covers
prohibitions on sex offenders (section z) and “Crime and disorder strategies”
(section 5) thus emphasizing the preventative nature of the provisions; (d)
Prosecutions are not conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service.
The categorization for what constitutes
a criminal offence formulated in Customs and Excise Comrs v City of
London Magistrates’ Court. [2000]
1. WLR
2,020 should be adopted. On that basis applications for anti-social behaviour orders
involve none of the hallmarks of a criminal matter; there is no formal
accusation, made on behalf of the state or by any private prosecutor, that a
defendant has committed a breach of the criminal law.
There is no relevant or viable concept
of “quasi-criminal” in respect of hearsay evidence, although there may be
varying standards of the civil standard of proof. That is a wholly different
matter to a “quasi-criminal” approach to matters of admissibility of evidence.
If applications under the 1.998 Act for
an anti-social behaviour order are civil in nature, the decision of the High
Court in Clingham is
final and no right of appeal lies to the House of Lords, as section I(I){a) of
the Administration of Justice Act i960 only permits an appeal from a decision
of the High Court “in any criminal cause or matter”.
Charles Garside QC and Peter Cadwallader for the Chief Constable of Greater
Manchester. Applications for anti-social behaviour orders are civil
proceedings. Any proceedings for the breach of an order are criminal
proceedings. It was the intention of Parliament that applications for antisocial
behaviour orders should be civil proceedings. That result was affected by
section 1 of the 1998 Act,
Criminal proceedings are begun by
arrest, charge, and production at court or by laying an information followed by
summons or warrant. Applications for anti-social behaviour orders are begun by
complaint. That is the method for commencing civil proceedings in magistrates’
courts: see Part 2 and sections 51 and 52 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Botross
v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (1994) 93 LGR 268 was a case with special facts. It concerned
section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Act and that
section had a long legislative history going back to 1.875. ^ ^la<^ been
decided in many cases that the nature of such proceedings was criminal, in
part, because the sanctions available included a fine. The court concluded that
when Parliament enacted the r.990 Act it had made a mistake in legislating for
such proceedings to be begun by complaint and had never intended to change the
nature of such proceedings.
The procedure for applications for anti-social
behaviour orders (section 1(2) of the 1.998 Act) and sex offender orders
(section 2(2) of the Act) are identical. Applications for sex offenders’ orders
are civil proceedings: see B t/ Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary 1200r j r WLR 340.
106,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[20031 I AC
797
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Applying the three criteria laid down
in Engel v The Netherlands (No I) I EHRR 647 to determine whether
the proceedings are “criminal” for the purposes of article 6: first, the
proceedings for anti-social behaviour orders are classified as civil in
domestic law and, second, the defendants are not charged with any offence. As
to the third criterion, section 1 of the Act is directed not to the detection,
apprehension, trial and punishment of those who have committed crimes, but the
restraint of those who have committed anti-social behaviour (which may also
amount to a crime) and whose conduct is such that a measure of restraint is
necessary to protect members of the public from further anti-social behaviour.
The purpose of the proceedings is of importance within the European
Jurisprudence: see Raitnondo v
Italy (1994) 18 EHRR 2.37',
Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR
333. The powers available in those case was at least as restrictive as chose
given to the court under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Jonathan Crow for the Secretary of State for the
Horne Department. In determining whether, as a matter of domestic classification,
a particular statutory provision forms part of the criminal law, there are two
elements: (T) a “prohibited act” and (ii) “penal consequences”: see Proprietary
Articles Trade Association v Attorney General for Canada [19313! AC 310, 314. In relation to the
first limb, the Act itself does not itself “prohibit” the conduct defined in
any anti-social behaviour order. In relation to the second limb, it is
important to consider the nature of an anti-social behaviour order
independently from the possible consequences of any breach. Given that the only
act that can logically be said to have been “prohibited” by section 1 is the
act which triggers the making of the order, it is only permissible to consider
the immediate consequences of that act—not the possible consequences of some
other acts in breach of the anti-social behaviour order, that may or may not
occur in the future. When properly analysed Amand v Home Secretary [1943] AC 147 and R v Board of
Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex p St Germain [1979] QB 42,5 support that approach. They decide that a cause or
matter would be classified as criminal if, carried to its conclusion, it might
result in a conviction and sentence. That analysis demonstrates that the
criminal sanction for a breach of an anti-social behaviour order cannot affect
the proper classification of the proceedings that are brought for the
imposition of ail anti-social behaviour order. It is also entirely consistent
with the analysis adopted in many other areas of the law, for example, interim
injunctions, sex offenders’ orders and orders under the Company Directors
Disqualification Act 1986.
The question whether any act is
“prohibited” by section r. of the 1998 Act is not answered by reference to the
question whether the preconditions for making an anti-social behaviour order
are exactly co-extensive with some other substantive criminal offence— e.g.
under the Public Order Act 1986 or the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997. The
correct question is whether section 1 itself prohibits any act. It does not. In
any event there are substantial differences between, on the one hand, section
4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 1 of the Protection from Harassment
Act and, on the other, section 1: of the 1:998 Act.
Tor the purposes of article 6 there are
several reasons why the preconditions to making an anti-social behaviour order
take it outside the criminal realm. The order seeks to deal with anti-social
behaviour, not with
107,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
798
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] 1 AC
crime, and it seeks to do so by
preventing future crimes rather than by punishing past ones. If a sanction is
imposed for the purposes of deterrence or punishment, then it is likely to be
regarded as a criminal penalty: see Oztiirk v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 409; Han v Customs and Excise
Comrs [2.001] 1 WLR 2253. By contrast, a sanction that is imposed for
preventive reasons is not so regarded (even if it involves a restriction on
liberty, and/or an interference with property rights, and/or it is imposed in
the context of criminal proceedings: see Raimondo v Italy (1994) ŁHRR 237; M v Italy (1990)
70 DR 59. A decision whether to impose an anti-social behaviour order does not
involve the determination of a criminal charge simply because the matters on
which reliance is placed might also happen to constitute the necessary elements
of a criminal offence: see Pelle
v France (1986) 50 DR 263; McFeeley v United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 161. Finally, the existence
of past misconduct cannot of itself trigger an antisocial behaviour order:
there must also be a need for protection for the future under section r(I)(b).
An anti-social behaviour order is
clearly not a criminal penalty. Section 1(4) precludes any order being made
other than as a prohibition. The court can neither fine nor imprison a person.
There is a very significant difference in the European jurisprudence between
imposing a restriction on a person’s liberty (which will not be a criminal
penalty) and depriving a person of his liberty (which will be a criminal
penalty): see Guzzardi v Italy 3
LEIRR 333; Raimondo v Italy 18
EHRR 237. The court cannot deprive a person of his liberty under the cloak of
an anti-social behaviour order, and the fact that an order might interfere with
his freedom of movement (e g by excluding him from designated areas) does not
convert it into a criminal penalty.
The fact that a person may be
imprisoned for acting in breach of an antisocial behaviour order doc not mean
that the imposition of the order itself involves any criminal penalty: see by
analogy Ibhotson v United Kingdom (1998) 27 EHRR CD 332. The
reason why a different conclusion was reached in Steel u United Kingdom 28 EHRR 603 was that the penalty was
available to he imposed at the outset by the sentencing court in order to
enforce compliance with the order. The difference in Ibbotson was that in that case separate proceedings
would have to be brought for a breach of the statutory obligation before any
criminal sanction could be imposed. The same is true under section 1 of the
1998 Act. ^
Steel v United Kingdom 28 EHRR 603, Garyfallou AEBE v
Greece 28 EHRR 344 and Lauko v Slovakia 33 EHRR 994 merely illustrate the
application in very different factual situations of the three criteria in Engel
v The Netherlands (No 1) 1 EHRR
647 without adding any points of principle. ___
Applying the criminal standard of proof
is wrong in three respects. First, it undermines one of the purposes of section
1 of the 1998 Act, namely, to render it easier to obtain an anti-social
behaviour order than it would be to obtain a conviction for a comparable
offence. Second, it conflates the two elements in section 1 of the 1998 Act.
There is no reason why the criminal standard should be applied in relation to
the question whether section I.(1 )(b) is satisfied: that is a matter of
evaluation as to future risk, and simply does not lend itself to being tested
by reference to the criminal standard of proof. Third, in relation to the
issues generally under section 1, the Court of
108,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
799
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
Appeal’s approach subverts the proper
classification of an anti- social behaviour order as involving civil
proceedings.
The civil standard of proof should be
regarded as a single fixed standard. However, the more serious the allegation
the more cogent the evidence will need to be see in re H (Minors) (Sexual
Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996]
AC 563.
Solley QC in reply. Kostovski v Netherlands (1989) 12 EHRR. 434 and Saidi v
France (1993) 17 EHRR 251
involved a lack opportunity to examine witnesses.
The criminal standard of proof would
not lie comfortably with the hearing of hearsay evidence under the Civil
Evidence Act 1995. There should be a declaration of incompatibility under
section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Fulford QC in reply. Raimondo v Italy 18 EHRR 237 and Guzzardi v Italy 3 EHRR 333 involved very different
proceedings from an anti-social behaviour order. See also Krone-Verlog
GmbH v Austria (Application No
28977/95) (unreported) 21 May 1997 and Nottingham City Council v Zain (A
Minor) [2002] 1 WLR 607.
Their Lordships took time for
consideration.
17 October. LORD STEYN
· My Lords, section 1. of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 (“the Act”) provides for the making of anti-social behaviour
orders against any person aged ten years or over. It came into force on 1 April
1999. Between 1 April 1999 and 31. December 2001. magistrates in England and
Wales made 588 such orders and refused 19. It is important social legislation
designed to remedy a problem which the existing law failed to deal with
satisfactorily. This is the first occasion on which the House has had to
examine the implications of section 1.
· There are two appeals before the House.
They are unrelated but raise overlapping issues. Both cases involve the power
of the magistrates’ court under section 1 of the Act, upon being satisfied of
statutory requirements, to make an anti-social behaviour order prohibiting a
defendant from doing prescribed things. Breach of such an order may give rise
to criminal liability. That stage has, however, not been reached in either
case. In the case of Clingbam no
order has been made. In the case of the McCann breathers antisocial behaviour orders have
been made against all three. The appeals are therefore concerned only with the
first stage of the procedure under the Act, namely, the application for such an
order, and the making of it, and not with the second stage, namely proceedings
taken upon an alleged breach of such an order.
· Clingham the district judge gave a preliminary
ruling on 14 September 2000. In the McCann case the recorder gave judgment on an appeal from a stipendiary
magistrate on 16 May 2000. E11 both cases the Human Rights Act 1998 is not
directly applicable: R v Kansal (No 2) I2002] 2 AC 69. The House has, however, been invited by all
counsel to deal with the appeals as if the Human Rights Act 1998 is applicable.
My understanding is that your Lordships are willing to do so.
109,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
800
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL
(Ł)
Lord Steyn
[2003] AC
· The principal issues ^
· It
is common ground that proceedings taken for breach of an antisocial behaviour
order are criminal in character under domestic law and fall within the
autonomous concept “a criminal charge” under article 6 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as
scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998. The principal general and common
questions are:
· (a)
whether
as a matter of domestic classification proceedings leading to the
making of an anti-social behaviour order are criminal in nature; and
· (b)
whether
under article 6 of the European Convention such proceedings involve “a criminal
charge”. Underlying these questions are two specific issues, namely:
· (c)
whether under section 1 of the Act hearsay evidence is admissible in
proceedings seeking such an order.
1. what
the standard of proof is in such proceedings. The evidential c question arises
primarily in the Clingham case and the question as to standard of
proof arises mainly in the McCann case. On the other hand,
counsel for the defendants to a considerable extent adopted each other’s
submissions.
· Jurisdiction
· If
under domestic law an application for an anti-social behaviour order under
section r of the Act properly fails to be classified as civil proceedings, the
House may not have jurisdiction in the Clingham case. The House
has, however, jurisdiction to inquire into its own jurisdiction and to deal
with all relevant matters pertinent to that inquiry. Moreover, the
jurisdictional issue causes no real problem since the points which arise in the
Clingham case arguably could arise in the McCann
case. All parties wish the House to deal with the genera! and specific issues
outlined which could arise in many proceedings under section 1. In these
circumstances the jurisdictional question can be considered briefly at the very
end of this judgment.
HI Section 1. of the Act and article 6
of the European Convention
· In
order to render the proceedings and issues intelligible it is necessary to set out
section 1. of the Act. It appears in Part I of the Act under the heading
“Prevention of Crime and Disorder”. The material parts of section 1 read as
follows:
“(1) An application for an order under
this section may be made by a c relevant authority if it appears to the
authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any
person aged ten or over, namely—(a) that the person has acted, since the
commencement date, in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that
caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more
persons not of the same household as himself; and (b) that such an order is
necessary to protect persons in the local government area in which the
harassment, alarm or distress was caused or was likely to be caused from
further antisocial acts by him; and in this section ‘relevant authority’ means
the council for the local government area or any chief office:: of police any
part of whose police area lies within that area.
110,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
SO)
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
A relevant authority shall not make
such an application without
consulting each other relevant
authority.
Such an application shall be made by
complaint to the magistrates’ court. . .
@(4) If, on such an application, it is
proved that the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are fulfilled, the
magistrates’ court g may make an order under this section (an ‘anti-social
behaviour order’) which prohibits the defendant from doing anything described
in the order.
“(5) For the purpose of determining
whether the condition mentioned in subsection (I)(a) above is fulfilled, the
court shall disregard any act of the defendant which he shows was reasonable in
the circumstances.
“(6) The prohibitions that may be
imposed by anti-social behaviour order are those necessary for the purpose of
protecting from further antisocial acts by the defendant—(a) persons in the
local government area; and (b) persons in any adjoining local government area
specified in the application for the order. . .
“(7) An anti-social behaviour order
shall have effect for a period (not less than two years) specified in the order
or until further order.
“(8) Subject to subsection (9) below,
the applicant or the defendant
may apply by complaint to the court
which made an anti-social behaviour order for it to be varied or discharged by
a further order.
“(9) Except with the consent of both
parties, no anti-social behaviour order shall be discharged before the end of
the period of two years beginning with the date of service of the order.
“(10) If without reasonable excuse a person does anything
which he is prohibited from doing by an anti-social behaviour order, he shall
be liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; or (b)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years or to a fine, or to both.
“(11) Where a person is convicted of an
offence under subsection (to) above, it shall not be open to the court by or
before which he is so convicted to make an order under subsection (t)(b)
(conditional discharge) of section 1A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973
(‘the 1973 Act’) in respect of the offence.”
The section falls into two distinct
parts. Subsection (r) deals with the making of the application, the
requirements for the making of an order, C the making of an order,
and consequential matters. Subsections (10) and (T 1) deal with the
consequences of a breach of the order.
· Article 6 of the European Convention
provides as follows:
“(12) 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
111,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
802
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
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.”
While the guarantee
of a fair trial under article 6(1)
applies to both criminal and civil proceedings article 6 prescribes in
paragraphs 2 and 3 additional protections applicable only to criminal
proceedings. It is also well established in European jurisprudence that “the
contracting states have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases
concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with
criminal cases”: Dombo Beheer B v The Netherlands (1993) 18 EHRR 213, 2.2.9, Para 32
IV The C Mangham case
· In late February 2000, the Kensington
and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council received a report by a housing trust
about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on an estate
within the borough. After detailed investigations the borough resolved to apply
to the magistrates’ court for an anti-social behaviour order. The complaint was
supported by witness statements containing some first-hand evidence of the
defendant’s behaviour. The application was, however, primarily based on hearsay
evidence contained in records of complaints received by the trust and in crime
reports compiled by the police. The latter contained information relating to a
wide range of behaviour, from allegations of verbal abuse to serious criminal
activities including assault, burglary, criminal damage, and drug dealing
dating from April 1998 to December 2000. The allegations revealed a high level
of serious and persistent anti-social behaviour. The material from the records
of the trust and the police fell into three categories: (I) anonymous
complaints where the source was never known; (ii) complaints where the source
was known but was not disclosed; (iii) computerised reports made by police
officers in the course of their duties, where the source of the complaint was
either unknown or not disclosed. The borough served its supporting material on
the defendant. In substance the material in its cumulative effect was, subject
to any answer by the defendant, logically probative of the statutory
requirements under section r, The statements and exhibits were not, however,
accompanied by a hearsay notice under the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence
in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 (SI 1999/681).
· Pursuant to an order by the judge a
hearsay notice was served on the defendant. The defendant challenged the
validity of the hearsay notice on
112,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
803
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
the ground that it did not identify the
makers of the hearsay statements. At a pre-trial review the district judge
ruled that on reflection, the 1999 Rules did not apply as the borough’s
supporting material involved no hearsay. The judge stated a case for the
decision of the Divisional Court which raised questions about the admissibility
of hearsay evidence in the proceedings under section 1(1) of the Act.
· In the Divisional Court [2001] EWHC
Admin 582 the view of the district judge as to what amounted to hearsay
evidence was rejected. In an unreported judgment Schiemann. I.,J observed that
“If the policeman could only say that he had been told by such persons [who had
seen the behaviour in question] that Mr Clingham had behaved in an anti-social
manner that would be hearsay evidence of the behaviour”: para 15. Relying on
the then unreported decisions of the Divisional Court in R (McCann) v
Crown Court at Manchester [2001]
1 WI..R 358 and B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340 the Divisional Court ruled
that the proceedings were not criminal proceedings under domestic law and did
not involve a criminal charge under article 6. In these circumstances Schiemann
LJ concluded, in paras 19-20:
“The |hearsay] evidence can be
admitted. If its weight is slight or it is not probative the judge can say so.
If he comes to an unlawful conclusion his decision can be appealed ... In the
light of this judgment, it is unnecessary for us to make any order. The matter
will remain to be dealt with by the magistrates’ court. That court will
consider the evidence on the basis that it is hearsay evidence and therefore
subject to the criticisms which can be made of hearsay evidence. The court will
have to consider what weight to give to the evidence in the light of those
criticisms. I do not consider it appropriate for this court to express any
views as to weight.”
Poole [ took the same view, at paras 21
and 22.
The McCann cases
· I gratefully refer to the account given
by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead of the background to these
cases. I can therefore deal with the matter briefly. Between May and September
1999 die Chief Constable of Greater Manchester collected evidence with a view
to seeking anti-social behaviour orders against the three McCann brothers who
were then respectively aged 13, 15 and 16. They had been accused by various
members of the public of criminal activity and other anti-social behaviour
including burglary, theft, threatening and abusive behaviour, and criminal
damage in the Beswick area of Manchester. Complaints were duly lodged by the
Chief Constable against them. The applications sought various prohibitions
against them including orders excluding them from Beswick. The seriousness and
persistence of their alleged anti-social behaviour is dearly described by Lord
Hope of Craighead, (he evidence against them consisted of oral evidence of eye
witnesses, as well as hearsay evidence consisting of a number of witness
statements, and police evidence of what had been reported to them by
complainants.
· A stipendiary magistrate found the
requirements of section 1(1) satisfied and made anti-social behaviour orders
against all three McCann brothers on 15 December 1999. Each order provided as
follows:
113,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
804
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
“[The defendant] is prohibited from
entering the Beswick area as defined, edged in red, on the map attached- [The defendant]
is prohibited from using or engaging in any abusive, insulting, offensive,
threatening or intimidating language or behaviour in any public place in the
City of Manchester. [The defendant] is prohibited from threatening or engaging
in violence or damage against any person or property within the City of
Manchester. [The defendant] is prohibited from encouraging any other person to
engage in any of the acts described in paragraphs a and 3 within the City of
Manchester.”
The defendants appealed to the Crown
Court.
· Sir Rhys Davies QC, the Recorder of
Manchester, sat with two magistrates. After a review of the domestic and
European case law he concluded that the proceedings under section 1(1) are
correctly to be classified as civil under domestic law and for the purposes of
article 6. The recorder then turned to the argument that, despite
this classification, the criminal standard should apply under section 1(1). He
cited an observation in B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary [2.00:1) 1 WLR
340, 354, para 31, where Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ described, in the context
of section z of the Act, which deals with orders against sex offenders, the
heightened civil standard of proof as “for all practical purposes . . .
indistinguishable from the criminal standard”. I the recorder stated:
“Having considered this authority and
the arguments, we are satisfied that the standard to be applied is the civil
standard, but how are we to give effect to the guidance of the Lord Chief
Justice, that is to apply the civil standard with the strictness appropriate to
the seriousness of the matters to be proved and the implications of proving
them. This is not an easy task and we have brought to bear the judicial
experience of all three of us which, it is has to be said, is considerable, and
we have concluded that in reality it is difficult to establish reliable
gradations between a heightened civil standard commensurate with [the]
seriousness and implications of proving the requirements, and the criminal
standard. And we have concluded chat for the purposes of this particular case,
and we do not intend to lay down any form of precedent, so I emphasises that
for the purposes of this particular case, we will apply the standard of being
satisfied so that we are sure that the conditions are fulfilled before we would
consider the making of an order in the case of each [defendant] severally,
because, of course, each case must be considered separately.”
This is an important observation, by a
highly experienced judge, to which I must in due course return. ^
· The defendants appealed to the
Divisional Court. Lord Woolf CJ (with the agreement of Rafferty J) ruled
that the proceedings under section 1(1) were properly to be classified under
domestic law and under article 6 of the European Convention as civil
proceedings and not criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal: R (McCann)
v Croum Court at Manchester [2.001]
1 WLR 3 58,
· The defendants then appealed to the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division). The leading judgment was given by Lord Phillips of
Worth Matravers MR; Kennedy and Dyson IJJ agreed: R (McCann) 1/ Crown
114,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
805
[2003] I AC
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
A Court at Manchester [2001] t WLR 1084. In a detailed
judgment Lord Phillips MR concluded that both under domestic law and under
article 6 the correct categorisation of proceedings under section 1 of the Act
is civil. He then turned to the issue whether the standard of proof should
nevertheless be the criminal one. He referred to the observation of Lord
Bingham of Cornhill CJ in B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary that the
heightened civil standard is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from
the criminal standard: p 1101, para 65. He quoted the passage from the
judgment of the recorder about the difficulty of establishing “reliable
gradations between a heightened civil standard commensurate with the
seriousness and implications of proving the requirements, and the criminal
standard” and pointed out that the Crown Court decided to apply the criminal
standard. Lord Phillips MR observed, at p 1102, para 67:
“I believe that the course followed by
the Crown Court in this case is
likely to be appropriate in the
majority of cases where an anti-social behaviour order is sought, and I would
commend it.”
At present therefore the position is
that in proceedings under section I.(t)
magistrates have to decide, on a case by case basis, what standard of proof to
0 apply. The Secretary of State has challenged this ruling of the Court of
Appeal. Counsel submitted on his behalf that it is preferable to apply a single
fixed standard of a balance of probabilities.
V! The social problem
· Before the issues can be directly
addressed it is necessary to sketch the social problem which led to the
enactment of section t{I)
and the
E technique which underlies the first
part of section 1. It is well known that in some urban areas, notably urban
housing estates and deprived inner-city areas, young persons, and groups of
young persons, cause fear, distress, and misery to law-abiding and innocent
people by outrageous anti-social behaviour. It takes many forms. It includes
behaviour which is criminal such as assaults and threats, particularly against
old people and children, F criminal damage to individual property and amenities
of the community, burglary, theft, and so forth. Sometimes the conduct falls short
of cognisable criminal offences. The culprits are mostly, but not exclusively,
male. Usually they are relatively young, ranging particularly from about 1.0 to
t,8 years of age. Often people in
the neighbourhood are in fear of such young culprits. In many cases, and
probably in most, people will only report _ matters to the police anonymously
or on the strict understanding that they will not directly or indirectly be
identified. In recent years this phenomenon became a serious social problem.
There appeared to be a gap in the law. The criminal law offered insufficient
protection to communities. Public confidence in the rule of law was undermined
by a not unreasonable view in some communities that the law failed them. Ibis
was the social problem which section 1 was designed to address.
2. The
legislative technique
· The aim of the criminal law is not
punishment for its own sake but to permit everyone to go about their daily
lives without fear of harm to person or property. Unfortunately, by
intimidating people the culprits, usually
115,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
806
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
small in number, sometimes effectively silenced
communities, bear of the consequences of complaining to the police dominated
the thoughts of people: reporting incidents to the police entailed a serious
risk of reprisals.
The criminal law by itself offered
inadequate protection to them. There was a model available for remedial
legislation. Before 1998 Parliament had, on a number of occasions, already used
the technique of prohibiting by statutory injunction conduct deemed to be
unacceptable and making a breach of the g injunction punishable by penalties.
It may be that the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 was the
precedent for subsequent use of the technique. The civil remedy of
disqualification enabled the court to prohibit a person from acting as a
director: section 1(1) of the 1986 Act: R v Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry, Ex p McCormick [1998] BCC 379, 395C-F; Official Receiver v Stern [2.000] 1 WLR 2.2.30. Breach of the order
made available criminal penalties: sections 13 and 14 of the 1986 Act. In 1994 c
Parliament created the power to prohibit trespassory assemblies which
could result in serious disruption affecting communities, movements, and so
forth: see section 70 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which
amended Part II of the Public Order Act 1986 by inserting section 14A. Section
14B which was introduced by the 1994 Act, created criminal offences in respect
of breaches. In the field of family law, statute created the power to make residence
orders, requiring a defendant to leave a dwelling house; or non-molestation
orders, requiring a defendant to abstain from threatening an associated person:
sections 3 3 (3)(4) and 42 of the Family Law Act 1996. The penalty for breach
is punishment for contempt of court. The Housing Act 1996 created the power to grant injunctions against anti-social
behaviour: section 152; section 153
(breach). This was, however, a power ^ severely restricted in respect of
locality. A broadly similar technique was adopted in the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997: section 3; section 3(6) (breach). Post-dating the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998, which is the subject matter of the present appeals,
Parliament adopted a similar model in sections 14A and 14J (breach) of the
Football Spectators Act T989, inserted by section 1(1) of and Schedule 1 to the Football (Disorder) Act 2000: Gough
v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary [2002J QB 459. In all
these cases the requirements for the granting of the statutory injunction
depend on the criteria specified in the particular statute. The unifying
clement is, however, the use of the civil remedy of an injunction to prohibit
conduct considered to be utterly unacceptable, with a remedy of criminal
penalties in the event of disobedience.
· There is no doubt that Parliament
intended to adopt the model of a civil remedy of an injunction, hacked up by
criminal penalties, when its enacted section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998. The view was taken that the proceedings for an anti-social behaviour
order would be civil and would not attract the rigour of the inflexible and
sometimes absurdly technical hearsay rule which applies in criminal cases. If
this supposition was wrong, in the sense that Parliament did not objectively
achieve its aim, it would inevitably follow that the procedure for obtaining
anti-social behaviour orders is completely or virtually unworkable and useless.
If that is what the law decrees, so be it. My starting point is, however, an
initial scepticism of an outcome which would deprive communities of their fundamental rights: sec Brown v Stott I2003] 1: AC 681, per Lord
116,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
807
[2003] 1 AC
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
Bingham of Cornhill, at p 704E-F; per Lord Hope of Craighead, at pp 718G, 719B-C;
my judgment, at p 707G-H.
· The classification under domestic law
3. It
is necessary to consider whether under domestic law proceedings under the first
part of section 1 should be classified as criminal or civil fi
proceedings. In law it is always essential to ask for what purpose a
classification is to be made or a definition is to be attempted. It is
necessary in order to decide whether the provisions of the Civil Evidence Act
1995, which permits the admission of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, and
the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999, are
available to establish the requirements of section 1(1). It is also relevant to
the appropriate standard of proof to be adopted.
2.0
In a classic passage in Proprietary Articles Trade Association v
Attorney General for Canada
[1:931] AC 310, 314 Lord Atkin observed:
“Criminal law connotes only the quality
of such acts or omissions as are prohibited under appropriate penal provisions
by authority of the state. The criminal quality of an act cannot be discerned
by intuition; nor can it be discovered by reference to any standard but one: Is the act ^ prohibited with penal
consequences?”
In Customs and Excise Conns v
City of London Magistrates' Court [2000]
1 WLR 2,02,0, 2025 Lord Bingham of
Cornhill C.1, expressed himself in similar vein:
“It is in my judgment the general
understanding that criminal proceedings
involve a formal accusation made on behalf of the state or by a private
prosecutor that a defendant has committed a breach of the criminal law, and the
state or the private prosecutor has instituted proceedings which may culminate
in the conviction and condemnation of the defendant.”
2. Absent
any special statutory definition, in the relevant contexts, this general
understanding must be controlling. Counsel for Gingham invited the House CO
approach the question from the point of view of the meaning given in decided
cases to the words “criminal cause or matter” which appear in section I(r)(a)
of the Administration of justice Act 1.960 and section 1 8(I)(a) of the Supreme
Court Act 198 1. The decided cases on both sides of the line are helpfully
summarised in Taylor On Appeals (2000), pp 51:6—518, paras
14-020-14-021. The cases were decided in the context of regulating and
determining the appropriate appeal route. Often pragmatic considerations played
a role. These cases do not help the true inquiry before the House and distract
attention from the ordinary meaning of civil proceedings which must prevail
Similarly, the fact that proceedings under the first part of section r of the
Act are classified as criminal in order to ensure the availability to
defendants of legal assistance is in my view entirely W neutral: see section
12(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1.999 and paragraph t(I) of the Access to justice Act 1999
(Commencement No 3, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2000 (SI
2000/774). I would approach rite matter by applying the tests enunciated by
Lord Atkin and Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ.
117,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
80S
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] 1 AC
Lord Steyn
· Counsel for the defendants accepted that
the purpose of Parliament A was to cast proceedings under the first part of
section I, as opposed to proceedings for breach, in a civil mould. However,
counsel submitted that objectively considered the objective was not achieved.
They argued that in reality and in substance such proceedings are criminal in
character. This is
an important argument which must be
carefully examined. The starting point is that in proceedings under the first
part of section I the Crown Prosecution Service is not involved at all. At that
stage there is no formal accusation of a breach of criminal law. The
proceedings are initiated by the civil process of a complaint. Under section
x(I}(a) all that has to be established is that the person has acted “in an
anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household as himself ’. This is an objective inquiry: men’s rea as an
ingredient of particular offences need is not proved. It is unnecessary to
establish criminal liability. The true purpose of the proceedings is
preventative. This appears from the heading of Part I. It is also clearly
brought out by the requirement of section I(I)(b}:
“that such an order is necessary to
protect persons in the local government area in which the harassment, alarm or
distress was caused or was likely to be caused from further anti-social acts by
him. It follows that the making of an anti-social behaviour order is not a
conviction or condemnation that the person is guilty of an offence. It results
in no penalty whatever. It cannot be entered on a defendant’s record as a
conviction. It is also not a recordable offence for the purpose of taking
fingerprints: see section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1:984.
· Counsel for the defendants sought to
avoid the consequences of this analysis by various arguments. First, they
argued that the procedure leading to the making of an order under section 1(4)
must be considered together with the proceedings for breach under section
1(1.0), the latter being undoubtedly criminal in character. I do not agree.
These are separate and independent procedures. The making of the order will
presumably sometimes serve its purpose and there will be no proceedings for breach.
It is
in principle necessary to consider the
two stages separately.
· Counsel next made a comparison between
the requirements of section 1 and
the ingredients of an offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.
They submitted that there was a striking similarity. This proposition was not
made good. It is sufficient to point out that section 4A of the 1986 Act
requires proof of men’s rea whereas section 1(1) does not. In any event, this
is a barren exercise. It elides the critical point that section 1 itself does
not prohibit any act. An anti-social behaviour order under C section
1(4) does prohibit conduct specified in the order but by itself
does not amount to a condemnation of guilt, ft results in no penal sanction.
· Counsel for the defendants also
emphasised the consequences which an anti-social behaviour order may have for a
defendant. This is an important factor. Section 1 is not meant to be used in
cases of minor unacceptable behaviour but in cases which satisfy the threshold
of persistent and serious anti-social behaviour. Given the threshold
requirements of section 1 (1) it can readily be accepted that the making of
such an order against a person inevitably reflects seriously on his character.
In response to this argument Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR observed 1200
t] 1: W I R 1084,1094-1095, para 39:
118,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
12003] I AC
809
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct
(HL(E))
Lord Steyn
“Many injunctions in civil proceedings
operate severely upon those against whom they are ordered. In matrimonial
proceedings a husband may be ordered to leave his home and not to have contact
with his children. Such an order may be made as a consequence of violence which
amounted to criminal conduct. But such an order is imposed not for the purpose
of punishment but for protection of the family. This demonstrates that, when
considering whether an order imposes a penalty or punishment, it is necessary
to look beyond its consequence and to consider its purpose.”
Similarly, Mareva
injunctions, which are notified to a defendant’s bank, may have serious
consequences. An Anton Filler order operates in some ways like a
civil search warrant and may be particularly intrusive in its operation. Breach
of such orders may result in penalties. Nevertheless, the injunctions are
unquestionably civil.
· The view that proceedings for an
anti-social behaviour order under section 1 are civil in character is further
supported by two important decisions. In B v Chief Constable of Avon and
Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340 the question arose whether
proceedings for a sex offender order under section 2 of the Act are civil.
Section 2 is different in conception from section 1 in as much as an order can
only be made in respect of a person who has already been convicted as a sex
offender. On the other hand, its purpose is preventative “to protect the public
from serious harm from him”. Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ held, at p 3 52, para
25:
“The rationale of section 2 was, by
means of an injunctive order, to seek to avoid the contingency of any further
suffering by any further victim. It would also of course be to the advantage of
a defendant if he were to be saved from further offending. As in the case of a
civil injunction, a breach of the court’s order may attract a sanction. But,
also as in the case of a civil injunction, the order, although restraining the
defendant from doing that which is prohibited, imposes no penalty or disability
upon him. I am accordingly satisfied that, as a matter of English domestic law,
the application is a civil proceeding, as Parliament undoubtedly intended it to
be.”
To the same effect was the detailed
reasoning in Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary
[2002] QB 459; an^ 0,1 appeal [2002] QB 121.3. h was held that a football
banning order under sections 14A and 1.4B of the Football Spectators Act 1989
do not involve criminal penalties and are therefore civil character.
· conclude that proceedings to obtain an
anti-social behaviour order are civil proceedings under domestic law.
4. The
classification under article 6
· The question now arises whether,
despite its domestic classification, an anti-social behaviour order
nevertheless has a criminal character in accordance with the autonomous
concepts of article 6. The fair trial guarantee under article 6(1)
applies to both “the determination of a (person’s) civil rights” and “the
determination of any criminal charge”. On the other hand, only the latter attract
the additional protections under article 6(2} and 6(3). In so far as the latter
provisions apply to “everyone charged with a criminal offence” it is well
established in the jurisprudence of
119,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
810
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL
(E)
Lord Steyn
the European Court of Human Rights that
this concept is co-extensive with A the concept of the
determination of any criminal charge:
Lutz v Germany {1987) 10 EHRR i8z. Germane to the present case is
the minimum right under article 6'( 3 )(d) of everyone charged with a criminal,
offence to examine or have examined witnesses against him or to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
as witnesses against him. If the proceedings under section 1 of
the Act are fi criminal within the meaning of article 6, this provision is
applicable. If it is civil, article 6(3){d) is inapplicable.
· Before I examine directly in the light
of European jurisprudence the question whether proceedings involve a criminal
charge, it is necessary to make clear that this is not one of those cases where
the proceedings may fall outside article 6 altogether. Examples of such cases
are given by Emmerson
& Ashworth, Human Rights and
Criminal Justice (2001), pp 152—166. In C the cases
before the House the two principal respondents accept that the proceedings are
civil in character and that they attract the fair trial guarantee under article
6(1). Counsel for the Secretary of State in the McCann case
reserved his position. For my part, in the light of the particular use of the
civil remedy of an injunction, as well as the defendant’s right under article 8
to respect for his private and family life, it is dear that a defendant Q has
the benefit of the guarantee applicable to civil proceedings under article
6(1). Moreover, under domestic English law they undoubtedly have a
constitutional right to a fair hearing in respect of such proceedings.
· In Engel v The Netherlands (No 1)
(1976) 1 EHRR 647, 678-679, para 82, the European Court established three
criteria for determining whether proceedings are “criminal” within the meaning
of the Convention, namely (a) the domestic classification, (b) the nature of
the offence, and (c) the severity of the potential penalty which
the defendant risks incurring.
The character and attributes of the
proceedings for an anti-social behaviour order have been outlined.
Domestically, they are properly classified as civil.
That is, however, only a starting
point. Turning to factor (b), the position is that the order under the first
part of section 1 does not constitute a finding that an offence has been
committed: contrast the community charge decision
in Benhatn v United Kingdom
(1996) 22 EHRR 293. It is right, however, to observe that the third factor is
the most important. Here the position is that the order itself involves no
penalty. The established criteria suggest that the proceedings were not in
respect of a criminal charge.
· The House has been taken on a tour
d’horizon of the leading decisions of the European Court: see the judgment of
Potter LJ in Han v Customs and Excise Comrs [2001] 1 WLR 2253,
2269-2273, paras 55-64 C for a recent review of the European case law. It will
serve no purpose to review again decisions far removed from the present case.
What does emerge, however, is that there is, as Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ
pointed out in B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
[2001]
1 WLR 340, no case in which the
European Court has held proceedings to be criminal even though an adverse
outcome for the defendant cannot result in ^ any penalty. It
could be said, of course, that there is scope for the law to be developed in
this direction. On the other hand, an extensive interpretation of what is a
criminal charge under article 6(r) would, by rendering the injunctive process
ineffectual, prejudice the freedom of liberal democracies to maintain the rule
of law by the use of civil injunctions.
120,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
81 1
[2003] 1 AC R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL (Ł)
Lord Steyn
A 32 The closest case in support of the
defendants' submission is Steel v United Kingdom (1998) 28 EHRR 603,
635-636, paras 48-49, which is authority for the proposition that proceedings
whereby in England and Wales a person may be bound over to keep the peace
involve the determination of a criminal charge for the purposes of article 6.
This power goes back many centuries: see Percy v Director of Public
Prosecutions [1995] 1 WLR 1382, 138911-139011. It is in a very real
sense a judicial power sui generis. The European Court found a punitive element
in the fact that the magistrates may commit to prison any person who refuses to
be bound over not to breach the peace where there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt that his or her conduct caused or was likely to cause a breach of the
peace and that he would otherwise cause a breach of the peace: para 48. There was
an immediate and obvious penal consequence. Properly analysed
this case does not assist the defendant’s argument.
· The conclusion I have reached is
reinforced by a cogently reasoned judgment on the interpretation of article 6
by the Lord President (Lord Rodger of Earls ferry) in S v Miller
2001 SC 977. Section 52(2) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that a
child may have to be subjected to compulsory measures of supervision when he
“has committed an offence”. The question arose whether in such proceedings
article 6 is applicable. The Lord President observed, at pp 989-990: at the
stage when S was arrested and charged by the police on 31 October, he was
indeed ‘charged with a criminal offence’ in terms of article 6, since he was
liable to be brought before a criminal court in proceedings which could have
resulted in the imposition of a penalty. He remained ‘charged with a criminal
offence’ in terms of article 6 until the procurator fiscal decided the
following day—in the language of section 43(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act—
‘not to proceed with the charge’. At that point the criminal proceedings came
to an end and the reporter initiated the procedures under the 1995 Act by
arranging a hearing in terms of section 63(1), In my view, once the procurator
fiscal has decided not to proceed with the charge against a child and so there
is no longer any possibility of proceedings resulting in a penalty, any
subsequent proceedings under the 1995 Act are not criminal for the purposes of
article 6. Although the reporter does indeed intend to show that the child
concerned committed an offence, this is not for the purpose of punishing him
but in order to establish a basis for taking appropriate measures for his
welfare. That being so, the child who is notified of grounds for referral
setting out the offence in question is not thereby ‘charged with a criminal
offence’ in terms of article 6.
“24, It is not now disputed, of course,
that the children’s hearing proceedings involve the determination of civil
rights and obligations. Article 6 therefore applies. But, since the proceedings
are not criminal, the specific guarantees in article 6(2) and (3) do not
apply.”
I am in
complete agreement with this reasoning as correctly reflecting the purpose of
article 6. And it applies a fortiori to proceedings under section 1. After all,
section 1(1) does not require proof of a criminal offence.
· In my view an application for an
anti-social behaviour order does not involve the determination of a criminal
charge.
121,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
812
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
[2003] 1 AC
· The admission of hearsay evidence
5. Having
concluded that the proceedings in question are civil under domestic law and
article 6, it follows that the machinery of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the
Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 allow
the introduction of such evidence under the first part of section 1. The weight
of such evidence might be limited. On the other hand, in its cumulative effect
it could be cogent. It all depends on the particular facts. In my view the
ruling of the Divisional Court, set out in paragraph Ro above, was correct.
6. It
is submitted that, even if the relevant proceedings are civil, words must be
implied into the Civil Evidence Act 1995 which give the court a wider power to
exclude hearsay evidence. As the Divisional Court judgment makes clear this is
unnecessary and unwarranted. Counsel in the Clingham case then
argued that, even if the proceedings are civil, nevertheless the introduction
of hearsay evidence infringes a defendant’s right to a fair trial under article
6(1) “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations”. This is a
misconceived argument. The case has not been heard. Such a challenge is
premature. Upon a due consideration of the evidence, direct or hearsay it may
turn out that the defendant has no answer to the case under section 1
(1). For the sake of completeness, I need only add that the use of the Civil
Evidence Act 1:995 unless in cases under the first part of section 1 are not in
any way incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
· The standard of proof
7. Having
concluded that the relevant proceedings arc civil, in principle it follows that
the standard of proof ordinarily applicable in civil Ł proceedings, namely the
balance of probabilities, should apply. However,
I agree that, given the seriousness of
matters involved, at least some reference to the heightened civil standard
would usually be necessary: In re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of
Proof) [ 1996] AC 563, 586D-H, per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead. For
essentially practical reasons, the Recorder of Manchester decided to apply the
criminal standard. The Court of Appeal said that would usually be the right
course to adopt. Lord Bingham of Cornhill has observed that the heightened
civil standard and the criminal standard are virtually indistinguishable. I do
not disagree with any of these views. But in my view pragmatism dictates that
the task of magistrates should be made more straightforward by ruling that they
must in all cases under section 1 apply the criminal standard. If the House
takes this view it will be sufficient for the magistrates, when applying
section t(I ){a)
to be sure c that the defendant has acted in an anti-social
manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household
as himself. The inquiry under section I(I)(b), namely that such an order is
necessary to protect Persians from further anti-social acts by him, does not
involve a standard of proof: it is an exercise of judgment or evaluation. Ibis
approach should facilitate correct decision-making and should ensure
consistency and predictability in this corner of the law. In coming to this
conclusion I bear in mind that the use of hearsay evidence will often be of
crucial importance.
For my part, hearsay evidence depending
on its logical proactiveness is quite capable of satisfying the requirements of
section 1.
122,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] AC
813
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
A XII The submissions of Liberty
· The House gave permission to Liberty to
intervene in the McCann case in writing and orally. The
contribution of Liberty has helped to sharpen the focus of the debate on issues
under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is, however, unnecessary to deal separately
with the submissions of Liberty. The reasons I have given are also dispositive
of the issues and arguments
g raised by Liberty.
8. Jurisdiction
· Section x(x)(a) of the Administration
of Justice Act i960 only permits an appeal from a decision of the High Court
“in any criminal cause or matter”. In my view the proceedings under the first
part of section 1 do not satisfy this criterion. It follows that in the Clingman case the House did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal.
9. Disposal
· For these reasons as well as the
reasons given by Lord Hope of Craighead I would dismiss the appeals in the McCann
case and formally declare that there was no jurisdiction to hear the Clingham
case.
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD
· My Lords, in a democratic society the
protection of public order lies at the heart of good government. This
fundamental principle has a prominent place in the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Among the grounds on which
a public
· authority may interfere with the rights
described in articles 8 to t 1: of
the Convention, are public safety, the protection of public order and the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It is only in article 10(1)
that one finds an express declaration that the exercise of freedoms carries
with its duties and responsibilities. But it is a theme which runs right
through the Convention. Respect for the rights of others is the price that we
must all pay for the rights and freedoms that it guarantees.
· On the whole we live in a law-abiding
community. Most people respect the rights of others, most of the time. People
usually refrain from acts which are likely to cause injury to others or to
their property. On the occasions when they do not, the sanctions provided by
the criminal law are available. But it is a sad fact that there are some
individuals for whom respect for the law and for the rights of others has no
meaning. Taken one by one, their criminal or sub-criminal acts may seem to be,
and indeed often are, relatively trivial. But, taken together, the frequency
and scale of their destructive and offensive conduct presents a quite different
picture. So does the aggression and intimidation with which their acts are
perpetrated. 1 he social disruption which their behaviour creates is
unacceptable. So too is the apparent inability of the criminal law to restrain
their activities. This provides the background to the enactment of section 1 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with which your Lordships are concerned in
these appeals.
· The main question which they raise is
the familiar one of classification. If proceedings under section 1 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998 are to be classified as criminal proceedings for the
purposes of
123,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument.pdf
[2003] AC
814
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL (Ł)
Lord Hope of Craighead
article 6 of the Convention, all the
normal rules of evidence which apply to a criminal prosecution in domestic law
must be applied to them. This is of crucial importance to the use which may be
made in these proceedings of hearsay evidence. In domestic terms, hearsay
evidence under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 would be inadmissible in these
proceedings if they are too, he classified as criminal. In Convention terms,
the persons against whom anti-social behaviour orders were sought would be
entitled to the protection g of article 6(3){d) if it applies to them. Under
that paragraph every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to
examine or have examined the witnesses against him. But much of the benefit
which the legislation was designed to achieve would be lost if this is how
these proceedings have to be classified. It would greatly disturb the balance
which section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 seeks to strike
between the interests of the individual and those of society.
· The reason for this is not hard to
find. So often those who are directly affected by this conduct lack both the
inclination and the resources to do anything about it. Above all, they have
been intimidated and they are afraid. They know that they risk becoming targets
for further anti-social behaviour if they turn to the law for their protection.
It is unrealistic to expect them to seek the protection of an injunction under the
civil law. Reports to the police about criminal conduct are likely to result in
their having to give evidence. In this situation the opportunity which civil
proceedings provide for the use of hearsay evidence is a valuable safeguard.
It greatly increases the prospect of
persuading those who are likely to be exposed to further anti-social behaviour
to co-operate with the authorities in protecting them from such conduct.
The facts
· The facts of the Clingham
case have been described by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, and I
gracefully adopt his account. As he has pointed out, it is a striking feature
of that case that two of the statements relied on were anonymous and two of
them were by persons who were in fear of reprisals if they were to be called on
to give evidence. I should like to ^ deal in my speech with the facts in the
case of McCann, which has similar characteristics.
· The defendants in the case of McCann
are three brothers who all live
in the Ardwick area of Manchester. They
were aged 16, 15 and 1.3 011 1:7 May 2000 when anti-social behaviour orders
were made against them by Judge Rhys Davies QC, the Recorder of Manchester,
sitting in the Crown Court with lay magistrates.
· The Chief Constable of Greater
Manchester had been collecting evidence against the defendants for a period of
about five months between May and September 1999. They had been accused by
various members of the public in the Beswick area of Manchester of threatening
and abusive behaviour, causing criminal damage, theft, and burglary. On 28
September 1999 the Chief Constable consulted with Manchester City Council, the
council for the relevant local government area, as required by section
1 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I hey
agreed that an application for antisocial behaviour orders should be made. 1
the Chief Constable laid complaints against the defendants at Manchester
Magistrates’ Court on 22 October 1999, and summonses were served on them on 1
November
124,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] I AC R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
19951. On 15 December 1999 Mr Alan
Berg, a stipendiary magistrate, made anti-social behaviour orders against each
of them, which they then appealed. Their appeal was heard in the form of a
rehearing by the Crown Court.
· The stipendiary magistrate held that
the defendants had acted in a manner which caused or was likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household
as themselves by offensive, abusive, insulting, threatening and intimidating
words and behaviour as well as violent behaviour towards people in the local
authority area of Manchester. He also held that an anti-social behaviour order
was necessary to protect persons in that area and he made prohibitions against
each of them. Dismissing their appeals, the Crown Court made identical orders
to those made by the magistrate which prohibited each of them: (x) from
entering the Beswick area as defined, edged in red on the map attached; (2)
from using or engaging in any abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or
intimidating language or behaviour in any public place in the City of
Manchester; (3) from threatening or engaging in violence or damage against any
person or property within the City of Manchester; (4) from encouraging any
other person to engage in any of the acts described in paragraphs 2 and 3
within the City of Manchester.
· The evidence against the defendants
consisted in part of direct
evidence and in part of hearsay
evidence. Four members of the public gave evidence of various acts of
anti-social behaviour. One said that he had been abused on one occasion by two
of the defendants and that he had been threatened and assaulted on another
occasion by the third. The second said that he had been abused on one occasion
by one of the defendants, who on the same occasion also assaulted an unknown
youth. the third was an employee of a local supermarket who said that on a
number of occasions between April and November 1999 she had been abused,
threatened, harassed, and alarmed by all three defendants. The fourth said that
he and his customers had been abused by all three defendants between April and
September 1999 and that the defendants had sought to intimidate them. Three
police officers also gave evidence. One said that on one occasion the oldest
defendant caused alarm and physical danger to others by driving a vehicle
recklessly. Another said that, on another occasion the same defendant was party
to the theft of a bag from a car. A third gave direct evidence of threats and
abuse by two of the defendants of a householder by banging on the door and
interfering with the electrics of the property. This incident was also the
subject of anonymous hearsay evidence. Anonymous hearsay evidence was also
given by the police of four other incidents. One was burglary of domestic
premises by two of the defendants. The second was damage to a motor vehicle by
the same two defendants. The third was the throwing of items into the street
from scaffolding which they had climbed. The fourth was the abuse by one of
them of market stall holders. There was also a hearsay witness statement of the
abuse by two of the defendants of firefighters. _
· The overall picture which was painted
by the evidence was of a prolonged course of behaviour which caused or was
likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to many people in the local
government area during this six-month period. The contribution which was made
to the picture by the hearsay evidence, while not perhaps crucial, was
certainly significant.
125,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
816
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hope of Craighead
Classification in domestic law
· I agree with Lord Steyn, for all the
reasons that he has given, that proceedings leading to the imposition of an
anti-social behaviour order under section r of the Crime and Disorder Act 199^
are civil proceedings in domestic law. I should like to add only a few
observations to what he has
said. .
· Section 19 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 provides tor the g imposition of anti-social behaviour orders in
Scotland. There are some differences of detail in the scheme which this section
lays down from that which section 1 lays down for use in England and Wales. But
the broad aim
is the same. It is designed to deal
with persons who have acted in an antisocial manner or have pursued a course
of anti-social conduct that caused or was likely to cause alarm or distress. A
conviction for breach of an antisocial behaviour order in Scotland carries
with it the same penalties under section 22(1) as those prescribed for England
and Wales by section r(io)- The important point for present purposes lies in
the choice which Parliament has made as to the proceedings which are to be used
for making these applications in Scotland. Section 19(2) provides that an
application for an anti-social behaviour order shall be made by summary
application to the sheriff within whose sheriffdom the alarm or distress was
alleged to have been caused or was likely to have been caused.
3 The question whether a summary
application to a sheriff a civil proceeding in Scots domestic law is quite
straightforward in comparison with the equivalent and more complex question
under English law. This is because the Scottish system has always maintained a
firm distinction at levels between criminal and civil procedure. The civil
nature of the _ procedure for the imposition of anti-social behaviour order is
indicated at the outset by the fact that section 19(1) of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 provides that an application for an anti-social behaviour
order is to be made by the local authority. Criminal proceedings cannot be brought
by a local authority in Scotland. They can be brought only by or on the
authority of the Lord Advocate. Then there is the nature of the procedure that
is prescribed by section 19(2). A summary application to the sheriff is defined
by section 3 (p) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 as including all
applications, whether by appeal or otherwise, brought under any Act of
Parliament which provides, or, according to any practice in the sheriff court,
which allows that the same shall be disposed of in a summary manner, but which
does not more particularly define in what form it is too he heard, tried or
determined. The long title of the 1907 Act states that it is an Act to regulate
and amend the laws and practice relating to the civil procedure in sheriff
courts in Scotland. An appeal against the judgment of the sheriff on a summary
application lies to the sheriff principal and to the Court of Session, cither
direct or from the sheriff principal, under sections 27 and 28 of the 1907 Act.
The fact that appeals do not He to the High Court of Justiciary, which has
exclusive jurisdiction for the hearing of appeals in criminal cases, is a
further sign, if more were needed, that in domestic terms this is a
civil proceeding.
It is worth noting
that in S v Miller 2001 SC 977, 988, para 19 Lord President Rodger
said that children’s hearings under section 52 of the Children (Scotland) Act
1995, a«<J- the related proceedings before the sheriff, have always been
regarded as being civil in character, even where they
126,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
31 7
[2003] I AC R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hope of Craighead
contain a ground for referral under
section 5i(I){I) which is chat the child has committed an offence. In McGregor
v D 1977 SC 330, 336 Lord President Emslie said, with reference to the
provisions of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which have now
been re-enacted with amendments in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act
T.995, that in no sense were these proceedings criminal proceedings. As he put
it, they are on the contrary civil proceeding’s sui generis. Where the ground
of referral is that the child has committed an offence and the sheriff is asked
to consider whether this ground has been established under section 68 of the
1995 Act, the standard of proof which must be applied is that which is required
in criminal procedure: section 68(3)(b). The Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988
provides for the abolition of corroboration and the admission of hearsay evidence
in civil proceedings. But section 9 of that Act excepts from the definition of
“civil proceedings” for the purposes of chat Act any hearing by a sheriff of an
application under what is now Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 where
the ground of referral was that the child has committed an offence.
Nevertheless, the proceedings which Parliament has laid down for the
determination of these applications by the sheriff is civil procedure. The
reason for this, as the Lord President said in S v Miller 2001 SC
977, 988, para 20, is that, even though the proceedings may involve
establishing that the child has committed an offence, there is no possibility
of the child being punished for the offence under them by the imposition of a
penalty. This approach is consistent with the principle which was referred to
by Lord Wright in Amand v Home Secretary [1943] AC 147, r6T where
he said that a criminal cause or matter was one which, if carried to its
conclusion, might result in the conviction of the person charged and in a
sentence of some punishment.
I think that two important points can
be derived from these provisions relating to Scotland in support of the
proposition that proceedings which are brought in England and Wales under
section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are civil proceedings. The first
is that the fact that Parliament chose to provide for the use of civil
proceedings in applications for anti-social behaviour orders in Scotland
strongly suggests that its intention was that applications for these orders
which were made in England and Wales should be made by way of civil proceedings
also. The grounds on which these applications may be made in both jurisdictions
are similar, and the consequences of the making of an anti-social behaviour
order are the same. In neither jurisdiction does an anti-social behaviour order
have them. character of a punishment for an offence such as a fine or
imprisonment. The fact that an anti-social behaviour order has been made
against him does not appear on the person’s criminal record. On the contrary,
the order is described in both section 1(4) and section 1:9(3) as a
prohibition. In this respect it has the character of a civil injunction or, in
Scotland, a civil interim interdict. A criminal sanction is available in both
jurisdictions if the person is convicted of having breached the order: see
section 1 (Ro) for England and Wales and section 1 for Scotland. But the
proceedings which must be brought in the event of a breach are separate
proceedings. Overall, the scheme is so similar in both jurisdictions that the
intention of Parliament as to the nature of the proceedings under which the
application was to be made can be taken, in the absence of any contrary
indication, to have been the same.
127,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
818
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
[2003] AC
Lord Hope of Craighead
The second point is that it would not
be inconsistent with a finding that the proceedings under section I(I) of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 were civil proceedings for your Lordships to hold
that the standard of proof to be applied was that which is required in criminal
proceedings. In Constanda v M r 997 SC 217 the ground on which
the child had been referred to a children’s hearing was that he was exposed to
moral danger in terms of section 3 2.(2.)(b) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act
1968. The Court of Session held that, as the whole substratum of the ground of
referral was that the child had performed certain acts which constituted
criminal offences, the commission of these offences had to be proved to the
criminal standard. This was despite the fact that the proceedings before the
sheriff were civil proceedings, and in the absence of any rule laid down by the
Act which required the criminal standard to be applied in any case other than
where the child had been referred under section 32(2)^) on the ground that he
had committed an offence.
Classification under the Convention
· The fact that the proceedings are
classified in our domestic law as civil proceedings is not conclusive of the
question whether they are of that character for the purposes of article 6 of
the Convention. It provides no more than a starting point, as the question has
to be examined in the light of the common denominator of the legislation of the
contracting states: Engel v The Netherlands (No 1) 1 EHRR 647,
678, para 82.
· The examination must begin with the
wording of article 6 itself, and in particular with the opening sentence of
article 6(1). It provides:
“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.”
Then there are the opening words of
article 6(3) which provides chat everyone “charged with a criminal offence” is
to have the minimum rights which are set out in that article.
· There are two aspects of the wording of
article 6 that I think are worth noting before I turn to the authorities. The
first is that, for article 6 to apply at all, the proceedings must be capable
of being classified either as proceedings for the determination of the person’s
“civil rights and obligations” or as proceedings for the determination of a
“criminal charge” against him. Rut it would be wrong to approach the article on
the assumption that all that is in issue is the question as to which of these
two descriptions better fits the nature of the proceedings. It is not a
straight choice between one description and the other. It is possible that the
proceedings which are in. issue in a given case will fit neither description.
In Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533, 539, para
25 the court observed that there are
some cases which are not comprised within either of these categories and which
thus fall outside the ambit of article 6(1). For example, in Ravnsborg v
Sweden (1994) r8 EHRR 38 the court held that article 6 did not
apply to proceedings where the applicant had been fined for making improper
statements in written observations before the Swedish courts. The proceedings
were regarded as being outside the ambit of article 6 because they were
disciplinary in character: p 51, para 34. In
128,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] I AC
819
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hope of Craighead
A Raimondo v Italy
(1994) 18 EHRR 237 the court held that article 6 did not apply to the
proceedings which led to the applicant being placed under special police
supervision.
· The second aspect of the wording that
is worth noting is that those parts of article 6 which refer to criminal
proceedings make it clear that the essential feature of proceedings that have
that character for the purposes of
g the Convention is that the person is
“charged with a criminal offence”. This expression is to be interpreted as
having an autonomous meaning in the context of the Convention: Adolf v
Austria (1982) 4 EHRR 313, 322, para 30. So careful attention must be
paid to the meaning which has been attached to these words by the Strasbourg
court. As is by now very well known, the case law has established that there
are three criteria to be considered. They are not always stated in precisely
the same language, but they are usually said to be (1) the classification of
the proceedings under national law, (2) the nature of the offence and (3) the nature
and degree of severity of the penalty: Engel u The Netherlands (No 1) 1
EHRR 647, 678-679, paras 82-83; Benham v United Kingdom 22 EHRR
293, 323, para 56.
· The words “criminal charge” themselves
suggest that the proceedings which they have in mind are not just proceedings
where a
“charge” is made. The question is
whether they are proceedings which may result in the imposition of a penalty.
This point emerges clearly from the French text of article 6(r), as Lord President Rodger pointed out
in S v Miller z001 SC 977, 988, para 21. It states that the
matter which is to be determined must be either a dispute “sur ses droits et obligations de Ł caractere
civil” or an “accusation en matiere
penale”. The words “en matiere penale” indicate
it is envisaged that there will be a penal element. The court seems to have had
this point in mind when, in Engel v The Netherlands (No 1), at p
678, para 82, it asked itself when it was setting out the first criterion
“whether the provision(s) defining the offence charged belong, according to the
legal system of the respondent state, to criminal law, disciplinary law or both
concurrently.” In other words, proceedings ^ involving a charge which is merely
disciplinary in character will not fall within the ambit of article 6.
· In Oztiirk v Germany
(1984) 6 EHRR 409, 421, para 50 the court said that the first matter to be
ascertained was “whether or not the text defining the offence in issue belongs,
according to the legal system of the respondent state, to criminal law”. In the
continental systems the texts in question are likely to be found in a code, and
there is often a separate criminal code which can readily be identified. As the
Lord President observed in S v Miller 2001 SC 977, 988-989, para
21:
“the very titles of such codes of
criminal law will often reveal that they are indeed concerned essentially with ‘matiere penale’. For instance, in
France there is a ‘code penaie’, in Italy a codice penale1, in Spain a codigo
penal’ and in Germany a ‘Strafgesetzbuch’. It follows
that when, in such cases as Ozturk, the court investgiates
whether the text defining the offence belongs to criminal law, it is
investigating whether the text belongs to an area of the law where proceedings
can result in a penalty being imposed.”=
129,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Contents
Appendices 58
Appendix A
Early intervention and tackling offending behaviour by under-10s 58
Appendix B County Court Practice
Direction according to the Civil Procedure Rules 60
Appendix C Order form 62
Appendix D Summons form 64
Appendix E Step-by-step process for
anti-social behaviour orders and orders on conviction 65 Appendix
F Public funding for defendants 68
Further reading 69
3
130,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Ministerial
foreword
It is now seven years since anti-social
behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced following the Crime and Disorder Act
1998. Since then over 7,300 ASBOs have been issued. We often hear from residents
up and down the country about how useful they are in bringing respite to
communities suffering anti-social behaviour, The drive to tackle anti-social
behaviour has been pioneered by anti-social behaviour practitioners and other
interested parties all over England and Wales.
During this time much has happened:
· For our part we have adjusted policy
and response to changing demands prompted by practitioners to ensure that the
tool continues to be effective.
· The Together Action Line, website and
Academy events have provided an excellent source of advice and ensured spread
of good practice.
· Practitioners have developed protocols
and helpful leaflets to improve communication between themselves.
· A number of organisations have also
organised seminars and conferences to bring practitioners together, debate
problem areas and resolve issues between them.
· The courts have responded and played
their part and we particularly welcome Lord Justice Thomas’s guidance, which has
been referred to substantially for the revision of this guidance, and which
provides the latest case law for practitioners in a very clear and methodical
manner.
The fundamental ethos of ASBOs remains
that they combine the twin-track approach of enforcement and support.
However, there have also been some
developments and policy adjustments as the courts have interpreted ASBO
legislation as more and more cases come before them.
After ASBOs were first introduced,
orders on conviction were introduced to improve access and timing; and interim
orders for extreme cases where communities needed protecting urgently. Since
May 2004 courts have been able to issue individual support orders to juveniles
issued with ASBOs on application. This is a positive measure, attaching
positive conditions to ensure that young people get all the support they need
to change their behaviour. I urge agencies to make the greatest possible use of
them.
We are also extending the power to
apply for orders to the Environment Agency and Transport for London.
We continue to listen to the views of
practitioners and stakeholders and to adjust policy and legislation
accordingly. One illustration of this has been the development of the one-year
review of ASBOs issued to young people, which is explained in this guidance.
Although it is not yet enshrined in legislation, we feel that this formalises
existing good practice to ensure that young people are provided with the right
support throughout the duration of their ASBO.
We also hope to introduce later this
year measures to empower the courts to apply rigorous case management in ASBO
proceedings.
This guidance is also issued in the
context of the Respect programme which builds on the Government’s anti-social
behaviour strategy. Under the Respect drive, we will maintain and build on the
strong enforcement action that has helped us make so much progress, but extend
this further through a comprehensive strategy to deliver:
· a new approach to tackling problem
families.
· a wide-ranging programme to address
poor parenting.
· measures to improve behaviour and
attendance in schools.
4.
131,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
A!
ii I is tennl foreword
· initiatives to provide constructive
activities for young people; and
· a drive to strengthen communities
through more responsive public services.
I am delighted to introduce this new
guidance which I am sure everyone working in the field of anti-social behaviour
will find to be a source of reference that is both useful and informative.
TONY Mc NULTY
August 2006
5
132,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Introduction
This guidance on ASBOs draws on the experience
of the police service, local authorities, youth offending teams, the courts and
other organisations, it is intended for use by practitioners - people with a
professional responsibility for tackling anti-social behaviour, whether they
represent local authorities, the police, youth offending teams, registered
social landlords, prosecutors, the courts, or any other agency which seeks to
tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour.
The crime and disorder reduction
partnership lies at the heart of the Government’s approach to the reduction of
both crime and anti-social behaviour (much of which is of course criminal in
nature). All crime and disorder reduction partnerships have an antisocial
behaviour co-ordinator and access to them is published on the Together website
(www.together.gov.uk).All partnerships, too, are required to draw up strategies
for the reduction of anti-social behaviour in their areas, and the anti-social
behaviour co-ordinators are in the best position to ensure that those strategies
genuinely reflect the needs of the community served by the partnerships.
Anti-social behaviour is given a wide
meaning by the legislation - to paraphrase the (Time and Disorder Act 1998, it
is behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator. Among
the forms it can take are.
· graffiti - which can on its own
make even the tidiest urban spaces look squalid and can act as a magnet for
further anti-social behaviour and crime.
· abusive and intimidating
language too often directed at minority groups.
· excessive noise, particularly
late at night.
· fouling the street with litter.
· drunken behaviour in the
streets, and the mess it can result in; and
· dealing drugs, with all the
problems to which it gives rise.
· There has been considerable
criticism of the current wording being too wide. However, the House of Commons
Select Committee looked at this in its report on anti-social behaviour and
concluded that it would be a mistake to make it more specific because:
· the definitions work well from
an enforcement point of view and no significant practical problems appear to
have been encountered.
· exhaustive lists of the kind of
behaviour considered anti-social by central government would be unworkable and
anomalous; and
· anti-social behaviour is
inherently a local problem and may be of a different nature in different
localities.
· This flexibility is therefore a
major strength of the current statutory description of antisocial behaviour.
Anti-social behaviour is an issue that
concerns everyone in the community. Incidents that cause harassment, alarm and
distress cannot be written off as generational issues - they impact on the
quality of life of young and old alike. And they require a response that puts
partnership into action.
Just as the problems of anti-social
behaviour are wide-ranging, the solutions too must operate equally effectively
on many levels. While an energetic and constructive police response is
essential, it must be supplemented by engagement from a wide variety of
partners. To take only the most obvious, schools need to have effective
policies in place against truancy and bullying, and the police need to work
closely with licensing authorities in order to tackle alcohol-related problems.
Local authorities and registered social landlords need to take responsibility
for acting against anti-social behaviour by them
6
1 House or Commons Select Committee, Anti-Social
Behaviour: 5th Report of Session 2004 -05, recommendation 7.
133,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Introduction
tenants and against their tenants.
Social services need to ensure that they are taking the welfare of the whole
community fully into account when making decisions, as well as taking care of
the perpetrators. And, just as important, all of these bodies need to be
sharing information with each other to the fullest possible extent in order to
act fairly and decisively against the problems of antisocial behaviour.
7
134,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· Anti-social
behaviour orders: the basics
What are anti-social behaviour orders?
Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs)
were introduced by section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in England and
Wales and have been available since April 1999.The powers to deal with
anti-social behaviour were strengthened and extended by the Police Reform Act
2002, which introduced the power to make similar orders on conviction in
criminal proceedings, and in county court proceedings, and the power to make
interim orders. Orders can now also extend across any defined part of England
and Wales. The provisions relating to orders on conviction under section 1C and
interim orders under section ID in the magistrates’ courts were inserted in the
1998 Act by the Police Reform Act 2002 and came into force on 2 December 2002.
The provisions relating to orders in
county court proceedings (section 1B) were also inserted in the 1998 Act by the
Police Reform Act 2002 and came into force on 1 April 2003.
ASBOs are civil orders to protect the
public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. An order contains conditions prohibiting
the offender from carrying out specific anti-social acts or from entering
defined areas and is effective for a minimum of two years.
The orders are not criminal sanctions and are not intended
to punish the offender.
Applications for ASBOs are made to the
magistrates’ court by ‘relevant authorities’ which include local authorities,
chief officers of police, registered social landlords, housing action trusts or
any other person or body specified by the order of the Secretary of State (as
previously mentioned, it is intended that the Environment Agency and Transport
for London be specified for this purpose).
A similar order can be applied for
during
related proceedings in the county court
and can be requested on conviction of certain offences in the criminal courts.
It remains a civil order irrespective of the issuing court.
ASBOs are community-based orders that
involve local people not only in the collection of evidence to support an
application but also for the purpose of helping to enforce breaches. By their
nature they encourage local communities to become actively involved in
reporting crime and disorder and to contribute actively to building and
protecting the community. The civil status of ASBOs has implications for the
nature of the proceedings at which applications are heard. For
example, hearsay and professional witness evidence can be heard. This is an
extremely important feature of ASBOs that can help protect victims and
witnesses of anti-social behaviour.
What sort of behaviour can be tackled
by ASBOs?
Anti-social behaviour that can be
tackled by ASBOs includes:
1. harassment
of residents or passers-by.
2. verbal
abuse.
3. criminal
damage.
4. vandalism.
5. noise
nuisance.
6. writing
graffiti.
7. engaging
in threatening behaviour in large groups.
8. racial
abuse.
9. smoking
or drinking alcohol while underage.
10. substance
misuse.
11. joyriding.
12. begging.
13. prostitution.
14. kerb-crawling.
15. throwing
missiles.
16. assault;
and
17. vehicle
vandalism.
135,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Anti-soda! behaviour orders' the basics
The terms of each order should be
tailored to the circumstances of the individual case.
Tackling prostitution and drug-related
anti-social behaviour at Kings Cross
Issue
Kings Cross was one of the most
infamous drug and vice hotspots in the country. For years the authorities had
struggled to improve the area.
Approach
'flic anti-social behaviour partners
meet to discuss individual cases and offer appropriate help, including housing
and rehabilitation services. If the perpetrators of the anti-social behaviour
fail either to engage or to change their behaviour, acceptable behaviour
agreements (ABAs) are often used to bring to the offenders’ attention the
impact of their behaviour on the community.
Outcomes
This worked very well with only 4 out
of 32 ABAs progressing to ASBO applications. But where the ASBO was deemed
necessary by the partners, Camden police officers put together bundles of evidence,
with Camden Council’s legal team making the ASBO application. Impact statements
were taken from local community activists and councillors to prove the need for
the orders. Since then, having issued 45 ASBOs with prohibitions within the
area, Kings Cross is completely unrecognisable from its previous image. The
partners have also been successful in working with perpetrators to facilitate a
significant sustainable change in behaviour. One crack cocaine
addict recently wrote to the local paper apologising to the people of Kings
Cross for his behaviour. Another went on to be a drugs worker in Brixton while
a third is now working in the Home Counties and has had her ASBO discharged
with the consent of the authorities.
Contact
Ian Walker
Email:
ian.waiker@camden.gov.uk
Legal definition of anti-social
behaviour for the purpose of obtaining an order
Under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998, the agency applying for an ASBO must show that:
· the defendant behaved in an anti-social
manner; and an order is necessary for the protection of people from further
anti-social behaviour by the defendant.
This is sometimes referred to as the
‘two-stage test’.
Section 1(1) of the Act describes
acting in an ‘anti-social manner’ as acting in ‘a manner which causes or is
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the
same household as the perpetrator.
The wording is intentionally
wide-ranging to allow for the orders to be used in a variety of circumstances.
The expression likely to cause’ has the
effect that someone other than a victim of the antisocial behaviour can give
evidence of the likelihood of its occurring. This is intended specifically to
enable the use of professionals as witnesses where those targeted by the
behaviour feel unable to come forward, for example for fear of reprisals or
intimidation.
Standard of proof
In the case of McCann (R v Crown
Court at Manchester ex parte McCann (FC) and Others (FC)), the House of
Lords, while confirming that ASBOs were civil orders, set out the law on the
standard of proof as follows:
‘they [magistrates] must in all cases
under section 1 apply the criminal standard... it will be sufficient for the
magistrates, when applying section 1(1 )(a) to be sure that the defendant has
acted in an anti-social manner, that is to say in a manner which caused or was
likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of
the same household as himself.’ (Lord Steyn, paragraph 37)
9
136,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Antisocial behaviour orders; the basics
This means that the criminal standard
of proof applies to acts of anti-social behaviour alleged against the
defendant.
However, Lord Steyn went on to explain:
‘The inquiry under section 1(1)(b),
namely that such an order is necessary to protect persons from further
anti-social acts by him, does not involve a standard of proof: it is an
exercise of judgement or evaluation.’
It should be noted that it is the effect
or likely effect of the behaviour on other people that determines whether the
behaviour is antisocial. The agency applying for the order does not have to
prove an intention on the part of the defendant to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Under section 1(5) of the 1998 Act, the
Court will, however, disregard any behaviour shown to be reasonable in the
circumstances.
The most common behaviour tackled by
ASBOs is general loutish and unruly conduct such as verbal abuse, harassment,
assault, graffiti and excessive noise. ASBOs have also
been used to combat racial harassment, drunk and disorderly behaviour, throwing
fireworks, vehicle vandalism and prostitution. Many other problems, for
instance the misuse of air guns, could also lend themselves to this approach.
The wide range of anti-social behaviour
that can be tackled by ASBOs and the ability to tailor the terms of the order
to each specific case illustrates their flexibility. There have been cases
where the chief executive of a company has been issued with an ASBO for
anti-social behaviour committed by the company. This is because ASBOs must be
issued against individuals and not against organisations. ASBOs may also be
used, for example in the misuse of mini motors, where warnings and other measures
have failed.
Against whom can an order be made?
An order can be made against anyone
aged 10 years or over who has acted in an anti-social manner, or is likely so
to act, and where an order is needed to protect people and the wider community
from further anti-social acts. A list of interventions available for children
under 10 is at Appendix A. the orders are
tenure-neutral and can be used against perpetrators living in any type of
housing (not just social housing). Because the order is specific to the person,
if someone moves to a new house, it still remains in force, ASBOs can be used
to combat anti-social behaviour in a wide range of situations and settings.
They are highly relevant to misconduct
in public spaces such as parks, shopping centres and transport hubs, but they
are by no means confined to such areas.
Where groups of people are engaged in
anti-social behaviour, a case needs to be made against each individual against
whom an order is sought. However, the cases can be heard together by the court.
Agencies have found that targeting ringleaders with orders is an effective
deterrent to other members of the group.
When investigating complaints about
antisocial behaviour, it is vital that agencies satisfy themselves that
complaints are well founded. In particular, they should consider the
possibility that complaints may have been motivated by discrimination, perhaps
on racist grounds, or to further a pre-existing grudge. However, failing to act
against instances of anti-social behaviour can lead to an escalation of the
problem by increasing fear of crime or leading those subjected to the
anti-social behaviour to retaliate. Nipping unacceptable behaviour in the bud
is therefore the best option.
Who can apply for an order?
Agencies able to apply for orders are
referred to as ‘relevant authorities’ in the legislation (section 1(1 A) of the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998). These are:
· local authorities - by virtue of
sections 1(A) and 1(12) of the 1998 Act, a local authority is, in England, the
council of a county, district or London Borough, the Isle of Wight or the Isles
of Scilly, or, in Wales, the council of a county or county borough; police
forces, including the British Transport Police (BTP);
· registered social landlords (RSLs),
that is a body registered as a social landlord under section 1 of the Housing
Act 1996; and Housing Action Trusts (I-IATs).
1.0
137,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Anti-social behaviour orders: the
basics
The Environment Agency and Transport
for London are to be designated as relevant authorities in due course.
Local authorities and the police may
apply for an order where they consider it necessary to protect persons in their
area (‘relevant persons’) from further anti-social behaviour irrespective of
where the original anti-social behaviour took place. An order can be sought
which provides protection not just to the relevant persons but also, where
necessary, to any persons in England and Wales.
The BTP, RSLs and HATs are empowered to
apply for orders by virtue of changes introduced under the Police Reform Act
2002, which enable these agencies to deal with their particular problems of
anti-social behaviour in a more effective and timely manner. RSLs and HATs may
apply for orders against non-residents as well as residents and should consider
doing so where the antisocial behaviour of non-residents is affecting the
quality of life for residents.
Applications
from the BTP, RSLs or HATs must concern anti-social behaviour related to the
premises for which they are responsible by persons who are on or in the
vicinity of such premises or likely to be either on or in the
vicinity of such premises.
The BTP, RSLs and HATs are
required to consult both the local authority and local police force when
applying for an order. The agencies are not compelled to use the power. The
police or local authority may still apply for ASBOs on their behalf.
Under section 17 of the 1998
Act, the police and local authorities have a joint responsibility to develop
and implement strategies for tackling anti-social behaviour and disorder in the
local area. This responsibility is not
changed in any way by allowing the BTP, RSLs and HATs to apply for orders.
Which courts can make ASBOs?
ASBOs can be made by:
* magistrates’ courts (acting in
their civil capacity).
· county courts (where the
relevant authority or the person against whom the
· order is sought is a party to
the proceedings and the non-party is joined to these proceedings);
· magistrates’ courts (on conviction
in criminal proceedings).
· the Crown Court (on conviction
in criminal proceedings).
· youth courts (on conviction in
criminal proceedings); and
· at the time this guidance was
being revised, 11 county courts, which were trialling hearings for ASBO cases for
children and young people. These are as follows:
Ř
Bristol
Ř
Central London
Ř
Clerkenwell
Ř
Dewsbury
Ř
Huddersfield
Ř
Leicester
Ř
Manchester
Ř
Oxford
Ř
Tameside
Ř
Wigan
Ř
Wrexham
The pilot will be evaluated in autumn
2006.
The table overleaf sets out what each
type of court can do.
Length of orders
Orders are issued for a minimum of two
years and can be issued for an indefinite period pending a further order. They
can also be varied or discharged on application by either party, although they
cannot be discharged in the first two years without the consent of both
parties. In the ease of young people, ASBOs should be reviewed each year as
explained on page 45.
Anti-social behaviour response courts
Within Her Majesty’s Courts Service
there is now a network of specialist anti-social behaviour response courts
across the country - existing courts that are better able to respond to the
issue of Anti-social behaviour. They ensure that magistrates and court staff
are specially trained and follow a framework - including specialist sessions,
witness care, local community engagement and appropriate media strategies.
This ensures courts are able to respond properly to
anti-social behaviour cases in a visible and consistent way.
11
138,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Magistrates' court - acting in their… |
||||
…Civil capacity |
...Criminal capacity |
County
court |
Youth
court |
|
Which ASBO? |
No
restrictions |
Only
on conviction in criminal proceedings |
Pilots
taking place for children and young people until September 2006 |
Only
on conviction in criminal proceedings as it has no civil jurisdiction |
Disposals
available if ASBO breached - under-18s |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
Sections
90 and 91 cases - Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, detention
and training order, action plan order, referral order, attendance centre
order, supervision order, reparation order, parenting order, fine, community
punishment and rehabilitation order (16-17-year olds), absolute discharge All
sentences to the community are open to the following orders: curfew order,
parenting order, drug testing and treatment order |
Disposals
available if ASBO breached - adult |
Maximum
five years’ imprisonment. community order, absolute discharge, fine, compensation
order, deferred sentence |
Maximum
five years’ imprisonment;
community order, absolute discharge, fine compensation order, deferred
sentence |
Maximum
five years’ imprisonment;
community order, absolute discharge, fine, compensation order, deferred
sentence |
n/a |
Untouchable gang’s reign of terror on a anti-social behaviour response
courts Issue
A gang of 10 youths who believed they were
beyond the reach of the law were regularly terrorising vulnerable residents on
a street in Thornton, Merseyside. The youths had been smashing windows,
breaking into and throwing missiles at vehicles, and verbally abusing people,
Victims included the young, elderly and vulnerable and the gang’s behaviour
created such fear locally that residents would not go out after dark or leave
their properties unattended. Many of them installed CCTV Only the most serious
incidents were repented at the time they occurred but victims would not press
charges for fear of being singled out and targeted by the gang.
Merseyside street ends in the Approach
The neighbourhood police officer carried
out a detailed investigation of the problem to bring a case for arresting the
perpetrators and bringing them before the courts.
Previous police logs and reports
were scrutinised, and impact statements taken from the majority of witnesses in
anonymity to use as hearsay evidence. One family, which had been singled out by
the perpetrators, was given support by the police with daily contact and
visits. The victims installed CCTV and kept a diary of all the incidents which
was exhibited as evidence.
The police and Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) worked closely together to prepare the case and the police
gathered strong evidence. Interviews with perpetrators were carefully planned
so that when faced with
139,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Antisocial behaviour orders: The busies
the evidence against them all 10
perpetrators admitted their responsibility.
In advance of the case, the CPS
specialist prosecutor for the area worked to set up a special anti-social
behaviour response court. Advance disclosure of evidence to the judge and other
parties prior to the court hearing meant that the case was dealt with quickly
once in court.
At the hearing, nine perpetrators were
charged on criminal offences ranging from disorderly behaviour to attempted
arson. Three of the gang were given ASBOs and six of the gang signed acceptable
behaviour agreements.
Conditions attached to the ASBOs were
designed to protect the community from any recurrence of the behaviour. The
perpetrators were restricted to sleeping at their nominated address and were
not allowed out between 6.00pm and 6.00am unless accompanied by a parent or
appropriate adult. They were clearly instructed not to approach or interfere
with any prosecution witnesses. They were also prohibited from being verbally
abusive and from throwing missiles at any residential property or from
carrying anything which they could use
to launch a missile.
The CPS advised the local media of the
antisocial behaviour response court and the press reported this operation on
the front pages of the local papers. This is part of a strategy to publicise
successful action of the police, CPS and judiciary working in partnership to
tackle anti-social behaviour. Its aim is to encourage the community to report
anti-social behaviour, knowing that it will be dealt with effectively.
Outcome
The operation provided much needed
relief for the residents in the area. A parent of one of the gang members has since
become proactive in a local community action group which is working to increase
diversionary activities for young people in the area.
For the professionals involved in the
case, the operation has underlined the importance of taking impact statements as
a matter of course when victims fail to press charges due to fear of reprisals.
The multiagency partnership approach works best if one officer who is aware of
all the facts of the case co-ordinates the case.
Orders made in county court proceedings
(section IB of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
For an application to be made in the
county court, both the applicant and the person against whom the application is
made must be parties to the ‘principal proceedings’
(such as an eviction). Where the
relevant authority is not a party to the principal proceedings, an application
to be had a party and the application for an order should be made as soon as
possible after the authority becomes aware of the principal proceedings. Where
the person alleged to have committed the anti-social behaviour is not a party
but the relevant authority thinks that his anti-social acts are material to the
principal proceedings, the authority can apply to have him joined in the
proceedings and apply for an order. The county court will be able to grant
orders where the principal proceedings involve evidence of anti-social
behaviour.
Enabling the county courts to make
orders may remove the need for a separate legal process in the magistrates’
court and make it possible for the public to be protected from anti-social
behaviour more quickly and more efficiently.
An order made in county court
proceedings might, for example, be useful to prevent an individual, evicted
from his accommodation for harassing his neighbours and/or others in the area,
from returning to the same area to continue the abusive behaviour.
13
140,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
· Taking a strategic
approach
Orders can only work properly when they
are based on partnership in action. They are powerful instruments, and they
will be at their most effective when all the agencies confronted by an
individual’s anti-social behaviour collaborate to make the best possible use of
them.
Orders made on conviction in criminal
proceedings
Criminal courts - the magistrates’
court, the Crown Court and the youth court - can make- orders against an
individual who has been convicted of a criminal offence, and this is known as
an 'order on conviction’ (sometimes also called a ‘CRASBO’). Some county courts
are currently trialling stand-alone ASBO cases for children and young people
until the end of September 2006.These are not proceedings on conviction.
The order on conviction is considered
at a civil hearing after the verdict. It is not part of the sentence the
offender receives for the criminal offence.
The order will be granted on the basis
of the evidence presented to the court during the criminal proceedings and any
additional evidence provided to the court after the verdict, although it is
possible for the order to be granted on the basis of the criminal proceedings
alone. There is a statutory requirement for a conviction to be for an offence
committed after the date on which the insertion of the relevant provisions by
the Police Reform Act took effect.
The court may make an order on
conviction either on its own initiative or following an application by the
prosecutor (see section 1 C (3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998).
Alternatively, the order can be requested by the police or local authority, who
may make representations to the court in support of the request. Orders on
conviction cannot be made if there is a
deferred sentence for the relevant offence.
The court may adjourn the proceedings
following conviction to allow an application for an order on conviction to be
made.
By virtue of section l D (l)(b) of the
1998 Act (inserted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), the
court may also make an interim order.
The order on conviction is a civil
order and has the same effect as an ASBO made on application - ft contains
prohibitions rather than penalties and is made in civil proceedings. It is
similar to the football banning order on conviction in that it is a civil order
made following a criminal procedure,2 3
If the offender is detained in custody,
the court may make provision for requirements of the order on conviction to
become effective on their release. For this period the order takes effect
immediately, but its terms are suspended until release.
Where is an ASBO valid?
Before the changes introduced by the
Police Reform Act 2002, the conditions an order could impose extended only to
the applicant’s area and adjoining areas. An order can now extend across any
defined area within England and Wales. '
The power to make an order over a wide
area is for use where there is reason to believe that the person concerned may
move or has already moved. It goes some way to addressing the problem of
offenders moving to other areas and continuing the behaviour.
An order covering a wider area could
address problems such as ticket touting at different train stations or
anti-social behaviour on trains, and could help deal with the minority
Section 10(21 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 states that the court may make an order which prohibits the offender
from doing anything described in the order. Section 14A of the Football
Spectators Act 1989 places a duty on the court to impose a football banning
order if a person is convicted of a relevant offence or to state in open court
why such an order has not been made.
The geographical area which an order
may cover is indicated by section 1(6) for ASBOs and orders made in county court
proceedings; and by section l C (2)(b) for orders made on conviction in
criminal proceedings.
14..
141,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Taking a strategic approach
of the travelling community who
persistently engage in anti-social behaviour around the country, Careful
thought needs to be given to the consequences of extending the exclusion area
so that it does not simply result in displacing the behaviour into a neighbouring
area.
Any evidence of the itinerant nature of
the defendant’s lifestyle, of the likelihood of the individual moving to
another area, or of wide geographical spread of offending behaviour should be
submitted with the application file, The applicant does not have to prove that
anti-social behaviour will occur elsewhere, just show that it is likely to.
The more serious the behaviour, the
greater the likelihood that the court will grant a geographically wide order.
Orders that seek to operate in the whole of England and Wales will not be
granted without evidence that that is the actual or potential geographical
extent of the problem. Further detail about effective prohibitions is given in
Chapter 7.
Can interim orders be made?
Interim orders are available under
section ID of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by section 65 of the
Police Reform Act 2002 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA)
2005) in both the magistrates’ court and the county court. This is an order
made at an initial court hearing held in advance of the full hearing. This
temporary order can impose the same prohibitions and has the same penalties for
breach as a full order.
The interim order can, with leave of
the justices’ clerk, be made without notice of proceedings being given to the
defendant.
A without notice interim order has no
effect until it has been served on the defendant. If it is not served within
seven days, it will cease and will not have effect. The benefit of the interim
order is that it enables the courts to order an immediate stop to anti-social
behaviour and thereby to protect the public more quickly. It reduces the scope
for witness intimidation by making it unlawful for the offender to continue the
behaviour while the ASBO application is being processed. It also removes any
delay in the proceedings.
Section 139 of SOCPA 2005 gives the
court the power to grant an interim order pending an adjourned hearing for an
order on conviction.
The interim order will send a clear
message to the community that swift action against anti-social behaviour is
possible.
The order can be made at the outset of
proceedings for an ASBO application if the court considers that it is just to
make such an order. The applicant authority should, if possible, request an
interim order at the same time as submitting an application for a full order.
When considering whether to make an
interim order, the court will be aware that it may not be possible at the time
of the interim order application to compile all the evidence which would prove
that a full ASBO is necessary. Rather the court will determine the application
for the interim order on the question of whether the application for the full
order has been properly made and where there is sufficient evidence of an
urgent need to protect the community
Applications for interim orders will be
appropriate, for example, in cases where the applicant feels that persons need
to be protected from the threat of further antisocial acts which might occur
before the main application can be determined. Where an interim order is
granted without notice of proceedings to the defendant, it is expected that the
court will usually arrange an early return date.
An individual who is subject to an
interim order will have the opportunity to respond to the case at the hearing
for the full order. The defendant is also able to apply to the court for the
interim order to be varied or discharged. In this instance the matter will be
dealt with at a hearing dealing specifically with the interim order.
The interim order:
· will be for a fixed period.
· can be varied or discharged on
application by the defendant.
· will cease to have effect if the
application for the ASBO or county court order is withdrawn or refused.
15
142,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Taking a strategic approach
· may extend over any defined area of
England and Wales; and
18. has
the same breach penalties as for a full order.
The court procedures and forms to be used
when applying for or making an interim order are set out in the Magistrates’
Courts (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) Rules 2002 (available at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/
20022784.htm).
Interim orders made in the county
courts
A relevant authority may apply for an
interim order in the county court once it is party to the ‘principal
proceedings. The application for an interim order should be made early in the
proceedings.
The procedure for making applications
for orders in the county court is set out in the Practice Direction of the
updated Cavil Procedure Rules 65.24 to 26 (Appendix B).
Orders against children and young
people
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
applications for ASBOs against young people aged 10 to 17, and in certain
circumstances 18-year-olds, can be heard in the magistrates’ court. As a result
of the recent practice direction (the Magistrates’ Courts (Anti-Social
Behaviour Orders) Composition of Benches practice direction, February 2006),
the justices constituting the court should normally be qualified to sit in the
youth court unless to do so would result in a delayed hearing. Applications for
orders are not heard in the youth court as a matter of course because of the
civil status of the orders, although youth courts may make orders where
appropriate on conviction.
Practitioners familiar with dealing
with young people’s cases will be aware of the restrictions on reporting that
apply under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933- However, automatic
reporting restrictions do not apply to stand-alone ASBOs as they are civil
orders.
In orders on conviction cases, the
court does have discretion under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons
Act 1933 to impose reporting restrictions. Reporting
restrictions will always apply to the
criminal proceedings on which the order on conviction is based but in till
other cases, the presumption is that publicity will be allowed. See page 52 for
detailed guidance on promoting awareness of orders.
A court making an ASBO does have the
power to impose restrictions to protect the identity of a person under 18. But
the imposition of reporting restrictions may restrict the effectiveness of the
order if the effectiveness of the ASBO will largely depend on the wider
community knowing the details. Please see the separate sections on publicity
and on children and young people.
Breach of an order
Breach of an order is a criminal
offence; criminal procedures and penalties apply.
The standard of proof required is the
criminal standard. Guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Breach
proceedings are heard in the magistrates' court and may be committed to the
Crown Court. Such proceedings are the same irrespective of whether the order is
a full or interim order made on application to the magistrates’ court or the
county court, or an order on conviction in criminal proceedings.
Expert prosecutors
A team of 14 anti-social behaviour
expert prosecutors has been set up with funding from the Together campaign to
support all Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutors dealing with
anti-social behaviour-related cases. The team drives improvements in
performance across the country.
The team:
19. promotes
better partnership working between local prosecutors, the police, focal
authorities, registered social landlords and others involved in taking action
against anti-social behaviour.
20. delivers
training to prosecutors on the new powers to obtain orders on conviction
provides advice to prosecutors on the full range of enforcement measures and
key issues such as prosecution of ASBO breach; and
16
143,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Hiking v stnitegic cipjrraacb
• works with court clerks and magistrates
in improving their response to anti-social behaviour.
In addition to the 14 specialist
prosecutors, anti-social behaviour co-ordinators have now been appointed
CPS-wide to ensure that there is a focus on anti-social behaviour issues in
every CPS
area. Their role is to drive this work forward. Further information can be
obtained from Sarah Johnston at sarah.johnston@cps.gsi.gov.uk.
Standard ASBO form
A copy of the order form used by the
magistrates’ courts can be found at Appendix C.
Disposals
The maximum penalty for breach of an
order is five years’ imprisonment tor an adult offender. A conditional
discharge is not available for breach of an ASBO.
The full range of disposals of the
youth court is available, and custody should only be considered as a last
resort in cases of serious and persistent breach (if appropriate, breach may be
dealt with by way of a final warning). Where custody is deemed by the court to
be necessary, the maximum sentence for breach by children and young people is a
detention and training order (DTO), which has a maximum term of 24 months - 12
months of which is custodial and 12 months is in the community. The DTO is
available for 12 to 17-year-olds (although 12 to 14-year-olds must be
persistent (criminal) offenders to be given a DTO). A 10 to 11 -year-old can be
given a community order for breach of an ASBO. The sentence given should be
proportionate and reflect the impact of the anti-social behaviour. It must
relate to all the relevant circumstances, such as the number of breaches and
how the breach relates to the finding of anti-social behaviour. Proceedings
should be swift and not fractured by unnecessary adjournments either during the
proceedings or before sentencing. Information on how to handle breaches of
ASBOs by young people is contained in page 26 of the anti-social behaviour
guidance issued by the Youth Justice Board, Home Office and
Association of Chief Police Officers.
The leading precedent for the approach
on sentencing on this point is R v Lamb \ 20051 EWCA Crim 2487.
In this judgment the court drew the distinction between a breach that
represents further anti-social behaviour and those that are merely breaches of the
terms of an order, for instance, as in that case, not to enter a particular
metro system. Differing from earlier decisions - in particular from the case of
R v Morrison [2005] EWCA Crim 2237 - the court held that the
orders are properly designed to protect the public from frequent and
distressing repeated misbehaviour.
In the case of Morrison,
it was determined that if the breach amounted to a specific criminal offence
that carried a particular penalty, the sentence for breach of the ASBO could
not be greater than that.
As the court in Lamb
pointed out, this would merely encourage people to commit criminal offences
rather than breach their ASBOs in other ways. The court has therefore laid down
a series of steps for consideration prior to the imposition of a sentence.
Where a breach does not involve
harassment, alarm or distress, a community order may be considered to assist
the defendant to learn to live with the terms of the ASBO. This is entirely
consistent with the guideline on breach proceedings issued by the Sentencing
Guidelines Council, where it is pointed out that custody should be used as a
last resort, and the primary purpose of breach proceedings should be to ensure
that the order itself is observed.
However, Lamb confirmed
that where there is a persistent breach without harassment, alarm
or distress, it may become necessary to impose custody to preserve the
authority of the court. In those circumstances, the sentence should be as short
as possible, and in Lamb the individual sentences were reduced to
two months in custody. However, where the new breach amounts to further
harassment, alarm or distress, then the court thought
orders of eight months, on a guilty plea, were appropriate, applying R v
Braxton [2005] 1 CRAPP R (S) 36,7? v Tripp [20051
Youth Justice Board, Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (2006) Anti-social
Behaviour: A guide to the role of Youth Offending Teams in
dealing with antisocial behaviour. This can be downloaded at www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/Putilications/Scr!pts/prodView.asp?id[)roduct=212&ep-
17
144,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Hiking a strategic approach
EWCA Grim 2253 and R v Dickinson
[2005] 2 CR APP R (S) 488.
When the offender has been found guilty
of breaching an order, and before sentencing, the court may take reports from
the local authority or police and any applicant agency. The court should also
consider the original reasons for the making of the order.
A copy of the court order (ASRO) as
granted (including any maps and details of any prohibitions) can be put before
the court during breach proceedings as evidence that an order has been made
without the need for a statement formally proving that an order was made. This
provision was introduced by SO CPA 2005 on 1 July 2005.
18
145,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· Managing the
application process
This section focuses on the main issues
involved in applying for an order. For an ASBO to be effective, the process of
evidence gathering and applying to the courts should be as swift as possible.
Groups of organisations and
partnerships such as crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) may wish
to consider buying specialist legal advice in blocks or pooling expertise and
experience. This is likely to be more cost effective than buying in legal advice
on a case-by-case basis.
Partnership working
A fully co-ordinated approach is
essential if anti-social behaviour is to be tackled. Effective defence of communities
depends on all agencies - including housing organisations, social services,
education authorities and youth services - accepting that the promotion of safe
anti orderly neighbourhoods is a priority and working together to agree a
response to unacceptable behaviour. The consultation arrangements are important
but should be organised so that they do not cause delays in dealing with cases.
Agencies and communities join to tackle
anti-social behaviour in Slade Green
Issue
Slade Green in Bexley was once
described as 'a cluster of low-rise estates centred on a precinct of shops and
Slade Green railway station, where vandalism, burglary and drugs blight the
lives of residents’. Slade Green has experienced high levels of crime and
social deprivation and features among the top 1.6% of the most deprived wards
in England. Bexley Police identified Slade Green as a hot spot for residential
and non-residential burglary, auto crime, disorder, domestic violence
and race crime. Residents, local housing providers and the leader of the Slade
Green Community Safety Forum were alarmed at the escalation of anti-social
behaviour in the area. Residents regularly experienced threats and actual
violence, making them afraid of giving evidence to the police.
Approach
A meeting between resklents and the
local partnership team produced an outline action plan. Community meetings,
local press coverage and ‘Have A Say’ days led to key witnesses being willing
to give evidence.
The partnership team applied for ASBOs
against the six men identified as the most prolific perpetrators. In total, 30
witnesses gave evidence, most in the form of hearsay, with nine giving evidence
in person at the court hearing. The policing team involved in the case
supported witnesses by being at court to provide additional reassurance. Victim
Support’s witness support service also helped. Strong witness evidence and a
compelling case prepared by the police and the council legal department
convinced the court to agree to all six applications.
Outcome
The impact of these ASBOs on crime and
fear of crime in the area was significant. For the period 2003/04, robbery
incidents fell by 53%, burglary by 21%) and auto crime by 40%. Of the original
six to receive an ASBO, one person has been prosecuted for breach of the ASBO
condition relating to criminal damage to a car, for which he received a
custodial sentence.
A community safety action zone (CSAZ)
was established in Slade Green with the aim of reducing crime and disorder in
the area.
A multi-agency operations group was
formed
146,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Managing the application process
to find the grass roots issues leading
to these problems. The addition of environmental and security
improvements has enhanced the appearance of the area and
have made it a safer and more secure place to live. These improvements have
included improved street lighting, removal of graffiti, removal of fly-tipping,
removal of abandoned and unlicensed cars and improvements to play areas.
A survey was carried out before the
start of the CSAZ which found that 22% of residents in Slade Green who
responded felt safe at night in their area. After the CSAZ had been set up, 93%
of residents surveyed in Slade Green felt safe at night in their area.
Contact
Charlotte Shrimpton Telephone:
020 8284 5503
Taking ownership
It is vital that a specified individual
within the lead agency takes on a lead role with responsibility for the
ownership, director, and management of the case. 1'his will help ensure that
there is no confusion about who is expected to make sure that the necessary
actions are taken on the right timescale.
The lead individual should manage and
co-ordinate the involvement of other agencies so that they add value by
contributing their own specialist knowledge and expertise.
A multi-agency approach should be
adopted so that all agencies that could hold information on the individual in
question are involved in the process at an early stage.
Such agencies include the Probation
Service, social services, health services, the youth offending team (YOT) and
voluntary organisations, all of which may have come into contact with the
individual or members of their family.
GDRPs should consider adopting the antisocial
behaviour action group (ASBAG) approach developed by Watford Borough Council.
Watford’s partnership approach involves
all relevant statutory and voluntary agencies and engages the local community
in taking a stand against the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.
They have developed a problem-solving
approach to issues and apply the SARA model:
· Sean for all available intelligence in
relation to the anti-social behaviour issue.
· Analyse the intelligence, looking for
the root cause of the problem.
· Respond with a clear action plan
designed to address the behaviour.
· Assess the progress/success of the
action plan on a monthly basis.
Delivery is through the monthly
multi-agency ASBAG, which includes cross-boundary working as required.
Watford’s anti-social behaviour
strategy allows for a range of diversionary activities and intervention as
alternatives to enforcement, if the ASBAG agrees they are appropriate to
effectively tackle an individual and their anti-social behaviour, such as:
· verbal warnings.
» written warnings.
· acceptable behaviour contracts (ABGs);
· mentoring programmes.
· intervention programmes.
· educational programmes.
· supporting youths and their parents;
and
· restorative justice (when and where
appropriate for victims and localities).
Information is exchanged between
stakeholders and members of the CDRP at each monthly ASBAG meeting.
This strategy works in parallel with the
prolific and priority offender strategy and a representative from the prolific
offender unit is represented on the ASBAG to avoid duplication of work.
If the level of anti-social behaviour
is such that the risk of further behaviour or escalation of behaviour is
imminent, the Watford anti-social behaviour co-ordinator may convene an
immediate action plan meeting with the police anti-social behaviour officer and
a legal representative from Watford Borough Council acting on the ASBAG’s
147,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
MuiUtkins’ the application process
behalf in the interests of managing the
risk to public safety without delay.
Watford CDRP works to the principles of
the National Intelligence Model for tasking and co-ordination.
Each action plan is performance-managed
by the ASBAG and is subject to monitoring and scrutiny by quarterly feedback to
the Watford responsible authority group by the Watford Borough Council
anti-social behaviour co-ordinator. The ASBAG performs a full self-evaluation and
review every 12 months.
Contact
Matt Leng
Anti-social Behaviour Coordinator
Watford Borough Council Matt.Leng@watford.gov.uk
Other considerations
Local authorities have a duty under the
NHS and Community Care Act 1990 to assess any person who may be in need of
community care services. If there is any evidence to suggest that the person
against whom the order is being sought may be suffering from drug, alcohol or
mental health problems or an autistic spectrum disorder, the necessary support
should be provided by social services or other support agencies. Such support
should run parallel with the collection of evidence and application for an
order, where an application for an order is deemed necessary. This ensures that
the court can balance the needs of the community with the needs of any alleged
perpetrator.
From December 2006, provisions in the
Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will come into force which make unlawful
discrimination by a public authority in the exercise of public functions. There
are some exemptions for listed persons and certain acts including (in broad terms)
legislation, prosecution and judicial acts. However,
the new prohibition of discrimination covers functions carried out, for
example, by local authorities and the police. The definition of discrimination
includes, in some circumstances, not making a reasonable- adjustment to the
way a function is carried out. Chapter 11 of the guidance, which the Disability
Rights Commission will issue shortly (entitled Code of Practice -
Rights of
Access: services to the public, public
authority functions, private clubs and premises)
includes advice on how the Act now impacts on those carrying out public
authority functions. It will be available on the Commission’s website (www.drc.org.uk).
Statutory consultation requirements
Section IE of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 (as amended by section 66 of the Police Reform Act 2002) sets out the
consultation requirements for agencies applying for orders. These are that:
· the police and local authorities must
consult each other; and
· the British Transport Police (BTP),
registered social landlords, housing action trusts and any other person or body
designated by the Secretary of State as a relevant authority must consult both
the local authority and the police force for the area.
Consultation takes place with the authority
or force whose area includes the address where the subject of the order resides
or appears to reside. Each district or borough council and police
division/basic command unit should have a nominated contact. Care should be
taken (where the local authority is the applicant) that if the subject is under
local authority care there is no conflict of interest. They must ensure that
the social worker involved in the ease is consulted. Where a young person is
the alleged perpetrator, the YOT should be consulted.
Consultation is required to inform the
appropriate agency or agencies of the intended application for the order and to
check whether they have any relevant information. The agencies must take into
consideration at the earliest possible opportunity the relevant information
necessary to apply for an individual support order or a parenting order.
Information on these is contained in a separate section on children and young
people.
Where the partnership working
arrangements recommended in earlier paragraphs are in force, they will normally
satisfy (and exceed) the statutory requirement for consultation,
The statutory requirement for
consultation does not mean that the agencies must agree
21
148,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Managing the application process
to an application being made but rather
that they should be told of the intended application and given the opportunity
to comment. This should ensure at the very minimum that actions taken by each
agency regarding the same individual do not conflict.
While no agency has a veto over another
agency’s application for an order, the expectation is that any reservations or
alternative proposals should be discussed carefully against the background of
the overriding need to bring the anti-social behaviour to a speedy end. Again,
the case conference procedure is designed to ensure that this happens.
A signed document of consultation is
all that is required by the court. This should not indicate whether the party
consulted was or was not in agreement. This is not required by the legislation.
Supporting statements or reports from partner agencies should be provided
separately.
The changes introduced by the Police
Reform Act 2002 reduce bureaucracy by removing the need for applying agencies
to consult with every local authority and police service whose areas are
included in the order.
In addition to the consultation
requirements set out above, it may be helpful for police forces to contact the
BTP, which may hold information on the anti-social behaviour of the subject.
The availability of this information may assist the evidence-gathering process
for an order. The BTP holds a national database of offenders committing summary
offences (these include railway-specific summary offences as well as those
included in Home Office counting rules).
Police forces can request a search on a
particular offender, in writing, from the Force Crime Registrar, British
Transport Police, Force Headquarters, 15 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SJ.
Collection of evidence
When applying for an order, the lead
agency will be required to gather evidence to prove its ease beyond reasonable
doubt. This evidence can include hearsay evidence. Further advice on hearsay
evidence is provided later in the guidance.
The evidence in support of an
application for an order should prove:
· that the defendant acted in a
specific way on specific dates and at specific places; and
· that these acts caused or were
likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not in
the same household as the defendant.
The court then needs to
evaluate whether an order is necessary to protect persons from further
anti-social acts by the defendant. This is not a test to which a standard of
proof will be applied. Instead, it is an assessment of future risk.
The applicant can present evidence or argument to assist the court in making
this evaluation. Witness evidence need not prove that they were alarmed or
distressed themselves, but only that the behaviour they witnessed was likely to
produce such an effect on others. As hearsay evidence is allowed, it may be given
by ‘professional witnesses’ - officers of public agencies whose job it is to
prevent anti-social behaviour. Since civil rules apply to these orders, it is
unnecessary to disclose the names of the witnesses,
Experience has shown that elaborate
court files are not normally required or advantageous. Where the anti-social
behaviour has been persistent, agencies should for us on a few well-documented
cases. A large volume of evidence and/or a large number of witnesses creates
its own problems. There is more material for the defence to contest and
timetabling issues may increase delays in the process.
Agencies applying for orders should
strike a balance and focus on what is most relevant and necessary to provide
sufficient evidence for the court to arrive at a clear understanding of the
matter.
Evidence may include:
· breach of an A B C;
· witness statements of officers who
attended incidents.
· witness statements of people affected
by the behaviour.
· evidence of complaints recorded by the
police, housing providers or other agencies.
149,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Managing the application process
· statements from professional witnesses,
for example council officials, health visitors or truancy officers.
· video or CCTV evidence (effective where
resolution is high and high-quality still images can be used);
· supporting statements or reports from
other agencies, for example probation reports.
· previous successful civil proceedings
that are relevant, such as an eviction order lor similar behaviour.
· previous relevant convictions.
· copies of custody records of previous
arrests relevant to the application; and
· information from witness diaries.
Together campaign fact sheet
The Together campaign has produced a
fact sheet giving step-by-step guidance on evidence collection which is
available on the website www. together.gov.uk
Southampton shopping area blighted by
anti-social behaviour
Issue
Lordshill centre was suffering from a
large amount of anti-social behaviour, especially around the local supermarket.
There was a substantial amount of shoplifting, criminal damage and harassment
of visitors and shoppers. At the other end of the centre was a large bingo hall
frequented by older patrons who were becoming increasingly afraid to go after
6pm.The supermarket was also shutting earlier in response to these incidents.
Approach
The local anti-social behaviour team’s
senior investigator met with the manager of the supermarket, together with the
local police, and discussed possible ways of working more closely to deal with
the issues, They were provided with a log book to record all incidents and this
was checked weekly by the anti-social behaviour investigator and the police.
This information was then put into a schedule to identify times and dates of
the issues and also the perpetrators. Logbooks were provided to the local
library and the bingo hall, as well as the supermarket, in an attempt to collate
a large amount of evidence. It’s Your Call’ posters were put up in all shops in
the area and premises were visited regularly by a member of the multiagency
team.
Outcome
Because of the joint working and shared
support, the stores felt able to tackle those causing the problem. As a result
of information provided by the shops, an ASBO was obtained against the main
perpetrator, with an exclusion from the whole shopping area.
There was also a Crime Reduction and
Environment Week in the area, and a youth project has been funded by the
supermarket, which has also provided paint to repaint the subway. This has
prevented graffiti reappearing. There is also a dispersal order
in place now to complement the ASBO and the perpetrator has not
returned to the area. Residents and visitors can now shop in peace and the
supermarket is looking to invest more money in the area.
Contact
Jane Mieinicezek Anti-social Behaviour
Manager Telephone: 023 8083 3988
23
150,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
' mon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· Time limits
Magistrates' courts (acting in their
civil capacity)
Under section 127 of the Magistrates
Court Act 1980, a complaint must be made within six months of the time when the
matter of the complaint (the behaviour) arose. One incidence of serious
anti-social behaviour may be sufficient for an order to be made. Earlier
incidents may be used as background information to support a case and show a
pattern of behaviour. As long as the complaint is made within the six-month
timeframe, a summons may be served outside this time period, although delay is
not encouraged.
24
151,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
· Use of hearsay and
professional witness evidence
Hearsay and professional witness
evidence allow for the identities of those too fearful to give evidence to be
protected. This is especially vita! as cases often involve anti-social
behaviour in residential areas by local people and those targeted by the
behaviour feel unable to come forward for fear of reprisals. Hearsay evidence
cannot be excluded (at the request of defence lawyers) simply on the grounds
that it is hearsay.
Hearsay evidence
Evidence of anti-social behaviour which
occurs at any time after the commencement of section H may be considered when
the court considers whether or not to grant an order on conviction under
section 1C.
The House of Lords judgment in the McCann
case confirmed that hearsay evidence is admissible. Lord Steyn stated that:'1
‘Having concluded that the proceedings
in question are civil under domestic law and article 6, it follows that the
machinery of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay
Evidence in Cavil Proceedings) Rules 1999 allow the introduction of such
evidence under the first part of section 1.
'... use of the Civil Evidence Act 1995
and the Rules in eases under the first part of section 1 are not in any way incompatible
with the Human Rights Act 1998,
‘... hearsay evidence will often be of
crucial importance. For my part, hearsay evidence depending on its logical
proactiveness is quite capable of satisfying the requirements of section 1(1).’
It is a matter for the judge or
magistrate to decide what weight they attach to hearsay evidence. 5 6
Hearsay allows a police officer to
provide a statement on behalf of a witness or witnesses who remain anonymous.
Hearsay evidence must be relevant to the matters to be proved. It could include
details such as dates, places, times, specific descriptions of actions, who was
present and who said what.
Hearsay can include evidence from the
person taking the statement. The person giving the hearsay evidence may attest
to the observable conditions of the witness, for example that the witness
appeared upset, and may give evidence based on their own judgement of the
situation.
Where an applicant intends to rely on
hearsay evidence in the county court, they must act in accordance with part 33
of the Civil Procedure Rules. Written notice must be given at least 21 days
before the hearing to the other party and to the court.
Professional witnesses
Professional witnesses can be called to
give their opinions as to matters within their expertise and can give evidence
about their assessments of the respondent or his/her behaviour. Examples of
witnesses who may be called as professional witnesses include council
officials, health visitors, railway staff, teachers, doctors
and police officers.
Care should be taken to ensure that a
professional witness does not inadvertently enable vulnerable or intimidated
witnesses to be identified, for example from their home address.
Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses
Witnesses who are willing to testify in
court provide the best form of evidence and, where possible, should be
encouraged to come forward. The new provisions introduced in Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
came into force on 1 April 1999, Taken from
paragraphs 35. 36 and 37 of Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (on Appeal from a Divisional
Court of the Queen's Bench Division); R v Crown Court at Manchester ex parte
McCann (FC) and Others (FC),
25
152,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Use of hearsay and professional witness
evidence
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act
2005 make it easier for victims of anti-social behaviour to attend court and
give evidence in person. The Act permits the ‘special measures’ that were
formerly reserved for criminal hearings to be used in anti-social behaviour
cases. This will enable witnesses who wish to give direct evidence to do so in
private, from behind a screen or by video link.
Vulnerable witnesses are all witnesses
aged under 17 years or whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished
because they have a mental disorder or learning disability or have a physical
disability or physical disorder.
Intimidated witnesses are witnessing
whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished because they are in fear
or distress about testifying. It is for the court to decide whether the quality
of a witness’s evidence is likely to be diminished.
Witness development and support
The principal purpose of an order is to
protect those who directly experience antisocial behaviour. The protection
provided should include, where necessary, those who are personally targeted by
perpetrators, other witnesses who see this happen and the wider local
community. It follows that engaging, developing, and supporting these
individuals and groups of people must be a primary concern for any agency
managing a case and seeking to use these orders. Without the initial complaint
of the witness, the agency will have no detailed knowledge of the problem.
Without their continuing engagement, there will be no evidence on which to
build a case.
Local strategies to promote
the use of orders should have the interests of the witnesses and the community
at their centre. The welfare and safety of residents whose complaints form the
basis of any action must at every stage of the process be the first
consideration. The use of hearsay evidence and professional witnesses is one
way of achieving this (see section on hearsay evidence above).
While professional witnesses may have a
duty to engage, lay witnesses can only be expected to do so if they can see a
point in doing it; if the agency is credible and
authoritative;
if the case work is visibly focused on
the interests of the witnesses; if the order protects them and stops the
anti-social behaviour quickly and effectively; and if the case manager offers
them well-informed, practical personal support throughout the period of
evidence collection, court proceedings and afterwards, as necessary.
The experience of witnesses must be
given value and significance by case managers. The status and importance of
witnesses in case development must be made clear. They should be
provided, as appropriate, with:
· a simple method of capturing
information - diaries, video/audio recording facilities and translation
services.
· information on services and
procedures - about the way witness support services work, service access
points, telephone numbers and the name of the case manager working on the case.
· an active and respected role in
developing the case - the case strategy should reflect their needs,
particularly for reassurance about their safety, and they should have control
over any information they provide, including agreeing the form in which it will
be provided to the defence;
· protection for themselves and
their family - security for door and window access, emergency contact
equipment, panic alarms and mobile phones may all be appropriate in
particularly serious cases.
· regular contact from the case
manager, including telephone contact as agreed with the witness (daily, weekly,
etc).
· support for any court appearance
- a briefing on court procedures and what they should expect, the presence with
them in court of the case manager, transport to and from court (if necessary)
and a secure space separate from perpetrators in which they can wait to be
called; and
· support after a court appearance -
speedy delivery of information, copies of any orders which have been made and
an explanation of the implications of the court decision.
Each key witness should also be engaged
in a face-to-face meeting with the agencies, including those who do not wish to
give a statement or attend court.
153,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Use of hearsay anti professional v
Unless evidence
Agencies should publicise positive
results - one way this can be done is through leaflet drops (these can be cost
effective when targeted appropriately).
Witness support is an area where the
benefits of partnership working can be clearly seen local authorities and the
police have different skills and resources and can combine them to give well-rounded
support.
Methods of supporting witnesses
currently being used by agencies also include:
· enclosing a letter with the
summons advising the respondent to stay away from witnesses.
· a higher police presence in the
vicinity.
· giving witnesses the personal
mobile telephone number of a named police officer who can be called if they are
threatened.
· visits from neighbourhood
wardens at pre-arranged times (sometimes daily); and
· phone calls from the local authority
at pre-arranged times.
The interim order enables witnesses to
be protected from the outset of the court process. Sections 48 and 49 of the
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 make it an offence to intimidate witnesses
in civil proceedings such as those for ASBOs.
Improving protection of witnesses in
court
Manchester City Council protects
witnesses
Issue
Witnesses felt anxious about giving evidence.
Their concerns included the prospect of appearing in court, coming face to face
with defendants and being threatened by defendants at the court
building, as well as uncertainties about waiting room and refreshment
facilities.
Approach
Manchester City Council negotiated the following
arrangements with local courts for anti-social behaviour cases:
· access to a quiet room for
witnesses.
· a video link for perpetrators in
prison where it would be expensive to bring them back for an ASBO or injunction
hearing (this also has the benefit of being less stressful for the witnesses).
· a video link for children and
young people; and
· police presence, where
appropriate.
In addition, the council provides
practical information and support to witnesses.
They are made aware of what to expect,
including the court layout, where they and the defendant(s) will be sitting and
how people will be dressed. Practical support also includes transport to and
from the court, being met by a council officer on arrival and information about
refreshment and bathroom facilities.
Outcome
The result has been reassurance and
physical security for witnesses. This has led to a reduction in the anxiety about
the prospect of appearing in court or accidentally meeting a defendant.
Witnesses are better able to focus on the ease. The ease
manager is also able to keep witnesses informed of progress and to manage the
case more effectively.
Contact
Nuisance Strategy Group Telephone:
0161 234 46l 1
154,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· Information
sharing
Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 empowers any person to disclose information, where necessary or
expedient for the purposes of the Act, to a ‘relevant authority’, namely a
chief officer of police, police force, local authority, probation service or
health authority, or to a person acting on their behalf. Where the agency
requesting the information clearly needs it for the purposes of reducing
anti-social behaviour, the presumption should normally be that it will be supplied.
As a result of the findings of the
Crime and Disorder Act review, the Police and Justice Bill before Parliament
seeks to strengthen section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act further.
For example, the power to disclose
personal information has not changed but it places a duty on relevant
authorities to share depersonalised data which is relevant lor community safety
purposes and already held in a depersonalised format.
Information sharing and registered
social landlords
A ‘relevant authority’ (as defined by
section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) may disclose information to a
registered social landlord where the landlord is acting on behalf of the
relevant authority for the purposes of the provisions of the Act.
In order to be ‘acting on behalf of the
relevant authority, the person or body so acting must have authority and must
have consented to do so. Such authority may be given in writing or orally.
Authority may also be implied from the conduct of the parties or from the
nature of employment. Authority may be confined to a particular act or be
general in its character. If authority is general, then it will that be
confined to acts that the relevant authority itself has power to do.
Information sharing protocols
It may be useful for partners to
negotiate information sharing protocols, examples of which can be obtained from
the Home Office Information Sharing Team at informationsharing@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.crimereduction.gov.uk/
information sharing
If possible, the protocol should be published,
so that the public can see that information is being shared in an appropriate
way.
The model protocol can be accessed at www.crimereduction.gov.uk/infosharing.htm
Information sharing issues can also be discussed
with the Information Commissioner’s Office, whose website (www.ico.gov.uk) gives further details.
28
155,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· The terms of the
order (the prohibitions)
The role of the agencies
Although it is for the court to decide what
prohibitions are to be imposed by the order, the applicant agency should
propose conditions (including duration) to the court.
A full order should be drawn up using
the form in the court rules. The courts find it helpful if applicants can
ensure that they are equipped to amend and print off the final version of the
order at the end of the hearing. This improves efficiency and helps ensure that
the defendant leaves the court with a clear understanding of the prohibitions.
In the county court, the proposed order
should accompany the application. The process for the county court is set out
in the Practice Direction at Appendix B.
Where the order is made on conviction
in criminal proceedings, an agency concerned in the case, such as the police,
may propose prohibitions or the court may draw them up of its own volition. It
should be noted that the order may not impose positive requirements, only
prohibitions.
Careful thought needs to be given to
the formulation of the conditions so they cannot be easily circumvented and can
be easily understood by the perpetrator.
The prohibitions
The prohibitions:
· should cover the range of
anti-social acts committed by the defendant.
· should be necessary for
protecting person(s) within a defined area from the anti-social acts of the
defendant (but, as a result of the recent changes, that defined area may be as
wide as necessary and could in appropriate cases include the whole of England
and Wales);
· should be reasonable and
proportionate.
· should be realistic and
practical.
· should be clear, concise, and
easy to understand.
· should be specific when
referring to matters of time if, for example, prohibiting the offender from
being outside or in particular areas at certain times.
· should be specific when
referring to exclusion from an area, including street names and clear
boundaries such as the side of the street included in the order (a map with
identifiable street names should also be provided).
· should be in terms that make it easy
to determine and prosecute a breach.
· should contain a prohibition
against
· inciting/encouraging others to
engage in anti-social behaviour.
· should protect all people who
are in the area covered by the order from the behaviour (as well as protecting
specific individuals).
· may cover acts that are
anti-social in themselves and those that are precursors to a criminal act, for
example a prohibition on entering a shopping centre rather than on shoplifting.
· may include a general condition
prohibiting behaviour which is likely to cause harassment, alarm
and distress, but where this is done there must be further clarification of
what type of behaviour is prohibited; and
· may include a prohibition from
approaching or harassing any witnesses named in the court proceedings.
Examples of AS BO prohibitions can be
found on the Crime Reduction website at www.crimereduction.gov.uk
The courts
The absence of a precise definition of
antisocial behaviour within the legislation means that orders can be used to
tackle a wide range of behaviour. In recent years, courts have imposed orders
to prevent behaviour such as joyriding, verbal abuse, vandalism, begging,
156,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
The terms of the order (the
prohibitions)
drinking underage and assault. While
the proceedings and the making of the order itself can curb behaviour, the
extent to which the order succeeds also depends on the prohibitions imposed,
which in turn require effective wording.
ft is good practice for the applicant
to provide a draft of the prohibitions sought, but the final wording of the
order will be a matter for the court. Problems have arisen when prohibitions
have been drafted too widely or in such ways that enforcement is made
difficult, if not impossible. Guidance and genera! principles on drafting
prohibitions have come from legislation, case law and shared best practice. The
following section draws together these principles and provides suggestions and
comments for consideration.
There is now a requirement for the
court to set out its findings of fact in relation to antisocial behaviour on
the face of the order, following the cases of Wadmore and Foreman.
Effective prohibitions
If the conditions for making an order
are met, the court may make an order which prohibits the defendant from doing
anything described in the order (section 1(4) Crime and Disorder Act 1998
(CDA)).The facts leading to the order should be recorded and the court should
provide its reasons for making the order (C v Sunderland Youth Court
[ 2003 J EWHC 2385).
The effect of the order should be
explained to the defendant and the exact terms pronounced in open court. Most
courts now have a practice of serving the defendant with a copy of the court
order before he or she leaves court and may also require his or her
acknowledgement. The order should set out in full the anti-social behaviour in
relation to which the order was made (7? v Shane Tony P
· EWCA Grim 287).
Once the court has decided that the
order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by the
defendant, the court must then consider what prohibitions arc appropriate to
include. Each order and therefore prohibition will need to be targeted to the
individual and the type of anti-social behaviour it is to prevent.
The prohibitions that may be imposed
are those necessary to protect persons from further anti-social behaviour by
the defendant (section 1 (6) CDA) and must not impose positive obligations.
Therefore each prohibition must be:
· negative in nature.
· precise and target the specific
behaviour that has been committed by the defendant.
· proportionate to the legitimate
aim pursued and commensurate with the risk to be guarded against, which is particularly
important where an order may interfere with an ECHR right (7? v lioness [2005]
EWCA 2395); and expressed in simple terms and easily understood.
· Identification of some of the
best practice used within the courts suggests that the following issues should
be borne in mint! when formulating prohibitions:
· A court should ask itself before
making an order are the terms of this order clear so that the offender will know
precisely what it is, he or she is prohibited from doing?’ (R v lioness |2005|
EWCA 2395).
· Less common phrases such as
‘curtilage’, ‘paraphernalia’ or ‘environs’ should be avoided as they may cause
confusion.
· Can it be enforced? Those who
will enforce the order must be able to identify and prove a breach.
· Are any excluded areas clearly
delineated? Most courts require a map to be included and it may be necessary to
delineate which side of the road forms the boundary. If a line is drawn down
the middle of a road, there may be arguments as to which side of the road the
defendant was standing.
· Does the prohibition clearly
identify those whom the defendant must not contact or associate with?
· Where the defendant is a foreign
national, some courts consider it good practice for the order to be translated
into the native tongue.
· testing the prohibition by
considering ways in which it could be breached may highlight its limitations
(7? v McGrath EWCA Crim 353).
· There is no requirement that the
acts prohibited by an order should by themselves give rise to harassment,
alarm, or distress (7? v McGrath [20051 EWCA Crim 353).
157,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
* Curfews are substantially prohibitive
and, while also a sentence of the court, there is nothing legally objectionable
to a curlew as a prohibition if the necessary protection of the public
justifies its inclusion (7? (Lonergan) v Lewes Crown Court [2005]
EWHC 457 (Admin)).
A prohibition can prohibit behaviour that
is in any event unlawful, although previously the courts have encouraged
inclusion of comparatively minor offences only (R v Shane Tony P
[2004] EWCA Crim 287). However, recently the Court of Appeal has indicated that
prohibiting behaviour that is in any event a crime does not necessarily address
the aim of an order, which is to prevent anti-social behaviour. Prohibitions
should enable agencies to act before the anti-social behaviour takes place
rather than waiting for a crime to be committed (R v Bones [2005]
EWCA 2395). Therefore, bail conditions provide a useful analogy when
considering what prohibitions to impose.
The Court of Appeal provided some
hypothetical examples by way of guidance.
If faced with a defendant who causes
criminal damage by spraying graffiti, then the order should be aimed at
facilitating action to be taken to prevent graffiti spraying by him before it
takes place. For example, the prohibition could prevent the offender from being
in possession of a can of spray paint in a public place, giving an opportunity
to take action in advance of the actual spraying. This makes it clear to the
defendant that he has lost the right to carry such a can for the duration of
the order.
If a court wished to make an order
prohibiting a group of youngsters from racing cars or motor bikes on an estate
or driving at excessive speed (anti-social behaviour for those living on the
estate), then the order should not (normally) prohibit driving while
disqualified. It should prohibit, for example, the offender while on the estate
from taking part in, or encouraging, racing, or driving at excessive speed. It
might also prevent the group from congregating with named others in a
particular area of the estate. Such an order gives those responsible for
enforcing the order on the estate the opportunity to take action to prevent the
anti-social conduct before it takes place. Neighbours can alert the police, who
will not have to wait for the commission of a particular criminal offence.
The order will be breached not just by
the offender driving but by his giving encouragement by being a passenger or a
spectator.
The court also seemed to leave open the
door for the continued use of a prohibition to prevent conduct that also
amounts to an existing offence which carries only a monetary penalty, for
example loitering for the purpose of prostitution. The court should not impose
such a prohibition merely to increase the sentence for the offence but must go
through all the steps to make sure that an order is necessary.
Further details can be found on the
Together website at www.together.gov.uk
Length of prohibitions
In R (lonergan) v Lewes Crown
Court [2005] EWHC 457 (Admin), Maurice Kay LJ referred to the duration
of prohibitions, saying:
A curfew for two years in the life of a
teenager is a very considerable restriction of freedom. It may be necessary,
but in many cases I consider it likely that either the period of curfew could
properly be set at less than the full life of the order or that, in the light
of behavioural progress, an application to vary the curfew under section 1(8)
might well succeed.’
Consequently, just because an order
must run for a minimum of two years, it does not follow that each and every
prohibition within the order must endure for the life of the order. This
approach was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in R v Bones [2005]
EWCA 2395 which considered that it might be necessary to amend or remove a
prohibition after a period of time, for example if the defendant started work.
ASBOs on juveniles should be reviewed
yearly, and further details are given on page 45.
Targeting specific behaviour
As noted above, prohibitions must
target the defendant’s specific anti-social behaviour.
But assuming the prohibitions are
negative, specific and enforceable, the
appropriateness of
31
158,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
The ter nix
of the order (the prohibitions)
the prohibitions imposed can be judged
only on the facts of each case. Therefore, a number of common scenarios are
included below for consideration, these are based on orders made by the courts,
although facts and prohibitions have been altered to highlight specific issues.
While these types of behaviour have been made the subject of orders, this
should not imply that such behaviour will automatically be held to be subject to
orders in the future.
Further examples of prohibitions can be
found on the Crime Reduction website at www.crimereduction.gov.uk
The following are examples of prohibitions
that were drawn up but were found to be too wide or poorly drafted:
· Not to be a passenger in or on any
vehicle, while any other person is jsic] committing a criminal offence in England or
Wales.
(A breach could be occasioned by
travelling in a bus, the driver of which, unknown to the subject of the order,
was driving without a licence (R (W) v Acton Magistrates’ Court
[2005] EWHC 954 (Admin)).
· Not to associate with any person or
persons while such a person or persons is engaged in attempting or conspiring
to commit any criminal offence in England or Wales. (A similar result to the
above, in that he could be associating with someone who, unknown to him, was
conspiring to commit an offence.)
· Entering any other car park, whether on
payment or otherwise, within the counties of |...]. (This was considered to be
too draconian as it would prevent the defendant from entering, even as a
passenger, any car park in a supermarket (R v McGrath [2005] EWCA
Crim 353).)
· Trespassing on any land belonging to
any person, whether legal or natural, within those counties. (As above, in that
any wrong turn onto someone else’s property would risk custody.)
· Having in his possession in any public
place any window hammer, screwdriver, torch or any
tool or implement that could be used for the purpose of breaking into motor
vehicles. (Unacceptably wide, as the meaning of any tool or implement’ is
impossible to ascertain.)
° Entering any land or building on the
land that forms a part of educational premises, except as an enrolled pupil
with the
agreement of the head of the
establishment or in the course of lawful employment.
(It was held that the term ‘educational
premises’ lacked clarity, for example it could have included teaching hospitals
or premises where night classes were held. Also, there was a danger that the
defendant might unwittingly breach the order if he played on playing fields
associated with educational premises (R v lioness [2005] EWCA
2395).)
· In any public place, wearing, or having
with you, anything that covers, or could be used to cover, the face or part of
the face this will include hooded clothing, balaclavas, masks or anything else
that could be used to hide identity. (This was found to be too wide and a
breach could occur by wearing a scarf or carrying a newspaper.)
· Doing anything that may cause damage.
(Far too wide, as it may include the
defendant scuffing his shoes.)
· Committing any criminal offence. (Taken
with other prohibitions, the divisional court commented that this was very
plainly too wide (R (on application of W) v DPP [2005] EWHC 1333
(Admin).)
Further examples and consideration of
prohibitions made for football-related violence may be found in the ease of (R
v lioness [2005] EWCA 2395).
Duration of an order
The minimum duration of an order is two
years, which was set in order to give respite to communities from anti-social
behaviour. There is no maximum period and an order may be made for an
indefinite period. It is for the court to decide the duration of an order, but
the applicant agency should propose a time period as part of its application.
The duration applied for should take
into account the age of the recipient, any special conditions that might affect
their behaviour, the severity of his or her anti-social behaviour, the length
of time it has gone on for and the recipient’s response to any previous
measures to deal with the behaviour. A longer order will generally be
appropriate in the case of more serious or persistent anti-social behaviour.
Orders issued to children and young people should be reviewed annually and
careful consideration must be given to the case for applying for such orders to
last beyond two years.
159,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
· Applying to the
courts
Summons procedure
Magistrates’ court (acting in its civil
capacity)
The lead individual in charge of the
case should arrange for an application form and three copies of the summons
form to be completed and served upon the court. Once these proceedings have
been issued, the applicant should serve the defendant with the following:
1.
the summons.
2.
a copy of the completed application form.
3.
documentary evidence of statutory consultation.
4.
guidance on how the defendant can obtain legal advice and
representation.
5.
notice of any hearsay evidence.
6.
details of evidence in support of the application as agreed
with the applicant agency’s solicitor; and
7.
a warning to the defendant that it is an offence to pervert
the course of justice, and that witness intimidation is liable to lead to
prosecution.
Wherever possible, the lead officer in
charge will ensure that service of the summons is made on the defendant in
person. If personal service is not possible, the summons should be served by
post as soon as possible to the last known address.
Where a child or a young person is
concerned, a person with parental responsibility must also receive a copy of
the summons. This could be a local authority social worker in the case of a
looked-after child as well as, or instead of, the parent. (’Parent’ has the same
meaning as under section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, and ‘guardian’ is
defined in section 107 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.)
The summons forms are set out within the
Magistrates’ Courts (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) Rules 2002. See Appendix D.
County court
The process for the county court is set
out in the Practice Direction of the updated Civil Procedure Rules at 65.21
-65.26.
Disclosure
Before evidence is disclosed, the
applicant should consult the police and other agencies to ensure that all
reasonable steps have been taken to support witnesses and minimise any
potential for witness intimidation. Evidence should not be disclosed without
the express permission of the witness. However, evidence that is not disclosed
cannot be relied on.
The applicant should seek to maintain
witness anonymity and ensure that it does not identify them by default (for
example through details of location, race, personal characteristics
or age).
Court procedures
It is important that those hearing the
case are fully briefed on the purpose of an order. There should be no confusion
as to the purpose of the order, which is to protect the community. Where the
case concerns a child, the welfare of the child is, of course, to be
considered, and indeed the making of the order should contribute to this by
setting standards of expected behaviour. But the welfare of the child is not
the principal purpose of the order hearing.
Whether or not the subject of the
application is present, the court should be asked to make the order.
Adjournments should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Magistrates’ court (acting in its civil
capacity)
An application for an order in the
magistrates’ court is made by complaint. This means that the court will act in
its civil capacity. The provisions governing civil applications for
33
160,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Applying to the courts
orders in magistrates’ courts are set
out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
The application, under section 1(3) of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, should be made to the magistrates’ court whose
area includes the local government area or police area where people need to be
protected from the anti-social behaviour.
The lead officer in charge of the case
should ensure that all the evidence and witnesses are available at the hearing,
including evidence in support of any need for the court to make an immediate
order.
Under section 98 of the Magistrates’
Courts Act 1980, evidence will be given on oath. Any magistrate or judge may
hear the case.
Where a defendant fails to attend a
hearing, the applicant may, after substantiating the complaint on oath, apply
to the court to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. Various provisions
for adjournment, non-attendance at court and the issue of a warrant for arrest
are contained in sections 54 to 57 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
County court
An application for an order in the
county court must be made in accordance with the procedure set out in the
Practice Direction at Appendix B.
Where the applicant is the claimant in
the principal proceedings, the application for the order should be included in
the claim form. Where the applicant is the defendant in the principal
proceedings, the application should be made by way of an application notice,
How to prepare a court tile for an
application
A file to support the application for
an order should be prepared by the lead agency or the solicitor acting on their
behalf.
A minimum of eight identical court
bundles will be required as follows.
· three for the magistrates.
· one for the legal adviser.
· one for the applicant’s solicitor.
· one for the defence solicitor.
· one for the defendant; and
· one for the witness box.
The files are in loose-leaf format (in
an A4 ring binder) and should be indexed and paginated.
The index and contents should include,
as appropriate:
· the summons for the order, together
with proof of service.
· the application for the order (in the
format provided by the Magistrates’ Court (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) Rules
2002);
· the defendant’s details.
· the defendant’s previous convictions.
· the defendant’s acceptable behaviour
contract (ABC) agreements.
· a summary of the incidents being relied
upon by the applicant.
1.
a map and description of the exclusion area.
2.
an association chart (showing relationships and connections
where the alleged anti-social behaviour is by a group of people).
3.
documentation of statutory consultations.
4.
supporting statements from any multiagency consultation.
5.
a statement from the officer in the case.
6.
any other statements obtained.
7.
hearsay notices.
8.
a draft order for approval by the court; and
9.
a home circumstances report where the subject of the order
is a child or young person (if necessary and completed).
The bundle should be prepared and
served on the solicitor for the defendant as soon as the summons is served.
The applicant’s solicitor should attempt to have the contents
of the bundle agreed prior to any pre-trial review. Disclosure should be
transparent and complete.
Contact
Niamh No one, Lancashire Constabulary
Email:
niamh.noone@lancashire.police.uk
Telephone: 01772
412919
161,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Applying to he
courts
which should accompany the defence. If
the applicant is not a party to the principal proceedings, an application to be
had a party and for the order must be made to the court in the same application
notice.
Orders made on conviction in criminal
proceedings
After a defendant has been convicted of
an offence, the prosecutor may make an application for an order. Alternatively,
the court may make an order of its own volition.
Orders on conviction can be made by the
magistrates’ court, the youth court or the Crown
court. The form of these orders is set out in the Magistrates’ Court Rules and
the Crown Court Rules. An order may be made only if the court sentences or
conditionally discharges the offender for a relevant offence.
The Crown Prosecution Service usually requests
the court to make an order on conviction, as there is no formal application
process for this order. The court has to consider that:
· the offender has acted in an
anti-social manner, that is in a manner that caused or was likely to cause
harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household
as the offender; and
· an order is necessary to protect
any persons in any place in England and Wales from further anti-social acts by
him.
· Evidence
· Evidence should explain to the
court the context of the anti-social behaviour and its effect on other people.
It can include:
· direct witness statements.
The head of a noisy household gets an
ASBO for ignoring repeated official warnings and threatening complaining
neighbours and council officers
Issue
In March 2004, neighbours of a house in
Lowestoft were subjected to frequent and persistent loud music, resulting in 17
complaints over the course of a month. The perpetrator, who was a housing
association tenant, had intimidated, threatened, and verbally abused her
neighbours, council officers and visitors.
Approach
A noise abatement notice was served on
the perpetrator by environmental health officers under section 80 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990. Audio equipment was confiscated following breach of the
noise abatement notice. During the confiscation, the perpetrator verbally
abused the council officers.
After seven warning letters, two
abatement notices and the confiscation of more than Ł1,000 of musical
equipment, the council was still receiving complaints.
Failure to comply with an abatement
notice without reasonable excuse is an offence, and the noisy neighbour was
taken to court. The council consulted Suffolk Police and the
housing association and proposed terms
for an order on conviction that achieved much more than the original abatement
notice was capable of.
The magistrates granted the council’s
application for an order on conviction with the following prohibitions:
· not
to play loud music that could be heard outside her dwelling; and
· not
to verbally (or otherwise) abuse: employees or agents of the council;
neighbours; or visitors to the neighbourhood.
Outcome
The order on conviction had several
advantages over the noise abatement notice as an enforcement tool. It was
easier to enforce as the evidence of experts such as environmental health
officers to prove statutory noise nuisance would not be required. The order on
conviction reduced the test of compliance to a simple (nonexpert) factual
observation of audibility’ beyond the confines of the defendant’s dwelling - a
simple matter of observable fact that, say, a police officer could witness.
35
162,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Applying to the courts
The second prohibition to deal with the
tenant’s threatening and abusive behaviour was beyond the scope of the original
abatement notice. It was granted as the council was able to produce evidence of
the tenant’s behaviour to justify the restriction gained from early
consultations with Suffolk Police and the housing association, which proved it
was a reasonable restriction to impose on the defendant.
The resulting order on conviction did
not cost any more than the noise prosecution would have cost on its own.
Obtaining these restrictions in this way avoided the need for a stand-alone
ASBO application in respect of the other aspects of the defendant’s behaviour,
saving money, avoiding several weeks' delay, and achieving faster and more
readily enforceable relief for the wider community.
Valuable lessons were learnt by
environmental health and other enforcement authorities in this action.
In particular, early consultation with
relevant agencies in the process of investigation and enforcement are important
to an ASBO’s success. And if the applicant for an order offers the other
relevant agencies the opportunity to assist in drafting appropriate
prohibitions, a successful outcome, which offers relief for the community ‘on
all fronts’, is more likely.
Contact
Andrew Reynolds, Principal
Environmental Health Officer, Waveney District Council Telephone: 01502
562111
· professional witness statements.
· hearsay evidence.
· CCTV footage.
· letters of complaint (including
anonymous complaints) to the police, the council or a
landlord.
· articles in the local press.
· the number and nature of the charges
against the defendant.
· the defendant’s character and conduct
as revealed by the evidence.
· the content of the victim’s personal
statement.
· other offences that have been taken
into consideration (TICs);
· details of final warnings or previous
convictions.
· the risk assessment in any pre-sentence
report.
· records of any non-compliance with
other interventions, e.g. ABCs or warnings; and
· the community impact statement (CIS).
A CIS can be written by a caseworker
(such as a housing officer or community safety officer) and/or by the local
police. The purpose of a CIS is to outline the effect the anti-social behaviour
is having on the wider community in a way that is clear and concise for the
judge’s consideration. In certain circumstances, some elements of evidence,
such as hearsay, CCTV footage and letters of complaint, can be put in a (Vis.
Adjournments
Section 1.0(3) of the Magistrates’
Courts Act 1980 permits adjournments to be made after conviction and before
sentence to enable enquiries to be made or, in this context, to determine the
most suitable way of dealing with an application for an order under section 1C
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.Where the court adjourns and delays
sentencing to consider the order, it can impose bail conditions in the normal manner.
Section 139 of (he Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 has amended section 1C of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 to allow lor adjournments after sentencing the offender for the purpose of
considering an order. Powers are also available to compel a defendant to return
to court after sentencing to attend the adjourned hearing.
interim orders on conviction
An interim order on conviction can be
sought to protect vulnerable witnesses and communities from threats of
violence, intimidation and further anti-social behaviour by the defendant
pending the hearing of an application for a full order. This change to the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was also introduced by section 139 of the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. For more information on interim orders,
see the
163,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Applying to the courts
article ‘What are interim anti-social
behaviour orders?’ on the Together website at www.
together, gov.uk
Step-by-step guide
A step-by-step guide to the process can
be found at Appendix E.
Public funding for defendants
A guide to public funding for
defendants can be found at Appendix F.
164,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
·
Children and young people
The Home Office, Youth Justice Board
and Association of Chief Police Officers have issued separate guidance on the
role of the youth offending team (YOT) in dealing with anti-social behaviour.7 There is also separate guidance on the interventions
available for children under 10 at Appendix B.
This section sets out the procedures
for applying for ASBOs and similar orders in respect of children and young
people, and the procedures for managing the case afterwards.
Who can apply for an order?
Agencies able to apply for orders are
the same as those for adults, and the consultation requirements are the same.
The role of the YOT needs to be clearly
set out in terms of what it can offer in the prevention of anti-social
behaviour, and in the ASBO process. All other agencies should involve the YOT
in any consideration of an order at an early stage as it is likely to have much
information to share about that young person. The YOT has a responsibility to
prevent crime and anti-social behaviour by young people, and
should help partners to obtain an order to stop the behaviour continuing where
it is deemed appropriate.
If there are any doubts about the option
of obtaining an order, these should be explored at an early stage with the YOT
and other partners, rather than in court. The YOT can also have a role in
explaining the conditions of an order to the young person and their parents,
explaining the impact of that person’s behaviour on the community, and making
it dear that the order is the consequence of that behaviour. In addition, the
YOT and other partners should offer support in order to aid compliance.
In cases of a breach of an order, the
pre-sentence report (PSR) provided to the court by the YOT should outline the
impact title behaviour has had on the community.
The YOT can also use the PSR in
criminal proceedings to recommend an order on conviction where that course of
action has been agreed and deemed appropriate.
The
PSR should also address the issue of parenting and further support to the young
person. Courts can make a parenting order with an ASBO or similar order, if a
voluntary approach has failed and it will help improve behaviour, together with an
individual support order (ISO). The YOT has a key role in both of these
interventions. Details on these are set out below,
Applications to the magistrates’
court acting in its civil capacity
Since the youth court has no civil jurisdiction, applications for
orders against under-18s will be heard by the magistrates’ court (except where
the youth court is asked to impose an order on conviction).A pilot to allow
children and young people to be joined to proceedings in the county court, for
the purpose of obtaining an ASBO where the anti-social behaviour is material to
the principal proceedings, is currently under way in 11 county courts and is due to run until September 2006.
The officer in charge of the
application should contact the justices’ clerk in advance of the hearing to
ensure that it will be conducted in a way that is suitable for the child or
young person.
Where there is an application to a
magistrates’ court lor an ASBO under section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998, or an application to a magistrates’ court for an ASBO to be varied or
discharged under section 1(8) of the Act, and the person against whom the order
is sought is under 18, the justices constituting the court should normally be
qualified to sit in the youth court.
Unlike a youth court, which is closed
to the general public, the magistrates’ court is Youth Justice Board,
Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers
(2006), Antisocial Behaviour: A guide to the role of
Youth Offending Teams in dealing with antisocial behaviour. This
can be downloaded at
www.youthjuslice
board.gov.uk/Publication’s/Scnpts/pro(IView.asp?icfproduct=212&ep =
165,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Children and young people
Dealing effectively with persistent young
perpetrators in Norfolk
Issue
Improved partnership working between
the police and the YOT was key to effectively tackling anti-social behaviour by
young people.
Approach
Regular liaison meetings of YOT and
youth inclusion and support panel (YISP) staff were held at the Safer
Communities Unit. Community reparation projects were planned which impacted on
sensitive communities or resonated with vulnerable members of the community.
Police officers forged contact with youth groups and educational centres. Part
of the action plan required YISP workers to attend a police tasking and
co-ordination meeting.
Outcomes
The YOT discussed, and was helpful to
and supportive of, community reparation
projects that added to increased public
reassurance. Work commissioned included graffiti clearance in priority areas,
and the cleaning of home Watch’ street signs that were covered in algae, and where
householders were elderly and not able to carry out that work. Two respected
local officers maintained their links with a local community youth project
through a weekly radio broadcast. On the Beat1, on the first community radio
station in Norfolk. The Safer Communities inspector became a member of the
steering group of that project. Community team officers enjoyed good relations
with the Excellence Centre, a unit for excluded or disengaged children of
school age, as evidenced by the support of the centre manager for the
Constabulary’s recent ‘Chartermark’ award.
Contact
Inspector Peter Walsh
Email: walshp@norfolk.pnn.police.uk
open to the general public and has no
automatic restrictions to prevent public and press access or to prevent
reporting of the proceedings or to protect the identity of a child or young
person (or adult) who is the subject of an application.
· The court should have a good
reason, aside from age alone, to impose a discretionary order under section 39
of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to prevent the identification of a
child or young person concerned in the proceedings.
· The applicant may resist a call
from the defendant’s representatives for such restrictions if the effectiveness
of the ASBO will largely depend on the wider community knowing the details.
The applicant should note the
following.
· Under section 98 of the
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, evidence will be given on oath, except the
evidence of a child under 14 years of age, which is given unsworn.
· Section 34A of the Children and
Young Persons Act 1933 requires the attendance of a parent or legal guardian at
court for any person under 16 years of age. Every effort should be made before
a hearing to ensure that this takes place to avoid unnecessary
adjournments.
· The court will require information about
the child’s or young person’s background, home surroundings and family
circumstances. Such information should be available to avoid the need for an
adjournment.
Assessment of needs
When applying for an order against a
young person aged between 10 and 17, the YOT should make an assessment of their
circumstances and needs. This will enable the local authority to ensure that
the appropriate services are provided for the young person concerned and for
the court to have the necessary information about them.
It is vital that any assessment does
not delay the application for an order. The lead agency should therefore liaise
closely with the local social services department or YOT from the start of the
process so that, where a new assessment is required, it can be begun quickly.
In some cases an up-to-date assessment may already be available.
3
166,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Children and young people
Councils
with social services responsibilities have a duty, arising from section 17 of
the Children Act 1989, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within
their areas who may be in need the assessment
of the needs of such children is expected to be carried out in accordance with
the Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families?
The guidance sets out the content and timescales of the initial assessment
(seven working days) and the core assessment (35 working days). A core
assessment is required when an initial assessment has determined that
the child is in need. The assessment will cover the child’s needs, the
capacities of their parents and wider family, and environmental factors. This
enables councils to determine whether the child is a ‘child in need’ and what
services may be necessary in order to address the assessed needs.
The assessment of the child’s
needs should run in parallel with evidence gathering and the application
process. Statutory agencies, such as social services, the local education authority or the health authority, have a statutory
obligation to provide services to under-18s.They should do so irrespective of
whether an ASBO application is to be made and the timing of that application.
The ASBO application does not prevent such support and can proceed in parallel,
or indeed prior to, that support.
Parenting orders
This section should be read in
conjunction with Government guidance on parenting contracts and parenting
orders. ’There is also information on the Together website
(www.together.gov.uk).The applicant for parenting orders is the YOT.
(Provisions in the Police and Justice Bill currently before Parliament aim to
extend to registered social landlords and local authorities the power to apply
lor parenting orders.)
Parenting orders are available
alongside other court action where:
· an
ASBO or a sex offender order has been made in respect of a child or young
person; or a child or young person has been convicted of a criminal offence.
· Parenting
orders can be made for children aged between 10 and 17 provided that the
conditions in section 8 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998 are not. This section stipulates that a parenting order
is desirable only if it is made ‘in the interest of preventing repetition of
the behaviour which led to the order being made.’
· The
court can decide to make the order; it is not necessary to obtain the consent
of the parent or guardian.
It is essential that parents and
guardians take responsibility for the behaviour of their children. If an ASBO or
an order on conviction is made against a child or young person, the court must
also consider making a parenting order in respect of the parents or guardians
of the child or young person. Where the parent or child has a disability, a
practitioner with specialist knowledge should be involved in the assessment
process to help establish whether the behaviour is a result of disability and
whether it could or should be addressed.
Parenting orders are civil orders that
help to engage parents8 9 10 11 to
address their child’s offending or anti-social behaviour, and to establish
discipline and build a relationship with their child. This may help the
conditions of the ASBO to be met and thereby reduce the chances of the young
person breaching the order.
The parenting order requires the parent
or guardian to comply, for a period of not more than 12 months, with such requirements as are specified in the order,
being those which the court considers desirable in the interests of preventing
any repetition of the anti-social behaviour (for example ensuring that the Department of Health (2000) Framework for the
assessment of children in need end their families.
Home Office, Youth Justice Board,
Department for Constitutional Affairs. Parenting Contracts and Orders
Guidance, February 2004.
Provision for parenting orders is set
out in sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.The orders can
be made in proceedings where a child safety order, an ASBO or sex offender
order has been made; a child or young person is convicted of an offence: or a person is convicted of an
offence under sections 443 or 444 of the Education Act 1996.
1.1.
For the purposes of the 1998 Act, the term 'parent' has the same meaning as
that contained within section 1 of the Family Law Reform Act 1987, that is
either of the child’s or young person's natural parents whether or not married
to each other at the time of their birth. 'Guardian' is defined in section 117
of the 1998 Act with reference to section 107 of the Children and Young Persons
Act 1933, and includes any person who, in the opinion of the court, has for the
time being the care of the child or young person. This may include people who
may not have parental responsibility for the child or young person as defined
in the Children Act 1989, such as stepparents.
40
167,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Children and young people
child attends school regularly, avoids certain
places, or is home by a certain time at night).
The parent or guardian is required to
attend a counselling or guidance programme for up to three months. This element
is compulsory and must be imposed in all cases when an order is made (except
where the parent or guardian has previously received a parenting order -
section 8(5)). Programmes can cover setting and enforcing consistent standards
of behaviour and responding more effectively to unreasonable adolescent
demands.
The court needs to consider an oral or
written report before making a parenting order, unless the child or young
person has reached the age of 16.T0 avoid unnecessary adjournments, such a report
should be available early in the court process.
A ‘responsible officer’, who will
generally be from the local YOT, social services, probation service or local
education authority, supervises delivery of the parenting order.
The officer will have responsibility
for, among other things, arranging the provision of counselling or guidance
sessions and ensuring that the parent complies with any other requirements
which the court may impose.
If the parent does not comply with the
order, the responsible officer can refer the matter to the police for
investigation. Such action is generally expected only where noncompliance is
sufficiently serious to warrant possible prosecution - the responsible officer
is expected to work with the parent to improve compliance. But if prosecuted
and convicted for non-compliance, the parent can be fined up to Jo 1,000 (level 3 on the standard scale).
Individual support orders
Section 1AA of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998, which was inserted by
section 322 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, provides for the making of ISOs,
which have been available since May 2004.They are civil orders and can be
attached to ASBOs made against young people aged between 10 and 17 years old. They impose positive
requirements on the young person and are designed to tackle the underlying
causes of their anti-social behaviour.
ISOs are available for stand-alone
ASBOs made in the magistrates’ courts only. Where a magistrates’ court makes an
ASBO against a young person, it must also make an ISO if it considers that an
ISO would help to prevent further anti-social behaviour. ISOs are not available
for orders on conviction, where it is expected that sentencing will address the
underlying causes of the offence.
ISOs can last up to six months and
require a young person to comply with such requirements as may be specified in
the order and any directions given by the responsible officer to that end. Such
requirements must be those which the court considers desirable in the interests
of preventing repetition of the anti-social behaviour and may include
requirements to participate in certain activities, to report to a specified
person at specified times or to comply with educational arrangements, but in no
case should they require attendance on more than two days a week. An example
would be support sessions tailored to the individual’s needs and designed to
address the causes of the behaviour that led to the ASBO being made, such as
counselling for substance misuse or an anger management programme. The ISO may
name specific activities the individual must participate in and can also
specify dates and places where attendance is required.
ISO application process
There is no need for a specific
application for an ISO, although it might be helpful to raise the issue with the
court. Where a magistrates’ court is making an ASBO (stand-alone only) against
a person under 18 years old, it is obliged to make an ISO at the same time if
the following conditions are met:
· the ISO would be desirable in the
interests of preventing any repetition of the antisocial behaviour which led
to the ASBO being made.
· the young person is not already subject
to an ISO; and
· the Secretary of State has notified the
court that arrangements for implementing the ISO are available (this was done
in April 2004 in Home Office Circular 025/2004).
The court should ensure the
requirements of the ISO and the consequences of breach are explained to the
defendant. If an ISO is not made, then the court must state why it
41
168,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Children and young people
considers that the conditions for
making the order arc not met. ISOs are not available for orders on conviction.
Role of the youth offending team
The YOT advises the magistrates’ court
on whether an ISO is necessary and the conditions an ISO should contain.
This information is based on a need’s assessment of the
young person.
The YOT is responsible for
co-ordinating delivery of the ISO and also has a role in ensuring that the
terms and conditions of both the ASBO and ISO are understood by the defendant.
The conditions within the ISO are overseen by a responsible officer who is
usually a member of the YOT, social services or local education authority.
Variation and discharge
An application to vary or discharge the
ISO may be made by either the young person subject to the ISO or the
responsible officer. The need to very an ISO may arise where support proves to
be inappropriate or the individual moves out of the area. Equally if the ASBO
linked to the ISO is varied by a court, the court may also vary or discharge
the ISO at the same time.
If the ASBO comes to an end or is
discharged, the ISO also ceases to have effect.
Breach
Breach of an ISO is an offence and
criminal penalties apply, for ISOs to be credible, breaches must be dealt with.
The responsible officer is responsible
for ensuring compliance with an ISO. It will usually be appropriate for the
responsible officer to encourage compliance using warning tetters before
instigating proceedings for a criminal prosecution.
The breach is taken forward by the
Crown Prosecution Service and breach proceedings are heard in the youth court.
If a court finds that the subject of the order has failed to comply with any
requirement of the order, they are guilty of an offence. Breach is a summary
offence and the court can impose a fine of up to:
· Ł1,000, if defendant aged 14 or over; or
· A.250, if defendant aged under 14.
Where the defendant is under 16, the
parent will usually be responsible for payment of the fine. The court also has
the discretion to order the parent to pay if the defendant is aged between 16
and 18 (as set out in section 137 of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act
2000.
A referral order is not available for
breach of an ISO.
Balcony games for the boys creates
corridor of hell for neighbours: ASBOs, ISOs and a house move bring relief for
all
Issue
Sons of two neighbouring families were
responsible for persistent noise nuisance which caused neighbours great
distress for over a year. The children of families X and Y, aged between 10 and
15, lived in first- floor council flats where they played rowdy games outside
their flats. Family X had a secure tenancy while family Y had a short-term
tenancy. Residents frequently complained to the housing office or to the local
police community support officers (PCSOs).
Approach
Police and the housing office worked
closely together on the case and discovered a pattern of nuisance. PCSOs and
the estate manager mediated between families X and Y and their neighbours. When
mediation failed, joint visits were made to warn the families of the
consequences of their continued antisocial behaviour. Formal warnings
followed, outlining the consequences of the boys’ actions in terms of potential
ASBOs and possible loss of their parents’ tenancy. When all warnings had
failed, a multi-agency team obtained an interim ASBO on the five boys to put an
immediate stop to the nuisance.
Evidence provided by PCSOs and the
estate manager was used at the hearing, and interim orders were granted.
Minor breaches over the Christmas
period were reported to the police by witnesses between the interim and full
hearing, and
42
169,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Children and young people
these strengthened the ease for the
ASBOs at the full hearing.
Witnesses who were previously fearful
of giving evidence were willing to do so at the full hearing where the ASBOs
were granted, and an ISO was attached to each ASBO to tackle some of the
underlying causes of the behaviour.
The conditions of the ASBOs on the five
boys ordered them:
· not to cause nuisance within the
vicinity of their dwellings.
· to stop knocking on doors and
windows; and
· not to play games on the
balcony. Outcome
The main benefit of the ASBOs was the
relief that they brought to the neighbours, who felt they had been supported
through the process by police and the housing office.
The ISO, devised and facilitated by Norfolk
Youth Offending Team, consisted of four hour-long sessions aimed at helping the
boys develop an understanding of how their anti-social behaviour, their
constant shouting and banging, impacted on themselves as a group, on their
immediate family, and on their neighbours.
The first session defined the ground
rules for the group, including showing respect, listening with only one person
talking at a time, no shouting, and with each member
being
allowed to voice an opinion. The second session got the boys listening to what
people were saying around them. The third session introduced elements from a
social skills game that focused on the boys’ finding different ways of asking
each other something without resorting to shouting. In the fourth session, a
worker from Positive Futures helped the boys think about what leisure
activities were available as alternatives to playing on the balcony. The youth
worker
kept the boys’ parents up to date on what was happening in the sessions.
Family X, who were relocated
away from family Y, kept their tenancy and no further problems were reported.
Similarly, family Y succeeded in stopping their anti-social behaviour.
The ISO gave the boys an
opportunity to understand the effect of their rowdy behaviour on themselves and
others. As a result of the order and the interventions of the youth worker, the
boys took up recreational activities and found constructive ways of spending
their time.
Overall, the intervention package
was a great success for the community, and for the families themselves.
Contact
Karl Hodgins
Youth Worker, Norfolk YOT Karl.Hodgins@yot.norfolk.gov.uk
In a debate in the House of Commons on
28 June, Vernon Coaker MP, a Home Office Minister, said:
“ISOs are playing their part in the
wider battle to combat anti-social behaviour and promote positive behaviour.
They have proven potential to help young people to turn around their lives and
move away from anti-social behaviour and offending.
I share the enthusiasm for ISOs of my
hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, and 1 hope that she and the other hon.
Members will encourage local agencies to make more use of such a highly
effective intervention tool.”
43
170,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
· Immediate
post-order procedure (adults and young people)
Where an ASBO or similar order is
granted, it is preferable for a copy of the order to be served on the defendant
in person prior to his or her departure from court. It is essential to
ascertain that the defendant understands the nature of the prohibitions and the
order.
Good practice - managing procedures and
timescales
Practitioners handling such orders have
taken a range of measures to minimise paperwork and delays, including:
· breaking down the process into
clear, manageable stages that are easy to follow for those unfamiliar with the
process.
· setting timeframes for each
stage of the application to keep the process focused, including a commitment to
arrange problem-solving meetings at short notice.
· releasing key staff so that they
can concentrate on the application process - this should result in evidence
gathering being conducted quickly and efficiently.
· using other agencies, such as
neighbourhood wardens and station staff, to collect additional evidence where
required (evidence gathering and attending incidents are tasks that local
authorities, registered social landlords (R l. s) and the police are already
involved in and therefore involve no additional cost);
· adopting strategies to overcome
challenges to witness evidence such as ensuring that witness statements
corroborate.
· minimising court delays by
forewarning the courts of application and using pre-trial reviews.
· sharing costs between partner
agencies and utilising the expertise from each agency; and
· not engaging in non-essential
problem solving meetings in more serious cases in order to get to court more
quickly.
Where an individual has not been
personally served with the order at the court, the court should be asked to
arrange for personal service as soon as possible thereafter.
In without notice proceedings, proof of
service of an ASBO is important, since any criminal
proceedings for breach may fail if service is challenged by the defence and
cannot be proved by the prosecution. While all other orders do not need proof
of service in order to prove breach of an order, lack of knowledge of existence
of an order will contribute to a reasonable excuse for the defence. In the case
of a child or young person, the order should also be served on the parent,
guardian or an appropriate adult, and such service should be recorded.
An order comes into effect on the day
it is made. But the two-year period during which no order shall be discharged
except with the consent of both parties starts from the date of service.
The lead agency, if not the police,
should ensure that a copy of the order is forwarded immediately to the police.
The agency should also give copies of the order to the anti-social behaviour
co-ordinator of the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, the other
partner agencies and the main targets and witnesses of the anti-social
behaviour, so that breaches can be reported and acted upon. The Justices’
Clerks’ Society guidance states that it is the responsibility of the court to
inform the police of the making of an order."
The police should notify the
appropriate- police area command on the same working day so that details of the
defendant and the conditions of the order can be recorded.
A copy of the order should be provided
to the lead agency’s legal representative on the same day as the court hearing,
and in the case of a child or young person, the court will provide a further
copy for the youth
Campbell, S. (2002) Implementing
Antisocial! Behaviour Orders: messages for practitioners. Home Office
Findings 160, Sections 1(9), 18(6) and 1C of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, as amended. justices’
Clerks' Society. Good practice guide Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. A
Guide to Law and Procedure in the Magistrates' Court, 4.5(V).
44
171,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Immediate post-order procedure (adults
and your people)
offending team (YOT).
The YOT should arrange for action to be taken by an
appropriate agency (for example social services) to ensure that the young
person understands the seriousness of the order.
It should also consider the provision
of appropriate support programmes to help avoid a breach of the order by
diverting the offender from the behaviour that led to it, although such
programmes cannot, as the law currently stands, be a condition of the order.
Enforcing the order
The obtaining of the order is not the
end of the process. The order must be monitored and enforced properly.
Partnership working after the order is
made should include information exchange to ensure early warning of problems
and clarification of who should do what to safeguard witnesses, as well as what
other action should be taken to challenge the perpetrator in such cases.
Agencies need to be alert to the
prospect that this should become a statutory requirement in the near future.
Adopting this as best practice now will enable them to achieve compliance more
readily.
Police National Computer (PNC)
Recording of orders on the PNC will
enable police forces to enforce breaches effectively. Local arrangements should
be made for orders to be placed on the PNC so that police officers are in a
position to access usable data to identify those who are subject to an order.
Conditions of the order should be appended clearly along with the identity of
the case officer so that the necessary action can be taken in ease of a breach
(which is an arrestable offence).
It is essential that breaches of an
order, appeals against the sentence and any other actions relating to the
management of the case are reported to the agency responsible for the
management of the case.
One-year review of juveniles' ASBOs
Orders issued to young people should be
reviewed each year, given young people’s continually changing circumstances, to
help ensure that they are receiving the support they need in order to prevent
breach. The review should be administrative rather than judicial and should be
undertaken by the team that decided upon the initial application. Where
practicable, the YOT should provide the group with an assessment of the young
person. Depending upon progress towards improved behaviour, possible outcomes
will include an application to discharge the order or a strengthening of the
prohibitions. Applications to vary or discharge the order will have to be made
to the court in the usual way. The overriding considerations remain the safety
and needs of the community, and the review would have to incorporate the
community’s views on the order’s effectiveness.
172,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
· Appeals
Magistrates' court (acting in its civil
capacity) and orders on conviction in criminal proceedings
Section 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 provides the offender with the right of appeal against the making of a
stand-alone ASBO. Section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 provides a
right of appeal against an on- conviction order. An appeal in both cases is to
the Crown Court. Rules 74 and 75 of the Magistrates Courts Rules 1981 and 6 to 11 of the Crown Court Rules 1982 apply
to appeals against orders. Both parties may provide additional evidence. By
virtue of section 79(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, an appeal is by way of a
re-hearing of the case. In determining an appeal, the Crown Court should have
before it a copy of the original application lor an order (if applicable), the
full order and the notice of appeal. The lead agency should ensure that copies
are sent to the court.
Notice of appeal must be given in
writing to the designated officer of the court and the applicant body within 21 days of the order (Crown Court Rules
1982, rule 7). But the Crown Court has the discretion to give leave to appeal
out of time (rule 7(5)). The agency that brought the initial application should
take charge of defending any appeal against the order. It should also lead in
action to guard against witness intimidation.
The Crown Court may vary the order or
make a new order. Any order made by the Crown Court on appeal shall be treated
for the purpose of any later application for variation or discharge as if it
were the original magistrates’ court order, unless it is an order directing
that the application be re-heard by the magistrates’ court.
Although on hearing an appeal it is
open to the Crown Court to make any incidental
order, for example to suspend the
operation of a prohibition pending the outcome of the appeal where this appears
to the Crown Court to be just, there is no provision for automatic stay of an
order pending appeal.
The order remains in force pending the
outcome of the appeal, and breach is a criminal offence even if the appeal
subsequently succeeds.
An appeal against the ruling of the
Crown Court is to the High Court by way of case stated under section 28 of the
Supreme Court Act 1981, or by application for judicial review by virtue of
section 29(3) of that Act. It is also open to the applying authority to seek to
challenge a magistrates’ decision to refuse to grant an order by way of case
stated (judicial review of the decision to the divisional court) by virtue of
section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
County court
Any appeal against an order made in the
county court must be made in accordance with part 52 of the Civil Procedure
Rules. Appeals against orders made by district judges will be to a circuit
judge and against orders made by circuit judges to the High Court.
Appeals to the High Court by case
stated
Any person who was party to any
proceedings or is aggrieved by the conviction, order, determination, or other
proceedings of the court may question the proceedings on the grounds that it is
wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.
The court can then be asked to state a
case for the opinion of the High Court.
The case stated is heard by at least
two High Court judges, and more often three judges sit, including the Lord
Chief Justice. No evidence
173,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appeals
is considered, so the hearing consists
entirely of legal argument by counsel.
Having heard and determined the
question(s) of law, the High Court may reverse, affirm or amend the original
determination in respect of which the case has been stated, or remit the matter
to the justices with the opinion of the court, or make such an order in
relation to the matter as the court may see fit.
Appeals before the Crown Court
The hearing at the Crown Court is an
entirely fresh one and, by virtue of section 79(3) of the Supreme Court Act
1981, is a full re-hearing of the case. The judgment in the ease of R v
Lamb [2005] EWCA Crim 2487 recommended that circuit judges and above
should be dealing with these cases.
Rectification of mistakes
Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts
Act 1980 gives the court power to vary
or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an
offender, if it appears to the court to be in the
interests of justice to do so. However, this section is intended to rectify
mistakes and applies only to orders made when dealing with an offender in
criminal proceedings. Therefore, this power would only be applicable to orders
made on conviction, rather than on a stand-alone application.
Application for judicial review
judicial review looks at the lawfulness
of actions and decisions. An application can be made for the High Court to
consider whether the magistrates’ court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction
properly or whether it has made an error of law, which appears on the face of
the record.
The High Court has the power to quash
the order or make a mandatory prohibiting order.
An application must be made promptly,
and in any event within three months of the date on which the grounds for the
application arose.
174,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
· Breaches
Breaches by adults
Breach of an order is a criminal
offence, which is arrestable and recordable. Prosecutions for breaches of orders
can be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), although a local
authority may also do so by virtue of section 1(1 OA) of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 (as inserted by section 85(4) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003),
which states that prosecutions can also be brought by:
1.
a council which is a relevant authority.
2.
the council for the local government area in which a person
in respect of whom an order has been made resides or appears to reside.
The lead officer managing the case
should keep the other partner agencies informed of the progress and outcome of
any breach investigation. A particular consideration will be the need to
protect witnesses. The standard of proof for prosecution of a breach of an
order is the criminal standard - ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Provision is made
in section 1(10) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a defence of reasonable excuse.
The maximum penalty on conviction in the
magistrates’ court is six months in prison or a fine not exceeding Ł5,000 or
both; at the Crown Court the maximum penalty is five years in prison or a fine
or both. Community penalties are available, but a conditional discharge is not.
Agencies and courts should not treat
the breach of an order as just another minor offence. (It should be remembered
that the order itself would normally have been the culmination of a course of
persistent antisocial behaviour.) An order will only be seen to be effective if
breaches are taken seriously.
Information on breaches can be received
from any source, including the local authority
housing department and other local
authority officers, neighbours and other members of
the public. Any information received by a partner agency should be passed
immediately to the police and lead officer, who should inform the other
agencies involved. Breach penalties are the same for all orders, including the
interim order. Court proceedings should be swift and not fractured by unnecessary
adjournments either during the proceedings or before sentencing.
Where the offender is found guilty of
the breach, the court may take reports from the local authority or police and
any applicant agency before sentencing. The court should also consider the
original reasons for making the order. A copy of the original order as granted
(including any maps and details of any prohibitions) can be put before the
court as evidence that an order has been made without the need for a statement
formally proving that an order was made (section 139 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005).
The sentence given should be
proportionate and reflect the impact of the behaviour complained of.
Breaches by children and young people
Breach proceedings for children and
young people will be dealt with in the youth court. Breach proceedings in the
youth court are not subject to automatic reporting restrictions. The Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 removed automatic reporting restrictions
for children and young people convicted of a breach of an ASBO (section 341),
and thus details about the perpetrator can be made public. The court may still
impose reporting restrictions, particularly if they were put in place when the
order was initially imposed in a civil court.
48
175,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Hreacbes
Under section 98 of the Magistrates’
Courts Act 1980, evidence will be given on oath, except the evidence of a child
under 14, which is given unsworn. Section 34 of the Children and Young Persons
Act 1933 requires the attendance of a parent or legal guardian at court for any
person under 16 years of age. The court
will require information about the young person’s background, home surroundings
and family circumstances prior to sentence. This should
be provided by the youth offending team or social services.
As with adults, community penalties are
available, but a conditional discharge is not. In addition, the youth court
should consider whether to make a parenting order, or whether the individual
support order should be amended.
49
176,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
·
Variation and discharge of an order
Variation or discharge of an order,
including an interim order, may be made on application to the court that
originally made it. An application to vary or discharge an order made on
conviction in criminal proceedings may be made to any magistrates’ court within
the same petty sessions areas as the court that made the order. The application
can be made either by the original applicant in the case or the defendant. An
order cannot be discharged within two years of its service without the consent
of both parties. An order made on conviction cannot be discharged before the
end of two years. Prohibitions, however, can be varied, removed
or added within that initial two-year period.
The procedure for variation or
discharge is set out in the Magistrates’ Courts (Anti-Social behaviour Orders)
Rules 2002, the Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2002 and the Civil Procedure
Rules. These are published separately from this guidance and are available on
the crime reduction website at www.crimereduetion.gov.uk
If the individual who is subject to the
order asks for its variation or discharge, the agency that obtained the order
needs to ensure that a considered response is given to the court. If it is
decided that the lead agency should contest the application for variation or
discharge, it should give the court its reasons, supported as appropriate by
evidence gathered in the course of monitoring the effectiveness of the order.
The magistrates’ legal adviser will send details of the variation or discharge
of any order to the local police force and local authority. The police should
record any discharge or variation of the order on their computer system and
arrange for any changes to be reflected in the Police National Computer record.
50
177,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
·
Monitoring and recording
Local agencies should agree common
procedures for recording and monitoring both their successful and unsuccessful
applications. Details of orders granted should be sent to the local crime and
disorder reduction partnership (CDRP) anti-social behaviour co-ordinator and
the local authority or police as appropriate, as well as to other agencies
involved with the offender (including the local youth offending team if the
offender is under 3 8 years old).
As a minimum there should be a record
of:
· the original application (or
details of the prosecution and hearing of any request for the order in the case
of an order on conviction), including the name, address, date of birth, gender and ethnicity of the defendant.
· the order itself, including,
where applicable, the map showing any exclusion area.
· the date and details of any
variation or discharge of the order; and
· the action taken for any breach.
· The following information could
also be recorded:
· name, address, age, gender and ethnicity of any victim - or a statement that the
case involved no identified victim.
· details of any person or persons
who complained of the behaviour.
· details of any contributory
issues, for example drugs, alcohol and substance
misuse and/or mental health problems.
· details of any aggravating
factors, for example racial motivation; and
· assessment of outcome in terms
of whether or not the anti-social behaviour ceased,
satisfy themselves and the public that
their anti-social behaviour policies do not discriminate. The Act also imposes
a duty to promote race equality. As part of this duty, local authorities and
the police should therefore ensure that they monitor the impact of their
anti-social behaviour policy on the promotion of race equality. Systems to
monitor the ethnicity of both defendants and victims will therefore need to be
in place.
This information should, where
possible, be collected on the basis of self-definition by the defendant.
From December 2006, the new general duty
under the Disability Discrimination Act requires a public authority to pay due
regard when carrying out its functions to: the need to eliminate unlawful
discrimination against disabled people; the need to eliminate
disability-related harassment of disabled people; the need to promote equality
of opportunity for disabled people; anti the need to take account of disabled
persons’ disabilities even where that involves more favourable treatment.
Advice on the general duty can also be obtained from the leaflet issued by the
Office for Disability Issues (ODI) entitled Disability equality: a
priority for all. The Disability Rights Commission website at www.dre.org.uk contains information under the section
on publications entitled. Do the Duty’.
Consistency of information will help to
assess the effectiveness of orders and inform future local audits and crime
reduction strategies.
Local authorities and other agencies,
including the police, have a duty under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
to
178,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
·
Promoting awareness of orders
The purpose of the orders is to protect
local communities from the harassment, alarm or distress that can be caused by
anti-social behaviour. An effective media strategy by the CDRP is therefore
essential if local residents and businesses are to be aware of orders and their
implications. Using the local press to ensure the community knows the subject
and conditions of the order is often a cost-effective strategy. At the same
time, the staff of the partner agencies need to understand how and when orders
can be used, and how they relate to the other tools to combat anti-social
behaviour available to the partnership.
Local agencies and CDRPs should, within
the context of their overall strategies for combating anti-social behaviour,
devise a strategy for promoting awareness of orders. A designated officer
should have responsibility for its delivery. This might most
naturally be the CDRP anti-social behaviour co-ordinator. Disclosure of
information should be necessary and proportionate to the
objective it seeks to achieve.
Suggested aims of the strategy
The aims of an effective local
publicity strategy are to:
· increase community confidence in
reporting anti-social behaviour and expectations that it can be reduced.
· deter potential offenders from
anti-social behaviour.
· ensure that the local population
is aware of orders; the powers of the local authority, registered social
landlords, Housing Action Trusts, the Environment Agency and the police
(including the British Transport Police) to apply for them; and whom to
approach if they believe that an order may be appropriate;
· ensure that agency staff have
confidence in using orders where they are deemed appropriate; and
· ensure that potential witnesses
are aware of the support available to them.
· Publicity
· Phis part of the guidance reflects the
judgment of Lord justice Kennedy, presiding judge in the case of R (on
application of Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Commissioner of Police for the
Metropolis and Chief Executive of London Borough of Brent 12004] EWHC
2229 (Admin), commonly referred to as Stanley v Brent.
Principles
1.
There is no ‘naming and shaming1 - ASBOs are not intended to
punish or embarrass individuals but to protect communities.
2.
Publicity is essential if local communities are to support
agencies in tackling antisocial behaviour. There is an implied power in the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and tire Local Government Act 2000 to publicise an
order so that it can be effectively enforced.
3.
Orders protect local communities.
4.
Obtaining the order is only part of the process; its
effectiveness will normally depend on people knowing about the order.
5.
Information about orders obtained should be publicised to
let the community know that action has been taken in their area.
6.
A case-by-case approach should be adopted, and each
individual case should be judged on its merits as to whether or not to
publicise the details of an individual who is subject to an order. Publicity
should be expected in most cases.
7.
It is necessary to balance the human rights of individuals
who are subject to orders against those of the community as a whole when
considering publicising orders.
8.
Publicity should be the norm, not the exception. An
individual who is subject to an order should understand that the community is
likely to learn about it.
179,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Promoting contourites of orders
Benefits of publicity
The benefits of publicity include the
following:
· Enforcement
- Local people have the information they need to identify and report breaches.
· Public reassurance about safety
- Victims and witnesses know that action has been taken to protect them and
their human rights in relation to safety and/or quiet enjoyment of their
property. Making local people aware of an order that is made for their own
protection can make a real difference to the way in which they live their
lives, especially when they have suffered from anti-social behaviour themselves
or lived in fear of it.
· Public confidence in local services
- Local people are reassured that if they report anti-social behaviour, action
will be taken by local authorities, the police
or other agencies.
· Deterrent to the subject of the order
- The perpetrator is aware that breaches are more likely to be reported because
details of the order are in the public domain.
· Deterrent to other perpetrators -
Publicity spreads the message that orders are being used and is a warning to
others who are causing a nuisance in the community.
The decision to publish
Each individual case should be judged
on its merits as to whether or not to publicise the details of an individual
who is subject to an order. There should be a correlation between the purpose
of publicity and the necessity test: that is, what is the least possible
interference with privacy in order to promote the purpose identified.
Decision-makers should ensure that the
decisions to publicise orders are recorded. However, this should not be seen as
an onerous, lengthy task, but merely a way of recording the process they go
through to arrive at publication. To ensure it is achieved, it is good practice
to identify an individual, such as the anti-social behaviour co-ordinator, to
be in charge of the process.
The decision-making process should aim
to consider and record several key factors:
· the need for publicity.
· a consideration of the human rights of
the public.
· a consideration of the human rights of
those against whom orders are made; and
· what the publicity should look like and
whether it is proportionate to the aims of the publicity.
The decision-making process should be
carried out early on so as to avoid any delay in publicity following the granting
of the order.
The decision-making process
Publicity must be necessary to achieve
an identified aim - this will involve a necessity test. The identified aim for
publicising could be (1) to notify the
public that an order has been obtained, to reassure the public that action has
been taken; (2) to notify the public
of a specific order so that they can help in its enforcement; or (3) to act as
a deterrent to others involved in anti-social behaviour, hi some cases two or
even all three aims will be relevant.
Disclosure of information should always
be necessary and proportionate to achieving the desired aim(s). When
identifying the aim(s), decision-makers should acknowledge, in those cases
where it is relevant, the ‘social pressing need’ for effective enforcement of
an order that prohibits anti-social behaviour to protect the community. In
effect, this is a consideration of the human rights of the wider community,
including past and potential victims. The decision-maker should recognise and
acknowledge that for publicity to achieve its aim, it might engage the human
rights of the individual who is subject to the order and potentially those of
his or her family. Publicity should be proportionate to ensure that any
interference is kept to a minimum. For example, if the legitimate aim is
enforcement of the order then personal information, such as the terms of the
order, the identity of the individual (including a photograph) and how to
report any breach of the terms should normally be included. Usually the consideration
of the effect of publicity on family members should not deter decision-makers
from the stated aim of publicising the order. However, consideration of the
impact of publicity on vulnerable family members should be made and recorded.
The defendant and his or her
180,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Promoting a wariness of orders
family should be warned of the
intention to publish details.
What publicity should look like; are
the contents proportionate?
The contents of the publicity should
also be considered and decisions about them recorded. Disclosure of information
should always be proportionate to achieving the desired aim. The contents of
publicity should include factual and accurate material.
The content and tone of the publicity
should be considered carefully. Information must be based on facts, and
appropriate language used: for example, the order itself does not mean that an
individual has been found guilty of a criminal offence, Words such as ‘criminal’
and ‘crime’ to describe the individual and their behaviour must be used with
care and only when appropriate. If the anti-social behaviour was, as a matter
of fact, also criminal, then it is permissible to describe it as criminal.
Breach of an order is an offence and should be described as such. Publicity
should be consistent with the character of the order itself: that is, a
civil prohibition (rather than a criminal order) restricting anti-social
behaviour (which may be criminal but need not be).
It would be prudent to rehearse the
facts of the case and agree on appropriate language to use. Some consideration
should be given to the personal circumstances of individuals named on the order
when deciding whether to include them in any publicity leaflet, particularly if
they are under 18. However, any arguments for not including their names must be
balanced with the need to enable those who receive the leaflet to be able to
identify a breach.
Details of conditions of
non-association named on the order, particularly where those named are also
subject to orders or have a recent history of anti-social behaviour, can be
included in publicity. Even in cases where the named individuals with whom
association is prohibited are not subject to an ASBO it will usually be
appropriate to name them once some consideration has been given to their
personal circumstances.
Type of information to include in
publicity
The type of personal information that
might be included in any publicity would be:
· the name of the individual; and/or
· a description; and/or
· the age; and/or
· a photograph; and/or
· his/her address.
· a summary of the individual's
anti-social behaviour; and/or
· a summary of, or extracts from, the findings
of the judge when making the ASBO; and/or
· a summary of, or extracts from, the
terms of the ASBO.
· the identification of any relevant
exclusion zone (as illustrated on a map).
· details of conditions of
non-associations named on the order, particularly where those named are also
subject to ASBOs or have a recent history of anti-social behaviour.
· the expiry date of the order.
· the manner in which the public can
report breaches (for example names, telephone numbers, addresses, possibility
of anonymous reporting, etc); and/or
· the names of local agencies responsible
for obtaining the ASBO.
· local contact numbers, such as those
for Victim Support, local police and housing services,
with reassurance that reports will be treated in confidence.
· date of publication.
· the identity of the group to be
targeted by the publicity (for example businesses or residents in the
vicinity); and/or
· those who are suspected to have been
subject to anti-social behaviour by the individual; and/or
· those individuals or businesses within
and immediately adjacent to an area identified in the ASBO; and
· details of the publication area, for
example within the area of any exclusion zone and the area immediately adjacent
to the exclusion zone, within the borough.
Age consideration
The age of the person against whom the
order was obtained should be a consideration when deciding whether or how to
inform people about the order. Factual information should be obtained about
whether an individual is particularly vulnerable. 'Phis should be done as early
as possible, to avoid
:54 ,
181,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Promoting awareness of orders
delays in informing the public once an
order has been obtained. The fact that someone is under the age of 18 does not
mean that their anti-social behaviour is any less distressing or frightening
than that of an adult.
An order made against a child or young
person under 18 is usually made in open court and is not usually subject to
reporting restrictions. The information is in the public domain and newspapers
are entitled to publish details. But if reporting restrictions have been
imposed, they must be scrupulously adhered to. In applications involving
children and young people where evidence has consisted of details of their past
convictions, and reporting restrictions were not lifted for the proceedings
leading to those convictions, the publicity should not refer to those
convictions. Similarly, where an order on conviction has been imposed on a
child or young person in the youth court, unless reporting restrictions are
lifted, details of the offences or behaviour alluded to in that hearing cannot
be reported. However, details of the behaviour outlined in the order on
conviction hearing can be used, unless the court orders otherwise. Where the
court making the order does impose reporting restrictions under section 39 of
the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the press must scrupulously observe
these.
A court must have a good reason to make
a section 39 order. Age alone is insufficient to justify reporting restrictions
being imposed. Section 141 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
reverses the presumption in relation to reporting restrictions in the youth
court in cases for breach of ASBOs. Automatic reporting restrictions will not
apply but the court retains the discretion to impose them. The prosecutor can
make an application to the court for this. While it is the case that from 1
July 2005 no automatic reporting restrictions have applied in cases for breach
of ASBOs relating to children and young people, when dealing with the case the
court will consider whether reporting restrictions were imposed when the
original order was granted. As ASBOs are civil orders, reporting restrictions
will not have applied (unless imposed by the court).
If reporting restrictions were imposed
at the original ASBO hearing, then unless there has been a significant change
in the intervening period, it is likely that the court will impose
reporting restrictions at the hearing
for the breach. If no reporting restrictions were imposed at the original ASBO
hearing, it is still open to the court to impose reporting restrictions at the
hearing of the breach case. If reporting restrictions are not imposed,
publicity can be considered, considering all the matters that are relevant when
considering publicising the ASBO itself.
Photographs
A photograph of the subject of the ASBO
will usually be required so that they can be identified. This is particularly
necessary for older people or housebound witnesses who may not know the names
of those causing a nuisance in the area. The photograph should be as recent as
possible.
Distribution of publicity
This should be primarily within the
area(s) that suffered from the anti-social behaviour and that are covered by
the terms of the order, including exclusion zones. People who have suffered
from anti-social behaviour, for example residents, local businesses, shop
staff, staff of local public services, particular groups or households should
be the intended audience.
All orders should be recorded on the
Police National Computer to assist enforcement.
This is particularly relevant where the
order extends across England and Wales. It may be appropriate to extend
publicity beyond the area where the anti-social behaviour was focused if there
is a general term prohibiting harassment, alarm or
distress in a wider area.
It may also be appropriate if there is
a danger of displacement of the anti-social behaviour to distribute it just
beyond the area covered by the order.
The timescale over which publicity is
anticipated to occur should also be given due consideration and decisions
recorded. It is important that publicity does not become out of date or
irrelevant. Special attention needs to be paid to posters that are distributed
to other organisations, as posters should not be left up when the need for them
has expired.
It will usually be appropriate to issue
publicity when a full order is made, rather than an interim order. However,
exceptions can be made, for example where the antisocial behaviour is severe,
where there has been extreme intimidation or where there is
55
182,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Promoting awareness of orders
a delay between the making of the
interim order and the outcome of the final hearing.
In the case of Keating v Knowsley
Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] EWHC 1933 (Admin), the judge held
that publicity could be used for interim orders. In these circumstances it
should be stated in the publicity that the order is temporary and that a
hearing for a ‘full’ order will follow, and distribution should be extremely
localised.
Consideration of human rights
Consideration of the human rights of
the individual who is subject to the order and of the human rights of the
public, including the victim(s) and potential victims, should be carried out.
Appropriate and proportionate publicity is compliant with the human rights of
the individual who is subject to the order. The Stanley v Brent
case accepted that publicity was needed for effective enforcement of the order.
Individuals do not welcome publicity and may view the effect of publicity as a
punishment. However, a subjective assessment by the individual of the effect of
publicity is irrelevant in determining the purpose of the publicity.
Consideration of the human rights implications of publicity should be recorded.
Consideration of data protection
Publicity is not contrary to the Data
Protection Act 1998 as long as authorities are operating in accordance with the
Act. There is an exemption in section 29 of the Act let the processing of
personal data for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime. This means
that personal data can be processed with a view to compliance with a statutory
function, where the data has been obtained from a person who possessed it for
the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime. This will be the case
when considering publicising an ASBO.
Type of publicity
No one directly involved in the case
(witnesses and victims) should wait unnecessarily for information about an
order. They should be informed immediately when an order is made. This is in
addition to keeping them informed of progress throughout the court process and
can be done by visits, letters and community meetings
or by phone. Victims and witnesses may also be given a copy of the order. It is
recommended that publicity be
distributed to targeted households immediately after the order has been granted
and by at least a week after the court date. Local people should be informed
when variation or discharge of an order relevant to them is made.
The method of publicity can include the
following:
· local print and television media.
· local leaflet drop; and
· local newsletter.
Practitioners need to apply the
proportionality test when deciding which method is appropriate.
Leaflets and other printed materials,
such as posters or residents’ newsletters, allow local agencies to target
particular neighbourhoods, streets or households with
information.
The public can be informed about an
ASBO at any time - publicity can be issued and re-issued according to the
circumstances. However, publicity needs to be timely to ensure that people are
able to enforce the order as soon as it has been granted and to reassure the
public that something is being done.
Working with the media
It is usual for local statutory
agencies to have working relationships with local and regional media, including
press, television and radio. This is particularly
relevant to issues such as anti-social behaviour and where the media are keen
to report how local agencies are tackling these issues through the deployment
of dispersal orders, ASBOs crack house’ closures, etc.
It is important to work with local
media and to make them understand that it is not the purpose of any publicity
to punish the individual. Media coverage has the potential to go to a wider
audience than leaflets or posters. It is good practice to identify newspapers
that report on city, borough and neighbourhood issues, free local press and
local radio and television and to develop working relationships with them. This
could include being aware of their publication deadlines, giving them
exclusives and making sure that the complainant’s (victim’s) point of view is
put across. However, it is important to
56
183,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Promoting a wariness of orders
keep close control of the material.
Witnesses should not be put at risk by disclosing dates of hearings, and your
relationships with the courts should not be jeopardised. Those subject to an
ASBO who are considered vulnerable should also not be put at risk.
Issuing a press release is a way of
retaining control of the material. There should be an agreed process for
authorisation of the press releases. The press release should contain
information that meets the identified aim of the publicity. For example, if the
aim is to help enforce the order, the information in the press release will be
more detailed than the information needed for publicity whose aim is to reassure
the community that something is being done. It is good practice to identify a
spokesperson to liaise with the press.
57
184,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appendix A
Early intervention and tackling
offending behaviour by under-10s
Interventions available
Acceptable behaviour contract (ABC)
An ABC (also known as an acceptable
behaviour agreement) is an intervention designed to engage an individual in
acknowledging his or her anti-social behaviour and its effect on others, with
the aim of stopping that behaviour. An ABC is a written agreement made between
a person who has been involved in anti-social behaviour and their local
authority, youth inclusion support panel (YISP), landlord or the police. ABCs
are not set out in law, which is why they are sometimes called agreements. Any
agency is able to use and adapt the model. An ABC or acceptable behaviour
agreement is completely flexible and can be adapted for the particular local
need. It can include conditions that the parties agree to keep. It may also
contain the agreed consequences of a breach of the agreement.
Parenting contracts (section 25 of the
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003)
Parenting contracts are voluntary
written agreements between youth offending teams (YOF’s) and the
parent/guardian of a child/young person involved, or likely to be involved, in
anti-social behaviour or criminal conduct. They are a two-sided arrangement
where both the parents and the agency will play a part in improving the young
person’s behaviour. The contract contains a statement by the parent(s) agreeing
to comply with the requirements for the period specified and a statement by the
YOT agreeing to provide support to the parent(s) for the purpose of complying
with those requirements. It is important that there is a clear agreement about
the consequences if the terms of the parenting contract are not adhered to. If
the contract is broken, the YOT may apply to the court for a parenting order (see
below), which would include compulsory requirements.
Child safety order (sections 11-13 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by section 60 of the Children Act
2004)
A child safety order (CSO) allows
compulsory intervention with a child under 10
years of age who has committed an act which, had they been aged 10 or over, would have constituted an
offence. It is designed to prevent anti-social behaviour when it is not
possible to engage on a voluntary basis with a child under 10. A CSO is made in
family proceedings in the magistrates’ court on application by a local
authority. The order places the child under the supervision of a responsible
officer, who may be a local authority social worker or a member of a youth
offending team and can include requirements designed to improve the child’s
behaviour and address underlying problems.
If the order is not complied with, the
parent can be made the subject of a parenting order if that would be in the
interests of preventing repetition of the behaviour that led to the CSO being
made.
Parenting order
A parenting order can be made in
respect of a parent of a child under 10
years of age. It can require parents to attend a parenting programme (lasting
up to three months) and specify requirements for the parent regarding
supervision of the child (lasting up to 12 months). Failure to comply with a
parenting order is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to Ł1,000 and/or a community sentence.
Under section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by the Children
Act 2004, a parenting order can be imposed on a parent of a child who is
subject to a CSO or when a CSO has been breached.
Section 26 of the Anti-social Behaviour
Act 2003 enables YOTs to apply to the magistrates’ court for a ‘free-standing’
parenting order. The court must be satisfied that the child or young person has
engaged
58
185,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
clearly intervention and Stickling
offending behaviour by under
in anti-social behaviour or criminal
conduct and that the order would be desirable in preventing further occurrences
of such behaviour.
There is provision in the current
Police and Justice Bill to extend the power to apply for parenting orders to
local authorities and registered social landlords.
For further information on parenting
orders, refer to the guidance on parenting contracts and orders at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/
parenting-orders- guidance
Local child curfew schemes (section 14
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by Criminal Justice and Police
Act 2001)
These are designed for children and
young people 15 years old and below, to help local authorities to deal with the
problem of unsupervised children or young people involved in late-night,
anti-social behaviour on the streets. Under a local child curlew scheme, a
local authority or local police force can ban children under 16 from being in a public place during
specified hours (between 9pm and 6am), unless they are under the control of a
responsible adult. With children under 10, contravening a ban imposed by a
curfew notice (for instance being found outside their homes after the curfew)
is one of the conditions under which a family court could make the child
subject to a CSO. A local child curfew can last for up to 90 days.
Junior youth inclusion projects
Junior youth inclusion projects are
based on high-crime, high-deprivation neighbourhoods across England and Wales
and work with the 8-13 age range. Projects aim to prevent youth crime in those
neighbourhoods by targeting the 50 most at-risk children and young people in
the area, assessing their needs and providing
meaningful interventions aimed at addressing those risk factors. Young people
typically are either on the cusp of offending or are already involved in
low-level offending. Ill order to engage with the 50 most at-risk young people,
projects work with around another 100 peers and siblings of core group members.
Youth inclusion support panels
Youth inclusion support panels (YISPs)
are multi-agency planning groups that serve to identify those young people in
the 8-13 age range who are most at risk of offending and engaging in
anti-social behaviour. They offer an early intervention based on assessed risk
and need. Parenting support in the form of contracts and programmes is offered
as part of a range of tailored interventions.
The suggested criteria for a young
person referred to the YISP is as follows:
· The child is aged between 8 and 13
years inclusive (up to 17 in some areas).
· The behaviour of the child is of
concern to two or more of the partner agencies and/or their parents/carers, and
they consider that it requires a multi-agency response.
· The parent/carer and child are willing
to take part, give consent to the referral and the child is willing to
co-operate with an integrated support plan.
· The child is exposed to four or more
risk factors.
· There is known offending behaviour up
to and including a police reprimand or ASBO, or there is concern over potential
involvement in criminal or anti-social behaviour.
The panel is made up of representatives
from a variety of agencies which can include YOTs; police; social services;
housing, probation, and education services; Connexions; voluntary sector
organisations; anti-social behaviour units; and the fire service. (This list is
not exhaustive and can be tailored to local circumstances.) The panel will meet
on a regular basis and consider referrals made to it in order to devise an
integrated support plan. The YISP must ensure that a mechanism is in place for
the sharing of information. The method, criteria and
considerations for this can be found by referring to the Association of Chief
Police Officers/Youth Justice Board guidance.
16 Association of Chief Police
Officers/Youth Justice Boat’s (2005) Sharing Personal and Sensitive
information in Respect of Children and Young People a! Risk of
Offending. London: Youth Justice Board,
59
186,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appendix B
County court Practice Direction
according to the Civil Procedure Rules
Anti-social behaviour orders under the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Scope of this Section and
interpretation
65.21 |
(1) |
This Section applies to applications
in proceedings in a county court under sub-sections (2), (3) or (3B) of
section IB of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 by a relevant authority, and to
applications for interim orders under section ID of that Act. |
|
|
(2} |
In this Section - |
|
|
|
(a) |
‘the 1998 Act’ means the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998: |
|
|
(b) |
'relevant authority' has the same
meaning as in section 1(1A) of the 1998 Act: and |
|
|
(0 |
'the principal proceedings' means any
proceedings in a county court. |
Application where the relevant
authority is a party in principal proceedings
65.22 |
(1) |
Subject to paragraph (2) - |
|
(a) where the relevant authority is the
claimant in the principal proceedings, an application under section 1B (2) of
the 1998 Act for an order under section 1B (4) of the 1998 Act must be made
in the claim form; and |
|
|
(b) where the relevant authority is a
defendant in the principal proceedings, an application for an order must be
made by application notice which must be filed with the defence. |
|
|
(2) |
Where the relevant authority becomes
aware of the circumstances that led it to apply for an order after its claim
is issued or its defence fiied, the application
must be made by application notice as soon as possible thereafter. |
|
(3) |
Where the application is made by
application notice, it should normally be made on notice to the person
against whom the order is sought, |
Application by a relevant authority to
join a person to the principal proceedings
65.23 |
(1) |
An application under section 1B(3S) of
the 1998 Act by a relevant authority which is a party to the principal
proceedings to join a person to the principal proceedings must be made - |
|
|
|
(a) |
in accordance with Section 1 of Part
19; |
|
|
(b) |
in the same application notice as the
application for an order under section 1B (4) of the 1998 Act against the
person; and |
|
|
(c) |
as soon as possible after the
relevant authority considers that the criteria in section 1B(3A) of the 1998
Act are met. |
|
(2) |
The application notice must contain - |
|
|
|
(a) |
the relevant authority's reasons for
claiming that the person's anti-social acts are material in relation to the
principal proceedings; and |
|
|
(b) |
details of the anti-social acts
alleged. |
|
(3) |
The application should normally be
made on notice to the person against whom the order is sought. |
60
187,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument
(2) Pdf
County court Practice Direction
according to the Civil Procedure Rules
Application where the relevant
authority is not party in principal proceedings
65.24 |
(1) |
Where the relevant authority is not a
party to the principal proceedings - |
|||||
|
|
(a) |
an application under section 18(3} of
the 1998 Act to be made a party must be made in
accordance with Section I of Part 19; and |
||||
|
|
(b) |
the application to be made a party and the application for an order under
section 16(4} of the 1998 Act must be made in the same application notice. |
||||
|
(2) |
The applications - |
|||||
|
|
(a) |
must be made as soon as possible after
the authority becomes aware of the principal proceedings; and |
||||
|
|
<b) |
should normally be made on notice to
the person against whom the order Is sought. |
||||
Evidence |
|
|
|
|
|||
65.25
An application for an order under
section 1B (4) of the 1998 Act must be accompanied by written evidence, which
must include evidence that section IE of the 1998 Act has been complied with.
Application for an interim order |
||
65.26 |
(1) |
An application for an interim order
under section ID of the 1998 Act must be made in accordance with Part 25. |
|
(2) |
The application should normally be
made |
|
(a) in the claim form or application
notice seeking the order; and |
|
|
(b) on notice to the person against
whom the order is sought. |
61
188,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appendix C
Order form
FORM
Anti-social behaviour order (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, si)
Magistrates' Court (Code)
Date:
Defendant:
Address:
On the complaint of Complainant:
Applicant Authority:
Address of Applicant Authority:
189,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Order form
The court found that:
· the
defendant acted in the following anti-social manner, which caused or was likely
to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household as himself: And
· this
order is necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts by him. And
it is ordered that the defendant
[NAME]
is prohibited from
Until [further order]
Justice of the Peace
[By order of the clerk of the court]
NOTE: If, without reasonable excuse, the
defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by this order, he
shall be liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five
years or to a fine or to both.
190,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument (3).pdf
Appendix D
Summons form
Rule 4(2)
SCHEDULE 2 FORM
Summons on application for anti-social
behaviour order (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, si)
Magistrates’ Court (Code)
Date:
To the defendant: [name]
Address:
You are hereby summoned to appear on
[date] at before the magistrates’ court at
to answer an application for an
anti-social behaviour order, which application is attached to this summons.
By or Justice of the Peace
order of the clerk of the court)
NOTE: Where
the court is satisfied that this summons was served on you within what appears
to the court to be a reasonable time before the hearing or adjourned hearing,
it may issue a warrant for your arrest or proceed in your absence.
If an anti-social behaviour order is
made against you and if, without reasonable excuse, you do anything you are
prohibited from doing by such an order, you shall be liable on conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.
191,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appendix E
Step-by-step process for anti-social
behaviour orders and orders on conviction
Process for anti-social behaviour
orders
192,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Step-by-step process fur anti-social
behaviour orders and orders on conviction
Process for an order made on conviction
in criminal proceedings (in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court)
193,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Step-by-step process for anti-social
behaviour orders (nut orders on conviction
67
194,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Appendix F
Public funding for defendants
Criminal public funding is available
for any proceedings under sections 1 and 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act (CDA)
1998 relating to ASBOs, including interim orders, where they are made in the
magistrates’ court or where an appeal is made in the Crown Court,
Advocacy assistance is available for an
ASBO, an interim order under section ID of the CDA, variation or discharge of
an ASBO, or an appeal against the making of an ASBO under section 4 of the CDA,
in accordance with the Criminal Defence Service General Criminal Contract,
Solicitors can self-grant advocacy assistance for these matters, There are no
financial criteria for the grant of advocacy assistance. Advocacy assistance
may not be provided where it appears unreasonable that approval should be
granted in the particular circumstances of the case, or where the interests of
justice test, set out in Schedule 3 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, is not
met.
In
applying this test, there is an additional factor of whether
there is a real risk of imprisonment if an ASBO is made and subsequently
breached.
A
representation order may be sought on application to the Legal Services
Commission in respect of these proceedings. Provision for representation is made
under Regulation 3(2) (criminal proceedings for the purposes of section
12(2)(g) of the Access to Justice Act 1999) of the Criminal Defence Service (General)(No.2)
Regulations 2001, and Regulation 6(3) of the same regulations.
An application to the Commission
must be made on form CDS3.An application will be determined in accordance with
the interests of justice criteria. The availability of advocacy assistance will
be a relevant factor which the Legal Services Commission will take into account
when considering the grant of rep rese n ration.
Where an application for a
representation order is refused, the Legal Services Commission shall provide
written reasons for the refusal and details of the appeal process. The
applicant may make a renewed application in writing to the Funding Review
Committee, which may grant or refuse the application.
Advocacy assistance is available for
proceedings in the Crown Court, where an appeal is made under section 4 of the
CDA. The merits test is slightly different from that on application for an
interim or a full ASBO.
It is based only on the general
reasonableness test. Advocacy assistance may not be granted if it appears
unreasonable that approval should be granted in the particular circumstances of
the case. The prospects and merits of an appeal should be taken into account as
well as whether the individual has reasonable grounds for taking the
proceedings. Representation is also available for an appeal against an order
under section 4 of the CDA. An application should be made to the Legal Services
Commission which will consider grant against the availability of advocacy
assistance.
Any challenge against the ruling of the
Crown Court to the High Court by way of case stated or by application for
judicial review falls outside the scope of criminal funding. Legal
representation would have to be applied for in accordance with the Funding Code
procedures to the Legal Services Commission. This work is funded through the Community
Legal Service although it falls within the scope of the General Criminal
Contract.
Advocacy assistance is available for a
breach of an interim order or full ASBO. Representation is also available for
breach proceedings on application to the Commission as above.
195,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton
Argument (2) Pdf
Further reading
Anti-social Behaviour: A guide
to the role of Youth Offending Teams in dealing with anti-social behaviour
published by the Youth Justice Board, the Home Office
and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which can be downloaded at
www.youth-justiceboard.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=
212&eP-
The Guidance for the Courts by
Lord Justice Thomas can be found at:
www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/NR/
rdonlyres/398987C5-E79A-491E-B912-DF3D4D762293/0/ASBOGuidanceforjudiciaryHMCS.june052.pdf
Websites
www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother -RE case 04-02-2016 21-21
04/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 196
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1. 2
Asbo Mother -RE case 04-02-2016
21-21
04/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 196
--
196
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 04/02/2016 09:21:19 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
case
This link is not working
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 04
February 2016 20:51
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: case
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01889/SN01889.pdf
Part of my submissions had been that
the allegations were that D was involved in organising illegal raves, but the
applicant hadn't adduced evidence of trespass which is a requirement for
proving that an indoor rave (which all but one was) was illegal. The DJ ruled
that the applicant did not need to prove illegality - all the needed to prove
was D had acted in an anti-social manner. In my view this is a very
questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based their case on the
illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves themselves and
secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of innocence leads to the
conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus D being prohibited from engaging
in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful consideration on issues
of proportionality. D could JR/case state this decision but I think there is
little merit in doing so because he would then lose his right to appeal to the
Crown Court and even if he succeeded in the High/Division Court, they would
merely remit it back to the lower court who would then probably go through the
motions of considering proportionality before coming to the same conclusion.
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1.
2
Asbo Office
appointment February 2016 08-02-2016 16-56
08/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 197
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2
Asbo Office appointment February
2016 08-02-2016 16-56
08/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 197
--
197
From:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time:
08/02/2016 04:56:13 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject:
Office appointment on 9th February 2016 from 4.30pm - 5.30pm
Dear Simon
I refer to tomorrow's meeting at which
I will be dealing specifically with your amended and updated statement.
Can you please ensure that you have
with you all items that you intend to exhibit to your updated statement so that
these can be exhibited, copied and sent to the Police
and properly indexed to the bundle. Please email across what you have in your
witness statement so far as your text indicated that
You will also have to consider
alternative witnesses who can confirm that you attended Dwayne's leaving event
as the police are requiring Dwayne to attend to give live evidence. I will
require statements / contact details from these potential witnesses by tomorrow
evening.
Please ensure that you attend promptly
by 4.30pm with just your witness statement and any supporting documentation
that you wish to be exhibited.
Your mother was provided with a copy of
the bundle that was forwarded to the CPS and the Court on your behalf. There
were omissions to this bundle that I was waiting to be provided with. These
will also now be forwarded.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL &
CO.
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1.
2
Asbo
FW Simon's updated statement 09-02-2016 15-59
09/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1. 2
Asbo FW Simon's updated
statement 09-02-2016 15-59
09/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392
--
198,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
February 2016 15:27
To: 'Josephine Ward'; 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE:
Simon's updated statement
Dear Josey
due to not getting replies to my
emails since the new year asking if anything else was needed to be done by as
and getting no reply I have not had time since yesterday to deal with getting a
statement re Dwayne, but I think that is covered already as Jamie Duffy was
there and he has already wrote a statement.
I told you before Christmas
Dwayne was due to go away to complete his trip that he has to cut short due to
my mum's death. I told you he is back packing so would be very hard to get hold
of once he left which was a few days after you asked me to get the tickets to
show when he was leaving and the hall details. and when you told me about
Dwayne would need to attend, I told you that would be imposable as he was due
to leave a few days after you asked me. I even called him in your office Josey
so you cannot say you did not know this.
Yes, I should be able to get
statement of other people and in your last email you did not say you needed
these statements today in the daytime you said by tomorrow evening. Which is
tonight.
I am sorry you now feel you have
to rush things as they have not been done but that is not my fault or Simon's
Josey you know I have many
health problems and I have only just had a huge amount of injections into my
spine on the 17/01/2016 and I am not allowed to run around and do things for 6
to 8 weeks after having these done. I also got the flu really badly and have
not been well for the last 2 weeks. but have still tried to get things due that
was needed but getting no replies to my emails did not help.
Josey you have had Simon 65-page
statement for months I think since Oct 2015 at the last meeting you allowed him
to attend it was given to you. It is this statement he is updating again since
we got the information from the cps in an email on the 04/02/2016.
Simon is trying to get things
done so you do not have so much to do. I have done the same thing. Me and Simon
from the start of this case have done all that was asked of us and much more,
We were asking for things to be done
since this case started which was not and only started to be done when the
appeal was put in.
If you feel the need to
re-schedule the meeting which has happened many times before then please update
us, but this meeting is to deal with Simon updated statement Josey which he has
never had a chance to do.
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD [mailto: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 09
February 2016 14:53
To: Lorraine Cordell; too smooth
Subject: Simon's
updated statement
Lorraine / Simon
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
09/02/2016 03:58:43 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW:
Simon's updated statement
Attachments:
Edited
part 5.pdf Edited part 5.doc
Here I give Josey the pdf file,
but I will include word one in this email
From: Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 09
February 2016 15:57
To: 'Josephine Ward'; 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE:
Simon's updated statement
Dear Josey
Please can you let me know if we
should attend at 16:30 hours as I need to leave to pick Simon up to get him
there on time.
Also please see attached draft
copy
Regards
Lorraine
199,
I note that I have not received the
updated statement from Simon, nor any additional statements from any witnesses
re Dwayne's leaving party. I advised you previously that Dwayne was required to
attend court, clearly, he cannot as he is travelling, hence the request for
alternative witnesses to back up Simon's alibi.
If the updated statement is not
received by 3.30pm then I will have to re-schedule the meeting for until such
time as the updated statement is received.
Regards
Josephine
200,
This document is only for Simon Cordell Solicitors
to see as Simon is not a Solicitor and needs help to address what sections need
to be placed in his updated statement and which parts will be used for his
barrister at the appeal. This is a draft copy of what can be included to make a
new updated statement and notes which the barrister will need to see.
Witness statement in pursuit of Civil
Proceedings Ci Act 1967, s;9; Mc Act 1980, ss.5A (3) and 5B.
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Rule
27.1
Introduction:
· An ASBO order has been appealed against
after the magistrates court, the decision had been made against Mr Simon
Cordell, this was at Highbury Corner, Magistrates Court, on the 4th August 2015
in pursuant to s.1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 this is to make him
subject to an Anti-Social behaviour order in order, for the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis.
· The respondent’s case is that Our
Client that we represent, has been accused of being integrally involved in the
organisation of illegal raves in Enfield on the dates listed below that are in
question by the applicant.
12/01/2013
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved
in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an
illegal rave at Canary Wharf.
24/05/2013
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved
in looking for venues, to set up an illegal rave.
25/05/2014 That Mr Simon Cordell had
been involved in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or
attended an illegal rave at Unit 5, St George’s Industrial Estate, White Hart
Lane, N17.
07/06/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved
in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an
illegal rave at an empty warehouse on progress way, Enfield.
20/06/2014 That Mr Simon Cordell had been
involved in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or
attended an illegal rave at 1 Falcon Park, Neasden Lane,
NW10.
19/07/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved
in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an
illegal rave at the Carpet Right Showroom on the A10 Great Cambridge Road,
Enfield.
24/07/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had admitted to
police officers that he was the organiser for illegal raves.
27/07/2014 That Mr Simon Cordell had
been involved in the organisation of and / or supplied equipment for and / or
attended an illegal rave at an empty warehouse on Millmarsh lane, Enfield.
09 - 10/08/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell was involved in
the organisation of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an
illegal rave at an empty warehouse on
Millmarsh Lane, Enfield. The Defendant
further actively sought to encourage a large group of people to breach the
peace.
· Reference to Pages 2 / 3
1
201,
Edited part 5.pdf
The Defendant is prohibited from:
· Attending a rave as defined by s.63 of
the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994.
· Being concerned in the organization of
a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994.
· Knowingly using or supplying property,
personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal
Justice and public orders Act 1994.
· Entering or remaining in any disused or
abandoned building.
· Entering or remaining on
non-residential private property on an industrial estate between the hours of
10pm and 7am without written permission from the owner and / or leaseholder of
the property; and
· Engaging in any licensable activity in
unlicensed premises.
Definition of Industrial buildings:
Industrial - This category ranges from
smaller properties, often called "Flex" or "R&D"
properties, to larger office service or office warehouse properties to the very
large "big box" industrial properties. An important, defining
characteristic of industrial space is Clear Height. Clear height is the actual
height, to the bottom of the steel girders in the interior of the building.
This might be 14 - 16 feet for smaller properties, and 40+ feet for larger
properties. We also consider the type and number of docks that the property
has. These can be Grade Level, where the parking lot and the warehouse floor
are on the same level, to semi - dock height at 24 inches, which is the height
of a pickup truck or delivery truck, or a full - dock at 48 inches which is semi
- truck height. Some buildings may even have a Rail Spur for train cars to load
and unload.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial property
Definition of Commercial buildings:
A commercial building is a building that
is used for commercial use. Types can include office buildings, warehouses, or
retail (i.e. convenience stores, 'big box' stores, shopping malls, etc.). In
urban locations, a commercial building often combines functions, such as an
office on levels 2-10, with retail on floor 1. Local authorities commonly
maintain strict regulations on commercial zoning and have the authority to
designate any zoned area as such. A business must be located in a commercial
area or area zoned at least partially for commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial building
Under the above definitions of Industrial
buildings and the Definition of Commercial buildings it is very clear Mr Simon
Cordell has been limited with the conditions that have been imposed by the
court and do not account for any person living a normal life or being able to
live a normal life, with the conditions that have been set out in this ASBO
order and without the conditions being defined clearly Mr Simon cannot do many
things within the whole of the UK,
Due to the definition, anything that has
a warehouse to store goods would be classed as an Industrial this would include
all large shopping stores as they have a warehouse attached to the back of them
where they sore goods for sale, also this would include hospitals, along with
many other buildings.
So since 05/11/2014 Mr Cordell has stayed
in his home and does not go out as he does not want to be in beach of this
ASBO, His family are left to deal with making sure he has shopping and the
things he needs because the way the conditions have not been defined he does
not know what he can do and what he cannot do as this was never defined.
These conditions relating to the ASBO
application that have been bound upon Mr S Cordell are for the whole of the UK
for 5 years.
2
202,
Edited part 5.pdf
When the skeleton bundle was updated
most recently on 05/02/2016 the applicant supplied a book, this book is created
by members of the Home Office, based within the United Kingdom and this books
nature is of such a guide to Anti - Social Behaviour Orders.
Please take note to page number (taking
a strategic approach page 15) which clearly states:
“The more serious the behaviour, the
greater the likelihood that the court will grant a geographically wide order.
Orders that seek to operate in the whole of England and Wales will not be
granted without evidence that that is the actual or potential geographical extent
of the problem. Further detail about effective prohibitions is given in Chapter
7.”
To have that condition imposed of such
a wide scale of areas, would be a breach of Mr Simon Cordell’s human rights,
this is inclusive for any other person who might also be banned from the whole
of the UK.
Mr Cordell has always lived in the
London Borough of Enfield since his birth, his family also have lived in the
same area all their life’s and so did Simon Nan and Granddad, Mr Cordell has
never shown any intension of moving to a new area within the UK.
And it is the Application case Mr Simon
Cordell has been accused of is contained within the Borough of North London
Enfield namely but one accused incident.
The Judge when granting the conditions
of the ASBO on Mr Simon Cordell did not address this in court and made the
order for the whole of the UK for 5 years.
It was said in court by my Barrister,
that if Mr Cordell ever does need to go to a petrol station along a motor way
or on a named industrial estate as many petrol station in fact are and he was
to do so between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours he would in fact be
in breach of this ASBO, the judge replied and said well in that circumstance of
an incident, he will be arrested and have to prove in the court that he was
going to get petrol.
Also, if he made a wrong turn when
driving and turned into a non-residential private property or into a industrial estate, that he would
be in breach of this ASBO. Together Simon Barrister and Simon Including his
mother, tried to ask questions about the conditions that have been imposed upon
himself, Simple everyday life moderately such as what if he needed to go and
get milk from Tesco's or a shop and the judge said well he will be arrested,
Simon can’t even go to a large moderately of shop such as Tesco and many more
similar new establishments between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours,
without being in breach of this ASBO. This is also shown in the above in the
definition of Industrial buildings, and also the definition of Commercial
buildings.
If Mr Simon Cordell was to go out for a
night, were music would be played as stated in the skeleton argument, that has
been provided by the applicant on page number (5 module 20), Many young people
do go out to listen to music when in private air and do not need Local
Authority permission as stated by the applicant, in today’s modern society, as
it is stated he would have to ask any owner to see there licensed to make sure
when listen to music with less than 500 people, this should only be defined
under section 63 of the crime and disorder Act, as in open Air or when Trespass
has taken place.
Skeleton argument, that has been provided
by the applicant on page number (5 module 18),
I have never been spoken to by the police
or anyone else about my behaviour, before this ASBO was served on me. I feel
very upset by the words in this section as I feel that the police are trying to
say they have spoken to me about problems they have included in this ASBO which
is not the case.
Skeleton argument, that has been provided
by the applicant on page number (5 module 19),
I did not do the acts that the police
have set out in this ASBO and I believe the police are well aware off this. We
have said over and over in this case that the public order unit holds
information to the real people who did what the police are saying I have done
in this ASBO application.
No one wanted to define the conditions
the applicant wanted to make this a life time ASBO and applied for the
conditions on the day of trial but was denied by the Judge it was also said
that after the 5 years, the applicant can apply to put a next 5 years in place
because the judge would only allow the 5 years imposed and not the life time
ASBO which covers the whole UK..
An Anti-Social Behaviour Order should
be given as the final resort, before an ASBO is considered to be put in placed
on any person. Other methods should have been tried to as before the court
proceedings in any ASBO
3
203,
Edited part 5.pdf
application to aid in bringing about a
solution depending on the offence that has been committed; this is especially
in cases of unlicensed activities. These solutions should have included the
possibility of mediation, warning letters and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
(ABC). An ABC is classed as a written agreement between any Known persistent
offenders, to which Simon Cordell has never been arrested to any think of
similar nature in fact the last time Mr Cordell was arrested, was in 2009. He
has also never been spoken to by anyone about any concerns they had.
If illegal raves have not been proven
which it was not the Judge said no illegality needed to be proven, then why do
my conditions for the ASBO still define illegal raves?
Please see article from The World Wide
Web at:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01889/SN01889.pdf
What is stated in the PDF web linked
above is typed below:
Under the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994, the police have the power to stop raves. Until January 2004,
these were defined as unlicensed open-air gatherings of 100 or more people at
which loud music is played during the night. New provisions introduced into the
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which came into effect in January 2004, reduced
the number of people who constitute a rave from 100 to 20, and removed the
requirement for the gathering to be in the open air. It also introduced an
offence of attending another trespassory rave within 24 hours of a police
direction, to stop people simply moving the rave to another place. There have
been press reports of police in some areas holding back from using their powers
for health and safety reasons, either because of the dangers of dispersing
large crowds in the dark or because of other dangerous local conditions.
However, there have also been reports of successful police action to control
raves in particular areas. Gatherings for which an entertainment licence has
been obtained are not counted as raves within the meaning of the legislation.
However, there was some controversy about so-called licensed “raves” under
provisions in the Licensing Act 2003 which came into force in November 2005.
These allow people to get temporary event notices for gatherings of up to 499
people for events lasting up to four days. The licensed events could involve
the sale of alcohol, and while the police have to review the application and
object if they consider that crime and disorder would result, there is no
mechanism for the general public to object. The Government is keeping this area
of law under review. These provisions would not apply to the kind of illegal raves
covered by the 1994 Act, which by definition are unlicensed.”
As far as I know all locations
contained within this ASBO application were in a place of fixed residence and
all occupiers / residents were living under section 144 Lasbo
as stated governed under United Kingdom Law here:
LEGAL WARNING TAKE NOTICE
THAT we live in this property, it is
our home and we intend to stay here.
THAT at all times there is at least one
person in this property.
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into
these premises without our permission is therefore a criminal offence as any
one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to such entry without our
permission.
THAT if you attempt to enter by
violence or by threatening violence, we will prosecute you. You may receive a sentence
of up to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to Ł5,000.
THAT if you want to get us out you will
have to issue a claim for possession in the County Court or in the High Court.
The Occupiers
N.B. Signing this Legal Warning is
optional. It is equally valid whether or not it is signed.
Part of the Barrister submissions that
represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were that he was
involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant hadn’t adduced
evidence, of trespass which is a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave
was illegal. The Deputy District Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to
prove illegality, - all the needed to prove was he had acted in an anti-social
manner. In the view of the barrister this was a very questionable decision:
firstly, the applicant based their case on the illegality of the raves rather
than the fact of the raves themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality
the presumption of innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal,
and thus, Simon being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity
requires more careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
4
204,
Edited part 5.pdf
It should be agreed with my barrister
statement as when dealing with this case I was addressing the applicant case to
prove that I had not been involved in organizing illegal raves, as this is what
the application against him was.
The case was proven that Simon had
acted in an in an anti-social manner, yet not one police officer who stood up
to give evidence said Simon was rude to them or acted in an anti-social manner
to them, also all witness statements have not given an ID of any person on the
dates that are within the ASBO application. but if law states such facts how this
can be correct. The case against Simon was that he had organized illegal raves,
and this should have not been proven as trespass is present and all location
refer to in private air.
The word rave cannot be used, unless
tress pass or money laundering is present when on private land, governed within
the constraints of the United Kingdom Laws.
An abatement Notice should have been
severed as all dates contained within the ASBO application, are of a fixed
private air of residence.
Under Section 80 of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 The Local authority Council are able to serve an Abatement
Notice. A noise abatement notice requires that the noise reduces or stops by
prohibiting its occurrence or recurrence. It can also require a person to carry
out works and/or take other steps to stop the noise nuisance, such as seizing
the noise-making equipment. Breaches of the notice can incur a fine of up to
Ł5,000. An abatement notice cannot always be served following an initial visit
by an officer. Depending on the type of noise nuisance it may take several
weeks; any occupiers will be advised by the officer dealing with their case of
expected timeframes to resolve the problem. Below is a copy of the form that
should have been served on any premises.
Statements made by police officers are
allegation made by police of criminal activities such as section 5, 4, 4a,
drugs, robbery, to which Mr Cordell was never arrested on the date’s within the
ASBO application, nor has he been charged, neither has any member of the public
put him or given an ID of Mr Cordell in a police witness statement or has any
civil matters been brought before the courts, in regards to himself causing
anti-social behaviour,
Convection at trial in a court room
that is citing in its civil manner, should not be able to deal with a case as
if it were a criminal case such as reference to criminal proceedings, this is
un-justified in 2016,
MR Simon Cordell feels as if he is now
left with not understanding, with what has been proven against him and what he
needs to prove for his appeal. As the conditions he is prohibited from doing is
all for illegal raves and illegal raves were not proven.
It is unjustified also that MR Simon
Cordell’s name has been slandered in the metropolitan police website, stating
that he was given an ASBO for organizing illegal raves, when the case for the
ASBO was not proven for organizing illegal raves.
Mr Simon Cordell understands that it
was proven, that he had acted in an Anti-social manner, to which if justice
profiles, he intends to prove his innocence at his appeal on the 22nd February
2016.
Mr Simon Cordell’s address was put into
the metropolitan police website stating that illegality had been proven in the
case of illegal raves, which the prosecution rests their case upon. It has also
been stated that Mr Cordell is well known for organizing illegal raves in
Enfield and across London, to which he has never been arrested for any think of
that nature or been found guilty off.
http:/Axmtentmstpohce.uk/News/Man-given-a-five-yearASBO/1400033211719/1257246745756
This has led him to having his life turned upside
down. He has had his name put into all the local newspapers, stating that he
has been found guilty for illegal raves when the judge clearly stated that no
illegality had been proved.
1. http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/13595919.Man-given-ASBO-for-organising-illegal-raves
--
2. http://www.redhillandreigatelife.co.uk/news/13595919-Man-given-ASBO-for-organising-illegal-raves
--
3. http://www.parikiaki.com/2015/08/enfield-man-given-5yr-asbo
--
5
205,
Edited part 5.pdf
--
--
--
--
This has led Mr Simon Cordell health,
to being affected in a negative manner. He was already ill before this
case started due to other allegations made by members of the police, and what
the police have done over many years, not only to Mr Simon Cordell but his
whole family, there has been many complaints put into the police, due to the
wav they treated and intimidate him and his family over many years, there is
only so much a person can take and MR Simon Cordell has taken so much over the
past 20 years from the police. He is not coping any longer and he thinks the
police wanted this, they knew he had hopes with what he wanted to do with his
life and the wav the police could hurt him was by taking his dreams away, of
ever doing anything that I had dreamed of doing.
The police have known for years
Mr Simon Cordell wanted to do work within his local community within the
entertainment field and he started this some years back, He will state that he
wanted to better himself and had spoken to the police many times about this as
he is stopped by wav of being pulled over by the police, so much and when they
ask what he is doing which they always do, I tell them what I want to do and mv
plans for mv company, but now I have no chance of getting work within mv local
community or making mv company work due to what the police have done as mv
company is based on the entertainment business, and this ASBQ is the only wav
the police knew they could stop me.
The respondent states they took
significant effort that the conditions set out in this ASBQ would not have an
effect of any legitimate business activities that I wished to undertake and
would in no way would be inhibited by this order. That I could apply for a
licence if needed and this order would have no effect on any legitimate
business activities I wished to undertake.
Mv mother has tested this by way of
making calls to local authorities within the UK to ask if an ASBQ under the
conditions I am bound to would have an effect of a person applying to local
authorities within the UK for a Alcohol and entertainment licences for an event
and there reply to this was yes it would have effect on you obtaining any
Alcohol and entertainment licences for any event due to the process that is
taken when someone applies for any Alcohol and entertainment licences this
would include applying for
· Personal licence.
· Premises licence.
· Club premises certificate.
· Temporary event notice.
· Minor variations.
So, this order will have a large effect
on the business I have been setting up for years which the police are fully
aware off.
Also, there was not any impact assessment
done to how this would affect mv normal everyday life.
Simon will state that he was not in
attendance to any organised illegal rave, on any of the said dates in question,
that is of any incidents that are contained within the applicants Bundle, nor
was he an organiser to any event on such dates; He will also induce his
statement of facts, contained within this document that is in regards to the
skeleton Argument for the respondent.
6
206,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell will state.
From since Simon Cordell was young, he
has worked hard to achieve in becoming an entrepreneur, who just wanted to
better himself. He states it has taken him many years to save and buy what was
needed so that he could start his company. He had to start with the help of his
family and help of many others to.
By 2010 he had started to put things in
place to achieve his goals he felt that he needed to start the next steps to
precede forward and started plans to build a website.
He ordered his domain name http://toosmooth.co.uk on
the 22/07/2010. Him and his mother was going to try and build the website, but
money was an issue, in building the type of website that was needed and wanted,
as this would have cost around Ł40,000 and funds were low, the website took
much longer than anticipated when planning to build, part of the reasons was
due to Mr Simon Cordell’s mothers health and also partly because of the coding
behind the website, as it was inclusive of 4 databases that was needed for the
operations of the companies objectives. By 2012 the website was coming along
and two other domains was purchased; http://toosmoothentertainment.co.uk and
http://toosmoothentertainment.com 22/05/2012,
Too Smooth had started looking ahead to the summer of 2013 to start bridging
out with contacts and doing some unpaid work for the local community, to get
the company name known as a company to be trusted in the working publics
domain, in turn help my local community and achieving some of the goals set. It
was planned to order the company name just before the work started in 2013.
But this could not happen as the police
arrested me on another accusation I was charge and this case lasted over a
year, before Mr Simon Cordell was found not guilty by a judge, this was before
the trial representing the ASBO application had started. One of the main
problems was and still is, that had to be addressed was due to errors on
Simon’s PNC record. He was remanded to prison for 2 days, until an application
was put in for bail. His bail conditions for this case were.
The prosecution’s reason for opposing
bail was:
Was the possibility of Commit further
offences whilst on bail conditions, due to Failure to surrender being present
on Simon Cordell’s criminal recorded and, on the police, national computer
(PNC)
Judge’s decision
BAIL GRANTED WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS.
Surety Ł1000 from Ms Lorraine Cordell
(To be surrendered to the nearest Police Station) - prior to release from
Custody.
Residence @ 109 Burncroft Road,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ Not to enter the London Borough of Southwark Surrender
Passport to nearest Police Station Report daily to Edmonton Police between 1400
- 1600
Curfew 8pm - 6am (doorstep condition -
the Defendant should show himself to any officer upon
Due to the accused charge errors were
noticed, the errors noticed are contained within Simon Cordell’s Criminal
recorded, this information is held on the police national computer, such as the
case of Failure to surrender, which was held at City and London Court on the
03/03/2008, this was also meant to have been taken off all records, inclusive
of the PNC, many years before this case in question had started, as it was
noted to be in error in 2009, requests with proof that this needed to be
removed was handed to the relevant departments and it was agreed that it would
be removed as it was there in error. Mr Simon Cordell has never failed to
surrender, so himself and his mother, contacted the court and asked for them to
send the memorandum of conviction from the court, which Miss Cordell Simon’s
Mother paid the fee of Ł5.00 to the court and they sent her it via email.
Please see memorandum of conviction, as this was dismissed by the court. Yet on
his PNC record, it has been marked that Simon Cordell has put a plea of guilty
in on the 25/01/2008, this is in error and is not true as this case was dismissed
by the court, “how can mistakes, be made like this and then not corrected when
attention is made to it.”
7
207,
Edited part 5.pdf
Simon Cordell and his mother also noticed
other errors that did not seem to be right with Enfield Magistrate's Court
Cases, so again they contacted the court via email; they had to contact
Highbury Corner Magistrate's Court, as now this is the main court within the
area that they live in and asked for the records to be checked.
Included were all of the Enfield
Magistrate's Court cases contained within the PNC to be checked, which did take
some time for the people at the court to overview the records. The records at
this time was still held at Enfield Magistrate's Court but have since been
moved now to Highbury Corner Magistrate's Court, once they were ready the court
was going to send them by method of post but my Simon Cordell and his mother
asked if they could go and pick them up which they was told yes that it would
be fine to do so.
Mr Simon Cordell’s mother attended
alone to Enfield Magistrate's Court she spoke to a lady and the lady was very
confused as there were a list of records that were not in the registry, The
lady even showed Simon’s Mother miss Cordell one of the books that records are
kept in. Miss Cordell asked could they have been lost by the court or removed
in such terms audited, the lady was sure they could not have been lost or
removed or audited, as the books are bound and you would see if pages had been
taken out or edited.
The lady gave Mr Simon Cordell’s mother
a copy of the records which had been checked, which 5 had a star before them,
list here is the ones that were not in the court’s registry and the words not
in registry.
Simon and his mother have tried to get
these corrected and removed from his PNC record but is still having a great
deal of trouble in doing so.
Miss Cordell asked for a printed headed
letter from Magistrate's Court, by way of asking my acting solicitors to write
the correspondence, showing that they had checked Simon’s records in turn
showing evidence that there was some that was on the PNC in error that was not
listed in the registry. This was asked because the printout provided by the
courts was not accepted by the DJ to be good enough to prove validation of the
article of facts to be a true statement, but the printout clearly shows it
comes from a court email address. Mr Simon Cordell and his mother has sent many
emails, made many phone calls and also had been down to Highbury Corner
Magistrate's Court, trying to get a headed letter to confirm that his records
were checked and proven to be incorrect, as within the ASBO application they
are using his PNC record.
Miss Cordell has been dealing with a lady
called Flo, who said she will contact Enfield Magistrate's Court, to see about
getting the letter written, as they were the ones that checked the records.
This has gone on for some time now, without any letter being written, in the
end Miss Cordell Simon’s mother went back down to Enfield Magistrate's Court
and spoke to Benedicta Objidja, who dealt with the records being checked, she
could not understand why Miss Cordell was being told that the letter had to be
done by Enfield Magistrate's Court. as they no longer do this sort of work, it
is all done at Highbury Corner Magistrate's Court, so after leaving she went
back down to Highbury Corner Magistrate's Court, where she spoke to John
Forster, she explained what was going on and this now has been going on for way
over a year, she was trying to get the records her sons PNC corrected, with a
great deal of issues. What was needed and said after she just come from Enfield
Magistrate's Court from speaking to Benedicta Objidja inclusive of what she had
just been explained, was that any letter would need to be done by this court,
which he agreed, he took some details and checked there emails and said they
had Mr Simon Cordell’s & miss Cordell’s Simon’s mother emails on their
system. He then took a copy of the paper work she had and said he would talk to
Benedicta Objidja, but was also confused at how many records was in error, he
said to her that if they are not in the court records then the cases was never
in court and asked who she had spoken to, who was working in the police
station. He could not understand why this had not been corrected; Errors like
this should never happen on my sons PNC record. He also stated he would put his
notes into a legal advisor to get a letter written.
• In Reference to Pages (2 / 3) of the
Applicants Bundle
· = Mr Simon Cordell did not attend any
premises on this date to rave, neither was he involved in the organization of a
rave, nor did he supply any equipment for any rave at Canary Wharf.
8
208,
Edited part 5.pdf
12/01/2013 = this
case was only added as a reference as to the limitation Act 1980. Which states
a case must be applied 6 months prior from the date of the incident in
question, to which it was not. Please read Mr Simon Cordell’s last statement
dated the 24/02.2015. He was in fact taken to The Royal London Hospital, after
being attacked on this day. (EXHIBIT)
No members of the public mention Mr
Simon Cordell as a person acting in an anti-social manner on this date, as well
as police officer statement’s inclusive within the Applicants bundle.
Due to Mr Simon Cordell establishing
his company he states he was meeting a lot of people in times of need, a lot of
the people he was meeting are and was homeless, as he was looking at avenues to
be able to help people.
There are no CAD's otherwise known as
incident numbers in regard to this date contained within the applicants ASBO
application.
• In Reference to Pages 2 / 3 contained
within the applicant’s bundle.
07/04/2013 = In
Steve Elsmore Statement dated 11/08/2014
07/04/2013 = Please
read Mr Simon Cordell’s last statement dated the 24/02.2015. He States He did
not attended any premises on this date to rave, neither was he involved in the
organization of any illegal rave, nor did he supplied equipment on said date.
Mr Simon Cordell will State that he was
not rude to police, but he did feel like he could not even go out for the day
with some of his friends, without getting stopped and searched by members of
the police.
It is also noted that the caller was
very clear that they saw a flat screen TV being put into Mr Cordell’s van,
which is confusing to why when the police searched the van they found no TV,
but did in fact find two of his off road motor bikes, which is not included in
Steve Elsmore statement. The police did checks on Mr Simon Cordell’s Off Road
Motor Bikes but this is also not stated, but should show up on the seizer
notice, as Mr Simon Cordell did asked the police office to take careful note of
the two of road motor bikes, as due to the high value of them.
Mr Cordell Will state that he did get a
bit upset when the police said they were going to seize his van, as he did have
insurance in place to be able to drive the van in question, but there was an
error on the MID database. Miss Cordell had been trying to help her son resolve
the issue concerning his insurance policy not showing on the mid data base
alongside with members of their local police force and his insurance company
KGM too, together they had tried to work out why Mr Simon Cordell was showing
as uninsured. There was information noted as intelligence on the police
National Computer stating this I had asked the police to check on their systems
due to this, but they would not they just wanted to seize Mr Simon Cordell’s
van without checking, so he knew he was being wrongfully accused at this point,
as he had done nothing wrong and he did have insurance to be driving and had
paid a lot of money for his insurance. He states he did not get upset in the
manner that the police have said he did and that he does not mean to come
across as rude to police. In this case he was just trying to explain the error
on the system.
In addition, the prosecution offered no
evidence in respect of the charges that were brought even though they were
reliant on police witnesses. Mr Simon Cordell had been wrongfully arrested for
not having insurance when he was insured to drive. He also did not cause any
Anti-Social Behaviour on this date in question.
There are no CAD’s for this date, but
yet they was meant to be, a CAD referring to the pacific details that should be
relating to a person stating, that they believed a burglary was in progress and
of the 999 caller stating that they had seen a person who was putting a flat
screen TV into Mr Simon Cordell’s van.
9
209,
Edited part 5.pdf
The error on the MID database would also
cause Mr Simon Cordell a great deal of problems over the years to come. Within
11 months he had his vehicles seized 9 times, this was always when his
insurance company was closed, that being on a day such as Sunday when the
insurance companies are closed, he would also be pulled over when it was
opened, in one case a police officer lied to his insurance company causing much
problems, this has known been proven to be true that a police officer did in
fact lie under oath to a Jude at the magistrates court.
Mr Simon Cordell will state he has
always been pulled over by police while driving any vehicle and will (supply
exhibit from 2004 of letter to the police) of him stating that he is in fear of
the police, for continues police harassment, especially a great deal within the
past few years, He will also state that sometimes the police would check his
insurance documents, as he always carried them with him due to the errors, so
that he could explain to the police the error on the MID and asked them to look
at the police system to help aid in times when he was being pulled over by
members of the police, So that he would always have information available for
police about this issue, A far percentage of the police that did in fact pull
Mr Simon Cordell over at road side, did check this information and let him go
without a problem. But some police just did not care and seized his vehicles,
which I then had to pay the costs to get them out of the police compound each
time. Chariton and Perivale know of Mr Simon Cordell by the end of that year
and each time he states that they would say not again. He states that he had
tried everything to get this error corrected and had called everyone about this
issue and the insurance company, he had tried to work out what was wrong, no
one seemed to be able to work it out, including the police. Mr Simon Cordell
states in Nov 2013. He was once again paying to take his vehicle out of the
vehicle compound when one of the compound staff said this is just not correct,
that you have to keep paying to take your vehicles out of the compound and that
this was not right, when a person has that of a valid insurance policy in
place, The gentleman working for the compound started to look at Mr Simon
Cordell’s documents and the database printout Mr Simon Cordell had from his
insurance company, all of a sudden the gentlemen noticed something strange, he
asked Mr Simon Cordell to take a look at this, he pointed at the paperwork in
front of them both and said I wonder if this is what is causing the problem,
there was a space within Mr Simon Cordell’s vehicle registry number, so it was
printed as CX52 JRZ and not CX52JRZ as soon as Mr Simon Cordell got back home
from the compound, he called his insurance broker and explained to them what
had just happened at the car compound and asked them to check the point of
issue, to see if this is what was causing the error. It took them some time,
but it seems it was due to my insurance being trade and the MID allowing the
space to be put in and it showed a correct upload to the MID database that
caused this problem.
But Mr Simon Cordell’s problems just
did not stop there. He did not get summons from the court in respect of the
ongoing court proceedings and was found guilty, in his absinth, for no
insurance. This was due to not knowing he had a court date, this became another
problem and he got a ban due to points this was inclusive a fine, email upon
email was being sent to the courts but case Simon and his mother was have
problems getting the issues of cause rectified and felt that as if of they were not getting dealt with correctly, nearly all
of Mr Simon Cordell’s insurance that was paid for during the period of 2014 to
2015, he could not drive due to the errors.
In reference to the case were the
police office had lied to Mr Simon Cordell’s insurance company, he had been
trying to get a copy of the tape(s), of when the police office had been
speaking to KGM my insurance company at the time of Mr Simon Cordell, being
pulled over at road side, from the police officer(s) in charge of the case,
themselves with subject access requests, to which they were not dealing with,
so the case was called to court for trial and the police officer had lied to
the judge, Mr Simon Cordell was again found guilty, and banned from driving and
fined, he submitted an appeal and the judge accepted it so now the ban was not
in force until the appeal date. The judge also helped by explaining that if Mr
Simon Cordell’s insurance company did not hand over the data that he had been
seeking to trying to get hold of by the date and time of the appeal, that he
could apply to the crown court to summons the insurance company KGM to court.
Mr Simon Cordell and his mother in fact did get the information before the
appeal date and the recording of what the police officer said to my insurance
at roadside. Mr Simon Cordell also had to get a barrister for the appeal date.
Again, the police officer lied in court, my barrister let him, then my
barrister played a little from the recording and stopped it and asked the
police officer is that you. Which he replied yes, the recording was restarted
which showed the
10
210,
Edited part 5.pdf
police officer had lied, I won my
appeal, there is a complaint that has been put in which is still being dealt
with about that case. But it took Mr Simon Cordell and his mother until 2015 to
clear his name for the reasons of no insurance, so to be able to clear all the
bans and points of his driving license, after himself and his mother sending
hundreds of emails,
• In Reference to Pages 2 / 3 contained
within the applicant Bundle.
· = Mr
Simon Cordell was looking for venues to set up an illegal rave
21. =
Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he did not attended any premises on this date to
rave neither was he involved in the organization of any illegal raves, nor did
he supply equipment. This case was only added as a reference as the limitation
Act 1980 which states that a case must be applied 6 months from the date of the
incident, to which it was not. Please read my last statement dated the
24/02.2015.
It is alleged that Mr Simon Cordell was
looking for venues in which illegal raves could be held, on 24th May 2013. Mr
Simon Cordell will dispute this. He will state that he had been contacted by a
friend called Joshua, who was living at 204 High Street Ponders End EN3 4EZ,
also known as the Old Police Station at Ponders End, as he and some others were
homeless, unless this was possible.
As Mr Simon Cordell was driving towards
204 High Street, he drove his car down the alleyway so that he could park the
vehicle he was in, He parked between two well-known land marks, Which is where
many people who do live in an around the surrounding areas, would be able to
remember as the old ponders End police station and Kinder Garden Centre. He
states he knows the area very well as this is where he has lived all of his
life, so he knew about the car park at the back of the two well-known
landmarks, as he states you cannot park on the highroad, because of the double
yellow lines or other restrictions. He had parked there before; He states he
believes and knows that the police saw his car as he began to take a right turn
to be able to drive down to where he intended to stop. He knew the police had
followed him, as he had seen them pay attention to himself as he had driven
past. He does clearly remember that of himself lock his vehicle as the police
approached him and now was standing by his side. He states that this is normal
for him and over the years of his life he has become use to the police
approaching him for numerous accusations, so that has also made him used to
their presents, Mr Simon Cordell states that that this is so normal for him, so
he got ready for the police procedures, as they said they wanted to search him
and his car because the police believed that the car he was driving smelt
strongly of cannabis, Mr Simon Cordell sates that he would always consented to
this. He is sure of his statements of facts and that the police cannot dispute
this, that of the police officers that had approached him and who had stopped
him as he had just got out of my car, or how would they have said his car smelt
strongly of cannabis, which is the reason that the police officers gave him the
conditions of search and their consent form due to a search of himself and that
of his vehicle that he was driving.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had
not done anything wrong and nothing was found on his person or in his car.
Mr Simon Cordell will dispute making
any comments about being able to attract people to illegal raves and illegal
3-day events, what reason would he have had to say this.
Mr Simon Cordell will state to the
applicant that he was a visitor to the location of interest, due to a call from
a friend who asked if Mr Simon Cordell could loan him some money for food. He
will also include that he did not cause any Anti-Social Behaviour on the 24th
May 2013.
Mr Simon Cordell does not know what Joshua
said to the police, as he was never with Joshua. Mr Simon Cordell does not know
why Joshua would have said to the police that he was his lawyer, or if Joshua
said this at all to police. Mr Simon Cordell has tried to get hold of Joshua to
make a statement for this case, but due to him being homeless, it has been very
hard. As far as he is aware the building was being occupied by people to live
in, he states he does not know anything Joshua said to police about know any
think about a rave. Mr Simon Cordell did not manage to visit him on this day.
11
211,
Edited part 5.pdf
At no point is Mr Simon Cordell being accused
of acting in an anti-social manner on this date, or by any members of the
public inclusive of members of the police, neither was he arrested.
There are no cads for this date.
• In Reference to Pages 2 / 3 - pages
98 to 100 created by Steve Hoodless yr contained
within the applicant’s application bundle.
· = was
involved in the organization of and / or supplied equipment for and / or
attended an illegal rave at unit 5, St George’s Industrial Estate, Whit Heart
Lane, N17.
25/05/2014 = Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he did not attended any premises on this date to
rave neither was I involved in the organization of any raves, nor did he supply
equipment for an illegal rave at unit 5, St George’s Industrial Estate, Whit
Heart Lane, N17.
In respect of Mr Simon Cordell presence
at Unit 5 St George’s Industrial Estate, White Hart Lane on 25th May 2014. He
attended a commercial building that the occupiers were residing in, having
displayed s144 LASPO notices and in turn treating the premises as their home. Nothing
was said to Mr Simon Cordell about a rave by the occupiers. He will state that
he was visiting friends and they were just sitting and chatting while having a
laugh. He remembers taking about ways to better life for him and his friends as
well as others.
There was no music being played or
about to be set up. He was not involved in the organization of an illegal rave
of any sort. That he did drive there in his van VRM CX52JRZ, and he does accept
that he had 2 speaker boxes in the van; however, he did not have a full sound
system and the speakers did not have any drivers in them. So he and others
could not have used the speaker box’s to play sound, he did ask the police to
note this down, and that he was only using the van as storage, this is why the
police who were in attendance allowed him to leave, while talking to the
current occupiers of the premises.
I did not on the date in question have
what would constitute as a full sound system like what is now being pursued by
the applicant as I know that it would have been seized by the police, I was not
rude to the police, I allowed my van to be searched by members of the police
and nothing was seized, and I went home I did not cause any anti-social
behaviour on the 25th May 2014.
Since this ASBO application was served
on Mr Simon Cordell, he has moved the speakers out of his van and they are
still in the (open air), at his mother’s address and are in the back garden
still to date, as if in the first day that of when he had taken them out of his
van, with no drivers in them. Mr Simon Cordell states yes at the time it would
have been better to keep them in his van due to the weather, but when he does
intend to go for a drive that he does not feel safe any longer travelling with
any sound equipment due to the ongoing ASBO application.
It is also noted that on page (98 of
the main applicants bundle) that the report was created on the 26/05/2014 for
criminal damage, the event date, is noted at: 25/05/2014, but was last updated
on the 19/06/2014 why would there be a need to update this report, it was
proven I did nothing on the CCTV.
Since this ASBO was served a lot of
research has been done in regard to the allegations contained within the
applicant’s case and it seems it is a well-known fact by police that the
accused illegal raves in question are known to be setup on social media. And
when doing a simple search at company house a director’s name other than the
name Simon Cordell is present for the company name in question and no contact
seems to have been made by police or local authority in regards to this issue
even low a letter has been provided to the applicant by the true director of
Every Decibel Matters, this letter is contained within the applicants bundle.
Also, the fact that no noise abrasion order severed by any local governing
authority has been shown as well as proof of trespass to be able to class the
dates contained within the ASBO application as such of a name as an illegal
rave. Also, it seems there was an event called
12
212,
Edited part 5.pdf
Chaotic Waves Gully posted in
>>2100+ ATTENDING<< TONIGHT!!! ☆☆CHAOTIC
WAVES//RIGHT WRONGUNS//BASSFACE SOUNDS//HOUSE OF HAVIK PRESENTS THE 1ST YEAR
ANNIVERSARY OF CHAOTIC WAVES^^FT SKUNK-WORKS ARENA. This event was on social
media. It seems this even got cancelled for what reason we have not been able
to find out as the even page has been deleted.
It seems at the last min this event was
changed to:
(Event page Chaotic Waves posted) A
VERY CHAOTIC POPUP!
Also, this page has been deleted.
After the ASBO application and personal
investigations in to what Mr Simon Cordell am being accused of, on the date in
question, a fake profile account was created and has been given access to
emails which does show a lot of what was said on the event page and where the
location that was once put up for friends only in regards to Chaotic Waves
Private party. I would like to again state I have nothing to do with this and I
am sure the police was or should already be well aware of this as it was on a
private Friends profile on social media, as it is well stated in the news the
police are aware of any events r private parties that
are being setup on social media. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has no
affiliation to illegal raves on the dates in question or otherwise.
There are no cads for this date.
At no point of time did Mr Simon
Cordell do what he has been accused of which is of acting in an anti-social
manner on this date by any members of the public or of any member of the police
on the 25/05/2014
· In Reference to Pages 2 / 3: AND ALL
CADS RELATING TO THE 6TH 7TH 8TH JUNE 2014: HIPPEY FEST PROGRESS WAY WITH ALL
CAD RELATING TO THE 6th 07th 8th
JUNE 2Q14 in relation to the applicant’s bundle.
07/06/8th June 2014 = Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he was not involved in the organization of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at an empty warehouse on
Progress way, Enfield.
· Mr Simon Cordell will supply Supported
Evidence from face book showing that he was not the organizer to any event on
the 06/06/2014 07/06/2014 and the 08/06/2014. (Exhibit)
· Mr Simon Cordell will supply Supported
Evidence from YouTube showing that he was not the organizer. (Exhibit)
· Witness statement Josie needs to email the
gentlemen my mother has already spoken to him and his corresponding emails were
sent to Josie email: The name of the gentlemen is Adrian Coombs Specialist
Operations Superintendent Essex Police. (Exhibit)
· Mr Simon Cordell will supply Supported
Evidence, from face book showing hippy fest profile pages, in turn proving that
hippy fest started on the 6th and the 7th June 2014 when he was not present.
There is also no CAD present for the 8th June 2014, which Mr Simon Cordell does
(Request alongside with all other missing incident information relating to
the 6th 7th 8th June 2014) Mr Simon Cordell believes that this information,
does also contain other relevant intelligence that proves that Mr Simon
Cordell, was not in fact involved in a rave in the occupied premises on the
dates in question. (Exhibit)
13
213,
Edited part 5.pdf
· Neither did the police see Mr Simon
Cordell At approximately at 02:03 hrs on Saturday the
7th June 2014 as A/PS Charles Miles 724ye page 32 states, but as a matter of
fact did do so on the 8th June 2014 as A/ Insp Hamill 201566 states on page 32.
· Supported Evidence of proof that the police
did not in fact see Simon Cordell and his brother Tyrone Benjamin together, as
police statements say (Exhibit) Off, Supporting Medical Evidence of
proof that my brother could not have attended on the 7th or 8th of June 2014 as
stated by office PC239YE in;
· CAD number 1047 7th June 2014 (page 175
under reason) which is linked to CAD numbers.
· CAD 1323 7th Jun 14; page 147 to 152
· CAD 1722 7th June14; page 152 to 154
· CAD 1816
7th June 14; pages 155 to 159
· CAD 2141
7th June 14; pages 160 to164
· CAD 2255
7th June 14; pages 165 to 169
· CAD 2271
7th June 14; pages 170 to 173
· CAD 1608
7th June 14; pages 184 to 186
Supported Evidence, supporting the fact
that the CAD's supporting the applicant ASBO case in relation to progress way
and other dates in question are time stamped wrong, this evidence does include.
· Standard Operational Guidelines
- East of England. http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/FOI%20Docs/Disclosure%20Log/Emergencv%20Qps/Julv%202013/F15152 h%20-%20attachment.pdf
· National Standards for Incident
Recording (NSIR) Collection and recording of police; https://www.gov.uk/govemment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
data/file/116658/count-nsir11.pdf
· Understanding Control Command; http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts
UC2.pdf
police Central Communications Command
incident procedure; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lkd4sarsfdMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=police+Central+Communications+Command+incident+procedure&source=bl&ots=663ZhaKX9
&sig=Z7DgHlgJncwLNuam0g8
EBcCja8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif39iYsMbKAhWI8A4KHdnMAoQQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=police%20Central%20Communications%20Command%20incident%20procedure&f=false
Showing evidence that is in support of
the truth, relating to that of incident numbers contained within the applicants
bundle off facts, proving that the incident numbers are in error, with
reference to earlier times than the previous time stamps on the previous
incident number / CAD numbers, as listed below;
· CAD’s (2637 pages 191 to 195) to
(2672 pages 196 to 198) on the 7th June 14; pages
· CAD’s (3005 pages 203 to 205) to
(3037 pages 179 to 183) on the 7th June 14.
· CAD (10481 pages 233 to 237) to (10506
pages 238 to 241) on the 7th
June 14.
Proving a high chance of the evidence
being that of a manufactured and engineered or such marital to be fabricated
and not true to there facts.
· Perverting the Course of Justice; http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/perverting-the-course-of-iustice.htm
Supported Evidence showing the fact
that incident numbers / cad numbers are stamped with wrong locations and if it
was not for simple mistakes of certain members working on the applicant’s
behalf, not concealing pacific(s) information such as listed below. Mr Simon
Cordell might not have been able to prove the truth to aid in his innocents in
regard to the ongoing court proceedings.
· On the majority of cads / incident
numbers, including (cad 2410 8th June 2014 Page number 273) the.
Call Tel, Call Name, Att Location, Map,
Inc Location, Call Location are Blocked out. Preventing Mr Simon Cordell from
being able to prove, that of the nature of the members of police, who are
involved within the development of the ASBO application, too be lying about the
true facts of the locations, stating that police was sure that all location
blocked out were in relation to progress way. Please take note to a snip lit,
of the court transcripts, in respect, of the ongoing ASBO proceedings at the
magistrate’s court.
14
214,
Edited part 5.pdf
Statements of officers, who also
admitted that the intelligence contained within the bundle has been copied from
the PNC also that of the officers who reported the intelligence not being
present at court. SNIPPLIT DATED 00/00/2015 (Exhibit of SNIPLIT relating to
transcripts)
Supporting evidence of Police
questioned under oath in relation to applicants ASBO on going application.
R v Cordell
Def
Mother of D in court + potentially
giving evidence.
Met
Police - No objections.
Probably the case will go over till
tomorrow.
6 Witness of facts police.
1 Officer in case.
To be 6 - 22; Case statements.
Def
Just gave info, possession of new info
on face book, not in bundles before court, but should be. Shows info suggesting
never organised but other people did, nothing to do with w/d.
DJ
Interim ASBO made case by been well
(unreadable text)
DEF
This evidence shows that Rave on 6/6/?
Was nothing to do with w/d.
Miss Cordell mother has carried out her
own investigations as she was not happy with results of investigating officer /
so/s.
It is a large bundle to get through
this late.
If material can be viewed by DJ
(Possible metered.) Then DJ can decide
on admissibility of the evidence.
DJ
Producing material, however relevant,
10 minutes before a trial is not acceptable.
Met Police 1st State
DJ
Has made application for ASBO ORDER.
Inspector Hamill is to lead.
Witness 1 - Inspector Hamill -R. O -
11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday.
I did not go inside; the gates were
closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the police but
I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @
venue but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating
under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this
date.)
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)
Met Police RE-XE
My understanding is the door staff @
gate presented D as the event organiser.
Referring to page number 184 Info re:
caller reporting incident. (Please take Note here in regard to the
applicant’s Skeleton bundle.)
DJ
Was (unreadable text) opp raised previously?
DEF
No
Witness 2 Pc Miles - RO - 11:45 AM EIC
Attended venue on the 7th alone - did
look @ Intel before attending.
Did not speak to owners
Did not know D was with Tyrone Benjamin
(Please Take note here.)
WINTNESS 3 - PC Skinner - Bundle Tabs 12
of 13 Lead Statement 1 Tab 13
On the 7th Duty officer (+) walked
into Estate and saw a van but did not recognise van.
He saw D however who admitted he was
the organiser of the rave (Statement 2 Tab 12)
Youths were committing shop lifting out
of the petrol station I had to call for reserve intervention.
I arrested D and people dispersed and D
was realised.
Rave did not take place.
No dought
rave would have continued had he not arrested D.
DEF XEX
19TH July event @ Carpet right company
building was occupied.
Saw speakers - Intel were loading
equipment indoors.
15
215,
Edited part 5.pdf
Details of van taken but was not D.
Carpet right had a pad lock round metal
barrier.
Other car park had a front entrance.
I was senior officer attending the
venue.
Later on I instructed I sergeant to
contact the owners.
I latter see the defendant getting out
the van
I can’t remember that, I may have
updated others in relation to D getting out of van. But I may or may not have
updated the system.
On the 7th June D made admissions to me
not aware of squatters (of the adjust Estate.)
Met XEX
(Reefer’s to a statement that is on
page 76.)
Witness Pc Edgose
- R.O 12:14pm EIC Read Statement 21
Incident of 24th July:
I was in a vehicle that stopped D’s
Vehicle.
No threat to break defendant’s window
(ok)
It was all about drug issues.
R V CORDELL
3
Witness VI - Pc King 12:28pm EIC Tab
15/16 Statement Page 41
Officer has only met D once before.
D has all ways been polite.
Has never had any problems with the
defendant.
D was really eloquent of clearly
knowing the how.
Witness Pc Ames - Acting sergeant - R.O
-12:46 Pm EIC
DEF XEX
Event was outdoors.
Saw sound equipment substance speakers
poss.
Approximately the size of witness box
but could not remember really as he was distracted by people.
No further questions.
Witness - Pc Elsmore - R.O - 14:10 EIC
Tab 6 - pg ?14?
DEF XEX
Council (unreadable text) curfews
(unreadable text) that PNC info on statement adds no (unreadable
text) probatory (unreadable text)
value of info re: Witness being
“afraid of D” What he puts down to the way he worded, but he meant that people
actually are afraid of possibly giving evidence in court.
R V CORDELL
4
Def
Counsel argues that officer’s statement
is designed to cause on evidence reaction of this of no value and speculatory
in nature.
DJ
How many calls from public did police
receive?
Witness
In excess of 15 calls - how many to the
same venue and no other address.
Doe’s does not know the number of
callers that are in relation to each of these occasions.
On page 15 - Allegations re:
Millmarsh Lane, evidence from officer not first-hand - relied on cads and
another Intel.
Query Re: “3 massive nitrous
tanks”
DJ
Where did you get such info officer.
Witness
From Page 65 - sergeant King - Crimit’s
Re reports, other Intel but not from people at the venue.
COUNSEL
Officer you signed a statement of truth
(unreadable text) to other witness statements.
DJ
We all know that on ASBO apps hearsay
is allowed.
R V CORDELL
5
Counsel
Why did officer no and rely on Pc Kings
Statements later than on the Crimit’s reported.
Officer no and involved in taking info
from Pc King.
(Confesses he did it.)
He did not notice the discrepancy
regarding official statements.
Have heard of Every Decibel Matters -
They were advertising and I believe the D knows a member of the above company.
No evidence D is involved in running
their operations.
No attempt has been made to speak to
directors of company.
No reason to why you didn’t /contact
the company.
I think from memory have met D once @
Edmonton police station.
(At Page 16 1st paragraph - not
consistent to fact that he met him on the 7/6/2014)
All notes with cad number were listed
from reports not officers’ own words - same applies from Cads that had not
input.
Has not made attempts to contact owners
of premises.
Officers unable to assist courts in
relation to why statements were not signed on notebooks profiles.
Another example of doings put in statements
to blacken Mr Cordell’s evidence in statement @ point 12, No convictions that
of class A drugs unlike what’s written in
16
216,
Edited part 5.pdf
Statements - another example of untrue
cut and paste.
DJ
1ll ignore because no convections of
class A drugs or supplying is present on the criminal record.
Counsel
You cannot assist with witness
reliability of info contained, can you?
Can Intel be wrongfully inaccurate? No Officer
On that particular re post, it appears
to be right.
I did not speak to Parcel he is force @
seven boroughs.
I believe he was not included in the
email, because Intel (unreadable text) Email sent to LDE only.
Searched (unreadable text) for
info on Cordell’s convections.
Moving on to statement on Page 30
Does PO investigating unit have more
info than it is letting on?
Officer
No
Are you aware that Miss Cordell has
spoken to other officers Re: Rave?
This suggests that you do not want DS
Tanner to be examined on these proceedings because she has information Re
knowledge of raves and them not being connected to W/D.
Spoke to Pc Tanner but not written what
- spoke to (unreadable text) this year You have no recorded that you
emailed her but then spoken to her.
Emails have been deleted and no copies
keep on record.
Met police
XEX OF Witness vii
Done oath seductions:
Nothing in the contents of this report
is inaccurate to my knowledge.
DEF
Hopefully the 2 witnesses on behalf of D
should be able to give evidence tomorrow.
Witness viii
Miss Cordell ATT - 16:05 - EIC
D (her son) lives separately from me
but I have been trying to help him sort out inaccuracies with both his PNC and
other police matters. Police is still popping around to his house - Simon tells
me and also I physically get to his flat before police
have left.
He is being harassed by police.
DJ
Are 6 officers not reliant - on witness
statement - there for putting a line though RD?
DEF
Material deters with PNC that was included
by Met - Therefore right to challenge. Plus PNC in evidence does not correct.
DJ
Very little weight will be given to
PNC.
DJ
Miss Cordell Met XEX
(Bottom of Page 8) the leaving
party for Dwayne Edwards.
I got there at 7:30PM and left about
9:30pm 6th - 8th June - D was also with Dwayne the days of Saturday and Sunday
as well.
He was at my house for a 1 hour and
half on Saturday and 1 hour on Sunday during the day. I agree I did not include
it in my statement.
On Sunday it was around midday.
I was not with D from about 2AM on
Sunday, no I was not.
Nor at 2AM on Saturday either.
On the 7th June I did see my son and so
did all my family members that were at the party.
(At Page 14)
“Police did not have 101 books”
(2 and 3 paragraphs)
Accepts that was told to me by DS
Chapman.
DS Tanner called me on 11th or 12th. I
believe they have a lot more information.
I am aware of full (unreadable text)
alleged involvement but not raves.
I do believe that met have a vendetta
against my whole family including Tyrone - Harassment: pull them out for
no reason, I would not say from every officer.
R V CORDELL 7
Miss Cordell continues
I am saying that there may be some
truth, but allegations of my son organising raves are horrendous.
(Been scribbled out?)
About medical statements of info has
not been contained re question: D had been stabbed and was in hospital (Been
scribbled out?)
20th June couldn’t give evidence as to
D were about but believe he had been arrested on the 19th 20th July does not
witness him - did not give detailed route in statement because did not think it
was relevant.
Problems with service of docs with police
and would not take bundle because???? With police, He panics and rings me every
time he is stopped.
I have so (unreadable text) and
right down all encounters with police all low not in the bundle.
DEF XEX
I accept involvement of police - they
interact with her son and family.
You said Met police have a lot of info
of you said “accepted involvement but not raves “
I have involvement with police of lots of
data practically with Simon, but not in regard to raves, Issues other than the
raves.
I don’t accept he is involved in
organisation of raves.
17
217,
Edited part 5.pdf
Continues Tomorrow.
R V CORDELL
2/2 DAYS
-1-
Witness XEX
So you are not yet Charity registered
“Too Smooth”
Company were young entrepreneurs can
advertise their Business.
Page 77
Retail brunches relating to music such
as sound equipment and co involved in provision of sound equipment hire.
Never took profit money from company.
(Page 87)
Deposit of Ł700-.00 daily rate is Ł100.
It is my signature at the end of this (unreadable
text) the figures have not been edited (Page 88)
All deposits are non-returnable under
any circumstances on this mandatory if the equipment got confiscated, I did not
make any profit, and I just did it to get to no people.
Non-profit - just a hobby
STATEMENT PAGE 2 - BOTTOM PAGE:
You state that I accept, and aim was to
rent equipment.
Its
being suggested to you that the business you was
designed was to make a profit.
DJ
As you own entertainment equipment -
Yes -
I was not renting out equipment - being
it a lot suggested that primary aim was to make a profit.
Renting him out sound equipment. (No
not at all.)
Are you aware that music is a licensed
activity and beliefs need a licence to play music?
I need a licence for both premises Yes.
I would not check if lending equipment
to a private party.
Too Smooth Is registered but not
trading because of the ASBO including Interim Order, my reputation has been
ruined.
Interim App on 18th 2014 so before then
June 2014 (unreadable text) 4th September Were any business transaction
conducted during the periods.
I sold Business transactions.
I have lent to councils but not for
business transactions, as a friend only.
It’s incorrect that I was setting up
raves.
Page 50 - bundle tab 9 - Inspector
Hamill
I walked from Great Cambridge Rd
towards them
Impossible for door staff to get me as,
I was on the other side of the Road.
I was never on the premises.
Yes, it is incorrect Yes POs mistaken.
Page 38 - Tab 13 - Detective Skinner 2
events Page 75 - Tab 24
D denies knowing people alleged to have
worked for him on the night - either Pc or person mentioned in statement is
wrong.
Reason why you’re found in these raves
is because you help organise them.
(Page 141)
Vehicle was owned by me but was sold
and now brought back Statement (Page 3)
(Page 104)
I was not with Holly Field on that day.
(Page 99)
Accept I was there in the van inside
the unit.
The report is wrong; I had 2 boxes in
the van - No speakers - I was not in the premises.
Did not help organise Rave and sound
equipment was not mine.
I have tried to hire equipment but
organisation of event - Birthday party nothing to do with me.
Is Pc Chandlers report wrong as well?
Yes 9 / 10 - August 2014 Bottom Page 7 (Statement)
Accept I attended venue - for Birthday dinner
- I was invited 200 People turning up had nothing to do with me.
With social networking it is easy for
someone to have 200 friends.
I had cylinders in my vehicle, requires
legal authorisations, I have them on my car, for welding - I do welding continuously.
I do it as a hobby.
I was not at the location for a large
rave.
I do remember many people turning up.
I remember police being in attendance.
I would never shout @ crowd - to busy
talking to the police.
Pc statements are wrong.
There’s a possibility that I did say to
police that it was a private conference.
DJ
Do you no that 20 people is the maximum - Yes Def xx
EX
Was Pc Edgoose out of car? - I know two
of them come out of car and approached me.
24th May Incident - Do you remember
speaking with Pc Jackson? Do not remember names.
Paragraph of T and C’S Re Falcon Park
(Statement)
Deposit does go back unless damage or
loss stopping due to breach of agreement.
Amount = No Fee.
18
218,
Edited part 5.pdf
NFO.
R v CORDELL
-3-
DEF
Additional witness is not here.
Because the statement can be read but
contain less weight because witness is not here.
Witness 2 can be here in one half
hours.
Half evidence.
Half (unreadable text)
13:30pm
DEF
NF Witness.
(unreadable text)
Closing subs.
Statutory test key:
Whether D has acted in an Anti-Social
Manner: to that did cause Alarm or Distress.
Astonishing of the council to make out that
the whole eleven officers were wrong.
D’s evidence is also not merit able and
neither his witness statements.
D’s Mothers evidence - totally
irrelevant - her evidence is based on conspiracy police have against her
family.
7th June Witness Inspector Hamill and Sos. Miles and witness Cordell (D) Inspector Hamill (unreadable
text) miles points to D being the organiser.
Disruption and concern Rave caused
outlined by Cad Reports and officers’ statements.
19th July Inspector Skinner describes a
rave and Cordell being organiser, another statement as far as D is concerned,
which is totally wrong,
Crimit’s reports show D as organiser of
large raves according to officer’s statements.
Test mode out of submissions above.
Consistent Patten of behaviour as by of
D concerned.
· Test of (unreadable text) Nuisance
(unreadable text) does not (unreadable text) delaminates (unreadable
text) of fact, but from Cad Re: alarm distress etc. Shows this has
happened.
The impact this has on police resources
looking @ noise levels and potentially speculating out of control. - Disorder
due to shutting events down.
· Pc Elsmore: Description levels other D
was subject to order has reduced - only 3 - when D was active was significant
more.
· The order is necessary, and attention
drawn to carefully word interim order.
Def Closing subs
1) Test to be passed can the allegations
be proved? Deceived that alleged it may be illegal, it does not need to cause
Alarm or Distress.
Page 2 and 3
Hearsay from Steve Elsmore is a copy
and paste job.
Pc Parcel does not correct to file
evidence, of Crimit’s, which contained incorrect evidence that can’t be backed
up, of D known for class A drugs and or supply - info is widely inaccurate.
Totality of evidence is hearsay as well
as reports at Cannery Wharf.
No proof this was an illegal rave, as
S.63 CJO 1994, No proof of Tress Pass - determination not proved to Criminal
Legal Standards.
I did x Officer of @ no time did he
indicate where info had come from.
24/05/2014
2nd Allegations - App relies on Hearsay
again and (Crimit’s.) Pages 104 - 107 noted from evidence.
2nd Could hearsay from Josher Holyfield
who allegedly confessed that was looking to set up raves (Crimit’s.) steward
not her again.
Page 98-100 - hearsay - from a Pc again
- all in 3rd person, no indication that Pc attended himself.
No evidence that it was illegal rave.
??Show determination in view of illegal
rave and no proof has been submitted or covers witness as victim.
No allegations where app. Produced 1st
hand evidence.
The particular (unreadable text) of
allegations states illegal rave and no proof of required standards has been
submitted, nothing adduced. It may be unlikely for presumption that given but
it’s possible.
In XEX. App? del failed to Enfield
Council who did not pursue.
Does it show the organiser or just
someone getting involved in things he shouldn’t.
Hearsay be (unreadable text) grounds
are not here.
No evidence police confirmed D to be
organiser.
D spoke to police - he gives reasonable
Intel calming he can’t keep his mouth shut.
A man was stating his someone else’s
lawyer.
This is a rave said to have lasted 3
days, but evidence is weak.
Tyrone’s presence was untrue due to
life threatening injuries - No competent evidence.
Police had Intel Re: Every
Decibel Matters of with no further line of investigation.
Additional hearsay, only evidence of
van of equipment of hired equipment for free.
19/07/2014
Carpet Right - Inspector Skinners
evidence - indoor test of legality is proof of trespass and nothing adducted.
Mystery why no statement taken from
owner of keys (unreadable text) And whether or not consultations had
been given to access the premises.
R V CORDELL -5-
On another occasion: Mr Cordell gave
explanations to his presents.
24/07/14
“D accepted he organised”, Pc Edgoose
Page 50 - statement said he “did organise illegal raves” Admissions alleged
from evidence, Entirely of conversations of others, not clear.
27/07/14
Same as Millmarsh Lane, hearsay
evidence of number of Pc’s called and gave evidence.
Interesting that someone other than D (unreadable
text) led a (unreadable text)
19
219,
Edited part 5.pdf
Evidence of people living and
potentially others on the land treating it as home.
Further evidence inaccurate
Shoplifters.
9/10 August
Evidence of Pc officers does not
match up with allegations in application - on his duties odd their being
squatters, also did not try to contact owner while on duty suggesting D there
at private party - due to lack of suitable equipment, evidence D was attending
a private party.
Councillor: (unreadable text)
The general credibility of the
witness’s (unreadable text) errors because of the hearsay of Crimit’s of no
prominence taken into account weight of statement.
Page 32 (unreadable text) day
and event 2
Inconsistencies that are bios
for officers to include evidence that favours Application by being unreadable.
Allegation of 15 - 10 boys
(unreadable text) to talk un relative of conduct.
Fear of reprisals.
LTC when given evidence was to
prove sound organisation possibly which D accepts.
If (unreadable text) D was
polite on his case
Investigation not performed with
measurements as it should have been.
Vendetta families highlighted.
Inconsistence’s between start of
Crimit’s, complete absinth of follow up is simply worrying.
What other info is wrong that we
have not been able to check?
DJ
Mr Justino (UN READABLE TEXT)
Test Not related to police
resources.
Was ASBO serious and persistent?
Decrease in activity - “huge
decrees since Interim ASBO “but no indication of trends: before - after and
previous years.
Pc Elsmore couldn’t say why
decrease in raves.
Correspondence of consultation -
so far this relay wrongfully weak evidence.
Met on points of how
The statutory test in relation
to rave into what is required.
DJ
Delivery of judgment @ 15:32pm
DJ
Is satisfied, so that she is
sure, that the D did act during dates in such a manner.
ABSBO Granted
Order necessary for reasons:
Nature of the conduct of these
parties’
Noise (UN READABLE TEXT)
civil(s)
Police officers have to attend
in large numbers.
Since interim order there has
been a decrease in this type of activity.
Satisfied D has acted in as manner
of such conduct that causes harassment alarm, distress.
Conduct (unreadable text) It is
necessary to protect residents of Enfield, from anti-social acts from Simon
Cordell.
DJ
Need to ensure probations are
precise to award Asbo application DEF
D’s attendance at raves is not
an issue and places unreasonable burden on him for attending parties when 20
people attended and what appears to be illegal then turns out to be legal, also
places D in a difficult position if false steps are made to legality of parties
ASBO must be prevelitive
DJ
D Can carry out legitimate and
licensed business.
Point D “or local authority
addition.
DJ “To a
period of 5 years”
Propitiations are precise and
plain Terms of Order D
to upset then left room but
lawyer present.
Terms
Needs adding END
PAGE 274 of the Applicants
Bundle; please take note to the blocked-out section, that of incident and
location information relating to cad 2410 entered at 05:35 0n 8th June 14.
Page 275; please take note to
the blocked-out section,
Now please take note to Page
276-chapter one line one reference to (A&J Cars)
Google maps image of A & j
Cars also showing Crown Road opposite also known as the old man
building rented to Travis
Perkins.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.649023,0.0539363.3a.75v.353.77h.87.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spFsctdo0rnT0iIW6gsMHK0!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
20
220,
Edited part 5.pdf
(Enfield A&J Car’s North London.)
To which if it was not for this one piece of truth not being left unblock any
Jude would believe a police officer over any citizen, as the last magistrates
district Judge did do so. please take a look at a copy of the court transcripts
below. (Court Transcript)
• Page number 278 to 283 contained
within the applicant’s bundle is also explicitly linked to:
cad number 2456: 07th Jun 14) and
implicitly to:
CAD 2649: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 2989: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was. This
is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 989: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 3274: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 3754: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was. This
is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 5586: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 7983: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 8190: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 8528: 01 Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 6851: 02nd
Jun 14
(Mr Simon Cordell was not present on
this date; neither does any police or members of the public say that he was.
This is in fact Crown Road, the week before the 6th 7th 8th of accused events at progress way.)
CAD 943: 07th 14 CAD 1012: 07th Jun 14
CAD 1047: 07th Jun 14
This 999 Caller who is a repeat victim
caller, was talking about a
event 10 mins up the Road opposite Southbury Train Station who lives at (93
Broadlands Avenue, Enfield)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/93+Broadlands+Ave,+Enfield,+Greater+London+EN3+5AG/@5 1.6511736,-0.0548688.16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x48761fD8f37606db:0xabeca8d1453c46e8 This
contaminates all the Cad’s and shows that the police officers are not sure were
the people coming out of the train station were going to as the train station
is a 2 min walk to Crown road.
This is not right because ATT Location
and INC Location as well as caller location are blocked out on most cads making
it impossible to see what other errors or incorrect truths are being made.
• Supporting evidence that 32 Crown RD
(A&J Cars) Landmark was in fact being occupied under section 144 Lasso.
Google earth image street view of front gate with section on https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6497295,0.05383533a15v104.32h81.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazWzv
HhHaW6zAbaVnkivA!2e0!7i 13312!8i6656
Supporting Evidence proving that 32
Crown RD was having events every weekend
(Exhibit)
21
221,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell will state that none
of the incident numbers relating to the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 did he acting in
an Anti-social manner, that was likely to cause harm, alarm
or distress, to any person or fix a bow of residence.
List of CAD's and Information Relating To
the 7th Contained Within the ASBO Application
· There are 93 incident numbers relating to
the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 Mr Simon Cordell is being accused of as listed below.
· A list of Cad / incident numbers
including supported relevant articles contained within the bundle are as listed
below and that of any that is missing, any of the relevant documentation, so to
be able to deafened the client Mr Simon Cordell, from all accusation creating
the bases of an ASBO application. A list is indexed below and contained within
this document. 1 of 93
CAD 7th June 1012 at 01:53 on 7th June
14,
ESSO STN pages 143 to 146.
FIRST PART ABOVE
Around 2:00am on the 8th Mr Simon
Cordell states he was just arriving at progress way and was said to have been
seen by police
On page 32 A/Insp Hamill 01566 states at
0200hrs on Sunday 8th June that he did in fact see Mr Simon Cordell for the
first time, on the 3rd line from the last sentence.
CAD 1047 Name PC239YE Shinnick (pages
174 to 178) at 1;59 on 7th June 14, was a 999-call location, which was
a police officer calling the Enfield Patrol Site, Call name is PC Shinnick,
please allow a officer to
call on duty.
Also A/ PS Charles Miles 724ye (page
31) explains that this date was the 7thth June 2014, Any person can
tell by the cad 1047, to which A/Inspector Hamill 201566 states he had created,
at the first point of contact, as he dispatched officers to the location of the
incident, from this information provided we can tell that this was in fact the
8th June 2014 at 1:59, A/Insp Hamill then states, that the officers that he had
sent, had reported back that Mr Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin were present,
and goes on to state that officers were not allowed access into the occupied
building, due to the demand during the shift and low policing numbers, but the
cad incident number 1047 07th June 14 pages 174 to 184, states them officers in
attendance who could not gain entry, somehow managed to see Mr Simon Cordell
and his brother Tyrone Benjamin earlier in the day, to which would be
impossible as only Mr Simon Cordell had arrived to visit a friend for the first
time at the location and the matter of fact of Tyron Benjamin being in
hospital.
POINTS PROVED
· A/Insp Hamill 01566 states at 0200hrs
on Sunday the 8th June 2014 and Mr Simon Cordell did in fact arrive at this
time.
· A/Insp Hamill 01566 Could not be sure
of the fact of the person that he is stating was at the gate did in fact bring
Mr Simon Cordell back to the gate, he does not state that she or he came back
with Mr Cordell, who would have told A/ Insp Hamill that Mr Simon Cordell was
in fact the person she had gone to collect and asked to assist in speaking to
police as the event organiser, neither did he take any name(s) or personal
details of the gate assistances. He also states that Mr Simon Cordell would not
in fact speak to him, so if this was true then why would Mr Simon Cordell have
approached him to speak to him as the event organiser and not speak, as for
fact he was just arriving.
· No police officers did in fact see Mr
Simon Cordell, on the 6th 7th Jun 14
· as the first time Mr Cordell see the
police was around 2:00am Sunday the 8th Jun 2014.
· Police would have added cad files
already by date that was miss any Intel relating to Mr Simon Cordell’s were
about on the 8th Jun 14 or first point of contact, in relation to progress way
this is
22
222,
Edited part 5.pdf
also inclusive of witness statements of
any intelligence relating to Progress Way Cad 1012 7th June at 01:53 on 7th
June 14. Pages 143 to 146.
· Mr Simon Cordell’s Brother could not have
been present as for he was in hospital.
· Mr Simon Cordell did not talk to any
police or council as he felt intimidated.
· Mr Cordell was not given any noise
abating order from the local council as stated on page 34 by A/Insp Hamill
01566.
(On page 33) A Insp Hamill 201566
states that he see Mr Simon Cordell, at the gates but believed that Mr Simon
Cordell was coming from inside the premises, due to the large number of people
at the location and due to other reasons and believes of the inspectors own, Mr
Simon Cordell states that he remembers clearly, that of the police approaching
him, as he was walking towards the gates, when he was arriving from the Great
Cambridge road, and that of the police asking him questions in regards to
illegal raves. A Inspector Hamill states that he ask Mr Simon Cordell his name
and that he gave him a reply, such as to the answer of “yes” verbally and then
(A) Inspector Hamill states that he asked Mr Cordell the same question again
but Mr Cordell would not reply, (chapter one of A
Inspector Hamill statement page 33 5th line down;) he then states the 3rd time
when Mr Simon Cordell was asked again, but this time by the council officers
with inspector Hamill present his name, that he would not reply again, Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he did not speak to anybody, he just listened to what
was being said to him and complied when he was asked to walk back to where he
had just parked his vehicle. The police officer is incorrect in saying that MR
Cordell was the person that the gate assistant went and collected, as the event
organiser, as Mr Simon Cordell was in fact approaching the occupied building
and was visiting his friend. He did state this in his first statement dated (00/00/2015.)
Mr Simon Cordell will State that, as he was approaching the ally way were tops
tiles is before the entrance gate for progress way as stated by A/Insp Hamill
201566 on (page 33 2nd lines up from the last sentence.) Simon remembers it
being dark and a lot of people being present in the ally way. Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he saw, who he now knows to be A/ Insp Hamill for the first
time, at around 2:00 am on the 8th June 2014 as he was arriving and had not
seen a police officer on the date in question, till that point of time, when he
had seen A Inspector Hamill talking too other people
at the gate than himself as he was approaching, he does remember the police
trying to speak to him and that he felt that the police was accusing him of
being an organiser, to which he was not, so he choose not to say any think,
without a solicitor being present. The Police and council let Mr Cordell go and
he walked across the road to the petrol station, while waiting for his friend
to turn up, which he had to give a set of keys back too.
· Cad 169 8th June 14 (is Missing
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell)
· Cad 2291 07th June 14
(Is Missing Requested by Mr Simon Cordell) are no were to be found apart
from on (page 174)
Crown Road == There was no Licensable
events or private parties on the 1st 2nd apart from Crown Road council freedom
of information act to be provided, from local council. (Exhibit)
· (Cad 3151 8th June 14 page 278) clearly
states that the rave / private party was at crown road not progress way and
that members of the public were using Southbury train station, to get to this
location, which is across the road, grid reference; X (Easting) 534960 Y
(Northing) 196240 and that under oath to the Dj
A/Insp concealed the truth true facts of their fabricated and manufacture while
engineered evidence, that they support contained within the applicants bundle.
Please read court train scrip off A
Inspector Hamill below; (This also proofs that all the cads
are linked together and corrupt)
Witness 1 - Inspector Hamill -R. O -
11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday.
I did not go inside; the gates were
closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the police but
I would not personally know.
23
223,
Edited part 5.pdf
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @
venue but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating
under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this
date.)
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)
· Cad 3319 8th June 14 page 283
Southbury train STN /Crown RD (cad
11822 8th June 14 page 302)
Southbury STN cad 2410 8th Jun 14 page
276. Also blocked out so no person can see, apart from the makers of the bundle
themselves, when creating their application towards Mr Simon Cordell, What
evidence there is to support this claim is the mistake of A and J cars Enfield
not being blocked out, as listed above in this document. As the same as many of
the other cad numbers relating to this ASBO case, to which if it was not for
this error A and J cars, being not blocked out like the rest of cad 2410 8th
Jun 14, Mr Simon Cordell would never of been able to prove this part of his
innocents in the ASBO case being put towards himself.
· CAD 943 7th June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell.
· CAD 2649 1st June 2014 ==
MISSING Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not even present on this date,
neither was he being accused of in police statements off involvement. Requested
by Mr Simon Cordell.
· CAD 2989 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not
even present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police
statements of any involvement. Requested by Mr Simon Cordell.
· CAD 3274 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not
even present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police
statements of involvement. Requested by Mr Simon Cordell.
· CAD 3754 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not even
present on this date as well, neither has he been
accused in police statements of
involvement.
· CAD 5586 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not
even present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police
statements of involvement.
· CAD 7983 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not even
present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police statements
of involvement.
· CAD 8190 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not
even present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police
statements of involvement.
· CAD 8528 1st June 2014 == MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell Crown Road Mr Simon Cordell was not
even present on this date as well, neither has he been accused in police
statements of involvement.
· CAD 6851 7th June 2014 MISSING &
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 1012 MISSING Crown Road Requested
by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 1380 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 1571 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2456 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2906 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 3326 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 4015 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 4809 7th June 2014 MISSING Requested
by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 8931 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 10844 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2525 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2757 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
24
224,
Edited part 5.pdf
· CAD 3436 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 4322 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 10311 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 3838 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 5571 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2291 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 2904 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 4598 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· CAD 10462 7th June 2014 MISSING
Requested by Mr Simon Cordell
· 8th June 2014
CAD |
930 |
8h |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1646 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2456 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2766 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2904 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
5644 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1081 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1667 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2608 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2796 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2942 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3179 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3350 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
5897 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
749 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1206 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1768 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2654 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2854 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2845 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2948 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3194 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3515 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1341 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
169 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
1631 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2764 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
2890 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3132 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3260 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
CAD |
3946 |
8th |
June |
2014 |
MISSING |
Requested |
by |
Mr |
Simon |
Cordell |
· Only 36 have been provided, this is the
list of incident numbers with cads below.
· CAD1047 7th June 2014 At 01:59 Police
999 officers on duty, was mistaken to believe, that Mr Simon Cordell was with
Tyrone Benjamin his brother and that they had been seen together earlier in the
day, before any police officers had arrived, to have been able to of seen them
or any 999 call, (cad 1012) is the first police intelligence in relation
to Progress way contained within the first applicants bundle and is time
stamped at 01:53 dated 7th June 14.
· CAD 1323 7th June 2014 at 02:41 I
had arrived by 01:50 on the 8th June and had walked out of the side alley
leading up to the gate of progress way alongside tops tiles, with Inspector
Hamill as stated in his statement (page 33) he states “we all moved to
the bottom of progress way “I then Left in my car after waiting for my friend
to give him his key back by 02:20 on the 8th June 2014.
25
225,
Edited part 5.pdf
CAD 1608 7th June 2014 at 03:34 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 1722 7TH June 2014 at 03:58 I
was not present at this time. (P154) wrong address.
CAD 1816 7th June 2014 at 04:15 I
was not present at this time. Repeat caller.
CAD 2141 7th June 2014 at 05:50 I
was not present at this time. P160 wrong address, Repeat caller.
CAD 2672 7th June 2014 at 08:16 I
was not present at this time. Repeat caller.
CAD 10471 7th June 2014 at 22:45 I
er.
CAD 2255 7th June 2014 at 06:24 I
was not present at this time. P165 wrong address, Repeat caller
CAD 3005 7th June 2014 at 9:22 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 5206 7th June 2014 at 13:57 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 10967 7th June 2014 at 23:25 I
was not present at this time. P250 grid no wrong address, Repeat caller
CAD 2271 7th June 2014 at 06:27 I
was not present at this time. Repeat caller
CAD 2601 7th June 2014 at 08:09 I
was not present at this time. P187 wrong address, Repeat caller
CAD 2854 7th June 2014 at 08:56 I
was not present at this time. Repeat caller.
CAD 3037 7th June 2014 at 9:20 I
was not present at this time. P179 wrong address Repeat caller.
CAD 4323 7th June 2014 at 12:25 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 10393 7th June 2014 at
22:38 I was not present at this time. P225 wrong address.
CAD 10506 7th June 2014 At 22:44 I was not present at this time. Repeat
caller.
CAD 2637 7th June 2014 at 08:18 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 3252 7th June 2014 at 10:07 I
was not present at this time.
CAD 3986 7th June 2014 at 11:47 I
was not present at this time. Repeat caller.
CAD 8841 7th June 2014 at 20:07 I er.
CAD 10742 7th June 2014 at 23:01 I
was not present at this time. P246 grid no: wrong address, Repeat caller.
8th
June 2014
CAD
340 8th June 2014 at 00:29 I
was not present at this time. This cad has also got no Att Location p260.
CAD
3151 8th June 2014 at 09:08 I
was not present at this time. P278 grid no Crown Road: wrong address.
CAD
3319 8th June 2014 at 09:39 I
was not present at this time. P283 grid no Crown Road: wrong address.
CAD
625 8th June 2014 at 00:54 I
was not present at this time.
CAD
47 8th June 2014 at 00:00 I
was not present at this time. Repeat
caller.
CAD
793 8th June 2014 at 00:10 I
was not present at this time. This cad
has also got no Att
Location
p268.
CAD
2410 8th June 2014 at 05:03 I
was not present at this time. This cad has also got no Att Location p273.
CAD
numbers 10471 / 10481 / 10506 of the 7th June 2014 = Please take note every day
the call centre starts at CAD 01 and goes up to the average of 10,742 to 15,000
callers per day. (We can tell this by the number of Cads incident numbers
supplied, within this bundle and the supported evidence supplied such as (Exhibits
1, 2, 3)
On
the average with 300 callers per hour as time stamped below.
If
(CAD number / Incident Number 10481 7th June 14) is the 10,481 call of
the 7th June 2014 time stamped 22:47
How
can a CAD numbered (CAD 10506 7th June 14) externally inputted 25 calls
later, have an earlier time stamp of the 7th June 2014 at 22:44 hours.
26
226,
Edited
part 5.pdf
(CAD
number 4323 7th June 2014 at 12:25) is
1 hour and 42 minutes from (CAD incident 4325 7th
June
14) and only had
33 people call when (CAD 4323 7th June 14) should have been on the
average of 550 people calling the call centre, as proven in the minutes of the cads
below:
All cads relating to the 2nd 1st 6th
June are missing. (And are requested by Mr Simon Cordell)
Date 7th June 2014 |
Incident no 1012 |
number 01 |
Time 01:53 |
People 35 |
|
7th June 2014 |
1047 |
02 |
01:59 |
Mins 6 |
|
7th June 2014 |
1323 |
03 |
02:41 |
People 286 |
|
7th June 2014 |
1608 |
04 |
03:34 |
Mins 40 |
|
7th June 2014 |
1722 |
05 |
03:58 |
People 245 |
|
7th June 2014 |
1816 |
06 |
04:15 |
Mins 53 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2141 |
07 |
05:50 |
People 114 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2255 |
08 |
06:24 |
Mins 24 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2271 |
09 |
06:27 |
People 94 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2601 |
10 |
08:09 |
Mins 17 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2637:
p187 to 190: |
11 (Error) |
08:18 |
People 325 |
|
7th June 2014 |
2672:
p196 to 198: |
12 (Error) |
08:16 |
Mins 1h: 35 Mins |
Incorrect |
7th June 2014 |
2854 |
13 |
08:56 |
People 114 |
|
7th June 2014 |
3005:
p203 to 205: |
14 (Error) |
09:22 |
Mins 34 |
|
7th June 2014 |
3037:
p179 to 183: |
15 (Error) |
09:20 |
People 16 |
|
7th June 2014 |
3252 |
16 |
10:07 |
Mins 3 |
|
7th June 2014 |
3986 |
17 |
11:47 |
People 33 |
|
7th June 2014 |
4323 |
18 |
12:25 |
Mins 1h: 42 Mins |
Incorrect |
7th June 2014 |
4325 |
19 |
Missing |
People 36 |
|
7th June 2014 |
5206 |
20 |
13:57 |
Mins 9 |
|
7th June 2014 |
8841 |
21 |
20:07 |
People 45 |
|
7th June 2014 |
10393 |
22 |
22:38 |
Mins 2 |
|
7th June 2014 |
10462 |
23 |
|
People 182 |
|
7th June 2014 |
10471 |
24 |
22:45 |
Mins 40 |
|
7th June 2014 |
10481:
p233 to 237 |
: 25 (Error) |
22:47 |
People 151 |
|
7th June 2014 |
10506:
p238 to 241 |
: 26 (Error) |
22:44 |
Mins 26 = Incorrect earlier time than |
|
the previous incident number 7th June
2014 10742 |
27 |
23:01 |
People |
|
|
7th June 2014 |
10844 |
28 Missing |
Mins 17 |
|
|
7th June 2014 |
10967 |
29 |
23:25 |
People 102 |
|
END OF List of available cads for the
7th June 2014 exhausted.
• Pages Numbers 143 to 146 Contained
within the Applicants Bundle
No police sent to Location (check
still)
Incident no / CAD.1012 7th June 2014
entered at 01:53 End at 02:03 by c723401 Police officer A/PS Charles Miles
states on (page 31) that he see Mr Simon Cordell on Saturday the 7th
June 2014 at 0203Hrs, when in fact this was on the 8th June at around 1:50 am
Hrs as A/Insp Hamill stats on (page 32)
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Victim
Att Location: OPPOSITE
Progress way Great Cambridge Road / The ESSO Petrol Station.
Inc Location: OPPOSITE
Progress way
Call Location: (Blocked out) Please
can this be explained
Criss: Not
Crime (Why was this not Crime
Opening: Noise
Repeat Caller: not sure
Has this happened before:
= (Yes = No Date or Time)
Explicitly linked to: (CAD no. 943 June
2014 =Missing from file.)
27
227,
Edited part 5.pdf
Caller states: some
kids have broken into a property and seem to be having a rave no violence just
lots of kids.
• Reference to Pages 147 to 151
No police sent to Location check This
CAD is related to.
(P147 CAD 1323 07th Jun 14 at 02:41
P333)
(CAD 10481
07th June 14 at 22:47 p264)
(CAD 625 08th June 2014 at 00:54) Are
all the same caller as 32 Crown Road were a party was happening on the 6th 7th 8th June as well as previous,
weeks from back dated month’s from the 6th 7th 8th of June 2014 evidence
provided from Enfield Local Council freedom of information Act. (Inclusive
of Bundle)
(CAD 3319 08th June 2014 p 283 to 286) shows
another occupied premises having party’s on Southbury road, including Progress
Way and 32 Crown RD all on the same dates of the (8th June 2014 on page 284)
which is address (318-328 Southbury rd.) Comments state; these sites
have a fridge roof. A meeting, which was held at 129A (Southbury RD with members
of the police and public from address 1 - 350 to 2 - 182 and 1 - 104 Southbury
Rd , including address on page 285 which includes Lincoln Road)
(Incident no / CAD.1323) 07th June 2014
at 02:41 End at 02:36 by c700591 decision maker 528ye
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Victim
Att Location: Lincoln
Road
Inc Location: Lincoln
Road
Call Location: (Blocked OUT) Crown
Road
Criss: (Blank) (Mr
Simon Cordell asks why this is blank.)
Opening: Noise
• Reference to Pages 147 to 151 Explicitly
linked to: CAD no. 1047 June 2014 (p174 to 178)
Caller states:
Can hear load music, it has been going
on for two hours.
There was similar problem’s a few
months ago.
Possibly an illegal rave
• Reference to Pages 152 to 154
No police sent to Location
Incident no / CAD.1722 07th June 2014
at 03:58 End at 04:11 by c717560
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Witness
Att Location: BLOCKED
OUT = Wrong Location
Inc Location: BLOCKED
OUT = Page 154 Incident location released =24 Orchared Terrance = (next to
Ponders End train station.) Mr Simon Cordell asks why this is like this)
Call Location: (Blocked Out) Mr
Simon Cordell asks why this is like this.
Criss: Not
Crime (Mr Simon Cordell asks why this is like this.)
Opening: Suspicious
Circumstances Repeat Caller: No Details
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 June 2014 (Contaminated as equal as the rest of the incident numbers)
Caller states: Can
here smashing glass from a factory Caller can see one long haired person u/k m
or f with rucksack.
• Reference to Pages 155 to 159
No police sent to Location check
Incident no / CAD.1816 07th June 2014
at 04:15 End at 04:28 by c720781
Rec by: Ordinary
28
228,
Edited part 5.pdf
Call Type: Third Party = (Mr Simon Cordell asks
whether this should carry less weight in court) Att Location: Progress Way
(How can this be possible, as the grid reference should not be in the same grid
reference, if coming from a local house as this is an industrial estate.)
Inc Location: Progress
Way Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime Opening: Noise
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 June 2014 ===
Caller states:
Noise coming from a factory passed the
Toyota garage off the A10 Has this happened before: =yes Repeat
Caller: = Yes
· In Reference to Pages 160 to 164
Contained within the applicants bundle
No police sent to Location
Incident no / CAD.2141 07th June 2014
at 05:50 End at 06:18 by c720781
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third party
Att Location: Hardy
Way Enfield = (This Address is in Gordon Hill Bush Hill Park and is in the
wrong Location)
Inc Location: Hardy
Way Call Location: Blocked Out Criss: = Not Crime Opening: Noise
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 June 2014 = (This cad would have to be contaminated as it is linked
to Gordon Hill Bush Hill Park and is to far from
Progress way.)
Caller states:
Rave behind his house.
Has any think like this happened
before: = Yes =
Repeat caller: =
Yes =
· Reference to Page 165 to 169 contained
within the applicant’s case bundle.
No police sent to Location
Incident no / CAD.2255 07th June 2014
at 06:24 End at 06:31 by c722310
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Third Party =
Att Location: Leighton
Road Bush Hill Park = Wrong Location = same as repeat caller for CAD 2141 7th
Jun 14 (This cad would have to be contaminated as it is linked to Leighton
Road Bush Hill Park and is to far from Progress way.)
Inc Location: Leighton
Road Bush Hill Park
Call Location: (Blocked Out) (Why is
this Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime (why not)
Opening: Noise
Repeat caller: = Yes
Explicitly linked to: Cad
no. 1047 June 2014 ===
Caller states: Caller
states music for 45 mins, believes it is a rave.
(Last time this happened it was coming from
the flats at Aylet Croft) This Person is not sure were the music was coming
from them self. Believed it was Aylet Croft not Progress Way)
Has any think like this happened
before: = yes =
How long ago: =
Last summer
· Reference to Pages 170 to 173
No police sent to Location again
Incident no / CAD.2271 07th June 2014
at 06:27 End at 06:33 by c722280
Rec by: Emergency
29
229,
Edited part 5.pdf
Call Type: Third Party = (weight carried)
Att Location: Progress
Way
Inc Location: Progress
Way (location is the same as progress way)
Call Location: (Blocked Out) =
Criss: =
Not Crime (why was it not Crime)
Opening: ASB
Nuisance Repeat caller: = yes
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 June 2014 =
Caller states:
There has been a rave going on all
night
Has any think like this happened
before: = Yes = Happened about a year ago.
· Reference to Pages 174 to 179
(Police sent to Location before 1:00 am
on the 07th June 2014 and again checked at 3:05:53 07th June 2014 to check all
is ok at Progress Way)
Incident no / CAD.1047 07th June 2014
at 01:59 End at 10:56 by c228199
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Name: PC 239YE Shinnick
= this is a police officer.
Call Type: Witness Staff on Duty Att Location: Progress
Way Inc Location: (Blocked Out)
Call Location: Enfield
Patrol Centre = this is the Metropolitan police patrol centre Criss: =
(Blanked Out)
Opening: Police
Generated Source Activity
Explicitly linked to CAD no. 943, 07
June 2014 = (Missing)
· CAD no. 943 07 June 2014 = (Missing)
· CAD no. 1323, 07 June 2014 = we have
This CAD pages147 to 151
· CAD no. 1380, 07 June 2014 = (Missing)
· CAD no. 1571, 07 June 2014 = (Missing)
· CAD no. 1608, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD pages 184 to 186
· CAD no. 1722, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD pages 152 to159
· CAD no. 1816, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD
· CAD no. 2141, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD pages 160 to164
· CAD no. 2255, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD pages 165 to 169
· CAD no. 2271, 07 June 2014 == we have
This CAD pages 179 to173
· CAD no. 2291, 07 June 2014 == (Missing,
no were to be found apart from on page 174.)
· Police Officer Caller states:
Rave at location organizers Tyrone
Benjamin and Simon Cordell have attended earlier there are about 200 people at
the location all well natured and there is sufficient fire and safety
equipment. Inspector Hamill made aware. Inspector Hamill states that he sees me
coming out of the gates page 33, to which he Is mistaken as I was just
arriving.
· Point 1:
Tyrone could not have been present due
to his injures; he was involved in an ATR on his moped dated the 10th April
2014. He was air lifted to hospital. He had life changing injuries due to the
accident.
· Point 2:
On the date of the 7th Mr Simon Cordell
did not attended the premises of Progress Way and did do so on the 8th June
2014 but never went in, due to meeting police officers and people in attendance
with the police, who Mr Simon Cordell now knows to be council officers, who he
had meet as the police were talking to the occupiers of the premises at the
front gates, as Mr Simon Cordell approached the occupied building as stated in
witness statements.
· Point 3:
30
230,
Edited part 5.pdf
The police believed that Mr Simon
Cordell came from inside the land, CAD 1047 page 174 to 179 notes a call made
by a police officer about Mr Simon Cordell and Tyrone being in attendance and
seen earlier when cad 1047 clearly states that this the police first point of
contact and intelligence about the situation, so how can this be possible as
for fact Mr Simon Cordell was first seen when he was arriving to meet a friend.
· Point 4
CAD 1047 states 01:59 07th June 2014
page 174 to 179 clearly states that police were not given entry to the premises
also noted on (page 33) in police statements.
· Point 5
CAD 1047 state at 01:59 a call was made
and states Police attended on the 7th so this would have been before Mr Cordell
attended too progress way to give his friend his keys as he left them at Mr
Cordell’s flat beforehand and needed them back, this is why Mr Simon Cordell’s
friend had called him.
· Point 6
Police statements state (page 32) A /
Inspector Hamill 201566 dated 06/08/2014 leading on to the 7th and the 8th of
June 2014 was on duty early hours of the 6th going on to the 7th June 2014 and
attended progress way. He was back on duty the 7th June 2014 and again attended
at around 200 hours with two environment officers he believes he spoke to some
body and asked them for an organizer then he Mr Simon Cordell and accused him
of being an organiser to which A Insp Hamill admits that Mr Simon Cordell would
not speak to any officers, so if Mr Cordell had come to speak to him because
somebody had informed him that a police officer wanted to speak to him as in
pretence as if he was the organizer then Mr Simon Cordell would have been sure
to have spoken to him or it would be logical that he would have never
approached him in the beginning, Mr Simon Cordell will explain that police are
mistaken to take Mr Cordell as to of being the person to which someone had gone
to get or he would have come back with that person.
In all the statements it seems the police
have their days mixed up they say they me and Tyrone was seen by officers but
have never given a name of an officer who was meant to have seen us. But the
fact is they could not have seen Mr Cordell and Tyrone walking into the
building as they were not there, and neither was Tyrone. It was even said at
the trial by the applicant that it was not the 7th but early hours of the 8th
which was the case I went on the 08th to give my friend his keys as he called
me.)
Point 7
The party was advertised on face book, (Evidence)
provided that the party started on the 6th June 2014 and this is also
proved in (CAD 10967 at 23:35 on 07th June 2014. p250 to 254 on page 252
(Caller states that this happened last night)
Reference to Pages 179 to 183
No police sent to Location
Incident no / CAD.3037 07th June 2014
at 09:20 End at 09:42 by c724202
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Witness Att Location: Enfield Opening: Noise
Nuisance Repeat caller: = Yes
Inc Location: Enfield
Safe House (This location is too far for noise to be from Progress Way, The
noise was in fact coming from a party that was on crown road which is much
closer, This party was opposite Southbury train station Crown Road related to
cads/ incident numbers:
· CAD: 32 08th June 2014
· CAD: 3319 08th June 2014 (south
bury road / Crown RD Book 33) pages 283
· CAD 11822 08th June 2014 (south
bury train station /Crown Rd) pages 302 to 304
· CAD 3151 08th June 2014 (south
bury road / Crown RD pages 278 to 282)
· CAD 47 8th June 2014 (safe
hall unit, grid 534380,195513 pages 255 to 259)
31
231,
Edited part 5.pdf
· CAD: 2410 08th June 2014 (A&J
cars pages 273 to 277 on page 276)
· CAD: 5206 07TH JUNE 2014 (This
has been blocked out of Book 19)
· CAD: 2456 =
All the cads / incident numbers that are in the ASBO folder, when check are
Explicitly linked to each other, police (CADS 2456 07th June 2014) are MISSING
and contaminated to Crown Road as well as cads to 32 Crown Rd party on the same
day Crown rd (CADS 340 8th June 14) (CAD 793 8th
June 14) (CAD 2410 8th June 14) (CAD 3151 8th June 14) (CAD 3319 8th June 14).
· CAD 3037 07th June 2014 Enfield
Safe Store grid ref 534375,198125 this is miles to far and is closer to Crown
Road party. Local council freedom of information act (Exhibit)
· A & j cars CAD number (pages271
to 282) is related to crown rd.
Street name Tynemouth DR linked to CAD
2637
· CAD: 340 08th June blocked out book
28
· CAD: 793 08th June 2014 book
30
· CAD: 2410 08th June 2014 book
31
· CAD: 2601 07th June 2014 book
11 Ayley croft house party possible police or bailiff raid has happened before.
This is gentlemen explained were he believes the sound is coming from and that
is not of Progress Way.
· CAD: 1722 07th June 2014 Blocked
out Linked to cad 1047 Opening: Noise Nuisance
Criss =
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 June 2014 ===
Caller states:
Many of the cads are missing from the
93 incident numbers I am being accused of to which I only have 36 CADs in
regards to this ASBO application, including CADs relating to the 6th that are
mentioned including the 7th and the 8th June and all the 1st and 2nd June
including Any with the ATT Location and INC location marked as progress way or
just simply Blocked out should have been provided so I can stand to my rights in
a fair and speedy trial.
Reference to Pages 184 to 186
Book 10 No police sent to Location
caller told police aware
Incident no / CAD.1608 07th June 2014
at 03:34 End at 03:37 by c721222
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Third Party
Repeat call: =
no
Att Location: Great
Cambridge Road / Progress Way Inc Location: Great Cambridge Road /
Progress Way Call Location: BLOCKED OUT========
Criss: =
BLANK
Opening: Suspicious
Circumstances
Explicitly linked to: CAD
no. 1047 / 8841 June 2014 === Both CADS are in the ASBO application. Caller
states:
Caller states there is rave going on in
a warehouse next to his.
Reference to Pages 187 to 190
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 2601 07th June 2014
at 08:09 End at 08:15 by c723097
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Rowdy
or Inconsiderate behaviour
Att Location: Cambridge
road/Ayley Croft Enfield grid ref 534219,195697 (Location is wrong for
progress way)
Inc Location: Cambridge
road/Ayley Croft Enfield grid ref 534219,195697 Location is wrong Call
Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: (Blank)
32
232,
Edited part 5.pdf
Explicitly linked to:
(CAD 2456 07th June 2014) and is (MISSING) and contaminated to Crown
Road party on the same day as (Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cads 793 8th June 14)
(Cads 2410 8th June 14) (Cads 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Caller states:
At 08:30 Last night on the 6th June
2014 there was a lot of noise and it is till going
on.
Has this happened before? No
Caller States:
4 +5 cars are in and out causing a
nuisance.
He thinks a raid is going on.
He can see a red Mini with trims on.
There is also a removal lorry.
List of Cads that are found to be
related: Cad2456, Cad2637, Cad2255
· Reference to Pages 190 to 195
No police sent to Location checked: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 2637 07th June 2014
at 08:18 End at 08:26 by c722296
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Victim Opening: Noise
Att Location: Progress Way Enfield
warehouse Inc Location: Progress Way Enfield warehouse Call Location:
BLOCKED OUT========
Criss: =
BLANK
Explicitly linked to (Cads2456 7th
June 014), (Cad 303 7th June 2014) and (Cad 3037 7th June) is in
the ASBO Application related to (Cad
2456 07th June 2014) which is Missing and believed to be contaminated to a
party that was on the day of 32 crown Road related to (Cads 340 8th June 14)
(Cad 793 8th June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14)( Cad 3151 8th June 14) ( Cad 3319
8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
yes 7/6/2014 Caller states:
Rave is still going on.
Police State they are already aware.
· Reference to Pages 196 to 198
No police sent to Location checked:
Incident no / CAD: 2672 07th June 2014
at 08:16 End at 08:33 by c724203
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Burglary other than dwelling
(Suspects on premises) same as Cad 3005 7th June 2014 (the time
stamp is in Error), police aware since
the 6th June 2014
Att Location: Progress
Way Enfield
Inc Location: Progress
Way Enfield
Call Location: (Blanked out)
Criss: =
(Blank)
Explicitly linked to: Explicitly linked
to (Cad 2456 07th June 2014) is Missing and contaminated to Progress Way as
well as CADs to 32 Crown Rd party on the same day crown Rd (Cads 340 8th June
14) (Cad 793 8th June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad
3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Blank Caller states:
(Page 197) caller
states reporting an illegal rave = Why burglary if caller states this.
· Reference to Pages 199 to 202
No police sent to Location check:
Incident no / CAD: 2854 07th June 2014
at 08:56 End at 08:33 by c724203
Rec by: Emergency
33
233,
Edited part 5.pdf
Call Type: Third Party Opening: Noise
Att Location:
Progress Way Enfield Inc Location: Progress Way Enfield Call
Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
(Blank)
Explicitly linked to: Explicitly
linked to (Cads 2456 07th June 2014) and are MISSING and contaminated to
Progress Way as well as Cads to 32 Crown Rd party on the same day Crown Road (Cads
340 8th June 14) (Cads 793 8th June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (CAD 3151 8th
June 14) (CAD 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
Caller states illegal rave is still
going on.
· Reference to Pages 203 to 205
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 3005 07th June 2014
at 09:22 End at 09.29 by c723097
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Burglary
other than a Dwelling (Suspects on Premises) Same as (Cad 2672)
Att Location: Progress
Way Enfield Inc Location: Progress Way Enfield Call Location: (Blocked
Out)
Criss: =
(Blank)
Explicitly linked to: Explicitly
linked to: (Cad 2456 07th June 2014) which is Missing and contaminated
to Progress Way as well as Cads to 32 Crown Road party on the same day Crown
road (Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14)
(Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
That a rave is happening and that there
is drugs.
Music still ongoing
<>
· Reference to Pages 206 to 209
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 3252 07th June 2014
at 10:07 End at 10:18 by c723258
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party
Opening: Rowdy
or Inconsiderate behaviour
Att Location: Progress
Way Enfield
Inc Location: Progress
Way Enfield
Call Location: (Blocked
Out)
Criss: = (Blank)
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th June
2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32 Crown
Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th June
14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
No Caller states:
Members off the public are urinating
and being, inconsiderate with there behaviour.
Caller believes they are taking drugs.
Caller states that the warehouse has
been empty over one year. They put the block out side
to say the premises are un-occupied.
Caller would like to stay anonymous.
· Reference to Pages 210 to 213
34
234,
Edited part 5.pdf
No police sent to Location checked: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 3986 07th June 2014 at
11:47 End at 11:52 by c718168
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Victim Opening: Noise Att Location: Progress
Way Inc Location: Progress Way Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
(Blank)
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 2 Years ago Caller states:
There is an illegal rave in a warehouse
going on.
· Reference to Pages 214 to 217
No police sent to Location checked: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 4323 07th June 2014
at 12:25 End at 12:33 by c723094
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Noise
Att Location: Progress
Way
Inc Locations: Progress
Way
Call Location: BLOCKED
OUT=
Criss: =
BLANK
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th June
2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32 Crown
Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th June
14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
First time caller page 216 Caller states:
He claims there is an illegal rave at
the rear of his house been going on since 02:00 this morning.
· Reference to Pages 218 to 220
No police sent to Location checked: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 5206 07th June 2014
at 13:57 End at 14:05 by c192061
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Rowdy
or Inconsiderate behaviour Att Location: (Blocked Out) = Crown RD Inc
Location: (Blocked Out) = Crown RD Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
(Blank)
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
No Caller states:
There is loud music from rear of house.
· Reference to Pages 221 to 224
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 8841 07th June 2014
at 20:07 End at 20:12 by 079328 / L3144
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
35
235,
Edited part 5.pdf
Opening: Noise
Att Location: Progress way Inc Location: Progress way Call
Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad1608, 2456
7th June 2014) = (Cad 2456 7th June 14) are MISSING (Cad1608) is ok.
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
Rave is happing people are climbing
over his back garden.
Has this happened before: yes,
no date and time?
· Reference to Pages 225 to 233
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 10393 07th June 2014
at 22:38 End at 22:57 by c723886
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim
Opening: Robbery
Bladed Article
Att Location: Great
Cambridge behind Top Tiles
Inc Location: Great
Cambridge behind Top Tiles
Call Location: (Blocked
Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
No Caller states:
This Gentleman went to an illegal rave
and has been robbed by males with knife.
There is a mention of a carjacking but
no information, as it has been blocked out.
No response all police cars
unavailable.
Caller states:
2 x Black Males 1 x White Male
1 x Mixed Race Male = Mr Simon Cordell
was not present at the time of 22:38 till 22:57 noted by police.
Knife was about 6 inches 2 x Black
Males held his hand while others took his money = Ł22 pounds sterling.
Caller wants to stay anon Police went
to scene.
· Reference to Pages 233 to 237
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Related to P147 (Cad1323 07th Jun
14) at 02:41 P333 (Cad 10481 07th June 14) at 22:47 p264 (Cad 625
08th June 14) at 00:54.
Incident no / CAD: 10481 07th June 2014
at 22:47 End at 22:51 by c722309
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Victim Opening: Noise
Att Location: (Blocked
Out) but is Progress way, GRID REFFRENCE OF 534657, 195453 Inc Location: (Blocked
Out) but is Progress way, GRID REFFRENCE OF 534657, 195453 Call Location: (Blocked
Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
36
236,
Edited part 5.pdf
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 07/06/2014 Caller states:
A rave is going on in a factory down
the road, the music is very load.
· Reference to Pages 238 to 241
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 1056 07th June 2014
at 22:44 End at 22:51 by c720782
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party Opening: Noise Att Location: Progress
way Inc Location: Progress way Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss:
=
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
Caller states rave has been going on
since last night and he can get no sleep.
Has this happened before: =
Yes, No Date and Time
· Reference to Pages 242 to 245
No police sent to Location checked: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 10471 07th June 2014
at 22:44 End at 22:51 by C720782
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Witness Opening: Noise Att Location: Progress
way Inc Location: Progress way Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 07/06/2014 Caller states:
Noise started again at Progress Way
· Reference to Pages 246 to 249
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 10742 07th June 2014
at 23:01 End at 23:11 by C101091
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party
Opening: Noise
Att Location: Lincoln
RD Enfield
Inc Location: Lincoln
RD Enfield
Call Location: (Blocked
Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
yes, No Date and Time P 248 first quarter (Blocked Out)
Caller states:
37
237,
Edited part 5.pdf
Believes a warehouse has been making
noise since last night.
The Local Council is aware.
THTS TS THE LAST 7TH OF JUNE 2014
• Reference to Pages 250 to 254 No
police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / Cad:10967 07th June 2014
at 23:25 End at 23:38 by C717554
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party Opening: Noise
Att Location: Great
Cambridge RD Grid 535375,202125 = (the grid number takes you to Cheshunt
miles to far.)
Inc Location: Cambridge
RD Grid 535375,202125 ==the grid number takes you to Cheshunt miles to far Call
Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 6th June 2014 Page 252 (Blocked Out)
Caller states:
Caller says lots of cars turning up and
can hear music.
50 people down the back.
PART 3
THIS IS THE FIRST 8th June 14
There are 37 CAD/ Incident numbers for
the 8th June 2014, to which there is only 7 in the ASBO application and only
Cad Number 47 represents Progress Way, the rest represent 32 Crown RD another
premises being occupied under section 144 lazppo 10
minutes away from progress way.
By the statistics, the call centre
receives on the 8th June 2014, 300 people call per hour. Cads 2410 and 3151
should equal 741 callers the same as Cads 793 to Cad 2410 Cad 3151 Caller is 3
HOURS: 25 Minutes, please can this be explained.
Date |
Incident no |
number |
Time |
|
|
8th June14 |
47 |
01 |
00:00 |
Progress Way |
People 293 |
8th June14 |
340 |
02 |
00:29 |
Crown RD |
Mins 29 |
8th June14 |
625 |
03 |
00:54 |
Crown RD |
People 285 |
8th June14 |
793 |
04 |
01:10 |
Crown RD |
Mins 24 |
8th June14 |
2410 |
05 |
05:35 |
Crown RD |
People 168 |
8th June14 |
3151 |
06 |
09:08 |
Crown RD |
Mins 16 |
8th June14 |
3319 |
07 |
09:39 |
Crown RD |
People 1617 |
Mins 3hours:25mins People 168 Mins
03hours:33mins People 325
Mins 1h: 35mins (Bad) People 168 Mins
31
• Reference to Pages 255 to 259
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / Cad: 47 /08th June 2014
at 00:00 End at 00:11 by C720796
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party
38
238,
Edited part 5.pdf
Opening: Noise
Att Location: Progress way Inc Location: Progress way Call
Location: (Blocked Out Criss: = (Blocked Out)
Explicitly linked to (Cad. 169 8th June
2014) and (Cad 2456 June 2014) which is MISSING: = (Cad169 missing from every
were)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 07/06/2014 Caller states:
Caller would like to report an illegal
rave that is going on and has been for the past two hours.
· Reference to Pages 260 to 263
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / Cad 340 08th June 2014 at
00:29 End at 00:32 by C080128
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party
Opening: Rowdy
or inconsiderate Behaviour
Att Location: (Blocked
Out) = No Grid
Inc Location: (Blocked
Out) = Crown Road
Call Location: (Blocked
Out) = Crown Road
Criss:
=
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
No Caller states:
Illegal rave is happening; this is not
the problem people peeing in her garden.
· Reference to Pages 264 to 267
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Related to P147 (Cad1323 07th Jun 14)
at 02:41 P333 (Cad 10481 07th
June 14) at 22:47 (p264 Cad 625)
Incident no / CAD: 625 08th June 2014
at 00:54 End at 01:11 by C060648
Rec by: Ordinarily
Call Type: Victim Opening: Noise
Att Location: (Blocked
Out) = Crown Road Inc Location: (Blocked Out) = Crown Road Call Locn: Lincoln rd to far wrong
Criss: = Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
Loud music has started up again from
the estate.
· Reference to Pages 268 to 272
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / Cad: 793 08th June 2014
at 01:10 End at 01:30 by C722768
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party
Opening: Rowdy
crowd
Att Location: (Blocked Out) =
Crown RD
Inc Location: (Blocked Out) =
Crown RD
39
239,
Edited part 5.pdf
Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes 07/06/14 Caller states:
Caller wishes to make a noise complaint
it is keeping him up.
The same thing happened last night.
<>
· Reference to Pages 273 to 277
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 2410 08th June 2014
at 05:03 End at 05:43 by C723395
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Witness Opening: Drugs
Att Location: (Blocked Out) =
Crown Road Inc Location: (Blocked Out) = Crown Road Call Location:
(Blocked Out)
Criss: =
Not Crime
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Happened before: = No
Page 276 == A& J cars Enfield
===Crown Rd ==I would not have been able to prove my innocence in this case if
it was not for A & J CARS being left in text, and no this is the same for
many of the other Cads contained within the ASBO application.
Caller states:
Drugs are being openly sold all over
the street, caller noticed on the way home.
· Reference to Pages 278 to 282
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 3151 08th June 2014
at 20:07 End at 20:12 by 079328 / L3144
Rec by: Ordinary
Call Type: Third Party Opening: (Contact Record)
Att Location: South
Bury RD / Crown Rd = Crown RD Inc Location: South Bury RD / Crown Rd =
Crown RD Call Location: (Blocked Out)
Criss: =
(Blocked Out)
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Yes Caller states:
Caller States Rave is still going,
states she still cannot get any sleep, she has contacted environmental health,
but they say they close at 03:00 hours.
Previous commands noted by police.
· Reference to Pages 283 To 286
No police sent to Location check: Bad
Incident no / CAD: 3319 08th June 2014
at 09:39 End at 20:12 by 079328 / L3144
Rec by: Emergency
Call Type: Witness
40
240,
Edited part 5.pdf
Opening: Noise
Att Location: South
Bury RD / Crown Rd = Crown RD Inc Location: South Bury RD / Crown Rd =
Crown RD
Call Location: 93
BROADLANDS AVENUE, ENFIELD = Wrong location it relates to Crown RD Caller TEL:
==0208-443-4251 Name: MR Jennings Criss: =
Blanked Out
Explicitly linked to: (Cad 2456 07th
June 2014) are MISSING and contaminated to Progress Way as well as (Cads to 32
Crown Rd party on the same day as Crown road Cads 340 8th June 14) (Cad 793 8th
June 14) (Cad 2410 8th June 14) (Cad 3151 8th June 14) (Cad 3319 8th June 14.)
Repeat Caller: =
Caller states:
END OF CADS FOR THE 8th June 2014
• Reference to Pages 2 TO 3 also
pages 77 to 94 5: = 20.06.14
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the
organization of and/ supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave
at 1 Falcon Park, Neasden Lane, NW10
(A)
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
at home; Address Burncroft avenue Enfield and did not cause any Anti-social
behaviour. He will also State that he did attended a friend’s home address, who
had hired equipment of himself and that he had hired the equipment in good
faith, Mr Simon Cordell will also state that he attended the premises of (1
Falcon Park), this was due to police involvement, after he was contacted by his
friend at the time of; 01:00am, Mr Simon Cordell will sate that he was
travelling that day in his vehicle for 2 hours of the 5 hours 15 mins before
arrival to (1 Falcon park and arrived at around 03:00, as Mr Simon Cordell was
asked to collect his equipment. Mr Cordell will then State that he went home by
05:15 hours and was told by police to collect his equipment at a later date, to
which he did do.
(B)
At no point is Mr Simon Cordell being
accused of acting in an anti-social manner on the 20:06:14 within the ASBO
application.
(C)
There are no Cad numbers in the ASBO
application in regard to 1 Falcon park,
(D)
Mr Simon Cordell has never been
arrested for any incident, relating to1 Falcon park, as he was not involved in
the organization, neither did he attended on 20:06:14 to the event in question.
· Face Book (Evidence)
• Reference to Pages 2 TO 3
6: = 19.07.14
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the
organization of and/ supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave
at Carpet Right Show room on the A10 Great Cambridge Road Enfield.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
• Reference to Pages 2 TO 3
7: = 24.07.14
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the
organization of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal
rave at an empty ware house on Mill Marsh Lane
41
241,
Edited part 5.pdf
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
· Reference to Pages 2 TO 3 8: = 24.07.14
Mill Marsh Lane
Mr Simon Cordell admitted to police
officers that he organized illegal raves
22. Alma
Road INSP Edgoose that he was the organiser of any rave or that he hired sound
equipment for the use in raves.
23. Carpet
Right INSP Skinner that he was the organiser of any rave on the 19th July 2014
24. Ponders
end
25. Progress
way INSP Skinner that he was the organiser of any rave on the 7th 8th June 2014
26. Mill
Marsh Lane
· Reference to Pages 2 TO 3
9: = 10.08.14
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the
organization of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal
rave at an empty ware house on Mill Marsh Lane
Mr Simon Cordell further actively
sought to encourage a large group of people to breach the peace.
3. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he did not encourage a large group of people to
break the front line of the police.
4. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he did not organise any raves at mill marsh lane.
5. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that Mill Marsh Lane does in fact contain warehouses
that were being occupied under section 144. (Evidence Google screen shoots
(Evidence of picture taken at the location)
6. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he did not have Nitrous oxide and was in fact
carry Co2 Canisters)
7. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he was not carry any sound equipment as he was
travelling in his car)
Cases and dates mentioned on other
pages INFO REPORT
· Reference to Pages 107 to 139 7th
April 2013
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had
two off road bikes going out on a Sunday with friends off road in and was
pulled over by police officers and wrongfully accused of no insurance and
public order. He provided evidence in court and his innocence was proven. This
happened at the same point of time, as the proceeding of the ASBO application.
INFO REPORT
· Reference to Pages 104 to 106
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
caused, No anti-social behaviour.
24th May 2013 at the Old police station
INFO REPORT
· Reference to Pages 101 to 103 Created
by Alan Brown
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
caused; No Anti-Social Behaviour on the 20th April 2014 at 420 Hyde Park INFO
REPORT
· Reference to Pages 140 to 142 INFO
REPORT
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
caused, No Anti-Social Behaviour at Wood Wharf
· Reference to Pages 5 of the ASBO
application as this is the first in the bundle.
Point 1.
On the 13th of august 2014 the local
authority and the police held a consultation meeting in regard to myself Mr
Simon Cordell and reached a decision to be taken in this matter.
42
242,
Edited part 5.pdf
· Mr Simon Cordell will state that; An
anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) is / was a civil order made in the United
Kingdom against a person who has been shown, on the balance of evidence, to
have engaged in anti-social behaviour and the order was, introduced by Tony
Blair in 1998, within the protocol to create a successful ASBO application it
states Voluntary solutions and other remedies should be considered by the
applicant prior to the multi-agency cases conference regarding ASBO’S. Any of
the following voluntary solutions and alternative remedies should be considered
prior to an application for an ASBO being considered such as.
Mediation.
Verbal and written warnings from the
relevant authorities including Police Support Packages.
Diversionary schemes and activities.
Rehabilitation.
Criminal investigation.
The above list is not exhausted to it
limit.
· Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
never been given the opportunity neither has he been asked to attended this
meeting or another prior to this as this would have been the opportunity to
talk to him about a pre warning or other actions that could have been taken.
point 2.
· made on page 5 is the statement that
there was no conflicting work in progress with the local authority with the
name of Mr Simon Cordell, which in fact is a conflict with the aim of the ASBO
application under the crime disorder act 1998.
Mr Simon Cordell will (Exhibit) evidence
supporting the fact that he was working at Kemp hall, as a Voluntary Worker and
that this is leased and owned while under Enfield local Authority Management,
at all times.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
working and had the keys and alarm code to the building and was a member on the
board while trying to help Debbie the main manager at the time and (Exhibit) of
emails as well as texts from her on his phone and computer on dates off
00/00/2014 to 00/00/2014.
· Reference to Pages 1 application Point
1.
It is alleged that the Mr Simon Cordell
has acted on the dates between Jan 2013 to 10th august 2014 in Enfield in an
anti-social manner likely to cause harm alarm or distress to one or more person
not of the same household as himself.
Witness Statement of Steve Elsmore
Witness statement Steve Elsmore who is
a police officer attached to the anti-social behaviour team, Community Safety
unit.
It is to be relied upon by members of
the applicant’s application under section 1(c) of the crime and disorder act
1998, as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.
· This ASBO application does not meet the
criteria and key elements as listed below.
· This is a Stand-alone ASBO application
in the Magistrates' Court against Mr Simon Cordell.
· He will State; at no point of time, did
he take any part in any form of Anti-Social Behaviour that he did cause or was
likely to cause, neither did he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour that was likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
· Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not organize any events within this ASBO application.
· Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time did he encourage any other people to commit any offence that
might have caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm
or distress.
43
243,
Edited part 5.pdf
· At no point have I committed or been
rightfully arrested and charged for an offence to one of a similar nature
presented within this ASBO application.
The PNC holds information in regard to:
Arrests:
Point 1 about Arrests:
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does not hold or organize illegal raves and did not on the dates in question.
There is no reason; he will also state that he should not be accused of doing
so on dates in question in this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
been wrongfully arrested at (CARPET RIGHT) Great Cambridge Road dated 19th Jul
2014 and detained for a possible breach of the peace, that Police have stated
(‘believed might happen’) which at no point was Mr Simon Cordell involved in
and that he did not commit any form of Anti-Social Behaviour, on the 19 July
2014. He has never been charged and that he was just detained and released with
no option of an interview.
A police office Inspector Hill Moore
states ("he believed, that by arresting me that no further raves would
happen.)
Mr Simon Cordell Will State that he was
not involved in the hiring of equipment or organization of any said rave,
neither was he on the freehold of the land nor did he attending a rave as he is
being accused of.
CAD Incident number 10635 19th Jul 14
pages 291 to 301 on page 294 clearly states that 20 white males and females
attended the occupied premises, it also states all the address of the people
police officers spoke to on the land contained by police within the building
and outer surrounding gates of carpet right.
· Case Progression Point 1 about case
progression:
M Simon Cordell will also state that he
did not hold or organize illegal raves and that he is of Mix Race British
Nationality, so there would be no truth in information leading to case
progression held on the police national computer re Mr Simon Cordell on the
dates in question.
· Previous convictions
Point 1 about previous convections:
Mr Simon Cordell also reverses his
rights of the rehabilitation Act and state time spent is of all convictions on
his criminal recorded. And that he is sure of the fact that of being that he
does not have any previous conventions, nor has he been charged with any
similar natured offences with relevance to an ASBO application.
There are errors on his PNC record
which he has been trying to rectify and there for does not agree with any
records of his criminal record
· Vehicle ownership
Point 1 about Vehicle ownership:
Mr Simon Cordell inserts and instates
his Rights of the Freedom of Movement. As expressed in article 13 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it asserts that:
A citizen of a state in which that
Citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any
part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the
liberty and rights of others. At no point has Mr Simon Cordell used his
vehicles to organize a rave or attended an illegal rave knowingly. (Mr Simon
Cordell challenges the hearsay statements compiled by Steve Elesmore)
"His statement aims to show
supporting evidence of the course of behaviour of Mr Simon Cordell acting in an
Anti-Social Manner).
Steve Elesmore: Provides
statements of hearsay obtained by police and witness, been witnessed first-hand
by officers, been witness by independent witness. Please see a copy of the
court transcripts as listed below.
Witness 1 — Inspector Hamill —R. O —
11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead
DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday. (This was in fact early Hours of the 8th around
1:00am.)
44
244,
Edited part 5.pdf
I did not go inside; the gates were
closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the police but
I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @ venue
but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating
under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this
date.)
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)
Witness - Pc Elsmore - R.O - 14;10 EIC
Tab 6 - pg. ?14?
DEF XEX
Council (unreadable text) curfews
(unreadable text) that PNC info on statement adds no (unreadable
text) plobatory (unreadable text) value of
info re: Witness being “afraid of D” What he puts down to the way he
worded, but he meant that people actually are afraid of possibly giving
evidence in court.
R V CORDELL
4
DEF
Counsel argues that officer’s statement
is designed to cause on evidence reaction of this of no value and speculatory
in nature.
DJ
How many calls from public did police
receive?
Witness
In excess of 15 calls - how many to the
same venue and not other address.
Doe’s does not know the number of
callers that are in relation to each of these occasions.
On page 15 - Allegations re:
Millmarsh Lane, evidence from officer not first-hand - relied on cads and another
Intel.
Query Re: “3 massive nitrous
tanks”
DJ
Were
did you get such info officer.
Witness
From Page 65 - sergeant King - Crimit’s
Re reports, other Intel but not from people at the venue.
COUNSEL
Officer you signed a statement of truth
(unreadable text) to other witness statements.
DJ
We all know that on ASBO apps hearsay
is allowed.
R V CORDELL
5
Counsel
Why did officer no and rely on Pc Kings
Statements later than on the Crimit’s reported.
Officer no and involved in taking info
from Pc King.
(Confesses he did it.)
He did not notice the discrepancy
regarding official statements.
Have heard of Every Decibel Matters - They
were advertising and I believe the D knows a member of the above company.
No evidence D is involved in running there operations.
No attempt has been made to speak to
directors of company.
No reason to why you didn’t /contact
the company.
I think from memory have met D once @
Edmonton police station.
(At Page 16 1st paragraph - not
consistent to fact that he met him on the 7/6/2014)
All notes with cad number were listed
from reports not officers’ own words - same applies from Cads that had no input.
Has not made attempts to contact owners
of premises.
Officers unable to assist courts in
relation to why statements were not signed on notebooks profiles.
Another example of doings put in
statements to blacken Mr Cordell’s evidence in statement @ point 12, No
convictions that of class A drugs unlike what’s written in
Statements - another example of untrue
cut and past.
DJ
Ill ignore because no convections of
class A drugs or supplying is present on the criminal record.
Counsel
You cannot assist with witness reliability
of info contained, can you?
Can Intel be wrongfully inaccurate? No Officer
On that particular re post, it appears
to be right.
I did not speak to Parcell
he is force @ seven boroughs.
I believe he was not included in the
email, because Intel (unreadable text) Email sent to LDE only.
Searched (unreadable text) for
info on Cordell’s convections.
Moving on to statement on Page 30
Does PO investigating unit have more
info than it is letting on?
Officer
No
Are you aware that Miss Cordell has
spoken to other officers Re: Rave?
This suggests that you do not want DS
Tanner to be examined on these proceedings because she has information Re
knowledge of raves and them not being connected to W/D.
Spoke to Pc Tanner but not written what
- spoke to (unreadable text) this year You have no recorded that you
emailed her but then spoken to her.
Emails have been deleted and no copies
keep on record.
Mr Simon Cordell challenges all the witness
statements by all officers.
Mr Simon Cordell challenges all the
witness statements by all independent witness.
(Mr Simon Cordell challenges the
hearsay statements compiled by Steve Elesmore)
"Independent witness to frightened
due to reprisal."
45
245,
Edited part 5.pdf
At no point Cad relating to the
independent witness statements provide any information relating to offences or
civil matters that should lead to an ASBO application that, Mr Simon Cordell
should be convicted off as he is innocent in regards to organizing Illegal
Raves or acting in a Manner likely to Cause Alarm Harm or Distress."
Mr Simon Cordell requires each witness
to be called individually to give evidence at court.
Mr Simon Cordell will challenge the
statements made by Steve Elesmore "Simon Cordell Is known to the police to
have 28 convections a copy is available of his criminal record"
Mr Cordell feels that this is
misleading due to the errors in his criminal record as police are aware.
Evidence will be provided as proof of my statement.
Mr Simon Cordell feels that the data
from the PNC representing his Criminal Recorded is information not true to its
facts and is misleading. Mr Simon Cordell has been checking with the courts and
challenged the validity of the PNC record and has been going throw the process
of have 5 cases rectified due to critical errors that have been added in error
that have had a major effect on my life even in the ASBO application being put
against him self.
BOOK 6
ILLEGAL RAVES:
"Deaths at raves: the most resent
was young 15-year-old male who died at a rave at Croydon"
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is
deeply concerned as well as upset for any life lost and he is heartfelt for all
effected by this tragedy of a young life lost.
Mr Cordell would like it noted that he
was on curfew and had been since June 2013 for a case he has already proved his
innocents in.
In regard to the statement below Mr
Simon Cordell feel that this is Slander of character and the two statements
below should not be justified as (1) he is not a drug pusher or user. (2) he
was on curfew and had been since June 2013 and have not done any think wrong to
be punished so.
Mr Simon Cordell feels that the statement,
(Simon Cordell is free to continue to organize such events, is un-justified.)
"Raves are known for drugs."
"Please take note Mr Simon Cordell
states he has nothing to do with drugs, but he has used cannabis for personal
use." (It was also said in the court transcripts that this was in error.)
"This type of illegal event cannot
be tolerated, and action must be taken to disrupt these events, and if a court
order is not made then Simon Cordell is free to continue to organize such
events."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
feels that this is also Slander of his name and darkens his character and is
not true as he was on curfew when Andrew Rio sadly passed
away and had been since June 2013. Mr Simon Cordell did not put on
events on the days in question and does not see how this has any reference
towards an Anti-Social order being put towards himself self as he did not act
in an Anti-Social Manner.
Mr Simon Cordell was wrongly put on
curfew for an offence and was found not guilty, at the same time of all the
ASBO application and does not have internet at his house address this can be
checked with any internet provider and the IP attached to any profiles, his
mental health has suffered due to this, as he spent nearly a year on curfew for
something he had not done, and just before his curfew was lifted by the court,
my Nan became very unwell this had a big effect on him mentality, and he needed
some time out, to then be accused of the offence within the application being
brought against himself.
In the early June 2014 the family found
out that Mr Cordell Nan was terminal ill with cancer, of the liver, spine and ribs. Mr Cordell was spending a great deal of time
with his Nan and family, but mentality his health was suffering. So when he was
invited out by friends, he took their offers.
Mr Simon Cordell’s Nan passed away on the 30/08/2014.
It was just after this The police came
to his address, he states at that point of time he felt a bit unstable, at this
time due to what was going on with his life and that of his families and the
loss of his Nan.
46
246,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Cordell will state that he had put everything
that he had gained out of life into the development of his company to take his mind of what was going
on around him and because of contentious police harassment that he had locked
himself away in his flat. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had friends
around his flat on this day of the 12/09/2014, who were trying to help him, the
police knocked on his front door. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he saw the
police as he looked into the keyhole of his front door without opening the
front door, as he was not expecting any others that day to his home.
I called out to ask them what they
wanted as due to the problems he has had with the police over many years.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
worried at why the police had come to his flat. The police stated on that day
that they wanted to talk to him, Mr Simon Cordell took caution as to opening
the front door, he opened it a little to see what the police wanted to say to
him, knowing his friends was watching for his safety, they then forcefully tried
to put some think in to his flat without showing any ID, to which Mr Cordell
closed the door before the police could do so and then told them that he would
not accept anything from them.
The police then spoke to each other as
to what to do, then Mr Simon Cordell will then state that he heard, one of the
officers say just leave it outside by his door, which they did and then left.
Mr Simon Cordell would not allow anyone
to get what had been left out side of the front of his flat front door and
called his mother and told her what had happened, he was very unstable at this
time due to what happened and his friends were trying to claim him down.
Mr Simon Cordell mother picked up what
is now understood to be the ASBO application bundle documents. When she picked
them up and read what was inside, she was shocked to see the data that was in
the file and took it to the police station and collected a lost and found
receipt for it (Exhibit 0000). Till date 08/02/2016 that folder is still in the
police property room. Mr Simon Cordell does believe that this is a beach of the
data protection act, as what was within the files held people(s) personal data.
The files before being taken to the police station were in fact copied by way
of being scanned of all files that was in the bundle. A letter of complaint
(Exhibit 0000) was handed to the police.
Mr Simon Cordell states he could not be
100% sure of knowing if any documents were missing by the time his mother had
picked the documents up. And that he has never been re-served them to date
08/0/2016.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not openly admitted to officers that he runs raves and has even bragged about
it to the police.
Mr Simon Cordell will challenge this
statement not to be true to its article, What Mr Cordell will state is as for a
matter of fact, all that he ever talks about when talking to any person, it is
of a good natured law obeying positive and productive future, of his life and
business.
• Reports involving Simon Cordell:
Millmarsh Lane: 10th August 2014
Ref:
yert00376728. PS king
· Mr Simon Cordell will State that he had
no part in any of the "Young people milling around trying to locate the
rave." Or who.
· " Was found on the North footway
just by Gregg’s factory."
"At no point did Mr Cordell have
any think to do with, organizing any event (s) on the 10th August 2014 nor did
he travel with this group of people and that he had no effect in their
decisions made on 10th August 2014. Neither did he take part in any
Anti-Social."
"Strip of concrete completely open
air."
"To my understanding and my own
vision Tents was present as well as the occupiers, occupying the free hold of
the land and the bricked premises located on the land. People were occupying a
building on the
47
247,
Edited part 5.pdf
land one of many attached to the
freehold of the land and was being occupied under section 144 LASPO. Mr Simon
Cordell will State that he lives in his flat and has done so for eleven years
so have no need to live anywhere else unless staying at a friends place of residence.
Police State that "Simon Cordell
was at the gate on police arrival."
Mr Cordell will state "At no point
did he have any reason to stand on the gate acting as a
occupier, organizer or suppler of equipment or was he involved in the
organization of any event on the 10'h August 2014.
"Police statement claims that Mr
Simon Cordell’s car contained three massive nitrous oxide tanks."
"The vehicle index MA57 LDY Mr Simon Cordell States; he was driving and
was in fact carrying empty CO2 cylinders and did have safety stickers for the
carriage of gas cylinders, placed on the boot in clear view for all pubic to
see, as this is the regulations when carrying cylinders. Mr Simon Cordell does
do so in accordance of the law, known as The International Carnage of Dangerous
Goods by road (ADR), implemented by the Carriage Regulations and had broken no
laws nor had he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour.
"When queried by police it is said
that Mr Simon Cordell had admitted that he had seen the news article about the
dangerous effects nitrous oxide has and how the government would probably
regulate it."
"Mr Simon Cordell does agree to
the statement made about talking about Nitrous oxide and the confiscation being
partly about a news article and the government actions toward regulating it, at
no time. He will also state that he was not asked if the cylinder’s he was
carry was in fact nitrous oxide, nor was he asked if they were full, because
the answer would have been that he was getting them refilled with co2 for
welding."
• Page 3 of 3 of statement made by
PS King
"Police state that Mr. Cordell was
told police superintendent had gave authority to seize sound equipment"
"Mr Simon Cordell will State that at
no point was any section or piece of paper served to him, nor was he told
verbally of the statement above as he was not the occupier to the freehold of
land neither an organizer to any event as listed, within the ASBO application
or did he supply any equipment, this includes any form of Anti-Social
Behaviour.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not pack any sound equipment away, as he did not have any to pack away, as for
fact he was driving his car, a car Ford Focus which cannot carry a large Amplified
Sound System, plus as stated by witness statement PS King "3 massive
nitrous oxide tanks," This would not fit into his car Index MA57 LDY a
Ford Sliver Focus"
"Police officers state that Mr.
Cordell started to pack away his equipment"
"This is misleading as noted by
police officer, Steve Elsmore in his said witness statement, that Mr Simon
Cordell was driving car index MA57LDY, If This is true then how was Mr Simon
Cordell, meant to pack away a large Amplified Sound System plus have 3 massive
nitrous oxide tanks, all this would
not fit into his car."
"Whilst stood waiting for him to
leave"
"Mr Simon Cordell will challenge
this statement and will state that he was in his car also that he had no sound
system or any involvement in organizing said party including any form of
Anti-Social Behaviour." "100 teenagers turned up / going to storm the
rave."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
it is not right for him to be blamed for something that he took no action in
organizing.
Also that he should not be accountable
for other people’s decisions unless he had advised other people to have acted
in such a manner, or have leaded other people, to conduct them self's in such a
negative manner and at no point did he do so. Mr Cordell will state at no point
did he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour."
"Group throwing cones and general
road furniture towards the police."
"Mr Simon Cordell is upset that
this has happened, he also state that he was not the organizer neither did he
supply any sound equipment, nor should he be accountable for other people's
actions; and that he had no involvement in the organization of the event or
supplying any equipment. At no time did Mr Simon Cordell act in an Anti-Social
Manner.’’
"Again Simon's car was
present."
48
248,
Edited part 5.pdf
"This proves that Mr Simon Cordell
did not have any large Amplified Sound System, as his ford focus index MA57LDY
cannot hold such equipment because of size. Mr Simon Cordell does in fact own a
van and if he was to have been hiring out any of my sound equipment for said
party would have done so within the legal constants of the law and in such
instance would have been using his own van to carry his equipment in. Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he was not involved in the organization of said party
and did not have any equipment to pack away"
"Simons Cordell's attitude is that
he is a modern-day businessman and the actions of the group had nothing to do
with him."
"Mr Simon Cordell does agree that
he is and still up and coming am to be a modern-day businessman.
As the police are well aware due to the
number of times he gets stopped and spoken to by police, in such times he feels
that he is always asked what he has been up to in his life by the police and he
would reply to police or anyone that had asked me, the same answerer because it
had become a routine, when asked such questions. Mr Simon Cordell was in the
process of setting up his business. He will state that he had not taken any
part in the organizing or the hire of any equipment on Date 10th August
2014."
· On the 27th July 2014 Ref:
yert00376227 pc chandler:
"Information had been received
that a rave would be taken place."
"Mr Simon Cordell believes if
sourced by way of an information request this could prove his innocents in the
allegations presented in this police statements and believes that the public
order unit at Scotland Yard does in fact hold the information to all dates in
question contained within this ASBO application, which would prove Mr Simon
Cordell was not the organizer,"
"Statement: Police drove
down and found the rave."
"Mr Simon Cordell would like to
see proof that this was a rave and the answer ‘(’has there been anyone charged
with holding a rave on this date in question.”)
"Statement: of which people
at said rave had the keys for."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was not the occupier of the land and he did not have any keys to it."
· Ref: yert00376227 pc chandler:
"Police spoke to people inside.”
"At no point did any police speak
to Mr Simon Cordell as he was not involved in any form of the organization of
what he is being accused off such as an Illegal rave."
· Ref: yert00376227 pc chandler:
"There was a big stack of speakers
which was being powered by a van belonging to Simon Cordell."
"Mr Simon Cordell van is a ford
transit 2002 this cannot power any think above12v and a sound system is 240v,
the size of Mr Simon Cordell generator is the size of a transit van and would
have been noted down by a police officer due to this Mr Simon Cordell exhibit a
picture his generator on his mobile trailer as (Exhibit 0000.)
Mr Simon Cordell did not hire any sound
equipment, or have any involvement in the birthday party, he will state that he
just knew someone, who was treating the premises as their home on the date in
question and was living in the local squats in and around Enfield around the
dates in the ASBO application, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was at the
premises as a guest."
Ref: yert00376227 pc chandler:
"The rave accused of it being was
a 20th birthday party for one of the occupiers. Not the person Mr Simon Cordell
was there to visit."
The police talked to the persons whose
birthday party it was. Mr Simon Cordell does not agree with being accused of
organizing his birthday party or any form of Anti-Social Behaviour on this date
in question, Mr Simon Cordell will state it was not his birthday and he did not
hire out any equipment, nor was he involved in the organization of any
rave."
Ref:
yert00376227 pc chandler:
"Police State The rave was
organized by Simon Cordell’’
49
249,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell will state that this
said rave was not set up him. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has never
been charged for the organization of this said rave and believes that if this
had been a correct statement that he would have been arrested.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that if
this was not his birthday or party, that he was just merely invited due to
knowing someone who was living at the premises. Mr Simon Cordell will state
that he is not homeless and that he does in fact live in his own council flat.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that this at no point did he in fact cause any
actions that was likely to cause Alarm Harm or Distress.
"Police officers state that this
was connected to another rave on Alma Road."
"Alma Road is a road just of Green
Street, to which Mr Simon Cordell will state that he lives, with mostly private
housing developed on it, there is a few long-term companies. And a few
businesses and that he does not know of any rave or location along alma road
that a Rave has ever taken place, or of any place people have lived as he keeps
his private life to himself and only in exceptional circumstances over official
governing body(s) of relevance towards them issues, that may be of concern
contained within their departments. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
checked face book and applied to Enfield local council to be told no rave has
happened on Alma Rd as well, asks please can you supply evidence supporting
your claims ‘’ Connected to another rave on Alma RD ‘’.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not involved in any said rave and has never been to a party on Alma Road.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does in fact drive down Alma Road a fair amount due to his Nan Once living just
off there and living two roads away.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that that
he does also travel down Alma Road to get from his flat and his mother’s
address.
The only event on Alma Road involving
the metropolitan police, that Mr Simon Cordell remembers was when he was pulled
over on a Thursday, in his car index MA57 LDY which the case has been added to
this ASBO application. Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no point was he
Anti-Social towards the police that pulled him, or he would have been arrested
for a section 5 or of a similar offence and he surely would not have walked
away, without even a ticket. He will state that he did in fact shake the police
officers’ hands as he left.
Thursday 24th July 2014, At around
16.25 hours: Alma Road:
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
driving index MA57LDY as he stated down Alma Road, and this is a road that he
travels down regally.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
uses this road to travel between his mother’s house and his own flat, as it is
one of the only routes of access between both flat and house, and it is also
the fastest route to take. Mr Simon Cordell will state that this Nan also lived
just off Alma Road before her resent death.
On travelling from his mother’s house
on Thursday 24th July 2014 from seeing his Nan and mother due to his Nan's
illness he was going home to his flat and used Alma Road as a route to travel
as he always does do so.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
noticed an unmarked police car, as it was indicating to take a right turn the
opposite way from which he was travelling.
The reason he knew this to be an
unmarked police car was because he knew the police officer who was driving from
seeing him on active duty within the local area.
As he drove past it changed its
indication to the way he had been heading, which was a left direction.
The unmarked police car continued to follow
him in turn putting on the blue lights in their vehicle. he pulled over to the
left had side of the road opposite the BMW repair centre along Alma Road, on
the left-hand side of the pavement leading to the back entrance of Durant's
park.
A male office got out of the passenger
side and approached Mr Simon Cordell driver’s door, he un done his car window
to a jar asking why he had been pulled over to which the police office replied
he was not sure and said his college had instructed him to do so. He then went
back to his police car and then reproached his car window with his college the
driver of the undercover police car.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
asked again why he had been pulled over to the reply of the driver of the
police car pulling out his police truncheon forcing me to get out my car or if
he declined his window will be smashed.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he got
out of his car as he did not have any think to hide, neither had he committed
any traffic or criminal offence, nor was he wanted. The reason given to Mr
Simon Cordell was for being stopped, then being accused of driving to close to
the car in front of him. This car did not
50
250,
Edited part 5.pdf
stop nor was it pulled over by police.
Mr Simon Cordell will then state that he was then accused of having drugs; He
was searched and so was his vehicle and nothing was found.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
asked by police what he had been up to and that he told them that he was
setting up his catalogue that he and his friend had been building. That is why
Mr Simon Cordell’s website was well underway to being completed, and he was
trying to establish positive effects within his business in today's society,
within the business industry. This was a Thursday at 16:25.
Then once the police had checked every
think that they had needed to, everybody parted and shock each other’s hands
and went then, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he made his way home.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
cannot understand why the police officers have said that he was driving in this
manner as this would have been classed as dangers driving, and he would have
been punished accordingly. Mr Simon Cordell will state that there is no way
that someone can drive 1’’ from the car in front of each other’s car’s bumpers;
this would have been clearly in possible. If the males car in front had been
stopped or went to the police stating that, Mr Simon Cordell had being do this
action, would have be taken against Mr Simon Cordell for YR then surely the
police would have taken the persons details in there 101 Book of reports PC
EDGOOSE.
• 19th July 2014: Carpet right A10
great Cambridge road Enfield:
Ref:
yert00376024 Inspector skinner
On this day Mr Simon Cordell will state
that he was travelling down the great Cambridge road heading home in his
vehicle. When on the other side of the road he saw a man, he knows to be
homeless detained by the police outside the gates of carpet right. He wanted to
make sure he was ok so to do this he had to drive up the road to the traffic
light next to the Odeon cinema and turn around, which he did do. Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he noticed a car park a few premises before the carpet
right named magnet open to the general public, so he parked there as he could
see the police had blocked all accesses to the front of the carpet right car
park, you cannot park outside any premises at this point of the A10 Great
Cambridge Road.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
that he locked his vehicle and walk up the pavement towards his friends and the
police officer detaining him outside carpet right front gates. On doing so, a
police officer approached him and told him, that he was under arrest for breach
of the peace, to which he was realized latter from police custody, without any
charge or fine for any offence committed, neither was he served any official
paper work.
· Keys to carpet right are in the
premises
· Police surrounded front gates and
building entrance
· police too details of all people
present contained within the application and Mr Simon Cordell’s, name is not
present amongst them.
· The 999 caller states it was all white
males and females at first point of police intelligence.
· The Inspector contradicts himself by
stating that Mr Simon Cordell was inside the gates of Carpet Right and then
goes on top state otherwise.
• Ref: yert00376024 Inspector
skinner
"20 people inside premises."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was not one of the 20 people inside the free hold of land and at no point of
time was he the hired sound system contained on the premises. At no point did
he have any
51
251,
Edited part 5.pdf
involvement in any matter, involving
the activities or decisions of others, who were occupying carpet right. If he
had been a charge would have been put towards himself."
(CAD 9840 19th July 14 pages 287 to 290
)
Incident no 9840 at 20:51 on 19th July
14 by 083891/L2843 Rec by: Ordinary Call type: Third
Party
ATT Location: 198
Great Cambridge Enfield: Carpet Right Inc Location: = Blocked Out Call
Location: Blocked Out Opening: Noise (Trespass)
Criss: Not
Crime
Location Based Comments: Blocked
Out Caller States:
· 20:56:06 He has attended the location
to find a notice that persons are squatting in the building
· 22:12:53 274ye 10-20 squatters are
inside. Police entered to make sure no sound equipment was inside.
· Pages 291 to 301 CAD 10635 19th July 14
End:
Incident no 10635 at 22:07 on 19th July
14 by c723688 Incident is Tagged 2 x Rec by: Ordinary Call
type: Third Party
Inc Location: = Martinbridge
Trading Estate, 240 Lincoln RD,
Call Location: Blocked
Out Opening: Noise (Trespass) (Alcohol)
Criss:
Not
Crime
Location Based Comments: Blocked
Out pages 292 and 293 Linked to: CADS11644 and 11822 19th Jul 14 Caller
States:
About 20 pulling up on to an estate
looks like to have an illegal rave
Caller States:
They have brought in alcohol and decks.
Caller States:
He can see them bringing in boxes and
are definitely not there to work.
Caller States: (page 294 They are
Males and Females all White People, So how can Mr Simon Cordell be getting
accused of this as stated in the new skeleton bundle, Insp Skinner states that
Mr Simon Cordell was the organiser of an illegal rave, in a premises on the
19th June 2014. page 95 Police state more units please and all people and cars
contained on the land on carpet right present)
Has any think ever happened like this
before: = Yes No date and time.
Caller States: page
295
There are a number of vehicles here
Pages 295 and 296 including 297 of Copies of DVLA Records from the PNC,
Including all the people’s names and addresses, from when checked inside carpet
right and Mr Simon Cordell was not one of the people neither is any vehicle he
was driving, at that present time in life.
• CAD 11822 19th Jul 14 PAGES 302 TO
304 Ends: Incident number 11822 19th July 14
Rec by: Emergency
Call type: Third Party ATT Location: Southbury BR STN Inc
Location: = Southbury BR STN
Call Location: Southbury BR STN
Opening: Noise (Noise Nuisance)
Criss: Blanked
Out
Location Based Comments: Blocked
Out
Linked to Cad10635 19th July 14) and
(Cad11644 19th July 14)
52
252,
Edited part 5.pdf
Caller States:
Large group outside causing a
disturbance outside the STN and there is at least 200 people blocking the Rd
and pavement.
Caller States:
I do not know what they are doing but
need to be moved on.
No More Cads Left for the 19th
· Ref: yert00376024 Inspector skinner
'With sound equipment which they was about to set up."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not hire any sound equipment to this event nor did he organize it, police
intelligence will show this, Val Tanner attached to public order unit Scotland
yard.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
has since sourced information THAT SHE contacted and accused another person
other than himself, of being the organizer and attended addresses leading to
this date, Prior. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he would like to call her to
court under oath to prove his innocents in this case.
At no point did he go on the open-air
land or the premises attached to that land and that the police had said
occupiers /potential organizer in the said land including the sound system
contained within.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that it has
also come to his attention from sourced information, that the public order unit
Scotland Yard has information to other dates that are included in within this
ASBO application, which will prove further to the facts that he did in fact not
commit the offences that he is being accused of within this ASBO application.
· Ref: yert00376024 Inspector skinner
· "The main organizer was spoken to
by police."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is
not the main organizer on the 19th July 2014 as-Val-Tanner- attached to the
public Order Unit Scotland Yard understands. Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he did not supply any equipment. (Mr Simon Cordell will state that he would
like to summons Val-Tanner- attached to the public Order Unit Scotland Yard
under oath to his trial) as he states that he knows she holds evidence of
his innocents in regards to the ongoing of the current ASBO application.
Because this so-called event and the
unit she works for holds information to the date of the 19th and other dates in
this ASBO application, as this was explained by her to my mother on the
telephone.
· Ref: yert00376024 Inspector skinner
"It is said that Mr Simon Cordell
admitted to police that he was an organizing to the party and said he was
expecting several hundred people."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
this is not correct as stated the keys were found on the premises and he never
was on the premises, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was arrested outside
on the pavement as shown in Inspector Douglas Skinner statement and that he
could not have left the premises as said by Inspector Douglas Skinner the
police had secured the premises before he had arrived."
· Ref: yert00376024 Inspector skinner
"As a result the people inside the
venue all left."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he never went in the premises or venue at any time, He mealy stopped out of
care off a fellow companion, to be detained by the metropolitan police
wrongfully without charge or interview. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
feels this shows the way he has been treated over the years and discriminated
by police. He states that the facts are the police had secured the premises,
they had a sound system contained in the premises, and occupiers in the premises,
one of these people was arrested then de arrested (Mr Simon Cordell will state
that he has found this out since he has contacted the director at company house
of every decibel matters, who has provided a statement as he was one of the
people detained inside the premises, by the police to then latter be released.)
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was outside and was arrested for no
reason."
53
253,
Edited part 5.pdf
· Ref:
yert00376024 Inspector skinner
"Elliot Laidler accused of stating
it was his first time he had worked for Cordell."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he does not know a Elliot Laidler, neither at no point was or has he worked for
him, (Please show Mr Simon Cordell Evidence or an invoice that he was working
for him), Mr Simon Cordell will state that his company was not running at this
point it was still being setup, Mr Simon Cordell did help some charities out
with their events in the process to help get his company established.
· Ref:
yert00376024 Inspector skinner
"Clearly Mr. Cordell makes a
living by organizing raves in Enfield."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he has been establishing his company and have not hired any equipment on the
18th or 19th of July 2014 - Mr Simon Cordell will state that he does not make a
living from organizing illegal raves neither did he cause any Anti-social
Behaviour on this date.''
· Ref:
yert00376024 Inspector skinner
"Police state that it is possible
that Cordell has obtained the key via Security Company or ex employers."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
this is not true as he never went on the land or in the premises or did, he
hire out any equipment or organize this said event."
· Ref: yert00376024 inspector skinner P 5 of
5 6. Criss 1914855/14 CAD 11854
20th June 2014 PC Haworth
"Police discovered a rave being
set up at 1 Falcon Park Neasden lane NW10."
PC Haworth.
"Seized from the Dee Jay
again."
"MR Simon Cordell will state that
he has never been a Dee Jay and does not know how to Dee Jay. Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he received a call from a client/ friend asking if he could
help him out with a sound system and van which was also asked for, to carry the
sound system in. This was a pro bono hire which would lead to hire contracts
under a hire agreement. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did take a deposit
which was not returned due to a breach of his teams and conditions of agreement
and due to his sound system being seized.
MR Simon Cordell will state that he
received a phone call dated; 20/06/2014 around 00:00am from the client who told
him that there had been some problems with police and was told the police were
going to seize the hired sound equipment and hired van. He was very upset but
agreed to attend, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he then left his home
address, and it took him around 1 hour to get there as the roads were quiet.
Upon getting there Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he saw a lot of police around the premises, to which Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he started to speak to the police. Mr Cordell showed
the police the invoice for the hire of his sound system. he was allowed access
by police to the building to pack his sound system away. While in the building
an inspector come and spoke to him and told him that he was going to seize the
sound system and van. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he spoke to the
inspector explaining and showing him the invoice, he also giving him a copy.
To which his sound system and van was
till seized, to which he was later allowed to collect from the police station
after they had done their enquiries, this was a few days later.
At no time was he charged, arrested or served any official paperwork from police,
· Progress Way Enfield EN1: 7th June 2014
Ref: yert00374531.Pc Shinnick
“Police officer PC Shinnick states he
saw Mr Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin and they have set up a rave in the
empty warehouse."
54
254,
Edited part 5.pdf
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
is not true as his Brother was taken to hospital in fear of his life as he had
been in an ATR and could not walk and suffered many other damages to himself
dated 10/04/2014, He still is having treatment at The Royal London Hospital
16/02/2015 and this will be ongoing, this is a life changing accident.
I did attend progress way but did not
going inside. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was on his own at about 01:45
on the 8th June 2014, and police tried to speak to him outside the gate as he
was trying to give his friend back a set of keys; he waited at the petrol
station across the Road then went home.
• Ref: yert00374531.Pc
Shinnick
Unit 5 ST Georges Industrial Estate
White Heart Lane N17: 25th May 2014
At 23:21 hours.
I am Up to here 00:59 09/02/2016
Ref: yrrt00323197 Pc Hoodlese
Contacted by security guard at the
venue stating suspects were on the premises."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he spoke to his friend that he knew to have problems due to being homeless at
the time and that he had been trying to help out by offering them work from the
local council such as Ponders End Festival, Winch more Hill Festival, Lock To
Lock and more. There were no profit events Mr Simon Cordell has provided proof
of the events that they did engage in.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had
also been letting friends stay at his flat and that he cooked them food and
other living accessories such as trainers and cloths while giving them a place
to sleep and wash. Mr Simon Cordell will state that his friend called him earlier
in the day and explained to Mr Cordell that he was living at Unit 5 St. Georges
Industrial Estate White Hart Lane N 17, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
went and meet him. That he did not hear any alarms, nor would he be on any CCTV
cameras committing any offence on this date in question. That he did in fact
arrive and had ordered food. He used his van to travel from his home to where
his friend was staying. Due to storage space and the size of the speakers, Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he could not remove the speaker boxes on his own
because of the size and weight of each box and used his van as storage on some
occasions.
On the 25th May 2014 the police checked
the index CX52 JRZ and there were two speaker boxes with no speakers in them
that Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had keep in the van. There were no
amp’s decks or any other equipment to power or create a full sound system just
2 speakers that he keeps in there for storage. The police could see there was
no way to run a sound system and allowed him to leave.’ Mr Simon Cordell will
state that he is not sure if the people were still allowed to stay in their
home by the police.
Approx. 20 young males and females ran
out the rear of the premises."
"At no point was Mr Simon Cordell
one of the males or females that run out of the building."
Ref: yrrt00323197 Pc Hoodlese
Approx. 20 people claiming to be
squatters."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that At no
point was he one of the 20 people occupying Unit 5 St. Georges Industrial
Estate White Hart Lane N17, living under a section 144 Laspo
treating and respecting it as their home, as for fact he was a guest and has
his own home.
"Several males were still inside
the premises calming to be squatters."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
as said people were occupying the building and that he went home.
55
255,
Edited part 5.pdf
Ref: yrrt00323197 Pc Hoodlese
"Police had footage of several suspects
causing damage to the security cameras and door locks, Mr Simon Cordell will
state that was not one of them people."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point will he be on any of the said camera evidence as he never committed the
offences stated, he believes if he were on the security cameras then criminal
charges would have been placed on him. At no Time have any charges be placed
against him Mr Simon Cordell will state that as he was not one of the suspects
causing any damage. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he would like the security
cameras footage, shown in court to prove this.
"At the venue."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
this was a commercial building being occupied under section 144 Laspo. as far as he was aware and had been told by the
occupiers they had been living there for weeks before this date, they had their
belongings and bedding at the premises."
"On camera opening the venue upon
opening the premises."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he will not be on camera, that he was invited into the premises by the
occupiers that were living there."
Ref: yrrt00323197 Pc Hoodlese
PAGE 19 is MISSING FROM HERE NOTE
CONTINUE LAST PAGE STEVE 20
• Ellesmere Street E14 PC Scott
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
remember that morning very well to be a Sunday as it was pre-arranged to meet a
few friends at their house' Ellesere street E14, because he had planned to go
out with friends on their off road scramblers for the day, Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he was looking forward to this day very much.
There were two other vans ready to go
with bikes in them and the van he was driving index CX52 JRZ, which had two off
Road scrambles in the back.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
approached by police and asked to prove insurance which he did by way of
insurance certificate.
he was challenged at to the status of
my insurance policy being real or up to date and that he had paid for it to be
a valid insurance certificate. The reason the police officers were showing
issues of concern was because Mr Cordell Insurance policy was not showing on
the mid databases, to what he explained was no fault of his own, he explained
that he had made many complaints trying to rectify the problem by way of email
to his insurance company as well as the police and the MID database, he had
done this by making many phone calls and sending many emails while asked the
police to check there own system to verify this.
Having his vehicles seized had become a
regular event since 2013 Proof attached on weekends he is mostly pulled over by
police.
The reason being as the police MID
Databases did not show his vehicles as being insured as well as it being a
Sunday leading to all insurance companies being closed.
This has left Mr Simon Cordell have to
pay the recovery cost as well as other expenses including the loss of day as
well as the embarrassment that comes with being punished for some think that he
knows he is paying a services for and knows that is not right in the begin.
His van was search for a TV before it
was seized and was proved to be false allegations.
Informant had seen a group of male's
loads a flat screen TV into rear of white ford index CX52 JRZ.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point did a TV get put into his van."
"At 14:46 he was arrested for
section 5 and no insurance."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he is still having many issues with his insurance for this policy with KGM and
all the seizer he suffered due to the error in the MID, he has provided proof
of insurance, Letter of Indemnity from KGM for Policy Number MT3574694 of his
innocents."
56
256,
Edited part 5.pdf
• 12th January 2013: Canary Wharf
"Supplying information to the vehicles
involved in gaining entry and carrying equipment."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not supply any sound equipment nor was he involved in the organization of this
said event.
This night he was taken to hospital as
he was stabbed in the head and his ear and stomach was cut." Medical
records have been sent of for by Michael my solicitor
in this case.
(BOOK SEVEN UPDATED PAGES 26 TO 30)
21/12/15
Statement of Simon Cordell Further to
my statement Dated 00/00/00
In regard to Steve Elsmore Statement
further to his statement Dated 11th August 2014 Amended on the 14/01/2015
In relation to wards an application for
an Anti-Social Behaviour Order regarding the defendant Simon Cordell.
Point 1
PC Steve Elsmore States.
On the 5th November 2014 at Highbury
Corner Magistrates, that I Simon Cordell made certain representations in regard
to my company Too Smooth.
I Simon Cordell State;
I did explain that I was establishing
my company and had become a valid member at Kemp Hall Community Centre there
for committing myself to working for my local community centre, I did also say
that I had been establishing my company brand and reputation, by way of
provision of hire under a pro bono agreement with companies working on behalf
of them self’s, in connection with Enfield Council as they were all licensed
outdoor events within the borough of Enfield contained within the local parks
and such land marks.
Point 2
Pc Steve Elsmore States.
That he has searched the police systems
in reference to my statement made in court, “that I was in fact on curfew and
had not been leaving my place of residence.
I Simon Cordell State.
I do agree that I did state that I had
been of police curfew during dates 28/06/2013 to 21/05/2014 during court
proceedings which I was found not guilty for on the 02/07/2014.
Throughout the Interim stage of the
ASBO order held at the Magistrates Court, I do not understand how PC Steve
Elsmore when checking the Metropolitan police databases could not find my
statement to be true,
As on the date of 03/08/2015 at my
trial the clerk of the court checked her computer system in front of the DJ and
all else present in the trial proceedings and found my statements to be true. I
had been on curfew from the 28/06/2013 until the 21/05/2014 along with other
bail conditions.
PC Steve Elsmore States.
That he had discussed entertainment
licences with the police and Council Licensing Officers and they had informed
PC Steve Elsmore, I would not need to apply for licensing if premises was
already in place of licensing or that I can apply for A Ten Note if on outdoor
land.
I Simon Cordell State.
I had been in negotiations with Lee
Valley in regard to Premises and Licensing to hold an outdoor community event
within my local borough which was going well until the court proceeding became
too much inclusive of the conditions imposed upon myself.
57
257,
Edited part 5.pdf
With regard to Barley Land Farm, due to
everything that was going on in 2013, 2014, I had to take a step back from the
event I wanted to host at Barley Land Farm, this was going to be picked up
after I proved I had not done anything wrong which was the case. Barley Land
Farm I did want to host this in 2014 but knew this could not happen as the case
I was on lasted over a year, before I was found not guilty. I was due to pick
up contract with regard to hosting this for 2015. This was stopped due to this
ASBO order and the ongoing court proceedings becoming the priority over all in
my life.
I was made manager of club Juice
Brimsdown Enfield and trusted with the keys and all operations of the company
till the police made this impossible to manage due to being continuously being
pulled over outside.
It was agreed for me to be the manager
of the lunch of White Sands night club once known as the Beach club Brixton
Hill, till the police publicly embarrassed me and shamed my name by arresting
me out side at an arranged meeting with the owner, to which I proved my case at
court, I had committed a lot of time towards the launch of this venue prior.
Point 3
PC Steve Elsmore States.
The Licensing officer had checked in Steve
Elsmore presence that I Mr Cordell has never applied for licensing regarding
entertainment.
I Simon Cordell State.
I had no reason at this time of my life
to apply to the council as pickets Lock, Barlylands and all festivals,
inclusive of Night clubs and community halls I was committing my personal time
to while establishing my company and representing my brand, have or had
licensing already in place, I have also listed a few more companies names I was
working with and for below with correspondents.
Lock to Lock
Muswell Hill Festival is a fundraising
community event for children with cerebral palsy and their families from across
London.
Enfield Town Fire Works
Ponders End Festival
Durant’s Park Festival
HD Festival
At the same time I was constructing and
in development of my website with help from my mother and friends, hosted at www.TooSmooth.co.uk
Point 4
PC Steve Elsmore States.
That he has spoken to Enfield Council with
regards to myself Simon Cordell hiring Generators to them for events also that
I had only hired out a human gyroscope to Enfield Scout for the local town
fireworks display dated 2013.
I Simon Cordell State.
As listed above is the names of some
events I was working within and for at the dates in question mainly before the
interim stage and while other ongoing court proceeding progressed to which I
was being accused of, to which I rightfully was found not guilty in my plea of
innocence.
58
258,
Edited part 5.pdf
I had a curfew so could not stay with
the equipment over night and as a company getting ready to start to trade I
could not afford the higher of an experienced employee, so in turn I lost the
contracts and faith in the justice system that was the main contribution
towards the key elements need to cause myself to lose the contracts I and
others had worked so hard to gain, due to the value of the products it was
impossible to comet myself to a contract of hire any longer, at the same time
the probationary conditions thought the interim stage imposed that represented
the ASBO order made it once again even harder to continue forward than it
already was.
Point 5
PC Steve Elsmore States.
A company House Check has been
conducted under the name Too Smooth and Mr Cordell’s post code and there is
nothing registered. I am also asked by Steve Elsmore to provide my company
number.
I Simon Cordell State.
My company name was registered on the
10/03/2015 and this was shown to the court at trial.
I think there was a mistake in how I
explained myself and due to this think you believe my company had been
registered before this date.
However what I was trying to explain
was my domains had been registered since 2010, and 2013.
The reason my company was not
registered in 2013, which it was meant to be was due to the court case and the
conditions of bail I was on.
I could not do the contracts I had in
2013 so my company was put on hold until after I was found not guilty at court
on the 02/07/2014.
But then as soon as I had been found
not guilty for that case, I then had to deal with this ASBO order. Point 6
PC Steve Elsmore States;
On Wednesday 10th 2014, in regard to
obtaining Mr Simon Cordell’s role also inclusive of any more information that
could be obtained relating to him at Kemp Hall Community Hall.
Diana Johnson hall manager was
unavailable due to being sick, PC Elsmore spoke to assistant Hailey “Football
Team Manager” who stated she was not sure of Mr Cordell role and had not seen
him for about Two months in advance to the last meeting to which he had
attended due to being ill.
I Simon Cordell State.
Regards Kemp hall, I Simon Cordell was
given a Business card by a friend of a woman name as Luvinia De-Terville.
Her business card represented a company
known as Dems event management who provides licensed outdoor and indoor events,
so I called the number in hope of making good relations relating to
professional business possibilities, a meeting was agreed and went well.
I was later contacted by Dems
Management to help with the on goings of a charity event in aid of a charity
called Bliss that helps premature babies, this event had been cancelled and was
supposed to have taken place at another community hall other than Kemp Hall to
which she had lost her deposit.
I arranged another meeting with her and
asked her to bring all documents for the event so I could see if there was a
way to rectify the problems, I took on the project to re-launch the event at a
new location and Kemp Hall was chosen, a meeting was arranged at Kemp hall for
19th September 2014 with Diana hall manager and Dem, at the meeting I noticed
the community halls absinth of articles of association and the down full in the
maintenance of the hall, it was explained by Diana that she was having issues
with managing the hall due to a lack of communication with committee members
and local Authority and that the hall was absent of licensing and no
constitution was in place neither funding, on taking a tour of the hall I took
a list of problems I could fore see for holding an event for Dem’s and that
could be rectified for Diana. I prioritised the list as I was going around here
is some of the problems I listed.
No lights in girls/ woman’s toilets /
this was winter, so it was dark early.
No Baby changing mat Girl’s toilet door
no hinges.
Boys / Mans toilets no lights
59
259,
Edited part 5.pdf
Decor dull
Guttering outside Missing Front Car park
needs cleaning Rear fence broken
No safer foods controls for regulated
provision of food or sale of alcohol No fridge controls
Combustible papers in fridge’s no
temperature controls
Electrical fuse board needs testing and
cables 3 double plug sockets are burnt out Stage dangers and needs maintenance.
Dance stage in main hall need
reconstructing No internet No telephone
No CCTV 8 cameras not working Kitchen
facilities out of date
New 1 new PC missing a grant was issued
by local authority for 8 new laptops
No sound Equipment
No TV facility
Pool table Broken
Tennis table broken
The list went on, I agreed to come back
and help out where I could, and did do so at my own expense, I fixed most of
the listed above over time and a lot more to which I still have all the notes
of and information relating to the contract work. I have and provide evidence
of Diana hall manager thanking me for my help and that she had not meet any one
in 15 years that she could trust with the keys and management of the hall and
because of this she had neglected time with her own family in the aid of
keeping the hall running for the local children and community. This was because
she trusted me with full management of the hall under her supervision. I can
provide the information.
I also do not understand why PC Steven
Elsmore would want to obtain more information as to my role at Kempe Hall and
why he would speak to someone he does not know about me and any role I have at
Kempe Hall. If the person who currently run Kempe hall was not there, he should
have asked for a number to contract her on, not gone about speaking about me to
someone else he did not know what role they had in Kempe hall.
Point 7
PC Steve Elsmore States.
On Sunday 23/11/2014 police stopped the
following two males who were seen walking around an industrial estate Stockings
Water Lane Enfield at 01:10 hours.
Both males seem to be under the
influence of drugs.
On page 28 the CRIMINT reference states
the other male, this has been blacked out, it also states that this person was
living with myself Simon Cordell.
I Simon Cordell State.
On the 22/11/2014 I had been at my home
address with a friend named Josh who was homeless when my mobile phone rang a
person claiming to be a police officer spoke to myself he called me
unexpectedly it was around 23:45 hours to 00:20 hours I got the call.
This person said they had been at my
flat earlier but could not get the entrance code to my front door, they had
returned to the police station to call me and get the door code, to which I
thought and knew to be out of place I asked for the police officers badge
number to which the person speaking would not give it to me, making me not
believe this was a police officer I was in fact speaking to I would not give
the door code out, on putting the phone down I called the police and asked if
it was them asking me for my entrance code to which the reply was no.
This worried me even more because I
live in a communal building that does not have an intercom system or CCTV. You
must know the door entry code to the main entrance, and you can get to my front
door.
60
260,
Edited part 5.pdf
This made me and my friend scared and
could not understand how someone had got my number and called and wanted the
main door code.
I called my mother who told me and Josh
to come to her house, my mother had been cooking something to eat so I turned
everything off and left my flat with Josh.
We walked along Green Street, towards
Brimsdown train station going towards the river lee.
I had called my sister and she agreed
to pick us up in a cab at Ponders End train station as it was raining very
badly.
As we was walking the police pulled us
over they said they were the police care team and asked us what we were doing,
I told the police what had happened about the call and was told it was them
that had called me for the door code.
They said that they had been at my flat
early and could not get in, so had gone back to the police station to get my
number to call me to get my door code.
I asked why they wanted my door code
and why they wanted to see me, they would not tell me.
We both got searched by the police and
then let go, me and my friend Josh was not under the influence of drugs, and
the police never found anything on us when they searched us both. They asked
Josh why a boy from East London was in North London and he told them to see his
friend.
I called my mother again and was really
upset as the police was not leaving me alone, I had done nothing wrong and
never went out of my flat anymore, but the police kept coming to my flat when
they wanted.
When we got to Ponders End my sister
was waiting in a cab, which we got into and went to my mother’s home, my sister
then left in the cab to go home.
My mother was really upset and made a
call to the police at 02:04 to find out what was going on and why the police
kept turning up at my flat CAD 1129:23/11/2014.
She was told that I called the police,
she asked me and Josh if we had called the police which me and Josh replied no
to, I told her I had only called the police after the police had called me. She
carried on talking to the police on the phone.
Calls that were made on the 23/11/2014
by my mother to police due to what happened on the 23/11/2014.
02:04 lasted 12:00 13:57 lasted 07:00
14:52 lasted 04:00
Please see print out of my mum’s phone bill
with times and date of the 23/11/2014 CAD numbers 1129:23/11/2014. and the
email that was sent to my solicitor by my mother.
Point 8
Pc Steve Elsmore States.
On Friday 19th September 2014 at
approximately 14:15 AT Kemp Hall I Simon Cordell State;
This date Friday 19th September 2014, I
was at Kemp Hall with Luvinia De-Terville we were due to have a meeting with
Diana hall manager in regard to the higher of the hall for the charity Bliss.
Yes, I agree the police did come to
Kemp Hall while I and Luvinia De-Terville were there in the meeting with Diana
hall manager about hiring the hall for the bliss charity.
I did speak to them as they spoke to
me; I told them why we were there about hiring the hall for the bliss charity
the police could also see we were in a meeting. They seemed interested about
the charity, and I went on to say about my goals for my company and showed the
police a project I was working on, on my laptop, the police did ask some things
which I told them.
I do not see how the police was utterly
bemused I was not the only person who was talking and mostly it was the
manageress talking to the police, as the police was there to speak to her and
our meeting had run over and we were waiting for the police to leave to carry
on talking to the hall manageress.
61
261,
Edited part 5.pdf
I did not tell the police I had 3
lockups, the police know where I keep my equipment and that is not in lockups.
I do not understand why PC Steve
Elsmore has gone on in his statement to say about GMG members nor do I
understand why gang members have been included in his statement. Nor do I
understand why he has included in his statement about issues with Kempe Hall.
I had done nothing wrong and had
nothing at this time to do with Kempe Hall I was there about hiring the hall
for a charity event run by Dems.
I also do not understand why the police
when got the opportunity did they start to ask the manageress tactfully how
long she had known me, they knew already the reason I was at the hall and that
was for a meeting about hiring the hall for a charity event.
Shortly after this date the police
started to publicly make a bad example of me and started to harass me by pulling
me over as I was attending the hall one method was to strip searching me in
there van in the front car park in front of all the children and other
community members that I was there trying to help which is not mentioned and
there are no Cad’s relating to within the ASBO application, the police also
attended the hall more than the twice mentioned by Steve Elsmore and the once I
mention when I was publicly embraced by the police in relation to questions
regarding myself, I gave up and walked away as I did with the night clubs, as
the police were set out to destroy all myself and every one had worked so hard
to gain.
PC Steven Elsmore Updated statement
dated the 26/06/2015
PC Steven Elsmore again says about
Kempe hall page 30B as said above I stopped going to Kempe Hall around Dec 2014
due to what the police was doing, but was still getting emails from them I
believe they did not take my email out of the email list. The police are aware
of this as I have had more calls that the police have been there asking about
me. PC Steven Elsmore states that Kempe Hall was taken back into possession of
the council due to the way in which it was being run.
This is not correct it was taken back
due to accounting not being completed on time that Enfield council was asking
for. Please see email dated 21/01/2015 from Monica.Kaur@enfieldhomes.org Also
please see email dated 17/02/2015 from Monica.Kaur@enfieldhomes.org and
Simon.James@enfieldhomes.org
Also please see Letter dated 25th
February 2015 From Simon James.
So by 18th March 2015 Kempe Hall was
already back in Enfield Councils possession when the police did a search of the
grounds and found a firearm. And I had not been at Kempe Hall since Dec 2014.
Book 8
Witness Statement
Made By A/PS Charles Miles 724YE
Dated :02/8/2014
Accusations Dated: 7th June 2014
Time 02:03 hours Progress Way EN1
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE "On
SATURDAY the 7th JUNE 2014 I was on duty in full uniform, working as YE3N
section Supervisor.
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE "At
0203Hrs approximately I attended a disused warehouse at Progress Way EN1, where
an illegal rave was being held. I attended with Inspector Hamill VEIN and
representatives from the Environmental Health Office at Enfield Council,
approaching the gates and asking to 'speak with the organizer."
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE "There I
spoke with a man who I recognized as Simon Cordell, from previous illegal rave
events on Enfield Borough. I would describe him as a light skinned black male,
AA35 and at the time he was wearing a white long-sleeved T shirt and Grey bottoms,
he is
62
262,
Edited part 5.pdf
approximately f509 tall and of medium
build. He refused to provide his details to the council representatives in order
that a noise abatement order could be served, however he was provided with a
copy. Approximately 10 minutes later we left the scene having risk assessed the
incident."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was attending an occupied building that was being lived in under section 144
LASPO around the time of the 8th June 2014 as a visitor. And not on the 7th
June 2014.
His intentions were to drop keys to a
friend which had been left at his flat.
When he approached progress way a man,
he now no to be a police officer from the statements provided, approached him
while he was walking down a public foot path leading to the occupied building.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was accused of being an organizer to which
he gave no replay and decided at this point to cross the road and call his
friend to come out side to give him his keys back, to which he had, came to
visit.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
then left and headed home and at no point did he except any paper work of any
person(s) nor did he give his name or personal details to anybody for his
personal details to be on any official headed piece of paper, to which in the
statement he is being accused of being presented to him.
It is also noted that in A/Insp Hamill
201566 statement that he did not note that a copy of the paperwork had not been
handed to anyone. Which Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is sure he would
have noted in his statement. As from his statement he was the main person
dealing with this matter.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
would like to ask for any noise abatement order made on the 6th 7th 8th June
2014"
It is also noted that police statement
was written on the 02/08/2014, 26 days after therefore Mr Simon Cordell is
asking for a copy of the 101 book.
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE " states
that he returned to the venue approximately two hours later, he again asked to
speak with the organiser however none came forward, he asked the two men on the
door, who appeared to be party goers to let him in to have a look around. He
walked around and there was extremely loud drum and bass music playing, with
approximately 100 people dancing. Party goers observed him in Police uniform
and ran away into the large open area, presumably because of drug misuse
matters - there was significant evidence to suggest illegal drugs were being
used such as discarded self-seal bags, and empty canisters consistent with
'laughing gas' use."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "As officers
where not permitted access into the venue it is unknown to the extent of drug
and alcohol abuse which may or may not have taken place within."
A/PS CHARLES MILES 724YE "At
approximately 06:30Hrs we received a call to nearby Woodgrange Gardens, to
reports of a male assaulted. Following an initial investigation this individual
matched the description of a male earlier observed on the warehouse roof. It
appeared that he had fallen off of the roof and into some bushes and his
injuries were consistent with a fall from height. He was heavily under the
influence of alcohol and quite probably illegal drugs. He went to North
Middlesex Hospital with the London Ambulance Service."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "At 05:04hrs
CAD 2290 8th June police were called to a male assaulted in the street.
Officers and LAS have attended the location
of WoodGrange Avenue, where the male had injuries of suspected broken
wrists and a bloody mouth, he initially stated that he had been attacked from behind but on investigation it
transpired that this male had been one of the people seen on the roof earlier
and had fallen whilst getting down."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
it was only ever noted by PS 92YE that 1 male was seen on the roof, but if the
call came 05:04hrs CAD 2290 how is it his statement it says a call came in at
06:30Hrs this is 1 hour and 26 mins after the first call was made and A/Insp
Hamill 201566 had sent officers to the location.
Witness statement
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
notice when approaching the building a Section 144 Laspo
notice was in place, in turn meaning occupiers were occupying the free hold of
the land sleeping in the commercial building and treating it as their home.”
Himself,
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
Please take note "Nobody could have spoken to him or his brother Tyrone
Benjamin, or see Tyrone as his brother Tyrone Benjamin was involved in an ATR
involving, a vehicle LRO9BMV he was knocked of his moped on the 10th April 2014
the injuries his brother occurred has changed his life for ever. On the 07/06/2014
Mr Simon Cordell’s brother Tyrone Benjamin could not walk; he was Air lifted to
The Royal London Hospital. Mr Simon Cordell will disagree strongly that his
63
263,
Edited part 5.pdf
brother was at this event dated 06th
07th 08th June 2014 or any case in question presented within this ASBO
application, nor did he attend. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he arrived at
progress way about 01:45am on the 8th but on his own and on arrival police
spoke to him outside the front gates and he then left and went home.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
allegations of misleading information is being held under his and his brothers
name on the police national Computer, and he has been trying to get this
rectified, He has provided his brothers medical notes as proof of this as well
as stated many other facts and provided a copy of the Police National Computer
and the errors that have tarnished his life agreed by the courts.
He would also like to make it noted
that the police already have on their system the people they were prettying
while he was on curfew for some of the cases within this ASBO application and
that the police had contacted other people leading up to dates of the incident
numbers but not Mr Simon Cordell in relation to illegal raves. The public order
team has confirmed on the phone to his mother and Essex police have too.
It has taken months to gather this
information relating to the dates within this ASBO application so that Mr Simon
Cordell can clear his name.
Book 9
Witness Statement A/Inspector Hamill
201566 Friday 6th June 2014
It is noted that your statement was
written on the 06/08/2014 this is 62 days after the fact, Mr Simon Cordell will
state that he is therefore asking for a copy of your 101 books."
At no point did Mr Simon Cordell take
part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
did not organize any events within this ASBO application.
And at no point in time did he
encourage any other people to commit any offence causing or likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he at
no point has he committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for an
offence to one of a similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 On Friday 6th June
2014 when on duty in full uniform working as the Duty Officer for the Borough
of Enfield. Was working between the hours of 2200hrs to 0700hrs.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "During the early
hours of the 7th June I was made aware of a potential Rave that was in progress
in a discussed Industrial Building on Progress Way."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "I have had a
CAD created reference 1047I 7June dispatched officers to the location to access
numbers, crowd dynamics and gather information around times the event is likely
to
run until and also to make contact or
identify the potential organiser. Officers have reported back that Tyrone Benjamin and Simon Cordell where at location and to
be the believed the event organisers, there were approximately 200 people in
attendance, the event was covered by security officers who had stated that they
were volunteers and not licensed through SIA. Officers have spoken with staff
to confirm that all fire escapes where clear, that there were sufficient fire
extinguishers in place and that there were first aid kits available."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
this incorrect and not to be true as his brother had medical injuries stopping
him from being mobile or transported. Evidence will be supplied.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not in attendance to attained any rave in fact he was dropping keys to a friend
as they had been left at his address when he was there last."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Police
Officers have reported back: The police sent by inspector Hamill reported back
to him and said they had spoken to Security officers at the gate of progress
way, who stated that they were volunteers not security as believed by police
offices. "Who made this statement?"
If they were believed by police
officers to be security, but had said they were volunteers, what makes the
police sure beyond reasonable doubt that the people in question presented to be
security acting as volunteers could have in fact off been the organisers. As Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he was not the organiser neither did he hire any
sound equipment, nor did he take part in any form of organization on the 6th
7th 8th June 2014 or act in an Anti-Social Manner. In the new skeleton argument
the inspector
64
264,
Edited part 5.pdf
clearly states that he now trusts the
security guards when officers state that they believed they were security but said
they were volunteers and looked like party goers.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Police
Officers have reported back: Staff was forthcoming with information but refused
to allow offices inside the venue."
"As stated they never believed the
information provide by said staff at the gates of progress way to be true, as
it was believed the security was to be presenting them self's as volunteers, so
why would any information provided to officers can be classed and stated as
forthcoming be classed as to be true, if not believed to be true by the person
writing the statement in the beginning, as said by police officers, the people
at the gate also refused to allow police officers inside the venue."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Due to call
demand during the shift and low policing numbers it was inappropriate to enter
the premises to seize the equipment and close the event, but he deployed
officers to conduct regular visits to the venue, where number at their peak
where 500 but reported to be quiet and peaceful."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was not involved in any event or Anti-Social Behaviour on the 6th 7th 8th
June2014, he only went to drop some keys off to a friend that he had a call
from due to him leaving his keys at his address the last time he was there and
his friend needed them back."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Local
authority noise team were contacted reference T548832. The event was expected
to run until 0700hrs on Saturday 7th June, with plans for the event to continue
again later in the evening on the 7th June. During the course of the shift we
received a total of calls from local residence complaining about the noise of
the rave."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "On Saturday
7th June 2014 I was again on duty in full uniform working as the Borough's Duty
Officer for the hours of 2200hrs to 0700hrs, as with the previous evening I was
made aware again of a Rave at an empty Warehouse of Progress Way. As with the
previous evening, I have posted officers to make regular visits to the venue to
access numbers, crowd dynamics and general intelligence around the event.
During the course of the number numbers
at the event were around 300.
At 02:00hrs I have attended the venue
with A/PS Miles and two environmental officers.
The entrance to the venue was located
off progress way, down the side off "Tops Tiles". The warehouse was
at the bottom of this side road behind a metal gate, the gate padlock had been
removed and security officers were opening the gate to allow access. As Insp
Hamill and A/PS Miles and the EO have approached the gate they have closed the
gate preventing us access."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that for
Inspector Hamill: To be able to state the gate padlock had been removed.” By
this statement made Inspector Hamill was this close to pay this much attention
to such an object as a pad lock on the gate, he then states a security officer
was opening the gate to allow access. Followed by them have closed the gate,
with so many people walking in and out of such numbers of 300 people in
attendance Mr Simon Cordell will state that he believes the inspector see Mr
Simon Cordell and took his own believes.
A/Ins p Hamill 201566 "I have
introduced myself and asked to speak with the event organisers, to which a
member of staff has disappeared into the venue and returned with a male who I
would describe as light skinned black male, Approximate age of 35, wearing a
white long sleeved t-shirt, grey bottoms. I recognized this male as Simon
Cordell.
Inspector Hamill introduced himself and
asked if we could speak at the bottom of the' road where the noise levels would
allow us to talk. We have all moved to the bottom of Progress Way where I have
introduced myself and explained the purpose of the visit and asked "It's
Simon isn't it?" to which he has replied "Yes" I have then
further asked "Simon Cordell" to which he has indicted that it was
but not verbally confirmed the answer. I have introduced the two EO's the Simon
who have explained the purpose of their visit and the fact that they were going
to severe a noise abatement order, they have produced the paperwork and asked
the male for his name to which he has refused to provide his details,
It was explained that without the name
of a person from the venue the EO's are unable to serve the
65
265,
Edited part 5.pdf
paperwork. As we have been unable to
progress this line of action, I have made the request to Simon Cordell to turn
the music down."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
Inspector Hamill: States he approached the gate and spoke to security, but the
police are not sure if they are security, the day before the people called
themselves as volunteers. The case is the police did not know who they were
they could have been security/volunteers or organisers. The police only
believed Tyrone Benjamin and Simon Cordell could have been the organisers,
which is not the case.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
Inspector Hamill: Asked to speak to an organiser and has said that a member of
said staff disappeared into the occupied building. For a male Inspector Hamill
recognised to be Simon Cordell to approach him. This could not have been the
case as; Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was not in the building and that
he was walking up to the building when he was approach by Inspector Hamill and
others.
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he does remember this day 08th June 2014 a friend who had stayed at his who had
forgotten to take his set of keys with him, when he left his flat prior to the
06th and 07th 8th June 2014.
He will state that his friend had
contacted him and told him that he needs his keys back and wanted him to meet
him at progress way where he had been residing and asked Mr Simon Cordell to
drop the keys to him.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
given a post code and had never been to this location before. That he travelled
by car and parked outside a company that he remembers to be tops tiles, as he
approached he could hear music, after finding the address given to him he had
to walk down a side ally leading to the front gates to be seen by a man he now
know to be Inspector Hamill from the statement provided he asked him his name
to which mr Simon Cordell will state that he gave no
reply to his question.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as he
see the police leave the people on the gate he was already chatting to him and
asked Mr Simon Cordell to follow him to the road side which he did, at no time
did Mr Simon Cordell talk to any police officers or any other person(s) as he
felt he had not done any think wrong and new how the police was with him and he
just did not want any problems.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
the police officer was with other people, who Mr Simon Cordell now know to be
environmental officers due to the statements. he remembers feeling like he was
being accused of being an organiser by the way in which the police officer was
talking to him.
This is the reason he did not want to
talk to the police as he knew how they was with him from over many years of
being harassed by the police.
UP TO HERE SO FAR 03:58 09/02/2016
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
just wanted to leave so he decided at this point to cross the road to the local
petrol station and call his friend to come outside to give him his keys back.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
time did he speak to police and give any details and did not take any paper
work from anyone, the police did not follow him across the road to the petrol
station where he called his friend to come and get his keys.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
notice sound coming from said occupied building and at this point in time he
would like everyone to make a note that he did not hire any sound equipment or
any other form of equipment or neither was he involved in the organisation of
any events on dates of the 6th 7th or the 8th June 2014.
He then gave his friend their keys and
headed home, at no point did Mr Simon Cordell except any paper work of any
person nor did he give his name or personal details to any other body, for his
personal details to be on any official piece of paper.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
would like to ask for said paperwork Noise abatement order"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill: Asked "It's Simon isn't it?" to which he replied, "yes he
then further asked "Simon Cordell" to which he has indicated that it
was but not verbally confirmed the answer."
Iam
up to here now 11:12 09/02/16
66
266,
Edited part 5.pdf
"As stated above at no point did
Mr Cordell speak to any police office to give his name and does not understand
how he could have done so in a none verbally manner as he did not shake his
head or shake the police offices hand to indicate this to be true. Police
states that MR Simon Cordell replied yes than states but would not verbally
confirm the answer"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill: To which Mr Simon Cordell refused to provide his details."
"He further verifies I did not in fact speak to him"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill: It was explained that without the name of a person from the venue the
EO's are unable to serve the paperwork. As we have been unable to progress this
line of action."
The police see me walking up to the
front gates from pc Shinick statements time stamped 01:59 7th June 14 but this
was on the 8th June 2014 and knows that Mr Simon Cordell was in attendance with
Inspector Hamill at 02:00 hours on the 8Th June 2014 and that Mr Simon Cordell
walked back to where his car was parked on the Great Cambridge Road Enfield, if
Mr Simon Cordell had walked into the building it would have been in there
notes. The police also understand that this party had been going on since the
6th June 2014.
And know that Mr Simon Cordell did not
speak to any one as said in police witness statement, so how could he have
accepted any form of paperwork as no one knew his details.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill states: I have made the request to Simon Cordell to turn the music
down."
"I had left the grounds and waited
in the petrol station for my friend to come out of progress way to me next to
the petrol station and get his keys, then left and went home."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill states: During the course of the 8th of June 2014 we had approximately
40 calls complaining about the noise."
"I would like to make note that I
only attended on the 08th for about 30 mins max and left to go home. The Cads
that have been provided are contaminated with cads such as 1046 progress way
and 32 crown Rd, the same as CAD 2456 both the 6th 7th 8th June 2014, and are
the main two cads representing the opening to all the CAD numbers Linked.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill states: During the course of the shift police had contact with several
groups that had been attending at the Rave all of which were extremely
intoxicated and their behaviour had clearly been using drugs which they all
confirm they had used but on police contact did not have any drugs on
them."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time did he travel with any of the said people, nor did he
invite them to any place or attended to supply any equipment or source of
entertainment for them or any drinks or drugs."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill states: as officers were not permitted access into the venue it is
unknown the extent of drugs and alcohol abuse which may or may not have taken
place within."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
police say that no officers were allowed in the building yet police officer
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE says people allowed him to enter but you have not been
told nothing about this, in your reports from the police officers."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "Inspector
Hamill states: A call from CAD 2410 of the 8th June received at 05:35hrs stated
that drugs were openly being sold."
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he did not go into the occupied building neither does he sell drugs or advise
or in courage any other person to do so"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "At 03:10hrs
on the 8th June PS 92YE noticed a male from the roof of the adjourning building
to the venue. The venue backs onto that of the police parade site which did
mean as officers entre and left the premises they had a full and unobstructed
view of the rear of the rave premises, officers have attended the venue,
however the male had already come down of the roof. Staff where given advice as
to ensuring that people do not get onto the roof again."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he had no involvement in this said event on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 and does
not feel that he should be held responsible."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 "As noted the
police arrived at 03:10hrs to deal with the matter of a person on a nearby roof
of the occupied building located in progress way, however the male had already
come down from the roof.
"Staff occupying another building
was notified.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time, would he have been notified as he was not in attendance on
the 6th 7th June 2014."
67
267,
Edited part 5.pdf
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states" at
05:04hrs CAD 2290 8th June 2014 police were called to a male assaulted in the
street. Officers and LAS have attended the location of wood Grange Avenue, were
the male had injuries of suspected broken wrist and a bloody mouth, he
initially stated that he had been attacked from behind but on investigation it
transpired that this male had been one of the people seen on the roof earlier
and had fallen whilst getting down."
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he finds a time laps in the statements made by police PS 92YE attended at
03:10hrs and noted the boy had come down from a roof in Wood Grange Avenue the
rear of Progress Way and then Police spoke to staff at progress way.
But CAD number 2290 8th June at 05:04 states
the same boy is in wood Grange Avenue again and made a 999 call making a claim
of assault 01:54 mins after and is believed to be the man fallen of the roof at
03:10 who was seen getting down safely and police state that they can see the
roof top clearly from there police service centre.
It is also noted A/PS CHARLES MILES
724YE "statement at approximately 06:30Hrs we received a call to nearby
Woodgrange Gardens, to reports of a male assaulted. Following an initial
investigation this individual matched the description of a male earlier
observed on the warehouse roof. It appeared that he had fallen off of the roof
and into some bushes and his injuries were consistent with a fall from height.
He was heavily under the influence of alcohol and quite probably illegal drugs.
He went to North Middlesex Hospital with the London Ambulance Service."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that these
times do not match up as in A/Insp Hamill 201566 statement he says he sent
someone to the attack at 05:04 CAD 2290 and in A/PS CHARLES MILES 724YE
statement he said the call did not happen until 06:30Hrs.
Was it 5 or 6 hundred hours or at 1
hundred hours and if it was at 100 hours why did police leave him to go and
speak to people at the gate of progress way, if his injuries were so server he
had to go to the hospital at 5 0r 6 hundred hours?
Mr Simon Cordell will state that the
police already have on their systems, the person’s name they were in contact
with leading up to this. The public Order Unit at Scotland Yard would hold the
information. And also the police in Essex would have information.
It has taken Mr Cordell and his mother months
to gather information in regard to the dates in this ASBO application, and he
feels that the police already hold the information that he is being accused
off. This has come at a time when he was very unstable in his health due to the
police actions toward himself over many years, and also the loss of his Nan’s
life which no one should have had to deal with in the manner she passed away,
when Mr Simon Cordell should have been taking time with his family and trying
to deal with his own health, while dealing with his brothers health, and
personal family problems.
BOOK 10
WITNESS STATEMENT Book
8
Statement taken by PC Donald Mc mikan
Dated 14 August 2014.
In regard to dates: 6th 7th 8th June
2014
This statement refers to an illegal
rave which took place between 6th June and 8th June 2014 on the industrial
Estate near Woodgrange Avenue.
On Thursday 14th August 2014, 1 spoke
with a resident who lives in Woodgrange Avenue, Enfield. The resident is an
elderly female and both she and her husband are retired.
She has stated that on Saturday 7th
June 2014, she contacted Police regarding a rave that was happening on the
industrial estate close to her home address. Her reason for contacting Police
was because the music noise was horrendously loud, and this was disturbing
their peace and had been going on for some time. She states that both her and
her husband were extremely distressed about this whole incident because
something similar had happened in the past.
She states that lots of youths had been
jumping over fences and she was very concerned and frightened about this and
feared that something would happen to them or one of their neighbours. ‘This
made them both extremely anxious, nervous and made them worry.
This lady is worried that an incident
like this could happen again. She did not want to provide Police with a direct
statement as she is frightened that the organizers could trace where they live
and make their lives even more of a misery.
68
268,
Edited part 5.pdf
She is extremely concerned that
something like this may happen again in the future. I Simon Cordell State:
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
He will state that he did not organize
any events within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he at
no point of time did he encourage any other people to commit any offence
causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or
distress.
At no point has Mr Simon Cordell
committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for an offence to one of a
similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not supply any equipment on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
BOOK 11
WITNESS STATEMENT
Book 9
Statement made by: PC Donald Mc Millen
759YE Police officer Dated:14 August 2014
Referring from phone caller taken.6th
7th 8th June 2014
Regards Unit 6 Progress way
Victim off statement is to remain
anonymous
This statement refers to an illegal
Rave which took place 6th 7th 8th June 2014. On Thursday 14th August 2014
police spoke to a resident in Woodgrange Avenue N9 who wished not to be named
and remain anonymous.
The resident stated that the rave/Party
at Progress Way started on the Friday 6th of June and ended on the Sunday 8th
June 2014.
He stated that he and his wife had
contacted the Police numerous times regarding the level of noise. This was so
loud that he and his wife had to go and sleep in a different part of the house.
He mentioned that an Ambulance had to
attend an incident that happened in the street, apparently someone had fallen
off a roof and the ambulance could not gain access. The ambulance men had to
attend on foot.
He states that he had discussions with
local neighbours during that weekend, who stated that youths had been climbing
over fences, and causing damage to the fences.
He stated that this whole incident
caused both him and his wife a great deal of distress over this particular
weekend.
I Simon Cordell State:
At no point did I take part in any form
of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
I did not organize any events within
this ASBO application.
At no time did I encourage any other
persons to commit any offence causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he at
no point of time did he committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for
an offence to one of a similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not supply any equipment on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
BOOK 12
Doglas Skinner Duty officer
Statement made dated 15/08/2014
States, On Saturday 19th July 2014 he
was on active duty as a
officer for Enfield borough.
At 2210hrs
Doglas Skinner made his first statement
29 days after the 7th June and has made additions to his statements 3 months 4
days after. In total 4 month 5 days ===70 days after said incident.
Doglas Skinner states: 20 people
pulling into an estate, the information thought was the 20 people were tried to
set up a rave.
69
269,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he at no
point of time, was he one of the 20 people talked about.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he did not take part in organising any event on the 19th 20th July 2014 or
supply equipment and did not attend the occupied premises to rave. In fact he
was pulled over as he sees a friend being detained outside carpet right and at
this time he had been helping with food and washing clothes for homeless
people.
The CAD number of the call that came in
referred to in his statement to 20 people pulling into an estate, the caller
states 20 males and females are all white people and the address are listed in
the CAD, with names and DVLA records of vehicles.
Doglas Skinner states: The crowd was by
an empty building called carpet right and had gained entry to the rear
premises.
If the building had not been occupied
under section 144 LASPO the 20 people seen and contained in the premises would
have been arrested for trespassing or burglary and was not in fact arrested. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he was arrested outside the old carpet right and
had taking no part in any activity that happened in the premises, of the old
carpet right 198 Great Cambridge Road Enfield Town En1Luj. "Mr Simon Cordell
will state that at no point was he one of the people or vans referred to on the
land of carpet right or was he attending a rave, neither was he acting in an
Anti-Social Manner."
Doglas Skinner states: Sent officers to
the scene to stop anyone else gaining entry to the premises. "
This was the 1st set of officers sent
to the old carpet right 198 Great Cambridge Road Enfield Town En1 lUJ
Doglas Skinner: Made his way to the
scene.
"2nd set of officers who attended
the scene was Doglas Skinner Duty officer."
Doglas Skinner states: There was a
metal gate across the entry to the car park, but this had a thick chain and a
padlock around it so that it could not be opened.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time had he been to this location before the date in question
and he did not put any lock chain or padlock on any gate and at no point of
time did he instruct any person to do so.
Doglas Skinner states: He walked around
to the rear of the premises where there were several vehicles and about 15
persons.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time was he one of the 15 people or vehicles being mentioned in
this Doglas Skinner statement"
Doglas Skinner states: I saw a large
black box which had sound speakers and sound system inside them. "Mr Simon
Cordell will state that at no point of time did he hire any sound equipment to
anybody on the 19th 8 2014 neither did take part in any event organized on the
19th 8 2014.”
Doglas Skinner states: I received a
call from our control room stating they believed up to 100 people were going to
arrive at south bury road train station to attended a rave at this location. As
a result to this intelligence I believed that the premises were going to be
used for a rave.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state
please take note to the statement above being paragraph one dated 15/8/2014 of
witness statement by Doglas Skinner now please take note to witness statement
Doglas Skinner dated 15/8/2014 paragraph three,
Dugles skinner I explained to him, him
referring to Mr Simon Cordell that police were expecting 100 plus people to
turn up at Southbury road were the rave was happening" While speaking out side Carpet right.
“Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
would like to know the CAD number and to receive the transcripts of the call
made of intelligence of 100 people attending.’’
Doglas Skinner states: I saw a male I
knew to be Simon Cordell who came out of the building.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time did he go on the land or in the premises related to Carpet
Right. As stated by Doglus skinner the police had contained all occupiers and
sound system and vehicles on the land and in the premises, as well as having
police officers at the front gates stopping people gaining entry to the
premises otherwise mentioned in statements as the old carpet right along the
al0.
“take note to the statement above being
in paragraph two dated 15/8/2014 of witness statement by Doglas Skinner now
please take note to witness statement Doglas Skinner dated 15/8/2014 paragraph
70
270,
Edited part 5.pdf
three, " Outside carpet Right I
spoke to Cordell " This is right I did speak to Inspector Doglus outside
the old carpet right 198 Great Cambridge Road Enfield Town EN1 1 UJ.
Doglas Skinner: He admitted that he was
just organising a party for some friends and that was all.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time did he organize this party as he felt that he was being accused
of doing and at no point would he have said that he did do so, as he had just
stopped to help a friend who he see getting detained by the police and at no
point from his arrival was any person permitted by police to go on the land.
Doglas Skinner states: I explained to
him I was holding him responsible, Him referring to Simon Cordell.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he at no point time should get held responsible for any offence that he has not
committed.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not involved in organising or hiring any equipment on the 19th 8 2014.
He will state that he approached carpet
right when the police had it contained, stopping access to any Person’s other
than police officers gaining entry.
He was not one of the 20 people being
accused of looking for venues in paragraph one dated 15/8/2014 in witness
statement made by Doglas Skinner as his name would have been noted in police
books as everyone else's on the land should have been.
He was not any of the accused people on
the land or in the building as Doglas Skinner approached the rear of carpet
right.
Doglas Skinner states: Simon Cordell
was arrested and detained.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he continued
to try and state his point that he had nothing to do with the event.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
believes that it was unjustified that he had been detained and only himself not
even the sound system on the land. As stated in the statement provided police
officers had people detained in the land and building. Mr Simon Cordell will
state that he approached carpet right after the problem had been contained by
2nd set of officers.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
Police offices as well as his closer friends who he sees being detained Named
Nash Tate who is willing to come to court, see him walking down the foot to his
aid of friends at Carpet Right. After he parked his vehicle in the car park,
which belongs to a company called magnet three company's down from carpet right
premises.
Mr Simon Cordell will
state that he was on a pubic foot path,
as he approached the officer and his friends, who were being detained and that
he never had any sound system or equipment and at no point was he involved in
the supply of equipment or organisation of any event 19th July 2014. The
premises were contained by the police stopping entry in and out as stated in
the statements at no point did he attempted or did Mr
Simon Cordell agree to take part in any event on the 19th June 2014.
· BOOK 13 missing
· BOOK 14
Statement of Jason Ames Police office
206011 Statement made 15/08/2014 Referring to date 09 August 2014 Millmarsh
Lane
Officer Jason Ames States: on the 9th
August 2014 he was driving a marked police car in the company of A/INSP King at
2221 hours.
Officer Jason Ames States: they were
informed of CAD 9717 which relates to intelligence received that states there
was likely to be an illegal open-air rave.
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he attending the occupied premises to which he had been to before to visit a
friend, who were living and residing on the premises at Millmarsh lane in an
occupied building
71
271,
Edited part 5.pdf
and out back tents, who are an
occupation, which is a collective of people. He Understands that they had been
treating the premises as their home since 16/05/2014, on the 15/02/2015 Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he remembers this day clearly as he had been
invited to a friend’s private birthday party who live on the private
self-contained land in question along Millmarsh Lane.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
requests to see all information in regard to CAD 9717 as he believes this may
contain evidence of his innocents in the events in question.
Officer Jason Aims States: The
intelligence received started that there was likely to be an open-Air rave.
Mill Mars Lane is 20,000 Square feet self-contained land with 4 large
commercial premises within. I have provided evidence supporting this and this
location is in fact in (Private Air) as well as in (Open Air) and was being
lived in as accepted by police Under section 144 LASPO or Trespass would have
taken place.
‘’Mr Simon Cordell will state that at
no point did he cause Anti-Social Behaviour on this date’’
I did not organize or take part in an
illegal open-air rave, that was likely to take place, as stated by way of being
accused in Officer Jason Aim’s statements. The occupiers who was living on the
land were treating the premises as their home and was in private Air. The
occupiers were living in accordance to the law, living in tents and the
occupied attached building on the land.
The term open air rave was used by
Jason aims, on stead of on land in open air while attached to (Private Air) as
defined by section 63 CDA, to which is a mistake as it was in private air on
land.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not arrested for any criminal offence or neither did any person take civil
action against himself as he did not cause any Anti-Social Behaviour.
Officer Jason Ames States the key
elements are present for a rave, he accused occupiers.
It could not be possible to create an
illegal rave especially with no power supply being present.
Officer Jason Ames States: The
intelligence received stated that there was likely to be an illegal open-air
rave.
“Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time did he organize or take part in an illegal open-air rave that was
likely to take place, as stated by way of being accused in Officer Jason Ames
Statements. The occupiers living on the land were treating it as their home to
his knowledge from doing research in effect to this case the land and therefore
the buildings on the land are private, counselled and contained by way of
security gates from the general public. Occupiers were living under section 144
Laspo and treating the premises as their home.
The closest/house to the occupied site
is 1 mile/away.
Officer Jason Ames States: He attended
Millmarsh Lane at 2232 hours.
Officer Jason Ames States: He could see
small pockets of young people walking east along Millmarsh lane. " Mr
Simon Cordell will state that at no point of time was he one of the people in
question or did he organize the accused rave of being. He was invited to a
birthday party as noted in the statement within this application made by Aaron
King Dated 15/08/2014 Of the officer stating it was a birthday party, which as
stated by Mr Simon Cordell "He was invited to"
On the 9th august 2014 Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he did not encouraged or neither did he invite other people or
take part in actions that may have led to an open-air rave in the region of
Millmarsh Lane. Or does he no
the people referred to.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he take part in any organisation or ‘
supplying of equipment towards any rave
on the 09/08/2014.
Officer Jason Ames States: We worked
out these youths were making their way to an open-air rave. Mr Simon Cordell
will state that this was a private birthday party to which he was invited and
never believed to be an illegal rave until police notified him that the key
elements were believed to be in place and stopped the private birthday party to
which he had been invited to, this was on private land contained by security
gates to the premises.
Officer Jason Ames States: This area
appeared to be the ground on which a building used to stand. “There was an
occupied building at the rear of the land. The land in question is a forecourt
to the occupied building."
Officer Jason Ames States: It was
fenced off and the front gates were chained shut with a motorcycle chain and
padlock.
Officer Jason Ames States: He could
hear music coming from the venue.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that no
sound could be played as there was no power, “The land was fenced off and the
front, gates were chained shut with a motorcycle chain and padlock as in police
statement
72
272,
Edited part 5.pdf
made by Aaron King dated 15/08/2014
referring to the 9th August 2014 " I explained to Mr Cordell that he
needed to come on the site to see what was going on for all he knew he could be
damaging it or steeling from it. Mr Simon Cordell state at this time the
occupiers of the land was present and had been from the start of police arrival
and he was a guest as explained on the 9th August 2014. Aaron King states:
Eventually after promising he would not remove anyone squatting/ occupying the
land that were treating it as their home under a section 144 Laspo. Aaron King and PC Ames could come in if they also
treated it as the occupiers of the land do, as their private home of residence,
as noted in statements provided there was no power or generator present to the
self-contained private Land and premises. Any amplified music on the 9th June
was coming from the next-door premises in fact from a car.
Officer Jason Ames States: I could see
small numbers inside and a couple of tents.
Officer Jason Ames States: We exited
our vehicle and approached the gates in order to speak with the organizer.
Officer Jason Ames States: Manning the
gate was a mixed-race man I know to be Simon Cordell.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he remembers this day very clearly and what happened. It was a Saturday and he
had been looking forward to this day as he was visiting a friend of his, at
where he was living, Mr Cordell latter found out it was one of his friend
birthday and they were having a get together of friends and family. As he
attend the premises in question on the 9th august it was about 8pm. he stayed
and had some birthday cake and dinner, until the point of police arrival when
in fact he was sitting in a car Index MA57LDY 200 yards from the gates within
the self-contained land, he remembers this because as he arrived because he had
been invited the gates were unlocked as his vehicle and himself gained access
as a visitor, by the occupiers of the land.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as
stated he had been invited to attend a friend’s birthday party not a illegal rave by a man who lived
at Millmarsh Lane.
Officer Jason Ames States: I was aware
of a lot of intelligence on our indices that suggests Cordell is known to be
the organizer of most of the raves that have been happening in the Enfield
area.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
never been arrested and charged and feels that this is slander of definition of
character, and for such here say to be admissible as court evidence or
reference of character is criminal and unjustified, no weight should be taken.
Officer Jason Ames States: We asked if
we could come into the venue and speak to him. Cordell refused initially
starting that there was no rave.
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was just a visitor and had no right without consent of the occupiers to unlock
the gate, at no point did he have the key to the gate, To which the occupiers
use to unlock the gates to allow access for the police to come in.
Officer Jason Ames States: He stated
that it was a private "conference."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
say he had also gone to have a conference with his friends in regard to get the
empty co2 gas cylinders he was carrying to be re filled as well as to attend to
see his friends.
Officer Jason Ames States: He stated
that there have been a few people camping on the land as they had no were to
go. The people were in fact the occupiers of the land and building on the
premises, who were at the gate on police arrival.
Officer Jason Ames States: He stated that
they are having a few friends over for a private party.
Officer Jason Ames States: After
persuasion Cordell allowed A/Insp King to gain entry to survey the area.
Officer Jason Ames States: Inside he
could see around 20-30 people milling around, 2 small tents, a large set of
speakers and sound system and a supply of bottled water. AT no point did I take
part or organise a birthday party or a illegal rave
or bring any equipment leading to a large sound system on said premises as it
would not fit in my car Index MA57LDY a ford focus as mentioned in police
statement for me to be driving on the 9th June 2014.
Officer Jason Ames States: Cordell was informed
that the rave was going to be closed down and despite a slight resistance to
this by him trying to quote legislation to us he agreed to pack up and leave.
Yes when asked to leave by police.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
get into index Ma57Ldy and go home to his flat 109 Burncroft avenue Enfield to
be he lives and reside every night.
Officer Jason Ames States: Cordell was
informed that the rave was going to be closed down and despite a slight
resistance to this by him trying to quote legislation to us he agreed to pack
up and leave. "At no point would he go against police directions”
73
273,
Edited part 5.pdf
Officer Jason Ames States: He was
reluctant but co-operated at this stage.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that at
no point would he go against police directions”
Officer Jason Ames States: The venue
had more or less emptied, but the organisers were still packing their equipment
away.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point of time did he have any equipment in fact by this time he had left
to go home but got detained by way of a police road block at the top of
Millmarsh avenue soon to be realized with other members of the public.
Officer Jason Ames States:
Approximately 100 people arrived in Millmarsh Lane at the same time.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as
stated at no point of time did he take part in organising any event on the 9th
June 2014 he did in fact travel alone to attend a friends birthday party not an
illegal rave as he is being accused of and at the point mentioned did he meet
any of the people in question out of the 100 people or advise them to attend.
Officer Jason Ames States: This
appeared odd to me that so many people turned up all at once.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as
stated above he was just attending a friend’s birthday party not a illegal rave as suspected of it
being.
Officer Jason Ames States: The crowd
appeared to be angry at the fact that police had interrupted their evening and
were shouting and advancing at officers.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
go to Millmarsh lane driving index MA57LDY in a silver ford focus on his own to
attend a friends Birthday party. He has been to Millmarsh Lane before the date
in question. His reason for this is he had been invited to do so at any time.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had been invited to a birthday party at no
point was he attending an illegal rave, neither at any point did he take part
in the organisation of this birthday party or supply any equipment and that he
was present only as a civil citizen up holding the UK Law.
Officer Jason Ames States: One of the
groups shouted let’s just storm it."
Officer Jason Ames States: Cordell
appeared to have realized that this crowd was in attendance and half emerged
from the venue and appeared to be encouraging the crowd to act up and try to
false their way into the site.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point would he knowingly encourage such behaviour as to in danger others,
as this is not who he is, so the believe that he appeared to take actions, such
as stated that he would in fact in danger life's of others would not be true to
it statement' of facts.
Officer Jason Ames States: Officer
Jason Ames States: there were also reports of missiles being thrown at
officers.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as
stated above he travelled alone and was in attendance as a visitor of a friends
birthday party and no point of time on the 9 /8/2014 did he take part in the
hiring of any equipment or organisation of an open air rave as stated, or did
he have any influence or encourage any others to any events that occurred on
the 9th June 2014
74
274,
Edited part 5.pdf
Officer Jason Ames States: A male and a
female that was present did not back down and leave, they were arrested by
officers.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does not know who the people are that officer Jason Ames refers to as the male
and female, who got arrested neither did he have any involvement in the events
leading to their arrest.
Officer Jason Ames States:
The events from the 9th June 2014 have
a negative impact on Enfield Borough and a strain on police forces across
London’s 33 boroughs.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did I cause any Anti-social behaviour. BOOK 15
Statement of (A) Aaron King,
Police officer PS 91YE,
Statement made 15/08/14,
Referring to 9th August 2014 Mill Marsh
Lane
Officer ( Aaron King States: On
Saturday 9th August 2014 I was on duty in full uniform posted as Acting
Inspector. Shortly before 2230hrs I was informed via our GPC that Intel had
been received via social media that there was going to be a large illegal rave
somewhere in the region of Millmarsh Lane, Enfield, EN3. I was advised that
this was being advertised on Face book by "Every Decibel Matters" who
run unlicensed events.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
understands that the information received by police via social media, was that
there was going to be a large illegal rave, this was said to be some were in
the region of Mill Marsh Lane, Enfield En3. This intelligence was past to
police Intel Unit public order team, who had been in contact with the director
of Every Decibel matters, prior to the information being pasted on to AAaron
King, police had attended a location and had spoken to members of the public in
regards to the private birthday party to which Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was not present, it then got stopped and moved to the location to where he
was at to no arrangement of his own. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is not
a director to this company; neither was he working for the company name every
Decibel Matters on this date.
75
275,
Edited part 5.pdf
Officer AAaron King States: At this
time I was in company with Ps Ames 123YE and we made our way to the location.
On route, I informed the control room of what was potentially occurring and
accepted the offer; from some units to attend the location to assist me. On
arrival in Millmarsh" Lane it was obvious that something was about to happen.
There were a number, of groups of teenagers who were milling around clearly
looking for something.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not one of the people in question; neither did he take part in any Anti-social
behaviour, organising or should he be accountable for other people’s actions.
Officer AAaron King States: After a
brief search I noticed two metal gates next to the Greggs Factory which
suddenly closed as we passed them. We stopped and I got out and approached the
gates. Although dark, street lighting was on and I could see a male was using a
chain and lock to secure the gates.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not the person locking the gate and he did not have a key as he was not an
occupier of the land and that he was just a visitor. Who was sitting in his car
Ma57ldy parked next to the gates as the police arrived.
He could hear music coming from further
inside.
There was no power source and the music
was coming from a car related to the same land in another warehouse owned by
the same landlord as the land connected to this incident being rented out.
Officer AAaron King States: Stood by
the gate I immediately noticed an IC3 male who I know to be Simon CORDELL. I
recognised Mr. Cordell as I have previously spoken to him recently at illegal
raves where I have seen him setting up sound equipment and subsequently taking
it away.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
nether been arrested or charged for illegal raves.
Officer AAaron King States: when
confronted by Police...I explained to Mr. Cordell why we were there, but he
immediately denied it was a rave. Mr. Cordell stated first it was a private
conference but then said it was a birthday party.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
there to have a conference with a friend who lived at the premises at the same
time another occupier of the land agreed to have a friend’s private birthday
party at the location, to no involvement of his own.
Officer AAaron King States: When asked
about permission to be there he stated friends were squatting on the land and
they had said he could stay.
76
276,
Edited part 5.pdf
This is true.
Officer AAaron King States: I explained
to Mr. Cordell that I needed to come onto the site to see what was going on as
for all I knew he could be damaging it or stealing from it. Eventually after
promising I would not remove anyone squatting and only myself and Pc Ames would
come in, Mr. Cordell agreed that we could come in.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
get involved and speak to the police as they knew him by name and had already
chosen to involve him.
Officer AAaron King States: Near to the
gate was a silver Ford Focus index MA57LDY which I knew was Mr. Cordell's, -The
boot was open, and I noticed it contained three large thin industrial gas
bottles. From experience I knew this was likely to contain nitrous oxide which
is currently used on the rave scene as a legal high. As we passed the car Mr.
Cordell quickly lowered the boot. I queried Mr. Cordell about the gas and
pointed out that it was on the news earlier how Nitrous oxide was dangerous and
Mr. Cordell stated that the Government would probably ban it soon like
everything else.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does remember talking to the police in regard to Nitrous Oxide but at no point did
he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour or was he breaking the Law.
Officer Aaron King States: Mr Cordell
was polite and showed us around the site which appeared to be a large concreted
area that was completely open to the air.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that this
location was being occupied under section 144 and also has self-contained
warehouse on it, evidence supplied in case bundles this is not open to air
land.
Officer Aaron King States: There was a
large sound system to the rear which was amplified though I could not see any
power source.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
this proves the fact that music could not have been made by anyone spoken to by
police.
Officer AAaron King States: There was a
number of people wearing yellow hi-vis jackets who Mr. Cordell stated were
first aiders and there was a pallet of water near to the sound system as well
as a couple of tents closer to the gates.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
a female who had just past her first aid test, who is a
occupier of the land was present, wearing a yellow hi vest jacket as it was
cold and a
77
277,
Edited part 5.pdf
load of yellow hi - vest jackets had
been donated and he does remember everybody
present talking about her doing so.
"
Up to here so far 09/02/2016 13:32
Officer AAaron King States: I could see
no obvious Toilet facilities nor shelter from what had been forecast as a
stormy night. Inside the venue mostly just stood around in small groups were
about 30 people, mostly teenagers.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that no
police officers walked into the part of the building being occupied were there
was running water and toilets.
Officer AAaron King States: Mr Cordell
stated he was an entrepreneur and was awaiting licenses from the council so
that he would soon be legitimate.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
and still does intended to create a festival if this ASBO case stops darkening
his name.
Officer AAaron King States: When I
explained all the "ingredients" for a rave were present Mr. Cordell
began to try and argue his point that it was not a rave and that it was a
private party. I spoke at length with Mr. Cordell explaining the legal
situation and how by definition this was a rave and that ultimately there were
too few people present at the time to stop police and so on this occasion I
could act and close the rave. Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no point of
time did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour neither did he
organize or hire any equipment or was he attending a rave on the 9th June 2014
in regards to the allegations presented within the ASBO application, he did
attended a friends birthday dinner party as a guest.
Officer AAaron King States: Whilst on
an industrial estate it was my opinion that such was the proximity to local
housing and my knowledge of the volume music is played and the duration it is
played for, often throughout the weekend that a rave would constitute serious
disruption.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that Google
Earth shows the closest house to Mill Marsh Lane the premises in question, to
be one mile from the closest house. (Exhibit)
Officer AAaron King States: Mr. Cordell
was clearly not happy but did not want his equipment seized so agreed to start
packing up the sound equipment.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that as
noted by officers and officer AAaron King he was present in a ford focus and
with three empty welding cylinders, so he could not have been carrying any
sound equipment as this would not have fitted into his vehicle.
78
278,
Edited part 5.pdf
Officer AAaron King States: Whilst
talking with Mr. Cordell there were small groups of teenagers arriving at the
site and entering via a break in the fence, (the gates still being shut at this
time). I got Ps Ames to get units to us to prevent further people trespassing
on the land and to discourage people from attending the location and exited the
venue to a wait.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
should not be accountable for other people’s actions that he took no part in.
For people to further be trespassing someone would have had to be arrested for
trespass in the beginning, who is this person.
Officer AAaron King States: Mr. Cordell's
exit with the sound equipment. Whilst waiting I radioed for the on-call
Superintendent so I could get the various Rave legislation approved so that I
could seize the sound equipment and enforce a rave cordon on Millmarsh Lane to
prevent people entering.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
Inspector AAaron has been told this third party and he knows that he has stated
the true facts in his statements of truth, that Mr Simon Cordell was present in
a car and would not able to carry such large sound equipment.
Officer AAaron King States: Whilst
stood by the venue a number of people began leaving, most were laughing but the
odd one was blaming police for stopping the event. Suddenly there was a huge
number of mainly teenagers walking towards me from the direction of Mollison
Avenue. Apparently, this group had all arrived together from the nearby railway
station. Straight away some of this group headed straight towards us saying
they were going to storm the place. I had been joined by a few team officers
and we advised them that the rave had been closed down and they would not be
allowed to enter. There was some verbal confrontation but the large group which
was up to 100 strong moved off round the corner with some overheard saying they
would break in round the corner.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he take part in anyone else’s Anti-Social Behaviour and he did not
cause Anti-social Behaviour.
Officer AAaron King States: As they
began to move off Mr. Cordell stood by the break in the fence and shouted words
to the effect of, "Come on, there is more of you".
And he quickly went up to Mr Cordell
and told him to stop or he would arrest him to prevent a breach of the peace.
At this Mr Cordell went back and stayed away.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time would he say this, and he would never in danger another person’s
life in such a manner. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he would never
encourage activities that would lead to incitement of a riot, and as there
79
279,
Edited part 5.pdf
was more than 12 people present he know
if this statement was true, he would have been arrested under offences contrary
to section’s 5, 4A, 4, of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and or section 91.
Officer AAaron King States: The large
group did indeed try to get into adjoining premises that they thought led to
the rave venue hut were stopped by officers and moved off back into Millmarsh
lane, although one officer Pc Wale was injured- during a struggle. T requested
the attendance of as many units as possible including dogs and TSG as the group
were becoming more hostile towards officers despite there being no music now
and being informed of the closure. A short while later officers I had
positioned at the junction radioed that there was now an even bigger crowd
advancing on them. I arrived at the junction to see a very large number of
people, now up to 200 walking with purpose towards officers stood in the road.
Suddenly objects began to get thrown from the crowd towards police. I saw
traffic cones, cone lights, bottles and stones begin to land near Officers so
that they had to quickly move out of the way. I again heard phrases similar to
"storm them". Fearing imminent violence I drew and extended my baton
as did my colleagues. I could hear shouts of "get back" but the crowd
continued to throw items, some of which were landing on cars that had been temporarily
stopped due to the group. We had been joined by two dog units who took the lead
in dispersing the crowd. At this point there were two arrests to my left and
along with the dogs this seemed to make the crowd withdraw. I told my officers
and the dogs not to follow the crowd as they were now by the train station with
nowhere to go as the barriers were down. There was a tense standoff for some
time, but the group eventually got onto trains and left the area.
Officer AAaron King says I could hear
shouts.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
not the person shouting or causing any Anti-Social Behaviour neither did he
take part in the organisation of the private birthday party.
Officer AAaron King States: I was
informed by another unit that Mr Cordell had also left with his equipment.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that this
proves police were told third party, but already new Mr Simon Cordell was in
his car that was full because he was carrying cylinder bottles in accordance to
the law of The CARRIDGE OF DANGRESS GOODS CDG. Officer AAaron King States: I
tasked arriving TSG with local reassurance patrols but shortly after they
started, I was advised that most of the group were wandering around
80
280,
Edited part 5.pdf
near to Ponders End. I tasked TSG with
following this group and was informed by their Inspector that their unmarked
unit had overheard talk that the' rave was now going to be South West of the
original location.
I WAS NOT INVOVLED IN THE ORGANISATION
OF ILLEGALE RAVES NEITHER WAS I ARRESTED AND GIVEN THE RIGHT TO DEFFANED MY
SELF.
I was aware that TSG subsequently saw
Simon Cordell by the Crown lane Industrial Estate where he has held a rave
before and had stopped the group from forcibly breaking into this location.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that this
is two occupied building of 6 within a 2 mile radius, that were all being
occupied in Enfield, within the same Local Borough that he has lived in a
resided in since his Birth, and he does not think that it is right for police
to say who he can and can’t have as friends or as associates.
Officer AAaron King States: Finally
after close to three hours later, the group dispersed, and I was informed that
social media was indicating the rave would now be Epping Forest.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not go to Epping forest on this date.
Officer AAaron King States The whole
incident took a vast number of resources to police and there were two arrests
for drugs possession and two for drunk and disorderly behaviour. One officer
was injured with a deep cut to his elbow requiring first aid by the Police FME
and emergency calls whilst answered were subject to delay.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is
sorry to hear that any police officers had been hurt and understand the offenders
faced criminal prosecution for the offences they had caused.
BOOK 16
81
281,
Edited part 5.pdf
· Statement of Aaron King Dated
07/09/2014
Further to his statement Dated 15/08/2014
Regarding Saturday 9th August 2014
AAaron King state's: Further to his
statement Dated 15/08/2014 Regarding An illegal rave on Saturday 9th August
2014
The version of events declared in the
statement of Aaron King Dated 07/09/2014 and 15/08/14 are both in correct and
misleading to each other as pointed out;
Aaron King states: I could see a male
was using a chain to lock and secure the gates.
" Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point was he this person, as there was no reason for me to have a key as
he was just a visitor."
"As Aaron king states I could see
a male was using a chain and lock to secure the gates he then states, while
stood at the gates I immediately noticed an ic3 male who I no to be Simon
Cordell,
Mr Simon Cordell will state that to
which is true as he was sitting in the car index MA57LDY parked close to the
gates, when approached from the street, As noted by AAaron king Near to the
gate was a silver Ford Focus index MA57LDY, which he knew was Mr Cordell's.
This statement was made 15/08/2014 seven days after the occurrence of accused
events referred to on the 9th August 2014 then another statement was made to
amendments of this statement dated 07/09/2014 stating they know it was Mr Simon
Cordell locking the gate a mix ic3 male who they no to be himself, which is a
contradiction of events that have been noted on two different dates by the same
police officer leading to events within his and there witness statements, that
Mr Simon Cordell is being accused in that should not justified towards an Asbo
application and should not have no effect on himself by way off effecting his
civil liberty's human rights or acting as a bad marker in his name of
reference, to which he feel punished for and now in turn has affected his life.
AAaron King state's: I have been asked
to clarify the role that Mr Simon Cordell had during the incident.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does not see how any person can preserve his role off being an organizer, as he
was only being helpful and polite and curites, in his
friend’s place of residence towards the police, while being a
invited visitor. It was his friend’s birthday and he had been invited for
dinner. At no point did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, nor
did he organize or hire any equipment and he was not in attending to a rave on
the 9th June 2014.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
attend a friend’s birthday dinner party as a guest.
Aaron King states: as a male quickly
locked the gates upon apparently seeing my marked police vehicle. This male was
Mr. Cordell
“Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
could not have locked the gates as he was only a guest and at no point in time
had the keys to the lock on the gates.
Aaron King states: It was initially Mr.
Cordell who said he could not entre and it was him who was very much in charge
of deciding if police were going to be let in.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was
asked by police if he would let them in to which he explained he was not the
occupier and never had any keys. At this point in time one of the occupiers
went off to get the keys and let the police in.
BOOK 17
WITNESS STATEMENT
82
282,
Edited part 5.pdf
Statement of PC Donald Mc Millan 759YE
Dated: 19th August 2014 Police officer Unit 6 Progress Way
Referring to 6th 7th 8th June 2014
This statement refers to an illegal
rave which took place between 6th June and 8th June 2014 on the industrial
Estate near Woodgrange Avenue.
On Thursday 14th August 2014, police spoke
with a resident who lives in Woodgrange Avenue, Enfield. The resident is an
elderly female and both she and her husband are retired.
She has stated that on Saturday 7th
June 2014, she contacted Police regarding a rave that was happening on the
industrial estate close to her home address. Her reason for contacting Police
was because the music noise was horrendously loud, and this was disturbing
their peace and had been going on for some time. She states that both her and
her husband were extremely distressed about this whole incident because
something similar had happened in the past.
She states that lots of youths had been
jumping over fences and she was very concerned and frightened about this and
feared that something would happen to them or one of their neighbours. This
made them both extremely anxious, nervous and made
them worry.
This lady is worried that an incident
like this could happen again. She did not want to provide Police with a direct
statement as she is frightened that the organizers could trace where they live
and make their lives even more of a misery. She is extremely concerned that
something like this may happen again in the future.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no point
in time did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
And he did not organize any events
within this ASBO application.
At no time did he encourage any other
persons to commit any offence causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point of time has he committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for an
offence to one of a similar nature presented within this Asbo application.
He will state that he did not supply
any equipment on the 6th 7th / 8th June 2014
• BOOK 18
-WITNESS STATEMENT Statements
of Jhon Andrews Police Officer Dated: 19/08/2014
Reference to 6th 7th 8th June 2014
Refers to an illegal Rave which took
place between 6th June and 8th June 2014. On Thursday 14th August 2014, I spoke
to a resident in WOODGRANGE AVENUE N9, who wished not to be named and remain
anonymous.
The resident stated that the rave/Party
at Progress Way started on the Friday 6th of June and ended on the Sunday 8th
June 2014.
He stated that he and his wife had
contacted the Police numerous times regarding the level of noise. This was so
loud that he and his wife had to go and sleep in a different part of the house.
83
283,
Edited part 5.pdf
He mentioned that an Ambulance had to
attend an incident that happened in the street, apparently someone had fallen
off a roof and the ambulance could not gain access. The ambulance men had to
attend on foot.
He states that he had discussions with
local neighbours during that weekend, who stated that youths had been climbing
over fences, and causing damage to the fences. He stated that this whole
incident caused both him and his wife a great deal of distress over this
particular weekend
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point in time did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not organize any events within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
time did he encourage any other persons to commit any offence causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point in time has he committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for an
offence to one of a similar nature presented within this Asbo application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not supply any equipment on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
· BOOK 19
I am a resident living at Wood Grange
Gardens and have lived at this address for 28 years. I am retired and live with
my wife, who suffers from diccasion? As a result of
the rave that took place at the warehouse, my wife and I have suffered as a
result of my wife’s conditions, As the noise is so bad that even low my house
is double glassed the noise penetrates though the wall. On the last occasion we
had people spilling out from the rave onto the Rd and they are very noisy. This
is a lonely area but things change when the party is on.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not organize any events within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
time did he encourage any other persons to commit any offence causing or likely
to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point has he been convicted or been rightfully arrested and charged for an
offence to one of a similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
not supply any equipment on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
· BOOK 20 Statement off: Eric Baker
Police Officer 219382 Dated 19/08/2014
He is a police officer in London
Borough of Enfield and has been tasked to contact residents of the Borough who
had called police to inform them of an illegal rave that took place over Friday
7th June 2014 and Saturday 8th June 2014, in a warehouse in Progress Way
Enfield
84
284,
Edited part 5.pdf
On Tuesday 19th August 2014 I contacted
the caller of the CAD 10471/07June 2014 by telephone, who was happy to give an
impact statement regarding how illegal rave affected her and her husband over
the above dates mentioned.
The caller wishes to remain anonymous.
I will refer to her as complainant "A" The original notes taken from
the below statement are present in my pocketbook serial 370/14, page 1.
Complainant "a" said it was a
warm evening and we had to keep the windows shut because of the noise. The next
day we could not even go out into the garden because of the noise. It kept me
and my husband up all night and made us very anxious the next day. The illegal
rave totally ruined our weakened" This concluded what complainant 'A"
said regarding this matter.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour and he did not
organize or hire any equipment or was he attending a rave on the 6th 7th 8th
June 2014th.
· BOOK 21
· Statement: pc Edgoose
· Dated: 31st August 2014
Alma Rd
Referring to: Thursday 24th July 2014
Officer Pc Edgoose States: On THURSDAY 24th
JULY 2014 I was on duty in plain clothes as operator of an unmarked police
vehicle in company with APS 212YE MARTIN, PC 151YE ROBERTSON, and PC 229YE
O'NEILL. At around 1625 hours on Alma Road EN3 we had cause to stop a silver
Ford Focus VRM MA57LDY due to the manner of its driving. The driver was a male
I know to be Simon CORDELL dob21/01/1981.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
no disputes with reference to statement made by pc Edgoose above, apart from
the manner to which MR Simon Cordell is being accused of driving.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: I know him
as I have dealt with on a number of previous occasions. He was initially
hostile about having been stopped, but once he had calmed down, he engaged in
conversation with us.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point was he acting in an Anti-Social Manner
Officer Pc Edgoose States: He stated
that he is staying out of trouble now, and he does not get involved in any of
the things he used to.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he has
not caused any offence since he was much younger; and that he just gets accused
and harassed by members of the metropolitan police a lot.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: He stated
that he has 4 brand new speakers at home which are suitable for use at raves,
but he does not use them and has offered to lend them to any
"youngsters" to use.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had
been on curfew for one year for a case he proved his innocents in and had been
working hard in his Local community trying to make a positive effect towards
his self and other that he could help, so he had been spending his time
building his company and would not link himself to illegal raves,
85
285,
Edited part 5.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
say he had been getting his equipment ready and proposals for picket’s lock and
barley lands ready and had been in contact with both venues. Mr Simon Cordell
will state that had also been working at his local community hall as well as
Muswell Hill festival ponders end festival lock to lock festival and Enfield
town festival and would have been talking about such on goings only and had
been working with the youngsters from Kemp Hall Community Hall.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: He went on
to say that they are not interested though as these days they just want to
steal everything.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that the
people he meets appreciated the work he was doing for them so he does not see
why this would be said.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: He said he
gets inundated with requests to run raves all the time, but he doesn't get
involved now. He claims to have 20,000 followers on one social media site, and
70,000 on another. He said he could organize a rave and get 20,000 people at it
with no problems whatsoever.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that the
word Rave has been used and he does not see how this relates to the
conversation on the day or his activities as he was talking about the hard work
he had been committing himself to, constrictive legal work and for the term
Rave to be used without the key elements is an injustice, which if true would
have led to criminal convection, as the term illegal rave is of an illegal
formality and his PNC Criminal Record and his other recollection of events in
his life state otherwise. Mr Simon Cordell will state that did not cause any
Anti-social behaviour on this date in question.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: He gets
requests from anarchist type groups to run raves for them.
Ile went on to say that he had been
asked by Occupy London, Black Block and other
anarchist type groups to run a rave at Notting Hill Carnival for them so that
they could cause carnage and mayhem, but he had refused.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
disputes that he would say this as he knows that he is not black neither is he
white. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is mixed race of British Nationality
and that he has neither heard of a group called Black Block, neither would he
promote verbally of such a group the same as he would not verbally promote such
anarchist type groups such as the kkk because he has
been created by both.
Officer Pc Edgoose States: Whilst on
public order duty at Notting Hill Carnival I saw Mr. CORDELL walking through
the area I was deployed around TAV1STOCK ROAD. He was pushing a wheelie bin,
and he was approached by members of a group of around 10 - 20 people who had
been waiting at a junction near our location. This group had been playing drum
and bass music and had told officers they were heading to an event but were
awaiting the location. It was somewhere between 2200 - 2300 hours when I had
seen the group, and Mr. Cordell.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour or Alarm harm or distress on the
date in question.
• BOOK 22
Statement: Pc 577ye
Dated: 12th September 2014
86
286,
Edited part 5.pdf
109 Burncroft Avenue
Referring to: Friday 12th September
2014
On Friday 12th September 2014 I
attended the address of Simon Cordell in Burncroft Avenue EN3 with A/PS 556YE
PETRUCCI, PCSO NASSEER and PCSO TILLEY.
I knocked on Simon Cordell's front door
at 1230 hours and he opened the door and asked what we wanted; I asked him if
he was Simon Cordell, to which he replied, "Yeah." I stated to him
that I was here to issue him with a summons to attend Highbury Corner
Magistrates Court on 6th October 2014 at 1:30pm. Mr. Cordell stated, "What
is this for?" I informed him that it was for an ASBO; I showed him the
summons and the folder and as I went to hand him the folder and the summons
Cordell stated, "I am not accepting that, I'm not having that."
Cordell then placed the folder on the floor, outside his door, in the hallway.
I stated to him that he does not have to accept it and that I have already
informed him of the date, time and where to go. Mr. Cordell then shut the door
before I could hand him the summons, so I posted it through his letter box. Mr.
Cordell was also told to inform his solicitor of this.
Mr. Cordell was a light skinned, mixed
race male, with short black hair and was of medium build.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that on this
date he caused not Anti-Social Behaviour that might lead to Harm Alarm or
Distress to any other person.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
disputes the fact that he was served the Anti-Social Folder Paper Bundle as it
was not handed to him self at no point of time.
Copt of Complaint Sent)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this down for Simon
Cordell to a incident that
happen 12/09/2014 around the Time off around 12:00pm Of concern to all of many
factors such as British Standards relevant to good business practice.
Human Rights, Laws protecting our
community governed by the United Kingdom well as many other relevant factors.
as of date prior explained in this chapter what happened leading up to events
today at address. 109 Burncroft Avenue EN3 7JQ on the 12/09/2014
Mr. Simon Cordell was at home making
plans for positive future development in regards to
his company and future proposals as well as relevant documents and data, To the
surprise of a knock on his front door, this was a surprise because he has no
intercom and was expecting no visitors.
So with this all explained he was
couscous to open the door as he approached the door with caution of un-expected
visitors he looked into the keyhole on his front door,
He could see it was the police through
his keyhole. He asked them without opening the door what was wanted of him,
they said they needed to talk to him. At this point Mr. Simon Cordell opened
his door a little to see what the police wanted to talk to him about, once the
door was opened a little they then said to him that they wanted to serve some
documents on him at which point Mr. Simon Cordell replied he was not willing to
accept anything and closed the door.
Upon closing his close he told the
police he was not being rude but he was not willing to accept receipt of any
documents due to him having learning difficulties as noted on the police
national police system and other governing services, which he then heard the
lady police officer say through the closed door I was again looking through the
keyhole watching what the police officers was doing I heard the " Lady
police office say what should we do to the man police officer said just put it
on the floor in front of
87
287,
Edited part 5.pdf
the door and he took some letters from
the lady police officer and posted them into my letter box"
The Man police officer posted 4 pages
of papers in Mr. Simon Cordell letter box and the lady police officer put a
large blue file on Mr. Simon Cordell front door step
outside.
My son then called me and told me what
had happened but due to a death in the family I was unable to attend his
address until today the 13/09/2014 when I got to Mr. Simon Cordell address I
saw the blue folder that the police had left at his front door which was in plan view of anyone. It had been opened and left opened so
anyone could have looked into it.
I was shocked to see that inside the
document there was full details of Mr. Simon Cordell and also other people
names under the data protection act the police should have never left this
folder outside Mr. Simon Cordell address which would give anyone access to it.
I am going to the police station to
hand this back to them as it was never served on Mr. Simon Cordell and he will
not accept it from the police. I am not sure if any papers are missing from the
folder Cl. I said it 'was opened on the floor when got there.
I believe that the police when Mr.
Simon Cordell did not accept the documents they should have took them back with
them and arranged for signed delivery or tried to again serve them on Mr. Simon
Cordell as the file is far too big to put into a letter box. This is also a
complaint due to the data protection issues that the police could have avoided
by not leaving the folder on a doorstep that anyone had access to. The folder
would have never fitted in a letter box and I do not feel that the police
putting 4 bits of paper in a letter box is serving anyone the full paper work
which should have been done and not just left it on the door step for anyone to
see and read and take data out of it if they so wished, this is a beach of the
data protection act.
PNC PAGES 52 TO 62
UP TO HERE all police BOOKs are done
THEN 13 THAT ARE MISSING BECAUSE OF MY COMPUTER YOU HAVE.
BOOK 13
Doglas Skinner made
his first statement 29 days after the 7th June. and has made additions to his
statements 3 months 4 days after. In total 4 month 5 days ==70 days after.
Take note to the three misleading facts
Mr Simon Cordell has highlighted facts that he believes are of key relevance to
his innocents in the ASBO application presented made by Doglas
Doglas Skinner:
Dated 09/09/2014 Addition to 15th
/08/2014 Referring to 07th /June /2014
Doglas Skinner:
Has been asked to clarify how I know
that Simon Cordell is an organizer of raves.
“Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
does not know a Doglas Skinner, I do not know a Doglas Skinner.”
88
288,
Edited part 5.pdf
And do not see how he can clarify that
he is the organizer of illegal raves because this is not true, and at no point
was he setting up a rave on 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
Doglas Skinner:
I have known of Simon Cordell for over
20 years.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he does not no a Doglas
Skinner as stated:
Doglas Skinner will state he:
Was tasked to speak to the organizer to
see how long it would be carrying on for.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
on the 6th June Inspector Hamill sent officers to the expected to be rave in the
occupied building under section 144 Laspo, to see how
long it would be carrying on for, to which police reported back that they spoke
to organisers on the gate who were acting as security as well stating to be
just volunteers police state who were quite forth coming with information. The
police officer also state they see my younger brother and myself present, which
at no point can be true for both me myself Simon Cordell and my brother Tyrone
Benjamin on the 7th June 14,
On the 6th June me and a friend was in
my flat 109 Burncroft Avenue. Around the time of the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 my
brother Tyrone Benjamin was in a critical state of injury due to a road ATR on
his motorcycle medical injury and could not have attended progress way,
evidence has been requesting by my solicitor.
Inspector Hamill states that at no
point did the police gain entry to the occupied building neither did he himself
or any other officers dated the 6th 7th June 2014.
On the 7th June Inspector Charles 724ye
states he and Inspector Hamill attended Progress way at 10:03pm to which
stating in their statement presented within this ASBO application was in fact
June 8th June 2014,
"while waiting for a female to get
the organizer that Inspector Hamill and A/PS Charles were already talking to on
the gate acting as security or volunteers as well, while waiting they noticed
Mr Simon Cordell approaching progress way and asked him to walk back to the
street the way he had just come from. Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point did he speak to any officers on the 7th June 2014, and on the 8th June
2014 no female asks him to speak to police as a organizer or supplier of sound equipment. Mr Simon
Cordell will state that that he never attended a rave or caused any Anti-social
behaviour.
Doglas Skinner:
I waked to the location referring to
premises in progress way and see a white van.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point did he drive into the occupied land under a section 144 Laspo, otherwise referred to as progress way on the 6th 7th
8th June 2014 and he does not understand how anybody can state otherwise, as
this would not be true or correct.
Doglas Skinner: Inside this van was a
male I no to be Cordell.
"If taken that Cordell is referred
to myself as Simon Cordell, I did not talk to any police on the 6th 7th 8th
June 2014 as stated in inspector Hamill statement made on the 06/08/2014
referring to the 7th June 2014."
Doglas Skinner: As I got closer to the
van he got out and walked over towards me.
"Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he did not get out of his van on the 7th 8th June 2014 and was not approach by
pc Doglas Skinner Leading towards the premises in question on the 7th 8th June
2014 in progress way and does remember police officers and councillors officers
walking towards him out side the gate as he was
approaching and asked by police to walk the way leading back to where he had
just come from back to the al0 great Cambridge road."
89
289,
Doglas Skinner: On the 7th It was not
Mr Simon Cordell as stated who shock his hand and said hello and talked to him
about how he remembered him as a youngest over twenty years ago as he had
already left.
Doglas Skinner:
END OF ALL POLICE AND PUBLIC WITNESS
STATEMENTS
90
290,
Edited part 5.doc
This document is only for Simon Cordell
Solicitors to see as Simon is not a Solicitor and needs help to address what
sections need to be placed in his updated statement and which parts will be
used for his barrister at the appeal. This is a draft copy of what can be
included to make a new updated statement and notes which the barrister will
need to see.
Witness statement in pursuit of Civil
Proceedings Ci Act 1967, s;9; Mc Act 1980, ss.5A(3) and 5B;
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Rule
27.1
Introduction:
· An ASBO order has been appealed against
after the magistrates court, the decision had been made against Mr Simon
Cordell, this was at Highbury Corner, Magistrates Court, on the 4th August 2015
in pursuant to s.1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 this is to make him
subject to an Anti-Social behaviour order in order, for the Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis.
· The respondent’s case is that Our
Client that we represent, has been accused of being integrally involved in the
organisation of illegal raves in Enfield on the dates listed below that are in
question by the applicant.
12/01/2013
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or
supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at Canary Wharf.
24/05/2013
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in looking for venues, to set up an
illegal rave.
25/05/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or
supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at Unit 5, St George’s
Industrial Estate, White Hart Lane, N17.
07/06/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or
supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at an empty warehouse
on progress way, Enfield.
20/06/2014 That
Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at 1 Falcon Park, Neasden Lane,
NW10.
19/07/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at the Carpet Right Showroom on
the A10 Great Cambridge Road, Enfield.
24/07/2014
That Mr Simon Cordell had admitted to police officers that he was the organiser
for illegal raves.
27/07/2014 That
Mr Simon Cordell had been involved in the organisation of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at an empty warehouse on
Millmarsh lane, Enfield.
09 - That
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the organisation of and / or supplied
10/08/2014 equipment for and / or
attended an illegal rave at an empty warehouse on
1
291,
All the Same! Repeat of same document!
292,293,294,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,358,359,360,361,362,363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1.
2
Asbo
RE Simon's updated statement 09-02-2016 17-07
09/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 393,394,395
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1. 2
Asbo RE Simon's updated
statement 09-02-2016 17-07
09/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 393,394,395
--
393,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 09/02/2016 05:07:12 PM
Josephine Ward
JOSEPHINE WARD
josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Rewired
Subject:
RE: Simon's updated statement
Dear Josey
The statement we have been
asking you to request from Superintendent Coombes since Sep 2015 will help this
case Josey, I cannot understand how you can say it will not. Simon was not in
Essex which will show in Superintendent Coombes statement. it will show that
Superintendent Coombes contacted the met police and spoke to a Superintendent
and give them all the information and told the MET to keep a close eye on this
event as it could happen within the METs bounders. It will say Superintendent
Coombes asked for an officer name that would be on duty in the met police that
weekend in case of problems.
It will show that Superintendent
Coombes made many phone calls to the organisers of the rave way before the day
that the event was due to take place to try and get them to stop. None of this
will come back to Simon. And it will also show more information than this so
how can this not help.
Just the met police knowing
about this event and getting the person name who spoke to Superintendent
Coombes will mean a great deal as this will clearly show the MET police was
warned about this event before it even started. so, in turn the MET police
would have known where is was moved to.
Please tell me how this will not
help?
Josey the public order unit no
full well who was the organisers of most of the dates within this ASBO
application. is it right they got information on their system showing who was
the real organisers which is not Simon, yet a case is put in Simon name.
Josey people can have friends it
does not mean they know what people are doing does it.
Josey the case for illegal raves
has not been proven at the trial already and can never be proven as there is no
trespass to the applications case. The team raves cannot be used in a legal
team read Simon 90-page document and you will see the law there in it.
Why do you think in the new
Skeleton Argument the word illegal has been taken out within the whole document
and the word rave has only been used? But they cannot use this team in the
application as said above the team raves cannot be used in a legal team.
So now what is the case Simon
acted in an anti-social manner, well clearly this is the case that was proven
at trial but I cannot understand why and no one else can even the councils I
have spoken to do not know how this was proven, as not one police officer stood
up at trial and said Simon acted in a rude or anti-social manner towards them,
they said he spoke to them and done what they asked of him. The witness
statements not one of them can give an ID of Simon so how do they know it was
Simon that has acted in an anti-social manner?
Josey to prove this case the
burden has to be of high standard, and it is not, or they would have been able
to prove illegality at trial which could not be proven.
Josey there was a reason the
application was done in the way it was they could not prove outright Simon
acted in a way to prove he:
· That
the offender has acted, at any time since XXXXXX in an anti-social manner, that
is to say in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or
distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself, and
· An
order under this section is necessary to protect persons in any place in
England and Wales from further anti-social acts by him.
The reason being Simon did not
act in an anti-social manner to any person and this is proven in their own
application. AS said above Simon was not rude to anyone even the police he
spoke to them so this is not acting, in an anti-social manner that is to say in
a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
one or more persons not of the same household as himself.
But if he was the organisers of
these illegal raves then he would be the person that was overall reasonable for
any person that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm
or distress.
They cannot prove Simon was the
organisers of these illegal raves.
Once you have had time to look
after Simon document tonight can you please supply bullets of all points you
feel he has issues.
Would it also please be possible
to ask the court for more time in order to get the document in as Simon does
not want to run out of time in order to get this all addressed and all
documents in and the list of witness that will need to be called that was due
in yesterday to the court.
394,
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD
mailto:
josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 09
February 2016 15:59
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Simon's updated statement
Lorraine
I am sorry that you have not
been well.
As the updated statement is not yet
completed by Simon please indicate when this statement will be ready. This is
not a rushed request as you seem to suggest, you were aware of this from before
Christmas break so please do not blame me.
The information that you are
asking me to request from does not assist Simon's case and if anything will
lead to an inference that he is involved with the organisers of the rave. If
Simon insists on this being requested, then I will of course request this, but
it does not help Simon. I have not delayed any information from being included
in the bundles. It is for Simon to provide this information in a timely manner.
Simon's appeal is based on the definition of whether the events cited in the
respondent's application were raves by definition. Legal aid funding does not
remunerate me for sitting through meeting after meeting. This is why I asked
for Simon's statement in advance of the meeting so the meeting would be
constructive.
Your perception of the strengths
and weaknesses in the case differ from my interpretation as does your belief in
information that is being sought and how this assists Simon's case/ appeal. I
am giving you my honest view on the Police evidence.
If Simon's statement is not
ready and I assume it is not, then please email it this evening and I can
reschedule for 4.30pm tomorrow.
Regards
Josephine
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM,
Lorraine Cordell lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Dear Josey
due to not getting replies to my
emails since the new year asking if anything else was needed to be done by as
and getting no reply I have not had time since yesterday to deal with getting a
statement re Dwayne, but I think that is covered already as Jamie Duffy was
there and he has already wrote a statement.
I told you before Christmas
Dwayne was due to go away to complete his trip that he has to cut short due to
my mum's death. I told you he is back packing so would be very hard to get hold
of once he left which was a few days after you asked me to get the tickets to
show when he was leaving and the hall details. and when you told me about
Dwayne would need to attend, I told you that would be imposable as he was due
to leave a few days after you asked me. I even called him in your office Josey
so you cannot say you did not know this.
Yes, I should be able to get
statement of other people and in your last email you did not say you needed
these statements today in the daytime you said by tomorrow evening. Which is
tonight.
I am sorry you now feel you have
to rush things as they have not been done but that is not my fault or Simon's
Josey you know I have many
health problems and I have only just had a huge amount of injections into my
spine on the 17/01/2016 and I am not allowed to run around and do things for 6
to 8 weeks after having these done. I also got the flu really badly and have
not been well for the last 2 weeks. but have still tried to get things due that
was needed but getting no replies to my emails did not help.
Josey you have had Simon 65-page
statement for months I think since Oct 2015 at the last meeting you allowed him
to attend it was given to you. It is this statement he is updating again since
we got the information from the cps in am email on
the 04/02/2016.
Simon is trying to get things
done so you do not have so much to do. I have done the same thing. Me and Simon
from the start of this case have done all that was asked of us and much more,
We were asking for things to be
done since this case started which was not and only started to be done when the
appeal was put in.
If you feel the need to
re-schedule the meeting which has happened many times before then please update
us, but this meeting is to
395,
deal with Simon updated
statement Josey which he has never had a chance to do.
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD
mailto:iosephinewardsolicitor®gmail.com1
Sent: 09
February 2016 14:53
To: Lorraine Cordell; too smooth
Subject: Simon's
updated statement
Lorraine / Simon
I note that I have not received
the updated statement from Simon, nor any additional statements from any
witnesses re Dwayne's leaving party. I advised you previously that Dwayne was
required to attend court, clearly, he cannot as he is travelling, hence the
request for alternative witnesses to back up Simon's alibi.
If the updated statement is not
received by 3.30pm then I will have to re-schedule the meeting for until such
time as the updated statement is received.
Regards
Josephine
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2
Asbo Office appointment February 2016
10-02-2016 14-08
10/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 396
10.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2
Asbo Office appointment February
2016 10-02-2016 14-08
10/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 396
--
396,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time:
10/02/2016 02:07:42 PM
To: Lorraine Cordell
too smooth
Subject: Office
appointment 9.30 am on Thursday 11th February 2016
Simon
Please attend my office for 9.30am
tomorrow morning for an appointment from 9.30am - 11.30am so that I can draft
and finalise your updated statement. You make reference in this statement to
your mother making enquiries from local councils who have confirmed that the
ASBO will affect future applications etc. I need a full statement itemising in
chronological order the different persons spoken to contact numbers, emails to
demonstrate hardship etc. Please email across this statement as soon as possible.
Please confirm that you can attend this
appointment.
Many thanks
Josephine
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1.
2
Asbo Fwd.
Simon Cordell oner – appeal - 11-02-2016 17-51
11/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 397,398
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2
Asbo Fwd. Simon Cordell oner –
appeal - 11-02-2016 17-51
11/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 397,398
--
397,
From:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 11/02/2016 05:50:48 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>; too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sb Fwd.: Simon Cordell v. The
Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the imposition of an ASBO to
be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February 2016
Lorraine /Simon
For your information and as
specifically requested contrary to advice I am forwarding the email that I sent
to Superintendent Coombs pursuant to your instructions.
Regards
Josephine
Forwarded message
From: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the imposition
of an ASBO to be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February 2016
To: Adrian.Coombs@essex.pnn.police.uk
Dear Superintendent Coombs
I am representing Simon Cordell
in respect of an appeal against a standalone ASBO that was imposed at Highbury
Corner Magistrates Court on 4th August 2015.
One of the many incidents
referred to in the bundle as a reason cited requesting the ASBO is date
specific on 6th,7th and 8th June 2014 at Progress Way, Enfield.
Miss Lorraine Cordell, Simon
Cordell's mother researched the internet for any information in relation to
Progress Way incident on 6th and 7th June 2014 to try to show that her son was
not involved in this incident and did not set up the rave. etc. She found an
article on the internet which had your contact details. She states that she
telephoned you regarding this incident as she believes that the event
originally planned in Essex relocated to Progress Way due a male called Chris
Lurcher Lewis posting an entry on a Facebook page. We are interested in whether
this information is accurate and also whether you took any action to prevent
this event from being set up elsewhere. Miss Cordell refers to you are stating
that you issued a dispersal notice and she also states that you notified your
colleagues in the Met regarding this.
The Met Police are accusing
Simon Cordell of setting up this event at Progress Way. They have also only
produced evidence from 7th June 2014 in relation to CAD messages that appear to
relate to a number of different GPS Locations, one of which is Crown Road, near
Southbury Road where another rave was taking place.
We are seeking to show the court
that Mr Simon Cordell did not organise this event and that another male did. We
are also seeking to establish that the Met Police could have closed this event
down on 6th June 2014 when they were aware that it had started up i.e. the
dispersal notice that you issued would demonstrate this.
We would very much appreciate if
you could give this matter your earliest attention and provide us with a
statement concerning the event that was originally scheduled to set up in Essex
but due to your vigilance was stopped. Could you please provide specific detail
of any event page/ media publication that you monitored and whether you relayed
this information to the Met and they simply did not act on your information.
Can you also please confirm
whether Simon Cordell was present for the Essex event and whether he was one of
the organisers that you served the dispersal notice on or telephoned during your
enquiries.
We thank you in advance for your
kind assistance in this matter and we await hearing from you at your earliest
convenience.
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO
SOLICITORS
798 High Road
398,
Tottenham London N17 0DH Office
Tel: 0208
365 9900
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - appeal against 13-02-2016 19-13
13/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 399,400,401,402
403,404
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - appeal against
13-02-2016 19-13
13/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 399,400,401,402
403,404
--
399,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
13/02/2016 07:12:43 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
RE: Simon Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police
Commissioner - appeal against the imposition of an ASBO to be heard at Wood
Green Crown
Subject: C.
Court on 22nd February 2016
Attachments: Page-283-Grid-Map.pdf
09-08-14-03.png
Simon please look at this email
and attachments and see if it ok to send Josey please as I am not sending it
without your say so.
Hi Josey
I know it is the weekend and I am
not asking you to reply to this over the weekend but if you could please do
this on Monday, I would be grateful.
I am very worried and know that
things will not be ready for the 22/02/2016 when this 3-day trial is due to
start.
You don't have a barrister yet
and from what you have said all the barristers you asked have said no they will
not deal with this case as it is to large, and I am very worried as any
barrister will not time to go over all the paper work if they agreed to take
this on.
I don't know what will happen in
a case if you can't get a barrister as this has never happened. And I don't
want a barrister turning up that don't know anything about this case nor does
Simon.
I am not sure what is going on
with the public order unit information I know you said you can deal with this
when you got the refusal from the section 35 DPA and FOI Act you put in from
Val Tanner. Also I have large issues with how she did the refusal due to the
rules that are set when a DPA request or a FOI request is put in. it has to be
sent to the data protection officer to deal with it, Val Tanner should not have
just been able to refuse this. But as far as I am aware nothing has been done
can you please explain what your plans are for this matter please.
There has been no list given to
the court for witnesses that will need to be called and this is worrying me a
great deal as they can just say sorry your witness list was not in time it
should have been in for the 8th Feb 2016.
We were meant to be asking for
all the missing CAD's and for them to un blacked the CAD's grid ref out for all
grid ref this would be
·
ATT - Map grid Ref:
·
INC - Map Grid Ref:
·
CALL LOC - Map Grid Ref:
The reason for this is please
see attached PDF and you will see why.
Also I cannot see why nearly
full pages are blacken out, I cannot understand a need for this as far as I am
aware the only thing that should be needed to be blacked out is the information
as to the caller. Why would there be a need to blacken out full pages.
Also on page 39 statement of PC
Jason Ames there is a next CAD that is missing CAD 9717 09/08/2014 that related
to the intelligence received to the illegal rave on Millmarsh Lane the
information in that CAD must have given the information to the address as PC
Jason Ames and Aaron King went right to the address, this is Every Decibel
Matters. Please also see Aaron King statement page 41. I believe the
information came from the public order unit for Every Decibel Matters. Due to
this post which I have attached to this email.
I know you had all the
information that was meant to be asked for re the CAD's. And I not sure if
anything has been done about this. Or what the plan of action will be for this
is.
I know you have sent the email
now to Superintendent Coombs for him to do a statement, we don't know if this
will come back in time, I know when I spoke to him he said he was willing to do
a statement but that was a long time ago.
This case has made Simon so ill
they have the information on the police Systems Josey they know this was not
Simon already. Are they allowed to withhold information they have got that they
know will prove someone has not done what they say to get a case proved or
guilty?
Josey this needs to go back to
court ASAP as I do not want the judge blaming Simon that things have not be
done and it is not ready. the judge needs to understand the information we are
after and why.
Regards
Lorraine
400,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD [mailto: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 12
February 2016 12:12
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the
imposition of an ASBO to be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February
2016
Lorraine
I did cite 6th, 7th
and 8th June 2014 in my email.
Read second paragraph of my email which
clearly states 6th June 2014.
Superintendent Coombs will hopefully
comment on orders etc that he issued.
Regards
Josephine
On 11 Feb 2016 22:03, "Lorraine
Cordell" <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Josey
What I forgot to add is where
you put the information we got only started from the 07th June 2014 the police
in the application have been proved wrong and there got to be information as
from the 6th June 2014 as if you look at page 34 and 35 of the bundle you will
see PC Donald McMillan states from the 6th to the 8th June 2014 so he is the
only one who has said the truth as to the dates at Progress Way. I should have
added this to the information that you got wrong in the email to Superintendent
Coombs in my below email sorry
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 11
February 2016 21:07
To: 'JOSEPHINE WARD'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the
imposition of an ASBO to be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February
2016
Hi Josey
He served a dispersal notice which would
have only covered Essex and an order to not setup within 24 hours after they
were dispersed from Essex it is that order not to setup for 24 which would
cover the UK as it comes under the public order act.
He also landed in a helicopter in the
Field they were going to use in Essex as they were out all day looking for the
location.
He called the organiser many times way
before the date of the rave to try and get it stopped.
He told me on the phone all of this and
that he had called and spoke to a Superintendent in the met police and gave
them all the information as he was still not sure due to the boundaries if the
rave would take place in Essex or the MET area so told the Superintendent in
the Met to keep a close eye on the event page. he also said he took an
inspector’s name that would be on duty that full weekend in cause of problems.
| So there was a lot of information
passed to the Met police.
He also said after we spoke in an email
that he had got his full file and notes out, but this was back in Sep 2015.
He has also got pictures of Chris in
that file.
401,
He said more than this but can't
remember it all but I did send you an email with everything back in Sep 2015
after I spoke to him.
Regards
Lorraine
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD mailto: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent:
11 February 2016 17:51 To: Lorraine Cordell; too smooth
Subject: Fwd.:
Simon Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the
imposition of an ASBO to be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February
2016
Lorraine/Simon
For your information and as specifically
requested contrary to advice I am forwarding the email that I sent to Superintendent Coombs pursuant to your instructions.
Regards
Josephine
Forwarded message
From: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner - appeal against the imposition
of an ASBO to be heard at Wood Green Crown Court on 22nd February 2016
To: Adrian.Coombs@.essex.pnn.police.uk
Dear Superintendent Coombs
I am representing Simon Cordell
in respect of an appeal against a standalone ASBO that was imposed at Highbury
Corner Magistrates Court on 4th August 2015.
One of the many incidents
referred to in the bundle as a reason cited requesting the ASBO is date
specific on 6th,7th and 8th June 2014 at Progress Way, Enfield.
Miss Lorraine Cordell, Simon
Cordell's mother researched the internet for any information in relation to
Progress Way incident on 6th and 7th June 2014 to try to show that her son was
not involved in this incident and did not set up the rave. etc. She found an
article on the internet which had your contact details. She states that she
telephoned you regarding this incident as she believes that the event
originally planned in Essex relocated to Progress Way due a male called Chris
Lurcher Lewis posting an entry on a Facebook page. We are interested in whether
this information is accurate and also whether you took any action to prevent
this event from being set up elsewhere. Miss Cordell refers to you are stating
that you issued a dispersal notice and she also states that you notified your
colleagues in the Met regarding this.
The Met Police are accusing
Simon Cordell of setting up this event at Progress Way. They have also only
produced evidence from 7th June 2014 in relation to CAD messages that appear to
relate to a number of different GPS Locations, one of which is Crown Road, near
Southbury Road where another rave was taking place.
We are seeking to show the court
that Mr Simon Cordell did not organise this event and that another male did. We
are also seeking to establish that the Met Police could have closed this event
down on 6th June 2014 when they were aware that it had started up i.e. the
dispersal notice that you issued would demonstrate this.
We would very much appreciate if
you could give this matter your earliest attention and provide us with a
statement concerning the event that was originally scheduled to set up in Essex
but due to your vigilance was stopped. Could you please provide specific detail
of any event page/media publication that you monitored and whether you relayed
this information to the Met and they simply did not act on your information.
Can you also please confirm
whether Simon Cordell was present for the Essex event and whether he was one of
the organisers that you served the dispersal notice on or telephoned during
your enquiries.
We thank you in advance for your
kind assistance in this matter and we await hearing from you at your earliest
convenience.
402,
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO
SOLICITORS
798 High Road
Tottenham
London N17 0DH
Office
Tel: 0208
365 9900
403,
09-08-14-03.png
Every Decibel Matters
10 August
We apologise profusely for the
outcome of tonight however the circumstances were beyond our control We had police
turn up at both of our houses threatening us with arrest if this event were to
have happened In addition to that we had a massive venue in harrow but police
spent the day looking for us in the area with helicopters leaving us no option
but to relocate With all odds against us. we still tried our absolute hardest
to deliver however within 30 minutes of sending out the location we had police
turn up and they simply did not have a bar of it from us. We really are sorry
for tonight as we were truly as excited as you were. We will be back in the
future to make amends for this
We hope you all manage to have
an amazing night anyway. Sorry guys! The Every Decibel
Matters Team!
404,
13.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1.
2
Re Personal licence 15-02-2016 11-51
15/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 405
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1. 2
Re Personal licence 15-02-2016 11-51
15/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 405
--
405,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 15/02/2016 11:50:32 AM
To:
Licensing <Licensing@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Re:
Personal licence [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Thank you and many regards for
your help, Mr Simon Cordell.
On Monday, 15 February 2016,
10:21, Licensing <Licensing@enfield.gov.uk> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Sir
Please see attached application
form. I have also attached information on how to pay on line.
Kind regards
Licensing Team
Regeneration & Environment
Department
London Borough of Enfield
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1.
2
Asbo
Fwd. FOIA Disclosure - Partial 16-02-2016 20-03
16/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 406,407,408
409,410,411,412
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1. 2
Asbo Fwd. FOIA Disclosure -
Partial 16-02-2016 20-03
16/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 406,407,408
409,410,411,412
--
406,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time:
16/02/2016 08:02:47 PM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.:
FOIA: Disclosure - Partial
Lorraine / Simon
Please see response to my
request for further information.
Regards
Josephine
Original Message
From: catherine.carrington@met.police.uk
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 16
February 2016 at 15:51
Subject: FOIA:
Disclosure - Partial
Dear Ms Ward
Freedom of Information Request
Reference No: 2015120000861
I respond in connection with
your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) on 15/12/2015. I note you seek access to the following
information:
·
Whether Simon Cordell has been named as
an organiser of any illegal raves on the Metropolitan Police Area of Greater
London since The Public Order Unit was tasked by the Commissioner of the
Metropolitan Police in June 2014, following the Croydon rave
·
Whether Simon Cordell has been
contacted by the Public Order Unit to desist from organising illegal raves
·
Whether Superintendent Adrian Coombes
from Essex Police notified the Metropolitan Police regarding Hippy Fest, an
event that was originally planned as an open air rave in Essex but potentially
could have been set up in the Metropolitan Police area due to the closeness of
the border of both forces. Whether he provided information regarding Simon
Cordell as being the organiser of this event, or if not
then who did Superintendent Coombes state was the organiser.
·
Please provide the details held of the
organisers of the following illegal raves: (I) Wharf Wood (Canary Wharf)
12.01.2013 (ii) Cannabis Day 420 day 24.04.2014 (iii) Unit 5 St Georges Ind
Estate, White Hart Lane, N17 (iv) 1 Falcon Park, Neasden Lane 20.06.2014 (v)
Carpet Right, A10 Enfield
·
(vi) Millmarsh Lane, Enfield 27.07.2014
(vii) Millmarsh Lane, Enfield 09.08.2014 and
·
10.08.2014
·
How many of the above events were
organised by Every Decible Matters and who are the persons attributed to Every
Decible Matters
Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to
your request.
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE
INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to
your request searches were conducted within the MPS.
DECISION
Before I explain the reasons for the
decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be
helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.
407,
The Act creates a statutory right of
access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt
of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held
by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the
applicant.
The right of access to information is
not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are
designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not
suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information
into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one
person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be
communicated to any individual should a request be received.
In accordance with the Act, this
response represents a Partial Refusal Notice for this particular request under
Section 17(1)&(4) of the Act.
Constituents of this information
attract section 31 and 40 of the Act.
Please see the Legal Annex for
the sections of the Act that are referred to in this response.
The MPS can provide information
which answers both question 1 and 2 of this response.
This information can be accessed
via the link to the MPS external website, provided below.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Man-given-a-five-year
ASBO/1400033211719/1257246745756
In case you have any difficulty with
the link, I have provided you with another link to information in the public
domain.
http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/13595919.Man_given_ASBO_for_organising_illegal_raves/
REASONS FOR DECISION
Some of the information you have
requested is exempt by the virtue of Section 31 (1)(a)(b) & (3) of the Act.
Section 31 (1) of the Act is applied to
information, that if it was disclosed, would or would be likely to cause
significant harm to the functions of a public authority (in this instance the
MPS) and Section 31 (3) is applied if to confirm or deny that information is
held would prejudice any of the matters in subsection (1).
Section 31(1) is a prejudice based
qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm that
would be caused, as well as carrying out a public interest test (PIT) for both
subsections (1) and (3).
The purpose of the PIT is to establish
whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested
information for subsection (1) and to articulate the harm that would be caused
in confirming or denying that any information is held for subsection (3).
Section 31(1) Evidence of Harm
You have asked
whether Superintendent Adrian Coombes from Essex Police notified the MPS of
certain events.
There is sufficient information within
the public domain which confirms the sharing of information by police forces
and certain law enforcement agencies and partners. To confirm what information
has been shared and by whom, will affect the prevention and detection of crime,
which is the core function of the MPS. The disclosure of specific information
will affect the law enforcement and tactical approaches undertaken by the MPS.
Public Interest Test
Section 31(1) Public interest
considerations favouring disclosure
Disclosing and confirming intelligence
could promote public trust in providing transparency and demonstrating openness
and accountability into where the MPS spends public funds. This transparency
would provide a better awareness to the general public regarding this type of
sharing of information to prevent crime. Disclosure can aid accurate debate around
the use MPS resources and the MPS's
408,
approach to tackling and deterring this
type of crime. This could empower individuals to make more effective decisions
about their own activities regarding criminal behaviour.
Section 31(1) Public interest considerations
favouring non-disclosure
Policing today is intelligence led and
the MPS share information with other law enforcement agencies as part of their
investigative process. To disclose what intelligence was shared and by whom (on
a case by case basis) would identify tactical approaches used by police forces
and identify cases or persons of interest to the police. This could hinder the
prevention and detection of crime as well as undermine the partnership approach
to investigations and law enforcement.
Balancing Test
The MPS is charged with enforcing the
law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the
communities we serve. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency
policing abilities, processes and techniques, there is a strong public interest
in safeguarding the integrity of the MPS.
It is therefore in our opinion, that
the balancing test for full disclosure is not made out.
Section 31(3) - Evidence of Harm
The public interest is not what interests
the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a
whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's ability to complete any future criminal investigations.
You have also
asked for the details held of organisers for the stated illegal raves you
referred to above, and whether any of the events were organised by Every
Decible Matters.
The release of such information, if it
exists, would reveal policing tactics regarding who was of interest to the
police generally. This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient
policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of
the public.
Information disclosed under the Act is
considered to be a release to the world as once the information is published
the public authority in this case the MPS has no control over what use is made
of that information. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant it
could be of use to those who seek to disrupt any police investigation as it
would by a process of elimination, enable them to identify whether specific
people or groups have or have not been subject of a police investigation. This
would lead to an increase of harm to either the investigation itself or the
subject of the investigation. To release details as to whether specific
individuals, groups or events have or have not been investigated would enable
any member of the public to define and identify who or who is not of interest
to the MPS.
This could be to the detriment of
providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of
care to all members of the public.
Section 31(3) Factors favouring
confirmation or denial
By confirming or denying whether
information is held would enable the public to have a better understanding of
the type of events and individuals the police are focussing their resources on,
in order to disrupt and deter such events from taking place, in line with their
law enforcement role.
Better public awareness may lead to
more information from the public about individuals who they believe may be
linked to organising illegal raves, thereby providing intelligence to reduce
crime.
Section 31(3) Factors against
confirmation or denial
By confirming or denying that the
requested information exists, law enforcement would be compromised which would
hinder the prevention and detection of crime. More crime of this nature would
be committed, and individuals would be placed at risk. This would result in
further risks to the public and consequently require the use of more MPS
resources.
Disclosure of information, if it exists
would provide valuable intelligence into the public domain, which would be
useful to criminals captured by this request, in that they can take steps to
evade apprehension and prosecution, thereby continuing with criminal behaviour.
This will directly affect the law enforcement role of the MPS.
Balance Test - Section 31(3) Law
Enforcement
The disclosure of this information to
the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in
409,
helping the MPS and would furthermore
impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the future.
Anything that undermines this would have
a detrimental affect reducing the quality of information the MPS receives and
consequently compromise any ongoing or future similar investigations.
Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the
requested information, if it exists, far outweighs the considerations favouring
disclosure.
However, this should not be taken as
necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists
or does not exist.
Section 40(5) - Personal Information /
Absolute Exemption
You have asked for personal information
about individuals attributed to Every Decible Matters. To
confirm or deny whether personal
information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal
information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to
privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). When
confirming or denying that information is held would breach an individual's
rights under the DPA, Section 40(5) of the Act becomes an absolute exemption, and
there is no requirement for me to provide evidence of the prejudice that would
occur, or to conduct a public interest test.
The MPS is unable to confirm and unable to deny whether the
information in relation to this request is held.
To ensure you understand why
this response is necessary I have provided excerpts from the Information
commissioner’s office (ICO):
The Duty to Confirm or Deny
The Information Commissioner's
Office (ICO) guidance titled 'When to refuse to confirm or deny information is
held' states:
'In certain circumstances, even
confirming or denying that requested information is held can reveal
information...
It can be important to use a
neither confirm nor deny response consistently, every time a certain type of
information is requested, regardless of whether the information is actually
held or not...
Within the ICO guidance there is
a specific police example:
'...a police force may hold
information regarding particular properties they have under surveillance - it
is likely that if a request were made for information about the surveillance of
a certain property, this information would be exempt under section 30
(investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities)...
Furthermore, this would apply
even if information was requested about a property not under surveillance. If a
police force only upheld its duty to confirm or deny where it was not keeping
properties under surveillance, an applicant could reasonably assume that where
the police force refused to confirm or deny, the property named in the request
was under surveillance.'
A public authority could
therefore refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information about a
property under surveillance...
This should not be taken as
necessarily indicating that any information that would meet your request exists
or does not exist.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
If you are dissatisfied with
this response, please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which
explains how to make a complaint.
Should you have any further
enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me by email quoting the
reference number above.
Yours sincerely
410,
Catherine Carrington Information
Manager Freedom of Information Rights Unit (IRU)
Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)
PO Box 57192 London SW6 1SF
LEGAL ANNEX
Section 17(1) & (4) of the
Act provides:
Refusal of request
(1) A public authority which, in
relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim
that any provision of Part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is
relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information
must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a
notice which-
states that fact,
specifies the exemption in
question, and
states (if that would not
otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
A public authority is not
obliged to make a statement under subsection (1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent
that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information which would
itself be exempt information
Section 31(1)(a)(b) & (3) of
the Act provides:
Law enforcement
(1)
Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt
information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to,
prejudice.
the prevention or detection of
crime,
the apprehension or prosecution
of offenders
Section 40(5) of the Act
provides:
Personal Information
(3) The
duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance
with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters
mentioned in subsection (1)
The duty to confirm or deny-
(i)
does not arise in relation to information which is (or
if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue
of subsection (1), and
(ii)
does not arise in relation to other information if
or to the extent that either-
(a)
the giving to a member of the public of the
confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section
1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection
principles or section 10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would
do so if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(b)
by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998
c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a)
of that Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).
In complying with their statutory duty
under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner
of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal Services,
1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.
411,
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
Are you unhappy with how your
request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?
You have the right to require the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.
Prior to lodging a formal complaint,
you are welcome to discuss the response with the case officer who dealt with
your request.
Complaint
If you are dissatisfied with the
handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a
complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.
Complaints should be made in writing,
within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and
addressed to:
FOI Complaint Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192 London SW6 1SF foi@met.police.uk
In all possible circumstances the MPS will
aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner
After lodging a complaint with
the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make
application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the
request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements
of the Act.
For information on how to make
application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:
Information Commissioner's
Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK95AF
Phone: 01625 545 745
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely
412,
scanned but malicious software
infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over
the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS).
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 17-02-2016 01-54
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 413
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 17-02-2016
01-54
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 413
--
413,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 17/02/2016 01:53:55 AM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
I do not like to know that you
are upset, but I cannot blame you as you do help me as my mother and friend a
lot in that sense, you say I throw tantrums but you are the one saying you are
going to delete all my life files rather than just send them to me. I clearly
am not a three-year-old kid, this is why I keep telling you to stop answering
questions when people are asking me them. I do not think that of myself that I
have done nothing wrong in my life in earth, but I do think that if I was left
to my own judgement and you to action to such guidance when supporting me that
I would make the right decisions for myself. I am not different from any other
person that has been made to pay so many judges, police offices and solicitors
wages growing up in London just because of wanting to make some think of
themselves. I did try and do well but no matter what I do I get treated
different in this country as if I am the bad guy all the time. I look around
and see the rich getting richer, I believe being white should not be the main
element to who you can be and what you are allowed to achieve in life, as it
seems to have been for me. All the good things I have done and tried to do
compared to a lot of the people I know that should have been noticed and taken
into account, we live in 2016 a modern society and should all be equal to one
and other, but in many instances this does not happen, the fact is that the
police did lead me and tucker into believing that we may be able to help others
and repeat history by becoming like a Glastonbury but in London, on stead I
feel like they gave him the chance while ripping it from me, in turn helping
the wrong person at the time of the generations of a large circle of people
coming together united. I have been locked away under one or another
condition(s) for years now with no justice so yes my life has been a lot of
stress for you, my self and every one and as for being disrespect full yes at
times in life I have been and I am sorry for that but you must take admit if it
was not for you doing josie’s job and blocking me because you trusted in your
instincts and her word against what I am saying is best for me and I turn out
to be right, Any one would be upset.
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - Re dates 17-02-2016 14-23
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 414
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - Re dates
17-02-2016 14-23
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 414
--
414,
12/09/2014 |
police say they served paperwork to
your flat |
06/10/2014 |
was meant to be hearing for interim
hearing but legal aid had not been granted Michael came to court with that
other lady and the judge overturned and granted legal aid for you. Interim hearing
the judge would not hear |
22/10/2014 |
Interim hearing but could not go
ahead due to Andy Locke having flood |
05/11/2014 |
Interim hearing and it was granted |
02/12/2014 |
I got note on phone you were at court
at Highbury Corner not sure what they were for. |
09th 10th 11th
03/2015 |
Meant to have been set for trial but
the court only booked 1-day hearing, this was then put off until the 03rd
and 04th Aug 2015 |
03rd 4th
08/2015 |
Highbury Corner trial case part proven
on the 04th 08/2015 |
26/10/2015 |
1st hearing at Wood Green
Crown to see if case was ready for appeal on the |
09/11/2015 |
Was 1st appeal date which
was set for a 1-hour hearing |
22nd
23rd and 24th 02/2016 Set for appeal at
the crown court.
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 17/02/2016 02:23:13 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: dates
you need to stop kidding off at
me you should have asked josei all this yesterday before you left her office
and now you are blaming me.
you kick off all the time tell
me to leave then forget to ask the most important things then I get call after
call and you blame me. Believe these dates to be correct could be missing a
few.
17.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - RE Some ink like this 17-02-2016 23-58
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - RE Some ink like
this 17-02-2016 23-58
17/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427
--
415,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 17/02/2016 11:57:47 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Some
think like this.
Attachments: Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
CAD-Included-Missing.doc
Please look I only done a little
as had to table all missing CAD's see the 2 Attached files
From: Rewired
[mailto:re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 17
February 2016 20:33
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Some
think like this.
416,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
I have taken time to listen to my
solicitor’s advice in regard to the applicant’s proposal of an ASBO order that
was on the
13/08/2014 |
ASBO application was in progress and
being created by Steve Elesmore |
13/08/2014 |
A meeting was held with Steve Hodgson
who is a representative for Enfield Local Authority Council and Jane Johnson
on behalf of the Metropolitan police alongside others. |
12/09/2014 |
A ASBO Application bundle is said to
have been served on Mr Simon Cordell at 109 Burncroft Avenue, to which he
disputes. |
06/10/2014 |
Mr Simon Cordell was meant to have a
hearing for an interim Order, but legal aid had not been granted. Michael Carroll
acting solicitor came to court; the judge overturned and granted legal aid.
The application for the Interim hearing the judge would not hear on this day. |
22/10/2014 |
Interim hearing but could not go
ahead due to Andy Locke Acting Barrister had a flood at his home address. |
05/11/2014 |
Interim hearing and the order were
granted. |
02/12/2014 |
Mr Simon Cordell’s mother has a note
on her mobile phone, stating he was in court at Highbury Corner not sure what
it was for in the ASBO Application. |
09th 10th 11th
03/2015 |
Meant to have been set for the full
ASBO Application trial but the court only booked 1-day hearing, this was then
put off until the 03rd and 04th Aug 2015 |
03rd 4th
08/2015 |
Highbury Corner full ASBO Application
trial case part proven on the 04/08/2015 no Illegality was proven. |
26/10/2015 |
1st hearing at Wood Green
Crown to see if case was ready for appeal on the 09/11/2015 this was put off
until 22nd 23td and 24th 02/2016 |
09/11/2015 |
Was 1st appeal date, which
was set for a 1-hour hearing, this hearing was put off on the 26/10/2015. |
22nd 23rd and
24th 02/2016 |
Set for appeal at the crown court. |
1
417,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
It is said that Mr Cordell had been
found proven partly on the 3rd 4th August 2015, to which
he disputes to be correct.
An appeal date has been set for Feb 22nd
23rd 24th 2016
Legal aid was re granted on the
00/00/2015
In understanding that Mr Simon
Cordell’s acting solicitor has explained to him that she cannot arrange a
barrister that every barrister that has been asked will not take the case on
due to the size of the case and due to it being at appeal stage and legal aid
will not cover the cost of such a large case. I have been explained that Andy
Locke who did the trial at the lower court is on sabbatical leave till April
2016, and that the acting solicitors wish to put the appeal date of until April
2016 when Andy Locke will be back from sabbatical leave.
If granted by the Judge this would in
fact set the new appeal date to be two months after the already agreed appeal
date of 22rnd February 2016, if the court agreed to such a date, contained
within the time scale of April 2016 and not any time after, due to the court
diary already being pre booked.
Mr Simon Paul Cordell is asking for a Former
judge to examine the role of police officers, who present the applicant cases
of an ASBO order against himself.
Mr S. Cordell is asking for this to be
assessed and agreed under the grounds of Article 6 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, the Right to a Fair Trial Act 1998, Legislation.
Which in legal terms, should be the
best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting against
injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the justice
system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just
society.
Article 6 the Right to a fair hearing:
The right to a fair trial is
fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both criminal and
civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights set out in Article 6
apply only in criminal cases.
The right to a fair trial is absolute
and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The procedural requirements of a fair hearing might differ according to the
circumstances of the accused.
2
418,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
The right to a fair hearing, which
applies to any criminal charge as well as to the determination of civil rights
and obligations, contains a number of requirements and I believe the causes
below full within them requirements.
An ASBO order has been appealed against
after the magistrates court decided a decision to prove the application case in
part but with no legality being proven, the decision had been made against Mr
Simon Cordell, this was at Highbury Corner, Magistrates Court, on the 4th August
2015 in pursuant to s.1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it was agreed to
make him subject to an Anti-Social behaviour order. This was in pursuit for the
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
The respondent’s case is that Mr Simon
Cordell has been accused of being integrally involved in the organisation of
illegal raves in London and Enfield.
Part of the Barrister submissions that
represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were that he was
involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant hadn’t adduced
evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is
a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal. The Deputy District
Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove illegality, - all the
needed to prove was he had acted in an anti-social manner. In the view of the
barrister this was a very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based
their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves
themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of
innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus, Simon
being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more
careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
It should be agreed with the barrister
statement as when dealing with this case Mr Simon Cordell was addressing the
applicant’s case to prove that he had not been involved in organizing illegal
raves, as this is what the application against him was.
Yet in the application papers
themselves and on trial at the lower court no police officer had said Mr Simon
acted in an anti-social manner, nor did any of the hearsay witnesses give an ID
of any people.
Other points of concern are.
Inaccuracy’s leading to incorrect time
stamps contained within the applicant’s bundle created by Steve Elsmore on the
13/8/2014.
CAD |
Number |
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page 191 to 195 |
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page 196 to 198 |
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page 203 to 205 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page 179 to 183 |
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page 233 to 237 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page 238 to 241 |
3
419,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
Please note every day the met police
call centre starts at CAD 01 and goes up to the average of 10,742 to 15,000
callers per day the clock is reset to 01 each day at 00:00 hours.
(We can tell this by the number of CAD
incident numbers supplied, within the applicants ASBO bundle supporting the
evidence supplied, for a standalone ASBO order to be gained against Mr Simon
Cordell.
On the average the Met police call
centre will receive on the average of 300 callers per hour as marked and time
stamped below.
Every half hour is 150 callers on
average and every 15 mins is 75 callers on average Every 7 half mins is 33
callers on average and 3 half mins 17 callers on average
Please take note to (CAD number /
Incident Number 10481 7th June 14) this is the 10,481 Met police call of the
7th June 2014 time stamped 22:47 hours.
So it is incorrect for (CAD 10506 7th
June 14) externally inputted 25 calls later, to have an earlier time stamp of
the 7th June 2014 at 22:44 hours.
In fact the time should have been 22:49
hours for CAD 10506.
Please take note to (CAD number /
Incident Number 4323 7th June 2014 at 12:25)
(CAD numbers 7th June 2014
at 08:16
Date |
Incident no |
number |
Time |
7th June 2014 |
1012 |
01 |
01:53 |
7th June 2014 |
1047 |
02 |
01:59 |
7th June 2014 |
1323 |
03 |
02:41 |
7th June 2014 |
1608 |
04 |
03:34 |
7th June 2014 |
1722 |
05 |
03:58 |
7th June 2014 |
1816 |
06 |
04:15 |
7th June 2014 |
2141 |
07 |
05:50 |
7th June 2014 |
2255 |
08 |
06:24 |
7th June 2014 |
2271 |
09 |
06:27 |
7th June 2014 |
2601 |
10 |
08:09 |
7th June 2014 |
2637: p187 to 190: |
11 (Error) |
08:18 |
7th June 2014 |
2672: p196 to 198: |
12 (Error) |
08:16 |
7th June 2014 |
2854 |
13 |
08:56 |
7th June 2014 |
3005: p203 to 205: |
14 (Error) |
09:22 |
7th June 2014 |
3037: p179 to 183: |
15 (Error) |
09:20 |
7th June 2014 |
3252 |
16 |
10:07 |
7th June 2014 |
3986 |
17 |
11:47 |
4
420,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
7th June 2014 |
4323 |
18 |
12:25 |
7th June 2014 |
4325 |
19 |
Missing |
7th June 2014 |
5206 |
20 |
13:57 |
7th June 2014 |
8841 |
21 |
20:07 |
7th June 2014 |
10393 |
22 |
22:38 |
7th June 2014 |
10462 |
23 |
Missing |
7th June 2014 |
10471 |
24 |
22:45 |
7th June 2014 |
10481: p233 to 237: |
25 (Error) |
22:47 |
7th June 2014 |
10506: p238 to 241: |
26 (Error) |
22:44 |
7th June 2014 |
10742 |
27 |
23:01 |
7th June 2014 |
10844 |
28 Missing |
|
7th June 2014 |
10967 |
29 |
23:25 |
Time Scales between calls below.
· 35 people cads 1012 to 1047 time 6 mins
· 276 people cads 1047 to 1323 time 42
· 285 people cads 1323 to 1608 time 53
· 114 people cads 1608 to 1722 time 24
mins
· 94 people cads 1722 to 1816 time 17
mins
· 325 people cads 1816 to 2141 time 1:35
· 114 people cads 2141 to 2255 time 34
mins
· 16 people cads 2255 to 2271 time 3 mins
· 330 people cads 2271 to 2601 time 42
mins
· 36 people cads 2601 to 2637-time 1 hour 9 mins
· 35 people cads 2637 to 2672 time 58 mins (1st
Time Laps 08:18)
· 182 people cads 2672 to 2854-time 1
hour 10 mins (1st Time Laps 08:16)
· 151 people cads 2854 to 3005 time 26
mins
· 32 people cads 3005 to 3037 time 58
mins (2nd Time Laps 09:22)
· 215 people cads 3037 to 3252 time 47
mins (2nd Time Laps 09:20)
· 734 people cads 3252 to 3986-time 1
hour 39 mins
· 337 people cads 3986 to 4323 time 38
mins
· missing people cads 4323 to 4325 time
missing So; -
· 883 people cads 4323 to 5206-time 1
hour 32 mins
· 3,635 people cads 5206 to 8841-time 6
hour 13 mins
· 1,552 people cads 8841 to 10393 time 2
hours 31 mins
· missing people cad 10393 to 10462 time
missing So; -
· 78 people cads 10393 to 10471 time 7
mins
· 10 people cads 10471 to 10481 mins 2
mins Cads 10481 to 10506 (3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44)
The time stamps go back for the 3rd
time, so to even be able to work the true format is impossible.
5
421,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
Supported Evidence, supporting the fact
that the CAD's supporting the applicant ASBO should not be time stamped wrong,
this evidence does include.
· Standard Operational Guidelines
- East of England. http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/FOI%20Docs/Disclosure%20Log/Emergency%20Op s/July%202013/F15152h%20-%20attachment.pdf
· National Standards for Incident
Recording (NSIR) Collection and recording of police;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
data/file/11 6658/count-nsir11.pdf
· Understanding Control Command; http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts
UC2.pdf
· police Central Communications Command
incident procedure; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lkd4sarsfdMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=police+Central+Communications+Command+incident+procedure&source=bl&ots=663ZhaKX9&sig=Z7DgHlgJncwLNuam0g8EBcCja8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif39YsMbKAhWI8A4KHdnMAoQQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=police%20Central%20Commnications%20Command%20in
cident%20procedure&f=false
Point 2
Blocked out Inc locations and other
relevant information that should be contained within the cads that have been
presented in the applicant’s bundle. Only in serious circumstances in cases
such as were it is absolutely necessary to
aid in the prevention of witness or victim intimidation should an officer be
trusted to block out such information.
Under oath pc Steve Elsmore state to
the district Jude that he “Intel would be by open source, checked by an officer
but was not done by me.” When in fact it is his login that created and printed
the applicants bundle this can be proved by his signature and also by the
computer id log that must be used to print the data contained within the Police
National Computer and now has been submitted and is contained with the
applicants bundle and is verified at the top of most of the pages or within.
Pc Elsmore states under oath that he
did not carry out any further investigations in regard to speaking to the
owners of any premises to fix that of a notice of trespass or conviction of twok as the main investigating officer. “I have not
personal spoken to the owners of the venue”
Pc Elsmore states under oath “There was
a rave on an adjourning RD but not on that day.” (Please Take Note Here of
inspector Hamill stating under oath that he was sure all locations were to do
with progress way on this date.)
“Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)”
CADS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BUNDIL THAT ARE
PRINTED IN Pc Steve Elsmore name and as the leading investigator he would have
known the truth to the locations blocked out that are in fact crown road
another house party a five minute drive from progress way and if not for the
grid numbers being not blocked out inclusive of
6
422,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
other landmarks such as A&J cars
based in Enfield, I would not have been able to prove my innocents in the
ongoing application leading to an unfair trial.
· Cad
· Cad
· Cad
· Cad
· Cad
in his statements of his facts that are
incorrect he led the district Jude into believing the manufactured and
engineered evidence that he had fabricated to aid him to leading the District
Jude to making a guilty verdict.
Please see a copy of the court
transcripts as listed below.
Witness 1 - Inspector Hamill -R. O -
11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday. (This was in fact early Hours of the 8th
around 1:00am.)
I did not go inside,
the gates were closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the police but
I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @
venue but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating
under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this
date.)
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way) Witness - Pc Elsmore - R.O
- 14;10 EIC Tab 6 - pg. ?14?
DEF XEX
Council (unreadable text) curfews
(unreadable text) that PNC info on statement adds no (unreadable
text) probatory (unreadable text) value of info re: Witness
being “afraid of D” What he puts down to the way he worded, but he meant that
people actually are afraid of possibly giving evidence in court.
R V CORDELL 4
DEF
Counsel argues that officer’s statement
is designed to cause on evidence reaction of this of no value and speculatory
in nature.
7
423,
Si-Information-Part-Edited-01.doc
DJ
How many calls from public did police
receive?
Witness
In excess of 15 calls - how many to the
same venue and not other address.
Doe’s does not know the number of
callers that are in relation to each of these occasions.
On page 15 - Allegations re: Millmarsh
Lane, evidence from officer not first-hand - relied on cads and another Intel.
Query Re: “3 massive nitrous
tanks”
DJ
Where did you get such info officer.
Witness
From Page 65 - sergeant King - Crimit’s
Re reports, other Intel but not from people at the venue.
COUNSEL
Officer you signed a statement of truth
(unreadable text) to other witness statements.
DJ
We all know that on ASBO apps hearsay
is allowed.
R V CORDELL 5
Counsel
Why did officer no and rely on Pc Kings
Statements later than on the Crimit’s reported. Officer no and involved in
taking info from Pc King.
(Confesses he did it.)
He did not notice the discrepancy
regarding official statements.
Have heard of Every Decibel Matters -
They were advertising and I believe the D knows a member of the above company.
No evidence D is involved in running
their operations.
No attempt has been made to speak to directors
of company.
No reason to why you didn’t /contact
the company.
I think from memory have met D once @
Edmonton police station.
(At Page 16 1st paragraph - not
consistent to fact that he met him on the 7/6/2014) All
notes with cad number were listed from reports not officers’ own words - same
applies from Cads that had known input.
Has not made attempts to contact owners
of premises.
Officers unable to assist courts in
relation to why statements were not signed on notebooks profiles.
Another example of doings put in
statements to blacken Mr Cordell’s evidence in statement @ point 12, No
convictions that of class A drugs unlike what’s written in Statements - another
example of untrue cut and paste.
DJ
Ill ignore because no convections of
class A drugs or supplying is present on the criminal record.
Counsel
You cannot assist with witness
reliability of info contained, can you?
Can Intel be wrongfully inaccurate? No
Officer
8
424,
On that particular re post, it appears to
be right.
I did not speak to Parcell
he is force @ seven boroughs.
I believe he was not included in the
email, because Intel (unreadable text) Email sent to LDE only.
Searched (unreadable text) for
info on Cordell’s convections.
Moving on to statement on Page 30
Does PO investigating unit have more
info than it is letting on?
Officer
No
Are you aware that Miss Cordell has
spoken to other officers Re: Rave?
This suggests that you do not want DS Tanner
to be examined on these proceedings because she has information Re knowledge of
raves and them not being connected to W/D.
Spoke to Pc Tanner but not written what
- spoke to (unreadable text) this year You have no recorded that you
emailed her but then spoken to her.
Emails have been deleted and no copies
keep on record.
9
425,
CAD-Included-Missing.doc
All CAD’s Time’s Wrong
CAD |
Numb |
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page 191 to 195 |
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page 196 to 198 |
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page 203 to 205 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page 179 to 183 |
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page 233 to 237 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page 238 to 241 |
All CAD’s For 7th June 2014
CAD |
Numb |
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
943 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1012 |
07/06/2014 |
01:53 |
Page 143 to 146 |
CAD |
1047 |
07/06/2014 |
01:59 |
Page 174 to 178 |
CAD |
1323 |
07/06/2014 |
02:41 |
Page 147 to 151 |
CAD |
1380 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1571 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1608 |
07/06/2014 |
03:34 |
Page 184 to 186 |
CAD |
1722 |
07/06/2014 |
03:58 |
Page 152 to 154 |
CAD |
1816 |
07/06/2014 |
04:15 |
Page 155 to 159 |
CAD |
2141 |
07/06/2014 |
05:50 |
Page 160 to 164 |
CAD |
2255 |
07/06/2014 |
06:24 |
Page 165 to 169 |
CAD |
2291 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2271 |
07/06/2014 |
06:27 |
Page 170 to 173 |
CAD |
2456 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2525 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2601 |
07/06/2014 |
08:09 |
Page 187 to 190 |
CAD |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page 191 to 195 |
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page 196 to 198 |
CAD |
2757 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2854 |
07/06/2014 |
08:56 |
Page 199 to 202 |
CAD |
2904 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2906 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page 203 to 205 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page 179 to 183 |
CAD |
3252 |
07/06/2014 |
10:07 |
Page 206 to 209 |
CAD |
3326 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
3436 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
3838 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
3986 |
07/06/2014 |
11:47 |
Page 210 to 213 |
CAD |
4015 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
4322 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
4323 |
07/06/2014 |
12:25 |
Page 214 to 217 |
426,
CAD-Included-Missing.doc
CAD |
4598 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
4809 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
5206 |
07/06/2014 |
13:57 |
Page 218 to 220 |
CAD |
5571 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
8841 |
07/06/2014 |
20:07 |
Page 221 to 224 |
CAD |
8931 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
10311 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
10393 |
07/06/2014 |
22:38 |
Page 225 to 232 |
CAD |
10462 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
10471 |
07/06/2014 |
22:45 |
Page 242 to 245 |
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page 233 to 237 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page 238 to 241 |
CAD |
10742 |
07/06/2014 |
23:01 |
Page 246 to 249 |
CAD |
10844 |
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
10967 |
07/06/2014 |
23:25 |
Page 250 to 254 |
All CAD’s For 8th June 2014
CAD |
Numb |
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
47 |
08/06/2014 |
00:00 |
Page 255 to 259 |
CAD |
167 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
340 |
08/06/2014 |
00:29 |
Page 260 to 263 |
CAD |
625 |
08/06/2014 |
00:54 |
Page 264 to 267 |
CAD |
749 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
793 |
08/06/2014 |
01:10 |
Page 268 to 272 |
CAD |
930 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1081 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1206 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1631 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1646 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1667 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
1768 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2410 |
08/06/2014 |
05:35 |
Page 273 to 277 |
CAD |
2456 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2608 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2654 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2764 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2766 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2796 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2845 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2890 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2904 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2942 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
2948 |
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
427,
CAD |
3132 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3151 |
08/06/2014 09:08 Page 278 to 282 |
CAD |
3179 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3194 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3260 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3319 |
08/06/2014 09:39 Page 283 to 286 |
CAD |
3350 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3515 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
3946 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
5644 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
CAD |
5897 |
08/06/2014 Missing CAD |
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1.
2
Asbo
Simon Cordell v.at Wood Green 19-02-2016 15-55
19/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 428
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell v.at Wood
Green 19-02-2016 15-55
19/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 428
--
428,
From: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 19/02/2016 03:55:12 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Simon Cordell
v. The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis at Wood Green Crown Court
on 22nd February 2016
Lorraine
Simon needs to finalise his
statement. The 90-page document will be sent across will have to be chopped
back unless he wants me to email that across to the Public Defender Service.
Also, in an email dated 12th
February 2016 the screen shot from Every Decible Matters dated 10th August I do
not believe will assist. If, however Simon wants this included to demonstrate
that no ASBO has been applied for against Moses etc then please confirm by
return email as I am in the process of emailing this across to the Public
Defender.
There are two attachments to the
email (a) the screen shot from Every Decible Matters (b) Crown Road grid
reference map showing a Crown Road rave in contradiction to the evidence that
PC Elsmore gave.
Please get back to me as soon as
possible.
Josephine
19.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1.
2
Asbo
Appellant response respondent's-20-02-2016 14-30
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 429,430,431,432
433
19.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1. 2
Asbo Appellant response
respondent's-20-02-2016 14-30
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 429,430,431,432
433
--
429,
From: Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 20/02/2016 02:29:47 PM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
re_wired@ymail.com
Subject: Appellant
response to respondent's
Attachments: "SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT SKELETON ARGUMENT
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to
the Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
Thanks
Josephine
430,
SIMON
CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
IN
THE WOOD GREEN CROWN COURT CASE
NUMBER: A21050064
IN
THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDER
BETWEEN:
SIMON
CORDELL
Appellant
-and-
THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS
Respondent
Listing:
For appeal hearing 22.02.2016 for 3 days
Issues: (I) whether the Appellant has acted in an
anti-social manner
· whether an ASBO is necessary
1. The
Appellant's case is that he has not acted in an anti-social manner on any
occasion.
2. The
Appellant has not organised or supplied any equipment for any the events cited
in the Respondent's original application.
3. The
Appellant challenges and disputes the evidence presented that he was an
organiser. The Appellant will deal with each event, chronologically.
4. In
response to paragraph 13 of the Respondent's skeleton argument the Appellant
will state that he did not organise this rave on 7th / 8th
June 2014. The Appellant will state that this event
431,
SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT SKELETON ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
commenced on 6th June 2014
and not 7th June 2014. The Appellant will state that the Respondent
has wrongly specified that this event started on 7th June 2014. The
statements on PC Donald Mc Millian dated 19th August 2014 confirms the date the
event started.
The Appellant will state that he did
not provide any sound recording equipment, speakers, generators etc to this
event. The Appellant will state that both him and his brother Tyrone Benjamin
have been wrongly accused of organising this event. The Appellant will state
that his brother Tyrone Benjamin was incapacitated due to a major traffic
accident that resulted in both his legs being broken and also his pelvis. He
was immobile. The Appellant relies on the account he gave in his initial
statement dated 24th February 2015.
I.The Appellant disputes that he was
inside the premises. The Appellant will state that he was not the male
identified by security at the gate. The Appellant takes issue with the evidence
of Inspector Hamill and APS Miles. The Appellant will state that he was
approaching the premises to drop off keys to a friend. The Appellant will state
that he had left his cousin's leaving party, Dwayne Edward's to do this. The
Appellant was approached by police and Environmental officers who tried to
serve a noise abatement notice. The Appellant refused to accept the notice and
he did not engage in any conversation with the police. The Appellant was not
asked whether he had organised the party, had he been asked this then the
Appellant would have denied this.
II.The Appellant disputes that admitted to
Inspector Skinner that he organised the event on 7th / 8th
June 2014.
III.The Appellant disputes that he admitted
to Inspector Skinner that he organised the rave that was stopped by police on
19th July 2014. The Appellant will state that he never entered the
premises. The Appellant will state that he never provided any equipment’s or
generators etc to any persons inside the premises. The Appellant will state
that none of his vehicles were inside these premises. CAD 10635 19THJULY2014 (R
303-313). The Appellant will state that he is mixed race and not white and
therefore he could not have been one of the males inside the premises. The
Appellant will also state that CAD980419JUL14 entry 22.12:53 police did not see
any (PG 301 R bundle) audio equipment inside the building.
IV.The Appellant accepts that he had a
conversation with PC Edgoose concerning his efforts to establish a mini
festival or the community within the Enfield Borough. He accepts that he
discussed equipment. He totally disputes any conversations about Occupy London,
Black Block, anarchist groups of Notting hill carnival. The Appellant disputes
that he was driving in the manner alleged and believes that had he been driving
like this then he would have been arrested.
432,
SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT SKELETON ARGUMENT 20.02.2016.docx
V.The Appellant does not accept that he
had any sound recording equipment at this incident. He attended this incident
in his car. He had no sound system, speakers, generators etc. The Appellant
specifically requests the CAD 9717 referred to in the statement of PC Ames as
he believes that this will reveal the true identity of the organisers.
5.
The Appellant will state that he has no
connection with Every Decible matter. The Appellant will state that he met
Moses Howe in 2011. Moses Howe was a sound engineer. The Appellant will state
that he was offered a three-month trial at Club Juice,
6.
1 Jute Lane, Enfield, EN3 7PJ to see if
he could increase numbers to the Club. Moses Howe was going to be the
Appellant's sound engineer. The Appellant will state that Liam Philip was an MC
who was going to inspect Club Jute. The Appellant provided entertainment at the
Club previous to this. See attached promotional flier for an event,
"Rewired" organised on 23rd July 2011 at Club Jute
featuring DJ Substance and DJ Calous. This was licensed. The Appellant however
had to stop due to police persistently stopping and searching him.
7.
The Appellant will state in response to
paragraph 17 that he had nothing to do with the organisation of the event at
Progress Way that gave rise to the complaints of anti-social behaviour and
noise nuisance.
8.
The Appellant will state that this ASBO
is disproportionate and it prevents him from engaging in lawful business. The ASBO
will prevent the Appellant from applying for licences to hold events. The
Appellant will state that whilst he is subject to an ASBO he will be prohibited
from applying for any entertainment licence and any licence application will
automatically fail and therefore this is disproportionate.
9.
The Appellant has designed a business
plan, a festival plan and community event that sets out clearly the plans for
events including marketing, safety, stalls etc and also specifically refers to
co-operating with the police. The ASBO prevents any applications from being
successful.
10. The
Appellant will state that he has never been involved in the organisation of an
illegal rave as defined under section 63 of the CJPOA 1994.
11. The
Appellant will state that he has never had any equipment seized during an
illegal rave as defined by section 63 of the CJPOA 1994. The Appellant will
state that there has only been one occasion when his sound system was seized,
and he had hired this out to he believed to be a genuine customer. The Appellant
will state that
12. The
Appellant will also state that the current terms of the ASBO are too broad.
--
433,
Signed:
Dated:
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Appellant re respondent's -20-02-2016 15-42
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 434
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1. 2
Asbo Re Appellant re
respondent's -20-02-2016 15-42
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 434
--
434,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 20/02/2016 04:02:45 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Cc- lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Appellant response to respondent's
Simon
With regards to your statement I
have tried to help you with this. I have explained what is not helpful etc. You
simply disagree with the advice that I am giving, and this has always been the
case. You are misinterpreting the Respondent's case which is simply that the
raves / parties whether legal or not cause anti-social behaviour - i.e.
sleepless nights, noise, nuisance etc. You dispute that you are the organiser
and that is the only facts that I requested information about. The court is not
looking at one isolated date but all dates and the conduct on each of the
dates. I have also explained to you the events that cause you problems and the
reasons why. Organisation is not simply providing equipment, manning the gate
but also sourcing premises and I have explained that this can be inferred. Even
if a section 144 LAPSO is up there can still be antisocial behaviour albeit the
event is not a rave under the legislation.
I have made it very clear the
irrelevant points and aspects that do not assist you. You do not accept the
advice.
Josephine
On 20 February 2016 at 15:41
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a section 144 a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice,
Adr carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation regarding
the word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly state out the points of law
relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like it noted that I do not. I
have made a bundle of but would like to go over it with you if and when
possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
14:29, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to
the Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
Thanks
Josephine
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Appellant res respondent's 20-02-2016 16-03
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 435
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1. 2
Asbo Re Appellant res
respondent's 20-02-2016 16-03
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 435
--
435,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 20/02/2016 03:41:44 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Subject: Re:
Appellant response to respondent's
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a section 144 a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice,
Adr carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation regarding
the word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly state out the points of law
relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like it noted that I do not. I
have made a bundle of but would like to go over it with you if and when
possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
14:29, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to the
Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
Thanks
Josephine
22.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Appellant res respondent's 20-02-2016 16-05
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 436
22.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1. 2
Asbo Re Appellant res
respondent's 20-02-2016 16-05
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 436
--
436,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 20/02/2016 04:04:49 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Appellant
response to respondent's
Simon
Please confirm if I can forward
this to the Public Defender?
Josephine
On 20 February 2016 at 15:48
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
updated I made a typo error at
the bottom of the first copy I sent.
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants bundle but I have yet been able to put my updated
deference statements in towards the police statements which the applicant clei states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle
point 2. I did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need
by a person of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to
me to make the decision to which way I decide to steer my and evidence. I do
trust in you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like
the legal points of my defence added as back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a sector a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice, Adr
carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation rega the word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly
state out the points of law relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like
it no that I do not think that I can stand a fair
trial with the time stamps being the way that they are under article 6 of my
human rights and have drafted a letter in regards to this which I would like to
go over with yourself. I have made a bundle of all the relevant documentation
oi think is relevant towards my case but would like to go over it with you if
and when possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
15:41, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a section 144 a copy of an environmental section 80 abatement notice,
Adr carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments official documentation regarding
the word (rave) so the acting barrister can clearly state out the points of law
relevant to my plea of innocents, I would also like it noted that I do not. I
have made a bundle of but would like to go over it with you if and when
possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
14:29, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to
the Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
Thanks
Josephine
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1.
2
Asbo Re
Appellant res respondent's 20-02-2016 16-33
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 437,438
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1. 2
Asbo Re Appellant res
respondent's 20-02-2016 16-33
20/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 437,438
--
437,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 20/02/2016 04:32:54 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Subject: Re: Appellant
response to respondent's
The applicant’s case is that I
organised illegal raves which caused alarm harm and distress.
To which there is no breach of
the licencing 2003 Act or no breach to section 63 present such as tress pass.
The incidents in question are
not of a consecutive manner over a long time period and any person not in
breach of licencing acts or trespass is entitled to have a party without local
authority permission for as long as there is no health and safety risks.
Not that I organised legal
moving in or out House party's or birthday parties, with or for others. that
caused alarm harm and distress, as they are not a breach of law in doing so
without a warning of the local council. With regards to statement I know you
have helped me and I have taken a your advice in so many different aspects of
the case already, but strongly believe it is in my best interest to confront
the police statements point out the consistence’s as they seem to be misled to
the truth.
as for the Time stamps do I stand
a fair trial or would any other person do so if presented with such errors in
the evidence, when polices rely on as the case against myself with no civil
witness mentioning myself to be present or acting in a manner likely to cause
alarm harm distress.
I would also like to point out
that as my acting solicitor and that of you having a copy of my criminal
record, you would know if I had been the dates in question for acting anti-social,
no matter if civil or criminal.
And I do listen to you and
respect you and what you say to me, I just some time question it.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
16:02, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Simon
With regards to your statement I
have tried to help you with this. I have explained what is not helpful etc.
You simply disagree with the
advice that I am giving, and this has always been the case. You are
misinterpreting the Respondent's case which is simply that the raves / parties
whether legal or not cause anti-social behaviour - i.e. sleepless nights,
noise, nuisance etc. You dispute that you are the organiser and that is the
only facts that I requested information about. The court is not looking at one
isolated date but all dates and the conduct on each of the dates. I have also
explained to you the events that cause you problems and the reasons why.
Organisation is not simply providing equipment, manning the gate but also
sourcing premises and I have explained that this can be inferred. Even if a
section 144 LAPSO is up there can still be antisocial behaviour albeit the
event is not a rave under the legislation.
I have made it very clear the
irrelevant points and aspects that do not assist you. You do not accept the
advice.
Josephine
On 20 February 2016 at 15:41
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
no Josie I am not happy, I did
not write this with you or was not involved in the making of it, you want to
deal with the applicants skeleton bundle but I have yet been able to put my
updated deference statements in towards the police statements which the
applicant clearly states, that they rely upon in the skeleton bundle point 2. I
did send them to you but could not draft them, with the skills need by a person
of your profession. I listen to your legal guidance and it is up to me to make
the decision to which way I decide to steer my case and evidence. I do trust in
you, but it is legally right for the decision to be mine. I would like the
legal points of my defence added as the back bone to my statements such as a
copy of the licencing act 2003, copy of the magistrates court transcripts, a
copy of a section 144 a copy of a environmental
section 80 abatement notice, Adr carriage of dangerous gas's, parliaments
official documentation regarding the word (rave) so the acting barrister can
clearly state out the points of law relevant to my plea of innocents, I would
also like it noted that I do not. I have made a bundle of but would like to go
over it with you if and when possible please.
On Saturday, 20 February 2016,
14:29, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Lorraine / Simon
I am attaching the response to
the Respondent's skeleton argument.
Can you please sign if you are
happy with the content and email straight back to me as I need this to be
forwarded to the Public Defender.
438,
Thanks
Josephine
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - RE read Sun 21-02-2016 20-28
21/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 439,440
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - RE read Sun
21-02-2016 20-28
21/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 439,440
--
439,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 21/02/2016 08:27:58 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: read
Read section 20 of the Skeleton
Argument that’s why they have now added the word recorded music. as it was not
in their application
Live music:
Q: What
about Live Music?
A: We
are proposing to raise the audience limit for live music to 500 to bring it in
parity with the other deregulated activities.
Q: Why
aren’t you deregulating live music fully apart from in licensed premises?
A: The
Government is fully behind creativity. But there is a balance to be struck in
protecting our communities from potential noise nuisance. We think that the
exemptions that will be put in place, as well as raising the audience threshold
from 200 to 500 people in on-licensed premises and in workplaces, is a great
deal for sensible musicians and audiences.
Q: Why
aren’t you waiting to assess the impact of the Live Music Act 2012 before going
ahead with further deregulatory measures in this area?
A: To
bring it into parity with the other deregulated activities and to avoid
unnecessary confusion. But we will of course keep all these changes under
review
Q: Why
aren’t you extending the Live Music Act deregulation until midnight?
A: Residents groups, local authorities
and the police all had concerns about deregulating beyond 11pm, which is
recognised in noise legislation as a time when disturbance caused by noise can
have a greater impact. However, we will keep these changes under review.
Q: What is
the definition of a workplace in relation to regulated entertainment?
A: The
term is defined in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
and is, broadly speaking any non-domestic place where someone works. Recorded
music:
Q: What
is recorded music?
A: Recorded music activities
amount mainly to discos and DJ events - where the audience is there primarily
to be entertained by the music activity. If in doubt, check with your local
licensing authority.
Q: Why
have you not deregulated recorded music?
A: The
Government is fully behind the creative industries but there is a balance to be
stuck in protecting our communities from potential noise nuisance. We think
that the exemptions that will be put in place, as well as the measure for
on-licensed premises will be a boost for those holding responsible recorded
music events.
Q: Why is
live music deregulated in workplaces, but recorded music will not be?
A: As
recorded music events are easily portable; they have in the past been more
prone to noise and public order problems from unscrupulous operators. We have
looked to support responsible community events but retain controls where the
risks are higher.
Q: Won’t
this allow raves?
A: No. Recorded music activities
(usually disco and DJ events) will only be deregulated in the following places
(between 08:0023:00): In premises with an alcohol licence (unless this has
been precluded by a licence^ condition) In events organised by Local
authorities, schools, nurseries or hospitals, or in ‘community premises’.
Read
Q: What
if a recorded music event is noisy? A: Other legislation is already in place
which gives powers to Local authorities
440,
and the police to deal with
issues, arising from a problem event. We do not see this situation as much
different to the status quo.
From:
Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 21
February 2016 19:59
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: ff
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/20/pdfs/uksi
20160020 en.pdf Entertainment Licensing - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK
image Entertainment Licensing - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK
Information on whether you need
approval to put on certain types of regulated entertainment.
View on www.gov.uk
Preview by Yahoo
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1.
2
Asbo
TAKE A LOOK AT TEDS FINISHING 22-02-2016 00-50
22/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 441
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1. 2
Asbo TAKE A LOOK AT TEDS
FINISHING 22-02-2016 00-50
22/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 441
--
441,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 22/02/2016 12:49:51 AM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS IT NEEDS FINISHING
Attachments: SIMON
CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1.
2
Asbo Fwd.
Re R v Simon Appeal Letter 24-02-2016 17-39
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 442,443
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1. 2
Asbo Fwd. Re R v Simon Appeal
Letter 24-02-2016 17-39
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 442,443
--
442,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 24/02/2016 05:38:59 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: Fwd.:
Re: R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
I am in the right by asking you
to look into the time stamps so that I can have a fair trial and you will not, I
have many emails of myself and my mother asking you to act with my best
interest at heart and write to the witness in time for my appeal date, to which
this was not done in time as I had explained I was worried about as well as the
true points of law relevant to the applicants case. The Jude did set a fair
time period for you to set the key objectives so that I could be ready to stand
a fair and speed trial.
You have refused to meet myself
in this time set and would only meet my mother, this was due to me asking you
on the phone, if I could take a copy of the minutes in audio format of our
meeting, to which you took as a fret, I have the texts of me being polite to
you straight after our conversation stating that I meant no offence and saying
sorry if I did upset you, as I class you as a close family member after you
representing me over the years.
I have not sent you any
correspondence to show that I am not of well health as you seem to be claiming
and had not meet you for months, as you refused to do so.
after you are refusing not to
meet me after such a long period and you only meeting my mother who was not at
any of the incidents contained within the applicant’s bundle. I find it unjust
as I clearly have the texts asking you to deal with just me about my statements
and case and asked if you would forward my mother as she is going to help with
my emails.
on the last occasion of a
meeting regarding my case you allowed me to attend with my mother as you had
got over me asking for minutes of the meetings you was holding with my mother
or any that you might have with myself, I attended and there was no problems at
your office I even tidied up a little in your office as our meeting was coming
to an end as you had your next client waiting so I was very quiet.
I have already been assessed by
the mental health team on 3 occasions now over a fair period of time and each
time I have been told that I am well. In fact, the last time I asked for
minutes of the meeting to be taken with the mental health team, as I did with
you and there was no problem in me doing so, I have the whole recording on cd
dated 25/01/16. In the time I had with the mental health team I showed them
issues about my court case and the time stamps and other issues that I have
raised with yourself and they clearly state on the cd that it is a serious
error that you my solicitor needs to pay attention to me as does any other
person that I show my case.
Points I have not seen you to
show you that I am of ill health
The barrister that meet me on
our first occasion only see me for 2 mins the other day at my said appeal date
which was not ready in time I have already been cheeked by 3 different teams,
who clearly state and write if the members of the Met police had treated them
in such a manner over a period of time they would have issues of concern
regarding equal rights and many other relevant rights I am well on mind as the
police put their signature at the end of the case papers that I ask you to make
sure that I get a fair trial with and the doctors agree that I am right on cd
as does many over people on the internet and legal ombudsman
please can you reply to what
grounds you believe me not to be fit for trial and any plans of action that you
may plan to take in regard to my ongoing appeal.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016,
16:18, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Dear Simon / Lorraine
I am forwarding across to you a letter
that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be adjudicating at the appeal
hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the mention
hearing on 4th April 2016.
The first point that must be
addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health Simon and your
fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this
area can be clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday
raised a number of concerns surrounding this point.
The second point is answering
and responding to question 2. This question can only be properly addressed once
we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to follow
proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond to
question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues
with your ability to follow proceedings.
You will note the areas that the
court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All the points will
have to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring
to events but in brackets using the word rave.
He is not stating illegal rave.
There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is probably the
question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
443,
Paragraph 5 deals with the hearsay
application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is
forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on receipt.
Can you please confirm by return
email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a Psychiatrist so that we
can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.
I await hearing from you by
return email.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
Original Message
From:
Patrick Mc Elligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 24 February 2016 at 14:33
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1.
2
Asbo
Re R v Simon Cor Appeal Letter 24-02-2016 16-19
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 444
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1. 2
Asbo Re R v Simon Cor Appeal
Letter 24-02-2016 16-19
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 444
--
444,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 24/02/2016 04:18:47 PM
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Dear Simon / Lorraine
I am forwarding across to you a
letter that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be adjudicating at the
appeal hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the
mention hearing on 4th April 2016.
The first point that must be
addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health Simon and your
fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this
area can be clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday
raised a number of concerns surrounding this point.
The second point is answering
and responding to question 2. This question can only be properly addressed once
we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to follow
proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond to
question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues
with your ability to follow proceedings.
You will note the areas that the
court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All the points will
have to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring
to events but in brackets using the word rave. He is not stating illegal rave.
There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is probably the
question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
Paragraph 5 deals with the
hearsay application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is
forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on receipt.
Can you please confirm by return
email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a Psychiatrist so that we
can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.
I await hearing from you by
return email.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
Original Message
From: Patrick
Mc Elligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 24 February 2016 at 14:33
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1.
2
Asbo
Re R v Simon Cor Appeal Letter 24-02-2016 18-09
44/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 445,446
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1. 2
Asbo Re R v Simon Cor Appeal
Letter 24-02-2016 18-09
44/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 445,446
--
445,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 24/02/2016 06:09:29 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>;
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Dear Josey
You have not attached any
paperwork so we cannot see what has been said by the judge or the barrister
that was there can this be forwarded please.
Josey at court the judge would
not hear what the barrister for Simon was saying or anyone else this case went
in and out of court. I asked if I could speak to the judge myself which he took
no notice off when a note was written by a person in the court and handed to
the clerk to pass to the judge.
For Appeal against Conviction -
Case Started - 10:19
For Appeal against Conviction -
Respondent Case Opened - 10:50
For Appeal against Conviction -
Case adjourned until - 11:20 - 11:08
For Appeal against Conviction -
Resume - 11:29
For Appeal against Conviction -
Case adjourned until - 11:50 - 11:41
For Appeal against Conviction -
Resume - 11:43
For Appeal against Conviction -
Hearing finished for SIMON PAUL CORDELL - 11:58 And there was one more time
that the judge went out in fact it could have been 2.
And as even the barrister said
to us the judge was not hearing what we wanted to say or he would have
understood all the judge wanted to do was make this case go ahead even when
Simon Barrister was saying it could not, at this point it was not due to Simon
heath. it was other reasons that the barrister felt uncomfortable going ahead.
If the judge had heard what was
being said and was being fair, then at that point it should have been put off
as the barrister had very good reason for it not to go ahead.
It was at this point I asked the
lady to write a note to the judge to ask if I could speak which she did and it
was pasted to the judge, and the judge took no notice of it.
Simon has had an assessment from
the mental health team on I believe 03/02/2016 as you are well aware as Simon
told you himself in the office. the warrant was granted on the 25/01/2016 but
they never used it until the 03/02/2016
He agreed that he would work
with them and have meetings with Goody. The judge does not know any of this
because he would not let me speak in court.
Also have you heard yet from
Superintendent Adrian Coombs I believe from what you said to me on the phone he
was meant to be getting a reply from him on Monday
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Josephine Ward [mailto: josie@michaelcarroNandco.com
Sent: 24
February 2016 16:19
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Dear Simon / Lorraine
I am forwarding across to you a
letter that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be adjudicating at the
appeal hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the
mention hearing on 4th April2016.
The first point that must be
addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health Simon and your
fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this
area can be clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday
raised a number of concerns surrounding this point.
The second point is answering
and responding to question 2. This question can only be properly addressed once
we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to follow
proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond to
question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues
with your ability to follow proceedings.
446,
You will note the areas that the
court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All the points will
have to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring
to events but in brackets using the word rave. He is not stating illegal rave.
There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is probably the
question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
Paragraph 5 deals with the
hearsay application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is
forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on receipt.
Can you please confirm by return
email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a Psychiatrist so that we
can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.
I await hearing from you by
return email.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
Original Message
From: Patrick
Mc Elligott patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 24 February 2016 at 14:33
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1.
2
Asbo
Re R v Simon Cor Appeal Letter 24-02-2016 19-54
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1. 2
Asbo Re R v Simon Cor Appeal
Letter 24-02-2016 19-54
24/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467
--
447,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 24/02/2016 07:54:23 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Att h t the right to a fair
trial.doc new 2003 7th Jan 2013 licencing if profit is to be Licencing act 2003
no regulations private air.png Legal definition of (Raves).pdf
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a
skeleton argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this
time I would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO
conditions defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be
imposed, neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan
7th 2013 and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal
raves, could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house parties or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal. I would also
like the right under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel
that it is possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be
incorrect in law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps
and other relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the
district judge that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle,
are that off progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a
draft copy of my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached proves
that illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no power
on private parties, until the local authority applies at the local court to
give the police such powers such as a section 80 noise abatement notice, which
has not been served within any of the dates in question contained within the
applicants bundle, I believe this is why the local council never turns up to
any of the court hearings which they are bound by law to do so, as I would like
them to attended and answer such questions. please can you reply to my points
in the last 3 emails in bullion points so I can understand your legal guidance.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016,
18:09, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Josey
You have not attached any
paperwork so we cannot see what has been said by the judge or the barrister
that was there can this be forwarded please.
Josey at court the judge would
not hear what the barrister for Simon was saying or anyone else this case went
in and out of court. I asked if I could speak to the judge myself which he took
no notice off when a note was written by a person in the court and handed to
the clerk to pass to the judge.
For Appeal against Conviction - Case
Started - 10:19
For Appeal against Conviction -
Respondent Case Opened - 10:50
For Appeal against Conviction -
Case adjourned until - 11:20 - 11:08
For Appeal against Conviction -
Resume - 11:29
For Appeal against Conviction -
Case adjourned until - 11:50 - 11:41
For Appeal against Conviction -
Resume - 11:43
For Appeal against Conviction -
Hearing finished for SIMON PAUL CORDELL - 11:58 And there was one more time
that the judge went out in fact it could have been 2.
And as even the barrister said
to us the judge was not hearing what we wanted to say or he would have
understood all the judge wanted to do was make this case go ahead even when
Simon Barrister was saying it could not, at this point it was not due to Simon
heath. it was other reasons that the barrister felt uncomfortable going ahead.
If the judge had heard what was
being said and was being fair, then at that point it should have been put off
as the barrister had very good reason for it not to go ahead.
It was at this point I asked the
lady to write a note to the judge to ask if I could speak which she did and it
was pasted to the judge, and the judge took no notice of it.
Simon has had an assessment from
the mental health team on I believe 03/02/2016 as you are well aware as Simon
told you himself in the office. the warrant was granted on the 25/01/2016 but
they never used it until the 03/02/2016
He agreed that he would work
with them and have meetings with Goody. The judge does not know any of this
because he would not let me speak in court.
Also have you heard yet from
Superintendent Adrian Coombs I believe from what you said to me on the phone he
was meant to be getting a reply from him on Monday
Regards
Lorraine
From: Josephine Ward mailto: josie@michaelcarroNandco.com
Sent: 24 February 2016
16:19
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
448,
Dear Simon / Lorraine
am forwarding across to you a
letter that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be adjudicating at the
appeal hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the
mention hearing on 4th April2016.
The first point that must be
addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health Simon and your
fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this
area can be clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday
raised a number of concerns surrounding this point.
The second point is answering
and responding to question 2. This question can only be properly addressed once
we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to follow
proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond to
question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues
with your ability to follow proceedings.
You will note the areas that the
court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All the points will have
to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring
to events but in brackets using the word rave. He is not stating illegal rave.
There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is probably the
question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
Paragraph 5 deals with the
hearsay application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is
forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on receipt.
Can you please confirm by return
email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a Psychiatrist so that we
can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.
I await hearing from you by
return email.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
Original Message
From: Patrick
Mc Elligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 24 February 2016 at 14:33
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
449,450,451,452,453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1.
2
Asbo Please
can you tff importance 25-02-2016 18-40
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 468
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1. 2
Asbo Please can you tff importance 25-02-2016 18-40
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 468
--
468,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 06:39:31 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Subject: Please
can you take time to read this and reply as it is off importance.
I am a 35 year old gentlemen as
you already understand I am telling you that I do not want you emailing or
talking to my mother behind my back and not forwarding me in the correspondents
that you send to her about myself, in fact from the present time 18:29 hours of
the 25/02/2016 I would like you to just contact myself. I am also prepared to
meet yourself the sooner the better, so I can continue with my appeal. I would
like you to know that you are more than welcome to come to my flat and see the
mental health team letters I have as well as maybe listen to the cd and take a
look over the bundle and statements I have prepared for yourself to put your
professional skills towards so that I can stand my fair trial. As for you
wanting to re asses me straight after I have just been checking I do not find
this just as I had Katie and my mother present at the assessment.
I feel that You are in the wrong
for what you are putting me throw, the texts I have and emails prove the truth
that you refuse to see me for months due to me asking you a professional
question such as can I have minutes to the meetings that you hold with my
mother or myself in audio format.
All you had to do was say no but
on stead you stated that "no client has ever asked you this before and
that I am frightened by what I had asked you” as I keep clearly saying in all
the emails and texts I have sent to you that I never meant any offence.
You refused to meet me for
months and would only meet my mother, not once did iPhone you again after and
still to date have not as I do not want you to upset You.
You have acted for me for well
over 20 years and I have never been any problem to yourself in fact we have
always had a good friendly professional relationship as I keep stating
the cd I am in possession of
does in fact prove my statements to yourself to be true, that being from the
mental health team's "in proving that they even think that I am well of
mind as I keep stating and will do so if you question my health or integrity.
I am mixed race as you do no
yourself and the time stamps are wrong in the applicant case, I can get a
calculate in front of yourself and prove this or in front of doctor and it is
you that does not want to accept this and question my stability, which has lead
me to being found guilty for a case that I should never have been. (or in fact
was not as Andy Lock states the barrister paid to represent me)
I also went to a private
psychiatrist who has wrote me a letter explain that I am well and that you need
to pay attention to what is going on with the police and harassment towards
myself.
I have a large network of
friends and family who also agree that this is wrong.
I have emails of my mother
taking to x police offices in a delegated forum room, who we also showed parts
of the case and they state that it is wrong and you should help they even have
offered to create an injunction for myself against the police to which they
once were them self's.
Andy lock the barrister that you
hired also agrees in his substitution in regards to the points of law that I
have been asking you to act on since the start of this case I have the emails
as do you of you.
What I am willing to do is pay
for my own private psychiatrist opinion and forward that to yourself if need
be, please can you contact me and tell me if I need to book an appointment with
one ASAP, so I can get your help in continuing my case.
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Please can yoff importance 25-02-2016 22-55
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 469
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1. 2
Asbo Re Please can yoff importance 25-02-2016 22-55
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 469
--
469,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 10:55:29 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Please can you take time to read this and reply as it is off importance.
Simon
I have just now seen this email.
Further to your instructions I
will cease all contact with your mother concerning your case.
Please see attached HHJ Pawlak's
letter.
You refer to the letter
regarding your Mental Health assessments. Can you please scan and email to me
and if they are recent the this may well avoid the necessity for me engaging a
Psychiatrist, funded by the Legal Aid Agency.
Regards
Josephine
On 25 February 2016 at 18:39
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
I am a 35 year old gentlemen as
you already understand I am telling you that I do not want you emailing or
talking to my mother behind my back and not forwarding me in the correspondents
that you send to her about myself, in fact from the present time 18:29 hours of
the 25/02/2016 I would like you to just contact myself. I am also prepared to
meet yourself the sooner the better, so I can continue with my appeal. I would
like you to know that you are more than welcome to come to my flat and see the
mental health team letters I have as well as maybe listen to the cd and take a
look over the bundle and statements I have prepared for yourself to put your
professional skills towards so that I can stand my fair trial. As for you
wanting to re asses me straight after I have just been checked I do not find
this just as I had Katie and my mother present at the assessment.
I feel that You are in the wrong
for what you are putting me throw, the texts I have and emails prove the truth that
you refuse to see me for months due to me asking you a professional question
such as can I have minutes to the meetings that you hold with my mother or
myself in audio format.
All you had to do was say no but
on stead you stated that "no client has ever asked you this before and
that I am frightened by what I had asked you” as I keep clearly saying in all
the emails and texts I have sent to you that I never meant any offence.
You refused to meet me for
months and would only meet my mother, not once did I phone you again after and
still to date have not as I do not want you to upset You.
You have acted for me for well
over 20 years and I have never been any problem to yourself in fact we have
always had a good friendly professional relationship as I keep stating
the cd I am in possession of
does in fact prove my statements to yourself to be true, that being from the
mental health team's "in proving that they even think that I am well of mind
as I keep stating and will do so if you question my health or integrity.
I am mixed race as you do no
yourself and the time stamps are wrong in the applicant case, I can get a
calculate in front of yourself and prove this or in front of doctor and it is
you that does not want to accept this and question my stability, which has lead
me to being found guilty for a case that I should never have been. (or in fact
was not as Andy Lock states the barrister paid to represent me)
I also went to a private psychiatrist
who has wrote me a letter explain that I am well and that you need to pay
attention to what is going on with the police and harassment towards myself.
I have a large network of
friends and family who also agree that this is wrong.
I have emails of my mother
taking to x police offices in a delegated forum room, who we also showed parts
of the case and they state that it is wrong and you should help they even have
offered to create an injunction for myself against the police to which they
once were them self's.
Andy lock the barrister that you
hired also agrees in his substitution in regards to the points of law that I
have been asking you to act on since the start of this case I have the emails
as do you of you.
What I am willing to do is pay
for my own private psychiatrist opinion and forward that to yourself if need
be, please can you contact me and tell me if I need to book an appointment with
one ASAP, so I can get your help in continuing my case.
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1.
2
Asbo
Re R v Simon Appeal Letter 25-02-2016 10-41
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 470,471
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1. 2
Asbo Re R v Simon Appeal Letter
25-02-2016 10-41
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 470,471
--
470,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 10:41:09 AM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Will you take this back to court
so I can get my life back I have been locked in my house for two years because
I listened to your guidance the documents I sent you are right I am being held
against my rights.
Please contact me in regard to
my last emails to yourself as you leave me worried.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016,
19:54, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a
skeleton argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this
time I would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO
conditions defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be
imposed, neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan
7th 2013 and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal
raves, could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house party’s or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal. I would also
like the right under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel
that it is possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be
incorrect in law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps
and other relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the
district judge that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle,
are that off progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a
draft copy of my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached
proves that illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no
power on private parties, until the local authority applies at the local court
to give the police such powers such as a section 80 noise abatement notice,
which has not been served within any of the dates in question contained within
the applicants bundle, I believe this
is why the local council never
turns up to any of the court hearings which they are bound by law to do so, as
I would like them to attended and answer such questions. please can you reply
to my points in the last 3 emails in bullion points so I can understand your
legal guidance.
On Wednesday, 24 February 2016,
18:09, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Josey
You have not attached any
paperwork so we cannot see what has been said by the judge or the barrister
that was there can this be forwarded please.
Josey at court the judge would
not hear what the barrister for Simon was saying or anyone else this case went
in and out of court. I asked if I could speak to the judge myself which he took
no notice off when a note was written by a person in the court and handed to
the clerk to pass to the judge.
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Case Started - 10:19
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Respondent Case Opened - 10:50
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Case adjourned until 11:20 - 11:08
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Resume - 11:29
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Case adjourned until 11:50 - 11:41
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Resume - 11:43
· For
Appeal against Conviction - Hearing finished for SIMON PAUL CORDELL - 11:58 And
there was one more time that the judge went out in fact it could have been 2.
And as even the barrister said
to us the judge was not hearing what we wanted to say or he would have
understood all the judge wanted to do was make this case go ahead even when
Simon Barrister was saying it could not, at this point it was not due to Simon
heath. it was other reasons that the barrister felt uncomfortable going ahead.
If the judge had heard what was
being said and was being fair, then at that point it should have been put off
as the barrister had very good reason for it not to go ahead.
It was at this point I asked the
lady to write a note to the judge to ask if I could speak which she did and it was
pasted to the judge, and the judge took no notice of it.
Simon has had an assessment from
the mental health team on I believe 03/02/2016 as you are well aware as Simon
told you himself in the office. the warrant was granted on the 25/01/2016 but
they never used it until the 03/02/2016
He agreed that he would work
with them and have meetings with Goody. The judge does not know any of this
because he would not let me speak in court.
Also have you heard yet from
Superintendent Adrian Coombs I believe from what you said to me on the phone he
was meant to be getting a reply from him on Monday
Regards
471,
Lorraine
From: Josephine
Ward
mailto: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Sent: 24 February
2016 16:19
Cc: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Dear Simon / Lorraine
I am forwarding across to you a
letter that I have received from HHJ Pawlak, who will be adjudicating at the
appeal hearing on 26th September 2016. He will also be presiding over the
mention hearing on 4th April2016.
The first point that must be
addressed in question 3 and this concerns your mental health Simon and your
fitness to follow proceedings, instruct solicitors and consider advice. I am
therefore going to apply for funding so that you can be assessed so that this
area can be clarified. This is important. Your behaviour in court on Monday
raised a number of concerns surrounding this point.
The second point is answering
and responding to question 2. This question can only be properly addressed once
we receive confirmation from a Psychiatrist that you are able to follow
proceedings etc
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person. We cannot advance your case or respond to
question 2 until such time as the psychiatric confirms that there are no issues
with your ability to follow proceedings.
You will note the areas that the
court wishes to concentrate on are listed in paragraph 2. All the points will
have to be carefully considered; in my view they are loaded questions that are
seeking to achieve foundation for the ASBO application. The Judge is referring
to events but in brackets using the word rave. He is not stating illegal rave.
There are five subsections but ultimately subsection 2(c) is probably the
question that Judge is most interested in knowing your response to.
Paragraph 4 makes it clear that
the Court will not allow Michael Carroll & Co to come off the record unless
the Senior Partner attends in person or unless you wish to transfer legal aid.
Paragraph 5 deals with the
hearsay application to be served by the respondent.
Superintendent Coombes is
forwarding his statement in the post. I will forward this on receipt.
Can you please confirm by return
email Simon whether you are willing to be assessed by a Psychiatrist so that we
can determine whether you are fit to follow proceedings.
I await hearing from you by
return email.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
Original Message
From:
Patrick McElligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 24 February 2016 at 14:33
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Appeal Letter
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Si 25-02-2016 15-28
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 472
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1. 2
Asbo Re Si 25-02-2016 15-28
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 472
--
472,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 03:27:50 PM
To: too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Si
Simon
I will be posting out to you a
letter of authority requesting permission to access the notes concerning the
recent Mental Health Assessments in the past 18 months that your mother
disclosed to the Court. Once I receive these and the opinion is that you are
well and can follow proceedings, we can progress matters from there.
If the notes suggest that you
are not well then, I will be applying for funding from the Legal Aid Agency so
that you can be formally assessed to determine whether you can follow
proceedings.
I have forwarded to you a letter
that I received from the Judge. This is one of the points raised. Mr Morris,
the Public Defender has also expressed concern as to your ability to
concentrate on and follow proceedings, so I am duty bound to resolve the Mental
Health Issue first of all.
Superintendent Coombes has
telephoned me, and he is going to be forwarding a statement to me this coming
week confirming detail with regards to the Essex event that Christopher Lewis
was trying to organise before it was closed down.
I will scan and email this
across to you when I receive it.
If you can please sign the
letter of authority as soon as it arrives that will greatly assist me.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a
skeleton argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this
time I would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO
conditions defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be imposed,
neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan 7th 2013
and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal raves,
could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house parties or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal. I would also
like the right under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel
that it is possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be
incorrect in law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps
and other relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the
district judge that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle,
are that off progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a
draft copy of my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached
proves that illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no
power on private parties, until the local authority serves a noise abatement
notice and then applies at the local court to give the police such powers as to
be able to enter the premises, which has not been served within any of the
dates in question contained within the applicants bundle, I believe this is why
the local council never turns up to any of the court hearings which they are
bound by law to do so, as I would like them to attended and answer such
questions. please can you reply to my points in the last 3 emails in bullion
points so I can understand your legal guidance.
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Si 25-02-2016 16-40
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 473
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1. 2
Asbo Re Si 25-02-2016 16-40
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 473
--
473,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 04:39:57 PM
To: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephmewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Si
I am going to take legal action
against you for what you have done to my life if you do not act in a
professional manner, I have copied the email: between us and am going to put
them on a legal websites for advice. if you have a problem with this please
contact me, I have shown a few people all ready and have had their opinion and
that is that you should be stuck of the list what does that mean.
On Thursday, 25 February 2016,
15:27, JOSEPHINE WARD josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I will be posting out to you a letter
of authority requesting permission to access the notes concerning the recent
Mental Health Assessments in the past 18 months that your mother disclosed to
the Court. Once I receive these and the opinion is that you are well and can
follow proceedings, we can progress matters from there.
If the notes suggest that you
are not well then, I will be applying for funding from the Legal Aid Agency so
that you can be formally assessed to determine whether you can follow
proceedings.
I have forwarded to you a letter
that I received from the Judge. This is one of the points raised. Mr Morris,
the Public Defender has also expressed concern as to your ability to
concentrate on and follow proceedings, so I am duty bound to resolve the Mental
Health Issue first of all.
Superintendent Coombes has
telephoned me, and he is going to be forwarding a statement to me this coming
week confirming detail with regards to the Essex event that Christopher Lewis
was trying to organise before it was closed down.
I will scan and email this
across to you when I receive it.
If you can please sign the
letter of authority as soon as it arrives that will greatly assist me.
Yours sincerely Josephine Ward
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a
skeleton argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this
time I would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO
conditions defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be
imposed, neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan
7th 2013 and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal
raves, could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house parties or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal. I would also
like the right under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel
that it is possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be
incorrect in law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps
and other relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the
district judge that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle,
are that off progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a
draft copy of my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached
proves that illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no
power on private parties, until the local authority serves a noise abatement
notice and then applies at the local court to give the police such powers as to
be able to enter the premises, which has not been served within any of the
dates in question contained within the applicants bundle, I believe this is why
the local council never turns up to any of the court hearings which they are
bound by law to do so, as I would like them to attended and answer such
questions. please can you reply to my points in the last 3 emails in bullion
points so I can understand your legal guidance.
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Si 25-02-2016 16-59
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 474
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1. 2
Asbo Re Si 25-02-2016 16-59
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 474
--
474,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 04:59:22 PM
To:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephmewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Si
This is up to you but I have been
advised that if you keep doing what you are doing I should go public and I do
not want to have to do this t take everyone else’s advice as I clearly am not
white as you want me to take the blame for being as that is what the applicant
has blamed
being as well as the points of
law I ask you for your guidance in, the cd I have of the mental health team is
one of the professionals making confessions of breach of regulations such as
feeling in the court warrant incorrect to gain entrance to my flat as she clearly
admits that s never needed to feel the form in as she had prior permission of
myself to arrange a meeting with me whenever they wanted but choose to gain a
section 135 under the mental health act. the cd is enough to make people lose
their jobs, phone them, and ask them, I already have complaint in place
regarding the problems but have chosen not to carry it on, at this present
time. Any person can clearly hear on the cd the doctor doing his cheeks then
coming back in the room and saying that I am of well mind, I made a noise such
a woo who and you can he; least 6 doctors cheer along a go yeah, You are
wasting my time Josie as you have done with the time the Jude gave you to n
sure you had answered the questions you still refuse to answer to date contained
within the last three emails sent to yourself.
On Thursday, 25 February 2016,
16:39, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
I am going to take legal action
against you for what you have done to my life if you do not act in a
professional manner, I have copied the emails between us and am going to put
them on a legal websites for advice. if you have a problem with this please
contact me. I have shown a few people all ready and have had their opinion and
that is that you should be stuck of the list what does that mean.
On Thursday, 25 February 2016,
15:27, JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com> wrote:
Simon
I will be posting out to you a
letter of authority requesting permission to access the notes concerning the
recent Mental Health Assessments in the past 18 months that your mother
disclosed to the Court. Once I receive these and the opinion is that you are
well and can follow proceedings, we can progress matters from there.
If the notes suggest that you
are not well then, I will be applying for funding from the Legal Aid Agency so
that you can be formally assessed to determine whether you can follow
proceedings.
I have forwarded to you a letter
that I received from the Judge. This is one of the points raised. Mr Morris,
the Public Defender has also expressed concern as to your ability to
concentrate on and follow proceedings, so I am duty bound to resolve the Mental
Health Issue first of all.
Superintendent Coombes has
telephoned me, and he is going to be forwarding a statement to me this coming
week confirming detail with regards to the Essex event that Christopher Lewis
was trying to organise before it was closed down.
I will scan and email this across
to you when I receive it.
If you can please sign the
letter of authority as soon as it arrives that will greatly assist me.
Yours sincerely Josephine Ward
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a skeleton
argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this time I
would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO conditions
defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be imposed,
neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan 7th 2013
and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal raves,
could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house parties or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal.
I would also like the right
under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel that it is
possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be incorrect in
law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps and other
relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the district judge
that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle, are that off
progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a draft copy of
my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached proves that
illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no power on
private parties, until the local authority serves a noise abatement notice and
then applies at the local court to give the police such powers as to be able to
enter the premises, which has not been served within any of the dates in
question contained within the applicants bundle, I believe this is why the
local council never turns up to any of the court hearings which they are bound
by law to do so, as I would like them to attended and answer such questions.
please can you reply to my points in the last 3 emails in bullion points so I can
understand your legal guidance.
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1.
2
Asbo
Si 25-02-2016 10-52
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488,489,490,491,492
493
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1. 2
Asbo Si 25-02-2016 10-52
25/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488,489,490,491,492
493
--
475,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/02/2016 10:51:37 AM
To: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Si
Attachments: Legal definition of (Raves).pdf
new 2003 7th Jan 2013 licencing if profit is to be the right to a fair
trial.doc
Please can you reply as what you
have said has left me with concerns.
All I want is a fair trial and a
professional good relationship with yourself. I ask for legal guidance off
yourself. I have created a bundle with the relevant back bone points of law,
relevant to my case and a shorter up dated statement, I have also made a
skeleton argument out of the docs you have provided me with up to date. at this
time I would like you to apply to the court so that I can have the ASBO
conditions defined as trespass was not present for section 63 conditions to be
imposed, neither was there any breach of the licencing act 2003 as amended Jan
7th 2013 and 2016, also proofing the fact that the applicants case of illegal
raves, could not be correct in law. please see a copy of the licencing act 2003
attached that clearly states that all house parties or private parties are not
regulated and do not need a licence and there for not illegal. I would also
like the right under article 6 of my human rights to be called as I do not feel
that it is possible with the only evidence the police rely on not only to be
incorrect in law but that of a fabricated evidence by way of the time stamps and
other relevant errors such as PC Elesmore stating under oath to the district
judge that any location blocked out or within the applicants bundle, are that
off progress way, when we have clearly proved otherwise. Please see a draft
copy of my backbone points of law attached. The folder I have attached proves
that illegal raves was not possible to be present, as the police have no power
on private parties, until the local authority serves a noise abatement notice
and then applies at the local court to give the police such powers as to be
able to enter the premises, which has not been served within any of the dates
in question contained within the applicants bundle, I believe this is why the
local council never turns up to any of the court hearings which they are bound
by law to do so, as I would like them to attended and answer such questions.
please can you reply to my points in the last 3 emails in bullion points so I
can understand your legal guidance.
476,
477,
478,
479,
480,
481,
482,
483,
484,
485,
the right to a fair trial.doc
I have taken time to listen to my
solicitor’s advice in regard to the applicant’s proposal of an Asbo order that
was on the
13th August 2014 |
Was created by Steve Elesmore |
13th August 2014 |
A meeting was held with Steve Hodgson
who is a representative for Enfield Local Authority Council and Jane Johnson
on behalf of the Metropolitan police alongside others. |
12th September 2014 |
A bundle is said to have been served
on Mr Simon Cordell at 109 Burncroft Avenue, to which he disputes. |
06/10/2014
22/10/2014
05/11/2014
02/12/2014
09th 10th 11th 03/2015
03rd 4th 08/2015 26/10/2015
09/11/2015
Mr Simon Cordell was meant to
have a hearing for an interim Order, but legal aid had not been granted.
Michael Carroll acting solicitor
came to court, the judge overturned and granted legal aid. The application for
the Interim hearing the judge would not hear.
Interim hearing but could not go
ahead due to Andy Locke Acting Barrister had a flood at his home address.
Interim hearing and the order
were granted.
Mr Simon Cordell’s mother has a
note on her mobile phone, stating he was in court at Highbury Corner not sure
what they were for.
Meant to have been set for trial
but the court only booked 1-day hearing, this was then put off until the 03rd
and 04th Aug 2015
Highbury Corner trial case part
proven on the 04th 08/2015
1st hearing at Wood Green Crown
to see if case was ready for appeal on the
Was 1st appeal date which was set
for a 1-hour hearing
22nd 23rd and 24th 02/2016 Set for appeal at the crown court.
It is said that Mr Cordell had
been found guilty on the 3rd 4th August 2015, to which he disputes to be
correct.
An appeal date has been set for
Feb 22nd 23rd 24th 2016 Legal aid was re granted on the 00/00/2015
486,
the right to a fair trial.doc
In understanding that Mr Simon
Cordell’s acting solicitor has explained to him that she cannot arrange a
barrister till April 2016, due to him being on leave, if granted by the Jude
this would in fact set the new appeal date to be two months after the already
agreed appeal date of Feb 22nd, if the court aggress to such a date, contained
within the time scale of April 2016 and not any time after, due to the court
diary already being pre booked.
Mr Simon Paul Cordell is asking
for a Former judge to examine the role of police officers, who present the
applicant cases of an ASBO order against himself.
Mr S. Cordell is asking for this
to be assessed and agreed under the grounds of Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the Right to a Fair Trial Act 1998, Legislation.
Which in legal terms, should be
the best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting
against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the
justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones
of a just society.
Article 6 the Right to a fair
hearing
The right to a fair trial is
fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself.
The right applies to both
criminal and civil cases, although certain specific minimum rights set out in
Article 6 apply only in criminal cases.
The right to a fair trial is
absolute and cannot be limited. It requires a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
The procedural requirements of a fair hearing might differ according to the
circumstances of the accused.
The right to a fair hearing,
which applies to any criminal charge as well as to the determination of civil
rights and obligations, contains a number of requirements and I believe the
causes below full within them requirements.
An ASBO order has been appealed
against after the magistrates court decided a decision of guilt, the decision
had been made against Mr Simon Cordell, this was at Highbury Corner,
Magistrates Court, on the 4th August 2015 in pursuant to s.1 of the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 it was agreed to make him subject to an Anti-Social behaviour
order. This was in pursuit for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
The respondent’s case is that Mr
Simon Cordell has been accused of being integrally involved in the organisation
of illegal raves in Enfield.
Part of the Barrister
submissions that represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were
that he was involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant
hadn’t adduced evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act
2003 which is a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal. The Deputy District Judge ruled that
the applicant did not need to prove illegality, - all the needed to prove was
he had acted in an anti-social manner. In the view of the barrister this was a
very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based their case on the
illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves themselves and
secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of innocence leads to the
conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus,
487,
the right to a fair trial.doc
Simon being prohibited from engaging in
an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful consideration on issues of
proportionality.
It should be agreed with the barrister
statement as when dealing with this case Mr Simon Cordell was addressing the
applicant’s case to prove that he had not been involved in organizing illegal
raves, as this is what the application against him was.
Other points of concern are.
• Inaccuracy’s leading to incorrect
time stamps contained within the applicant’s bundle created by Steve Elsmore on
the 13/8/2014.
CAD numbers 10471 / 10481 / 10506 of
the 7th June 2014 = Please take note every day the 999-call centre
starts at CAD 01 and goes up to the average of 10,742 to 15,000 callers per
day. (We can tell this by the number of cad’s incident numbers supplied, within
the applicant’s bundle supporting the evidence supplied, for a standalone ASBO
order to be gained against Mr Simon Cordell.
On the average the 999-call centre will
receive on the average of 300 callers per hour as marked and time stamped
below.
Every half hour is 150 callers and
every 15 mins is 75 callers Every 7 half mins is 33 callers and 3 half mins 17
callers
Please take note to (CAD number /
Incident Number 10481 7th June 14) this is the 10,481 emergency Met police
call of the 7th June 2014 time stamped 22:47 So it is incorrect for (CAD
10506 7th June 14) externally inputted 25 calls later, to have an earlier
time stamp of the 7th June 2014 at 22:44 hours.
In fact, the time should have been
22:49 hours.
Please take note to (CAD number /
Incident Number 4323 7th June 2014 at 12:25)
(CAD numbers 7th June 2014
at 08:16
Date |
Incident no |
number |
Time |
7th June 2014 |
1012 |
01 |
01:53 |
7th June 2014 |
1047 |
02 |
01:59 |
7th June 2014 |
1323 |
03 |
02:41 |
7th June 2014 |
1608 |
04 |
03:34 |
7th June 2014 |
1722 |
05 |
03:58 |
7th June 2014 |
1816 |
06 |
04:15 |
7th June 2014 |
2141 |
07 |
05:50 |
7th June 2014 |
2255 |
08 |
06:24 |
7th June 2014 |
2271 |
09 |
06:27 |
7th June 2014 |
2601 |
10 |
08:09 |
7th June 2014 |
2637:
p187 to 190: |
11 (Error) |
08:18 |
7th June 2014 |
2672:
p196 to 198: |
12 (Error) |
08:16 |
--
488,
--
the right to a fair trial.doc
7th June 2014 |
2854 |
13 |
08:56 |
7th June 2014 |
3005:
p203 to 205: |
14 (Error) |
09:22 |
7th June 2014 |
3037:
p179 to 183: |
15 (Error) |
09:20 |
7th June 2014 |
3252 |
16 |
10:07 |
7th June 2014 |
3986 |
17 |
11:47 |
7th June 2014 |
4323 |
18 |
12:25 |
7th June 2014 |
4325 |
19 |
Missing |
7th June 2014 |
5206 |
20 |
13:57 |
7th June 2014 |
8841 |
21 |
20:07 |
7th June 2014 |
10393 |
22 |
22:38 |
7th June 2014 |
10462 |
23 |
Missing |
7th June 2014 |
10471 |
24 |
22:45 |
7th June 2014 |
10481:
p233 to 237: |
25 (Error) |
22:47 |
7th June 2014 |
10506:
p238 to 241: |
26 (Error) |
22:44 |
7th June 2014 |
10742 |
27 |
23:01 |
7th June 2014 |
10844 |
28 Missing |
|
7th June 2014 |
10967 |
29 |
23:25 |
Time Scales between calls below.
· 35 people cads 1012 to 1047 time 6 mins
(In
Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 276 people cads 1047 to 1323 time 42
mins (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513 main cad
police Insp Hillmill sent to location progress way)
· 285 people cads 1323 to 1608 time 53 mins (Lincoln
Way grid 534657,195453)
· 114 people cads 1608 to 1722 time 24 mins (In
Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 94 people cads 1722 to 1816 time 17
mins (Orchard Terrance Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
· 325 people cads 1816 to 2141 time 1:35
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 114 people cads 2141 to 2255 time 34
mins (Hardy Way Grid Ref 531438, 197711 miles away
Gorden Hill)
· 16 people cads 2255 to 2271 time 3 mins
(Leighton
Road Grid Ref 534144,195627 Bush Hill Park)
· 330 people cads 2271 to 2601 time 42
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 36 people cads 2601 to 2637-time 1 hour
9 mins (Ayley Croft Grid Ref 534219,195697)
· 35 people cads 2637 to 2672 time 58
mins (1st Time Laps 08:18) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
· 182 people cads 2672 to 2854-time 1
hour 10 mins (1st Time Laps 08:16) (In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
· 151 people cads 2854 to 3005 time 26
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 32 people cads 3005 to 3037 time 58
mins (2nd Time Laps 09:22) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
--
489,
the right to a fair trial.doc
· 215 people cads 3037 to 3252 time 47
mins (2nd Time Laps 09:20) (Tynemouth Drive miles away Grid Ref
534375,198125)
· 734 people cads 3252 to 3986-time 1
hour 39 mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 337 people cads 3986 to 4323 time 38
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· missing people cads 4323 to 4325 time
missing (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
So; -
· 883 people cads 4323 to 5206-time 1
hour 32 mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 3,635 people cads 5206 to 8841-time 6
hour 13 mins (no grid or att location
· 1,552 people cads 8841 to 10393 time 2
hours 31 mins (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513)
· missing people cad 10393 to 10462 time
missing So;-
· 78 people cads 10393 to 10471 time 7
mins (Great Cambridge road miles away Grid Ref 534396,
197692 Carter hatch Lane but states behind tops tiles)
· 10 people cads 10471 to 10481 time 2
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· 25 People Cads 10481 to 10506-time mins
(3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44) (Wood
stock Cres grid Ref 534657,195453)
· 236 People Cads 10506 to 10742 time 17
mins (In Progress Way grid ref
534380.195513)
· Missing People Cads 10742 to 10844 time
missing So:-
· 225 People Cads 10742 to10967 time 26
mins (Lincoln Way grid 534657,195453)
· Cad 10967 (In Albury Walk Miles Away
grid ref 535375. 202125 Cheshunt)
The time stamps go back for the 3rd
time, so to even be able to work the true format is impossible.
There are 37 CAD/ Incident numbers for
the 8th June 2014, to which there is only 7 in the ASBO application
and only Cad Number 47 represents Progress Way, the rest represent 32 Crown RD
another premises being occupied under section 144 lazppo
10 minutes away from progress way.
By the statistics, the call centre
receives on the 8th June 2014, 300 people call per hour. Cads 2410
and 3151 should equal 741 callers the same as Cads 793 to Cad 2410 Cad 3151
Caller is 3 HOURS: 25 Minutes, please can this be explained.
Date |
Incident no |
number |
Time |
|
8th June14 |
47 |
01 |
00:00 |
Progress Way |
8th June14 |
340 |
02 |
00:29 |
Crown Road |
8th June14 |
625 |
03 |
00:54 |
Crown Road |
8th June14 |
793 |
04 |
01:10 |
Crown Road |
--
490,
--
the right to a fair trial.doc
8th June14 |
2410 |
05 |
05:35 |
Crown Road |
8th June14 |
3151 |
06 |
09:08 |
Crown Road |
8th June14 |
3319 |
07 |
09:39 |
Crown Road |
· 293 people cads 47 to 340 time 29 mins (In
Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513)
· 285 people cads 340 to 625 time 24 mins
(In
Crown Road grid ref
534960.196240)
· 168 people cads 625 to 793 time 16 mins
(In
Crown Road grid ref
534960.196240)
· 1617 people cads 793 to 2410 time 4
hours 25 mins (In Crown Road grid ref
534960.196240)
· 741 people cads 2410 to 3151 time 3
hours 33 mins (In Crown Road grid ref
27. (450
people missing)
· 168 people cads 3151 to 3319 time 31
mins (In Crown Road grid ref
534960.196240)
Supported Evidence, supporting the fact
that the CAD's supporting the applicant ASBO should not be time stamped wrong,
this evidence does include;
· Standard Operational Guidelines
- East of England. http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/FOI%20Docs/Disclosure%20Log/Emergency%20Op s/July%202013/F15152h%20-%20attachment.pdf
· National Standards for Incident
Recording (NSIR) Collection and recording of police.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
data/file/11 6658/count-nsir11.pdf
· Understanding Control Command; http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts
UC2.pdf
· police Central Communications Command
incident procedure; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lkd4sarsfdMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq= police+Central+Communications+Command+incident+procedure&source=bl&ot s=663ZhaKX9 &sig=Z7DgHlgJncwLNuam0g8EBcCja- 8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif39iYsMbKAhWI8A4KHdnMAoQQ6AEIMz AE#v=onepage&q=police%20Central%20Communications%20Command%20in cident%20procedure&f=false
Point 2
Blocked out Inc locations and other
relevant information that should be contained within the cads that have been
presented in the applicant’s bundle. Only in serious circumstances in cases
such as were it is absolutely necessary to aid in the prevention of witness or
victim intimidation should a
officer be trusted to block out such information.
Under oath pc Steve Elsmore state to
the district Jude that “Intel would be by open source, checked by an officer
but was not done by me.” When in fact it is his login that created and printed
the applicants bundle this can be proved by his signature and also by the
computer id log that must be used to print the data contained within the Police
National Computer and now has been submitted and is contained with the
applicants bundle and is verified at the top of most of the pages or within.
--
491,
--
the right to a fair trial.doc
Pc Elsmore states under oath that he did
not carry out any further investigations in regard to speaking to the owners of
any premises to fix that of a notice of trespass or conviction of twok as the main investigating officer. He states “I have
not personal spoken to the owners of the venue”
Pc Elsmore states under oath “There was
a rave on an adjourning Road but not on that day.” (Please Take Note Here of
inspector Hamill stating under oath that he was sure all locations were to do
with progress way on this date.)
“Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)”
CADS CONTAINED WITHIN THE BUNDIL THAT
ARE PRINTED IN Pc Steve Elsmore name and as the leading investigator he would
have known the truth to the locations blocked out that are in fact crown road
another house party a five minute drive from progress way and if not for the
grid numbers being not blocked out inclusive of other landmarks such as A&J
cars based in Enfield I would not have been able to prove my innocents in the
ongoing application leading to an un fair trial.
• Cad Page 276 == A& J cars Enfield
===Crown rd. ==I would not have been able to prove my innocence in this case if
it was not for A & J CARS being left in text, and no this is the same from
many of the other Cads contained within the ASBO application.
· Cad 340 8th June 2014
blocked out page 260
· Cad 793 8th June 2014
blocked out page 268
· Cad 2410 8th June 2014
blocked out A&J cars Crown Road page 276
· Cad 3151 8th June 2014
Southbury Road Crown Road page 278
· Cad 3319 8th June 2014
Southbury Road / Crown Road page 283
· Cad 11822 19th Jul 2014
Southbury Road / Crown Road page 302
In Insp Hamill statements of facts.
that are incorrect he led the district Jude into believing the manufactured and
engineered evidence that he had fabricated to aid him to leading the District
Jude to making a guilty verdict.
Please see a copy of the court
transcripts as listed below.
Witness 1 - Inspector Hamill -R. O -
11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday. (This was in fact early Hours of the 8th
around 1:00am.)
I did not go inside; the gates were
closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the police but
I would not personally know.
--
492,
--
the right to a fair trial.doc
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D @
venue but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here today.)
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill stating
under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way on this
date.)
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way) Witness - Pc Elsmore -
R.O - 14;10 EIC Tab 6 - pg ?14?
DEF XEX
Council (unreadable text) curfews
(unreadable text) that PNC info on statement adds no (unreadable
text) probatory (unreadable text) value of info re: Witness
being “afraid of D” What he puts down to the way he worded, but he meant that
people actually are afraid of possibly giving evidence in court.
R V CORDELL
4
DEF
Counsel argues that officer’s statement
is designed to cause on evidence reaction of this of no value and speculatory
in nature.
DJ
How many calls from public did police
receive?
Witness
In excess of 15 calls - how many to the
same venue and no other address.
Doe’s does not know the number of
callers that are in relation to each of these occasions.
On page 15 - Allegations re:
Millmarsh Lane, evidence from officer not first-hand - relied on cads and
another Intel.
Query Re: “3 massive nitrous
tanks”
DJ
Where did you get such info officer.
Witness
From Page 65 - sergeant King - Crimit’s
Re reports, other Intel but not from people at the venue.
COUNSEL
Officer you signed a statement of truth
(unreadable text) to other witness statements.
DJ
We all know that on ASBO apps hearsay
is allowed.
R V CORDELL
5
Counsel
Why did officer no and rely on Pc Kings
Statements later than on the Crimit’s reported. Officer no and involved in
taking info from Pc King.
(Confesses he did it.)
He did not notice the discrepancy
regarding official statements.
--
493,
--
Have heard of Every Decibel Matters -
They were advertising and I believe the D knows a member of the above company.
No evidence D is involved in running
their operations.
No attempt has been made to speak to
directors of company.
No reason to why you didn’t /contact
the company.
I think from memory have met D once @
Edmonton police station.
(At Page 16 1st paragraph - not consistent
to fact that he met him on the 7/6/2014) All notes with cad number were listed
from reports not officers’ own words - same applies from Cads that had no input.
Has not made attempts too contact owners of premises.
Officers unable to assist courts in
relation to why statements were not signed on notebooks profiles.
Another example of doings put in
statements to blacken Mr Cordell’s evidence in statement @ point 12, No
convictions that of class A drugs unlike what’s written in Statements - another
example of untrue cut and paste.
DJ
Ill ignore because no convections of
class A drugs or supplying is present on the criminal record.
Counsel
You can not
assist with witness reliability of info contained, can you?
Can Intel be wrongfully inaccurate? No Officer
On that particular re post, it appears
to be right.
I did not speak to Parcell
he is force @ seven boroughs.
I believe he was not included in the
email, because Intel (unreadable text) Email sent to LDE only.
Searched (unreadable text) for
info on Cordell’s convections.
Moving on to statement on Page 30
Does PO investigating unit have more
info than it is letting on?
Officer
No
Are you aware that Miss Cordell has
spoken to other officers Re: Rave?
This suggests that you do not want DS
Tanner to be examined on these proceedings because she has information Re
knowledge of raves and them not being connected to W/D.
Spoke to Pc Tanner but not written what
- spoke to (unreadable text) this year You have no recorded that you emailed
her but then spoken to her.
Emails have been deleted and no copies
keep on record.
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1. 2
Asbo
Me to Josie - 29-02-2016 22-48
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 494
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie - 29-02-2016
22-48
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 494
--
494,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 10:48:19 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarTollandco.com>
Subject: Josephine
Ward wants me to have a medical check
Josephine I am not will to sign
any form giving you consent to my personnel records as no judge has ordered for
you to do so, I would not be a free man if there was a chance of me being a
danger to myself or the general public. As I am sure you would understand the
Mental Health Team are trained in dealing with people in such cases under
section 135, 136, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Mental Health Act 1983 & 2007 as amended
2016. I do in fact take offence in you questioning my ability to make decisions
for myself and them decisions that I make I am making being of clear judgement
towards the applicants case which contains false facts such as me being white
and contained in side a warehouse surrounded by police, marked in the cads.
You know this not to be true for
as long as two years.
For two years I have asked you
and Michelle Carroll and co solicitors to write to the witness also the
applicant and point out the true facts of law but most importantly make sure I
have a fair trial.
Any person can get a calculator
and see that the time stamps are in error as I have been emailing you and stating.
All I ask from you, is to have my best interest at heart and you refuse to see
me for months now try to force me to see doctors when you have no legal
obligation too.
I have a hard copy bundle of all
the emails that have been sent to you from the start of this case and a list of
the questions and guidance that I have been given I have taken the time to work
out how many times and the dates, myself and my mother have had to asked you to
deal with the same question(s) I am still asking to date 29/02/2016. to answer
and the points of law that make my case illegal that I am supposed to have
broken in fact how I have this standalone Asbo with no previous convictions of
similar nature and it was not an Asbo on conviction granted.
I feel as if I have missed a
whole interview and being charged for some think that clearly states that it is
illegal in turn not having the right to defend myself.
I want the case taken back to court this week if possible as I want
to start a night job driving
and it involves me delivering to
any possible address, can you please sort
this.
Josephine, I have started to
seek legal guidance as you will not give it to me, this is not right.
I will not wait till April for a
pretrial hearing that will not go ahead as I cannot stand a fair trial, as I
have explained I will bring a calculator to you and show you what I sent you in
my drafted witness statement months ago asking you to defend me, in the fact
that it would be impossible to stand a fair
trial with us both knowing this.
The other day in your office you told me that I might lose my case
knowing about the only evidence being that
of the time stamps and the same people who created the application corrupting
the time stamps then making statements about myself also that of me clearly
pointing out the law and that I never done any think illegal and even you
cannot explain to me how my case states it is illegal but I have not been
arrested and in the understanding off section 63 inclusive of the licensing act
as well as the warehouse becoming a place of residence when a section 144 is
present.
As stated, I want to work can you bring this back to court please.
If you want, I will bring you
the copy of the section 135 and that it has
been signed now as void and you can see that I am still here.
If any think needs covering, it
is what has not been done in this case already to date.
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 29-02-2016 15-00
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 495
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 29-02-2016
15-00
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 495
--
495,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 03:00:06 PM
To: josie@michaelcarroUandco.com
Subject: RE:
Medical Information
Dear Josey
What you are saying in your
emails is that the judge says in his letter that I have got to have an assessment,
but this is not the case as part 3 of his letter states
If the Appellant wishes to rely
on any medical evidence as to his mental health, then any report dealing with
such matters must be before the court on the 4th April 2016”
Which clearly states; “if I wish
to rely on any mental health evidence then a report has to be submitted by the
04/04/2016,” but this does not say I must rely on this, and I do not wish to
rely on this.
Can you please take my case back
to court so that my conditions can be defined, and also have a meeting once you
get the letters you are waiting on from Superintendent Adrian Coombs so we can
deal with the appeal.
Can you also please send me the
notes from court from the public defender that was there for me please as I
have not had these as of yet.
Also, the issue about the public
order unit if they are not willing to give the information then they need to be
summoned to court for the appeal.
Also, what is going to happen as
to the missing CAD and the errors in the CAD
The case is that I organised
illegal raves on page two of the applicants first bundle it clearly states I
quote "The Defendant is involved in the organisation and conduct of
illegal raves. These primarily take place on disused or industrial land in
London and cause alarm and distress to the local residents. These raves are
licensing activity, cause significant noise pollution and directly lead to
destruction of property and breaches of peace."
In defence to my case the 2nd
line down clearly states The Defendant is involved in the organisation and
conduct of illegal raves, I have sent you the licensing act 2003 apex 4 which
states, house party’s and places of residents do not need a licence, which all
the incidents in the applicants bundle are places of residence in contained
fencing in private air. In the licensing act it states this includes gardens
and private car parks. I have linked index page 4 off the licensing act 2003
within this document, which clearly states unless profit is being made, to
which I am not being accused off, then there is no breach of the law, and there
for not illegal.
For members of the public to
have a moving in-house party is not a breach of law and there for not illegal.
The word rave clearly states the
key element such as in open air must be present and when in private air trespass must be present.
So what law have I broken to
make the case law abiding under reasonable doubt if I am not being accused of
making profit it is not illegal to organize a private house party for any
British citizen, as long as you have respect for the residence living in around
the local area?
In regard to the statement off,
“These primarily take place on disused or industrial land in London and cause
alarm and distress to the local residents.”
All locations are a place of
fixed a bow and residence.
In reference to “These raves are
licensing activity, cause significant noise pollution and directly lead to
destruction of property and breaches of peace."
No home is licensable, unless a
breach of the 2003 licensing act has been made, to which contained within the
applicants bundle their ins none.
I have a bundle of the laws that
are relevant to my case that should be in my defence bundle, please will you
help me go over them.
I would like to start trading my
company as I have explained to you for months and keep asking you to take the
case back to court to get my bail conditions defined, to which you have not to date even low Andy Lock states that I
am right in my points of law and how it leaves me in a state of utter confusion
to what I am aloud to do or not
as the applicants case is based on illegal raves there for banning me from what
is lawfully legal.
I cannot think of any jobs the
conditions will not have an effect of that my professions are in, I cannot be a
delivery driver, as most company deliver to industrial estates,
I cannot deliver parcels or
goods to any person living under a section 144, this is not correct in law.
I am very concerned as the
applicant’s case is for an ASBO in it civil manner,
and the case is based on illegal activities, to which I have never had the
right to defended my innocents in.
An ASBO on convection is when a
person has committed criminal activities and has been found guilty and there is
such a need to apply for a court to sit in its civil capacity to obtain such an
order against any person, straight or therefore after.
I have a standalone ASBO which
should be on the 3rd strike of a smaller criminal conviction, to which I have
never been arrested for illegal raves is and in being granted is a breach of my
human rights, a standalone ASBO put against myself with no criminal conviction
is wrong in practice of law.
Thanks
Simon
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 29-02-2016 14-19
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 496,497,498
499,500,501,502,503,504
505,506,507,508,509,510
511,512,513,514,515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 29-02-2016
14-19
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 496,497,498
499,500,501,502,503,504
505,506,507,508,509,510
511,512,513,514,515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
--
496,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 02:19:05 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: hh
Attachments: STATEMENT
OF WITNESS new new.doc SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT SKELETON
497,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
STATEMENT
OF WITNESS
(C.J.
Act 1967, S2,9. M.C. Rules 1968 R58)
STATEMENT OF: Simon Cordell
AGE OF WITNESS (if over 21): 34
OCCUPATION OF Unemployed
WITNESS:
ADDRESS: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN3 7JQ
TELEPHONE:
This statement consisting of 7
page(s) each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I
make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to
prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false
or do not believe to be true.
Dated the 24th day of February
2015
Signed
Signature Witnessed by
YA/450/15
This is an updated statement
further to the statement of Mr Simon Cordell Dated 24th day of February.
In reference to the 12th Jan
2013 Canary Wharf
• This date in question has been
add to the applicants bundle as a reference as to the Limitation Act 1980.
Which states a case must be applied six months prior from the date of the
incident. Please take note to Mr Simon Cordell’s last statement dated the
24/02/2015; he was in fact taken to The Royal London Hospital.
In reference to the 07th April
2013, Blakey’s House
07/04/2013 = In Steve Elsmore
Statement dated 11/08/2014
In regard to 07/04/2013 = Please
read Mr Simon Cordell’s last statement dated the 24/02/2015. He states that he
did not attended any premises on this date to rave, Mr Cordell did not involve
himself in the organization of any illegal rave this was his friends housing
estate and was on a Sunday, nor did he supply equipment on said date.
Mr Simon Cordell will State; “that
he was not rude to police, but he did feel like he could not even go out for
the day with some of his friends, without getting stopped and searched by
members of the police.
It is also noted that the caller
was very clear that they saw a flat screen TV being put into Mr Cordell’s van,
which is confusing to why when the police searched the van they found no TV,
but did in fact find two of his off road motor bikes, which is not included in
Steve Elsmore statement. The police did checks on Mr Simon Cordell’s
Off Road Motor Bikes but this is
also not stated, but should show’s up on the seizer notice, as Mr Simon Cordell
did ask the police office to take careful note of the two off road motor bikes,
as due to the high value of them.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did get a bit upset when the police said they were going to seize his van,
as he did have insurance in place to be able to drive the van in question, but
there was an error on the MID database. Miss Cordell had been trying to help
her son resolve the issue concerning his insurance policy not showing on the
mid data base alongside with members of their local police force and his
insurance company KGM too, together they had tried to work out why Mr Simon
Cordell was showing as uninsured. There was information noted as intelligence
on the police National Computer stating this I had asked the police to check on
their systems due to this, but they would not they just wanted to seize Mr
Simon Cordell’s van without checking, so he knew he was being wrongfully
accused at this point, as he had done nothing wrong and he did have insurance
to be driving and had paid a lot of money for his insurance. He states he did
not get upset in the manner that the police have said he did and that he does
not mean to come across as rude to police. In this case he was just trying to
explain the error on the system.
1
498,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
In addition, the prosecution offered
no evidence in respect of the charges that were brought even though they were
reliant on police witnesses. Mr Simon Cordell had been wrongfully arrested for
not having insurance when he was insured to drive. He also did not cause any
Anti-Social Behaviour on this date in question.
There are no CAD’s for this
date, but yet they was meant to be, a CAD referring to the pacific details that
should be relating to a person stating, that they believed a burglary was in
progress and of the 999 caller stating that they had seen a person who was
putting a flat screen TV into Mr Simon Cordell’s van.
In reference to 24th May 2013
police station
Please take note to the picture
above and that of the building on the far right being the old police station,
you cannot see the front vehicle entrance as it is in the far right of the
picture and is the only entrance.
The alley way in the middle is
where I drove my car down and stopped there is no rear entrance to the police
station from the ally as there is two other running companies in-between and to
the far right is another running company.
24.05.13 = Mr Simon Cordell was
looking for venues to set up an illegal rave
On the 24.05.13 = Mr Simon
Cordell will state; “that he did not attended any premises on this date to
rave neither was he involved in the organization of any illegal raves, nor did
he supply equipment. This case was only added as a reference as the limitation
Act 1980 which states that a case must be applied 6 months from the date of the
incident, to which it was not. Please read my last statement dated the
24/02.2015.
It is alleged that Mr Simon
Cordell was looking for venues in which illegal raves could be held, on 24th May
2013. Mr Simon Cordell dispute’s this. He will state that he had been contacted
by a friend called Joshua, who was living at 204 High Street Ponders End EN3
4EZ, also known as the Old Police Station at Ponders End, as he and some others
were homeless, so was living and residing under section 144. as Mr Simon
Cordell was driving towards 204 High Street, he drove his car down the alleyway
so that he could park the vehicle he was in, He parked between two well-known
land marks, Which is where many people who do live in an around the surrounding
areas would be able to remember as the old ponders End police station next to
the Kinder Garden Centre.
Mr Cordell states he knows the
area very well as this is where he has lived all of his life, so he knew about
the car park at the back of the two well-known landmarks, as he states you
cannot park on the high road, because of the double yellow lines or other
restrictions. He had parked there before, he states he believes and knows that
the police saw his car as he began to take a right turn to be able to drive
down to where he intended to stop, he knew the police had followed him, as he
had seen them pay attention to himself as he had driven past.
Mr Cordell does remember clearly that of himself locking his vehicle as the
police approached him and now was standing by his side. He states that this is
normal for him and over the years of his life he has become use to the police
approaching him for numerous accusations, so that has also made him used to
their presents, Mr Simon Cordell states that that this is so normal for him, so
he got ready for the police procedures, as they said they wanted to search him
and his car because the police believed that the car he was driving smelt
strongly of cannabis, Mr Simon Cordell sates that he would always consented to
this. He is sure of his statements of facts and that the police cannot dispute
this, that of the police officers that had approached him and who had stopped
him as he had just got out of my car, or how would they have said his car smelt
strongly of cannabis, which is the reason that the police officers gave him the
conditions of search and their consent form due to a search of himself and that
of his vehicle that he was driving.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he had not done anything wrong and nothing was found on his person or in his
car.”
Mr Simon Cordell will dispute
making any comments about being able to attract people to illegal raves and
illegal 3-day events, what reason would he have had to say this. Mr Simon
Cordell will state to the applicant that he was a visitor to the location of
interest, due to a call from a friend who asked if Mr Simon Cordell could loan
him some money for food. He will also include that he did not cause any
Anti-Social Behaviour on the 24th May 2013.
Mr Simon Cordell does not know
what Joshua said to the police, as he was never with
Joshua. Mr Simon Cordell does
not know why Joshua would have said to the police that he was his lawyer, or if
Joshua said this at all to police. Mr Simon Cordell has tried to get hold of
Joshua to make a statement for this case, but due to him being homeless, it has
been very hard. As far as he is aware the building was being occupied by people
to live in, he states he does not know anything Joshua said to police about
know any think about a rave. Mr Simon Cordell did not manage to visit him on
this day.
At no point is Mr Simon Cordell
being accused of acting in an anti-social manner on this date, or by any
members of the public inclusive of members of the police, neither was he
arrested.
Hyde Park 20th 04 2014
2
499,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
In Reference to Pages 213 -
pages 98 to 100 created by Steve Hoodless yr
contained within the applicant’s first bundle. 5 St George’s Industrial Estate,
It is said that on 25.05.14 Mr
Simon Cordell was involved in the organization of and / or supplied equipment
for and or attended an illegal rave at unit 5, St George’s Industrial Estate,
Whit Heart Lane,
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not attended any premises on this date to rave neither was her involved
in the organization off any raves, nor did he supply equipment for an illegal
rave at unit 5, St George’s Industrial Estate, White Hart Lane, N17.
In respect of Mr Simon Cordell presence
at Unit 5 St George’s Industrial Estate,
White Hart Lane on 25th May
2014. He attended a commercial building that the occupiers were residing in,
having displayed section 144 LASPO notices and in turn treating the premises as
their home. Nothing was said to Mr Simon Cordell about a rave by any of the 20
occupiers. He will state that he was visiting friends and they were just
sitting and chatting while having a laugh. He remembers taking about ways to
better life for himself and his friends as well as others.
There was no music being played
or about to be set up. He was not involved in the organization of an illegal
rave of any sort no Acts of the licensing Bill 2013 was being broken.
Mr Cordell will state; “have
used the speaker box’s to play sound, he did ask the police too note this down,
and that he was only using the van as storage, this is why the police officers
who were in attendance allowed him to leave, while talking to the current
occupiers of the premises.” “that he did drive there in his van VRM CX52JRZ,
and he does accept that he had 2 speaker boxes in the van; however, he did not
have a full sound system present with himself and the speaker boxes did not
have any drivers in them, so he and others could not
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not on the date in question have what would constitute as a full sound
system like what he accused of and is now being pursued by the applicant. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he was not rude to the police, that he allowed
his van to be searched by members of the police and nothing was seized, and He
went home. Mr Cordell will state that he did not cause any anti-social
behaviour on the 25th May 2014 or any other behaviour that might have caused
alarm harm or distress to others.”
Since this ASBO application was
served on Mr Simon Cordell, he has moved the speakers out of his van and they
are still in the (open air), at his mother’s address and are in the back garden
still to date, as if in the first day that off when he had taken them out of his
van, with no drivers in them because he felt uncomfortable ball because of the
terms of the ASBO application. Mr Simon Cordell states yes at the time it would
have been better to keep them in his van due to the weather, but when he does
intend to go for a drive that he does not feel safe any longer travelling with
any sound equipment.
It is also noted that on page
(98 of the main applicant’s bundle) that the report was created on the
26/05/2014 for criminal damage, the event date, is noted at:
25/05/2014, but was last updated
on the 19/06/2014 why would there be a need to update this report, Mr Cordell
will state that it was proven that he did nothing on the CCTV.
Ref: Shinniek
Unit 5 ST Georges Industrial
Estate White Hart Lane N17: 25th May 2014 At 23:21 pm.
Pc Hoodlese states;
“Contacted by security guard at the venue stating suspects were on the
premises."
Mr Simon Cordell states; “that
he spoke to his friend that he knew to have problems due to being homeless at
the time and that he had been trying to help out by offering them work from the
local council such as Ponders End Community Festival, Winch more Hill Community
Festival, Lock To Lock Community Fest, Club Juice, Club White Sands. There were
no (profit events) Mr Simon Cordell has provided proof of the events that they
did engage in, he will state that he did attended to friends occasional
Birthday parties and had checked with the licensing Act 2003 not to be in
breach as printed below.”
3
500,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT
APPENDIX 4 -PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINMENT' The
Descriptions of Regulated Entertainment: plays
(both performance and rehearsal). the
showing of films (or any exhibition of moving pictures including videos): all
indoor (inside a building) sporting events (in which physical skill is the
main factor e.g. tennis). outdoor
boxing and wrestling matches; (no other form of outdoor sport is regulated): music
(both for public performance of live music and public playing of recorded
music). the
performance of dance: or entertainment
of a similar description to any of the above. |
||||
Venues |
Licensable Entertainment |
Not Licensable |
Special Considerations |
|
|
•’laying of inre
music Unamp*f-oo music In • pub |
t. Where 9.1*.it. TV I* provided. or
recorded nuc that is incKwntm
to drink ng or Mbng. no Norm conankm. |
|
|
Community Centra and Ullage |
2. SSemo.ndO.nc.ne |
|
Benefit* from a mom Informal system ot DermStad temporary ecllvtbea. |
|
Entertainment in Reboots and |
1. Where them is public admittance |
1. A concart
or other perfWmanoe ehlch |
Charging simply lo receiver costs a
not 1 consume |
|
|
M of mug . prom nduung
raexrrj |
takes plica tor pur■ or* end
students Charging parents and students out only Any performance of music, dancing,
ate |
|
|
licences/'DBC Guides/Entertainment |
|
REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT
•PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERTAINMENT'
Venue |
Licensable Entertainment |
Not Licensable |
Special Considerations |
Private Homes and Gardens |
|
Private parties and weddings will not
be licensable unless the host takas the unusual step of charging the guests
to attend with a view to making a profit |
Charging simply to recover costs is
not keens able |
Churches. Synagogues. Mosques, and
other places of |
|
If incidental to. a religious meeting
or Engagement by any faith in worship or
any form of religious meeting Rave held In a Church providing no
alcohol Is sold Classical concerts Singing of hymns or other relgcus |
|
Sports Clubs |
Where there is public admittance It those attending is charged with
the aim of making a profit Including raising funds for charity |
Private events |
|
Music and Dance Studios |
Studio Is being used to provide
entertainment to the public People take part in the entertainment A dress rehearsal is provided for the
public |
Performances in a rehearsal studio or
broadcasting studio where there is no audience /spectators present A broadcasting studio recording a
programme without an audience/spectators |
|
licences/'DBC
Guides/Entertainment
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he had also been letting friends stay at his flat and that he cooked them food
and helped out with other living accessories such as trainers and cloths, while
giving them a place to sleep and wash.”
4
501,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
his friend called him earlier in the day and explained to him that he was
living at Unit 5 St. Georges Industrial Estate White Hart Lane N17; Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he went and meet him. That he did not hear any alarms,
nor would he be on any CCTV cameras committing any offence on this date in
question. That he did in fact arrive and had ordered food. He used his van to
travel from his home to where his friend was staying. Due to storage space and
the size of the speakers, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he could not remove
the speaker boxes on his own because of the size and weight of each box and
used his van as storage on some occasions.”
On the 25th May 2014 the police
checked the index CX52 R2 and there were two speaker boxes with no speakers in
them that Mr Simon Cordell will state that he had keep in the van. There was no
amps or deck’s inclusive of any other equipment to power or create a full sound
system just two speakers that he keeps in there for storage. The police could
see there was no way to run a sound system and allowed him to leave.’
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he is not sure if the people were still allowed to stay in their home by the
police.
Ref: Pc
Hoodlese states; “Approx. 20 young males and females ran out the rear of the
premises."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “at
no point was he one of the males or females that run out of the building.”
Ref: Pc Hoodlese
states; “Approx. 20 people are claiming to be squatters."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point was he one of the 20 people occupying Unit 5 St. Georges Industrial
Estate White Hart Lane N17, living under a section 144 Laspo
treating and respecting it as their home, as for fact he was a guest and has
his own home.
Several males were still inside
the premises calming to be squatters."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
as said people were occupying the building and that he went home.”
Ref: Pc
Hoodlese states.
“Police had footage of several
suspects causing damage to the security cameras and door locks.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
was not one of them people."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
at no point will he be on any of the said camera evidence as he never committed
the offences stated, he believes if he were on the security cameras then
criminal charges would have been placed on him. At no time have any charges be
placed against Mr Cordell he will state that as he was not one of the suspects
causing any damage.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
if police officers watch the security cameras footage that this would also show
in court Mr Cordell was just a visitor.
Ref: Pc
Hoodlese states.
“At the venue."
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
this was a commercial building being occupied under section 144 Laspo, as far as he was aware and had been told by the
occupiers they had been living there for weeks before this date, they had their
belongings and bedding at the premises."
Ref: Pc
Hoodlese states; “Caught on camera opening the venue upon opening the
premises."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he will not be on camera acting in an anti-social manner neither will he be
causing any criminal offences, that he was invited into the premises by the
occupiers that were living there."
In Reference to the 6th 7th 8th
JUNE 2014; Progress Way in relation to the Applicants first bundle.
In relation to the 06/07/8th
June 2014 Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was not involved in the
organization of and / or supplied equipment for and / or attended an illegal
rave at an empty warehouse on Progress way Enfield.
In the applicants bundle there
are 93 incident numbers relating to the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 that Mr Simon
Cordell is being accused of and only 34 complete cad files in the bundle, to
which Mr Simon Cordell would like to apply to the applicant to receive related
missing documentation to 59 cads.
A list of Cad; incident numbers
including the supported relevant missing articles that should be contained
within the applicants bundle has been listed and is required so that Mr Simon
Cordell will be able to deafened himself from all accusation creating the bases
of an ASBO application.
Around 2:00am on the 8th Mr
Simon Cordell states he was just arriving at progress way and was said to have
been seen by police.
On page 32 A/Insp Hamill 01566
states at 0200hrs on Sunday 8th June that he did in fact see Mr Simon Cordell
for the first time, on the 3rd line from the last sentence.
CAD 1047 Name PC239YE Shinnick
(pages 174 to 178) at 1:59 on 7th June 2014, was a 999 call location, which was
a police officer calling the Enfield Patrol Site, Call name is of a PC
Shinnick, “please allow an officer to call on duty.”
A/ PS Charles Miles 724ye (page
31} explains that this date was on the 7thth June
2014 in his statement by is
mistaken, this can be confirmed by any person who can do so by looking at cad
1047, to which A/Inspector Hamill 201566 states he had created cad 1047 at the
first point of police intelligence leading to the police offices first point of
contact in regards to progress way, as he dispatched officers to the location
of the incident, from this information provided we can tell that this was in
fact the 8th June 2014 at 1:59.
A/Insp Hamill then states, that
the officers that he had sent, had reported back that Mr Simon Cordell and
Tyrone Benjamin were present, and goes on to state that officers were not
allowed access into the occupied building, due to the demand during the shift
and low policing numbers, but cad incident number 1047
5
502,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
07th June 2014 pages 174 to 184,
states them officers in attendance who could not gain entry, somehow managed to
see Mr Simon Cordell and his brother Tyrone Benjamin earlier in the day, to
which Mr Simon Cordell will state would be incorrect as only he had arrived to
visit a friend, and this was his first time at the location and for the true
facts of the matter to be that of Tyrone Benjamin being in hospital.
As A/Insp Hamill 01566 states at
0200hrs on Sunday the 8th June 2014, Mr Simon Cordell did in fact arrive.
A/Insp Hamill 01566 Could not be
sure of the fact of the person that he is stating was at the gate did in fact
bring Mr Simon Cordell back to the gate, he does not state that she or he came
back with Mr Cordell, who would have told A/ Insp Hamill that Mr Simon Cordell
was in fact the person she had gone to collect and asked to assist in speaking
to police as the event organiser, neither did he take any name(s) or personal
details of the gate assistances. He also states that Mr Simon Cordell would not
in fact speak to him, so if this was true then why would Mr Simon Cordell have
approached him to speak to him as the event organiser and not speak, as for
fact he was just arriving.
No police officers did in fact
see Mr Simon Cordell, on the 6th 7th Jun 2014
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he did not talk to any police or council as he felt intimidated.
Mr Cordell will state that he
was not given any noise abating order from the local council as confirmed on
page 34 by A/Insp Hamill 01566 as he was not in fact the organiser.
(On page 33) A Insp Hamill
201566 states that he see Mr Simon Cordell, at the gates but believed that Mr
Simon Cordell was coming from inside the premises, Mr Simon Cordell will state
due to the large number of people at the location and due to other reasons and
believes of the inspectors own that he is mistaken, Mr Simon Cordell states
that he remembers clearly, that of the police approaching him, as he was
walking towards the gates, when he was arriving from the Great Cambridge road,
and that of the police asking him questions in regards to illegal raves. A
Inspector Hamill states that he ask Mr Simon Cordell his name and that he gave
him a reply, such as to the answer of “yes” verbally and then A Inspector Hamill states that he asked Mr Cordell the same
question again but Mr Cordell would not reply, (chapter one of (A) Inspector
Hamill statement page 33 the 5th line down;) he then states the 3rd time when
Mr Simon Cordell was asked again, but this time by the council officers with
inspector Hamill present his name, that he would not reply again, Mr Simon
Cordell will state that he did not speak to anybody, he just listened to what
was being said to him and complied when he was asked to walk back to where he
had just parked his vehicle. The police officer is incorrect in saying that Mr
Cordell was the person that the gate assistant went and collected, as the event
organiser, as Mr Simon Cordell was in fact approaching the occupied building
and was visiting his friend. He did state this in his first statement dated
(24th/02/2015.) Mr Simon Cordell will State that, as he was approaching the
ally way were tops tiles is before the entrance gate for progress way as stated
by A/Insp Hamill 201566 on (page 33 2nd line up from the last sentence.) Simon
remembers it being dark and a lot of people being present in the ally way. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he saw, who he now knows to be A/ Insp Hamill for
the first time, at around 2:00 am on the 8th June 2014 as he was arriving and
had not seen a police officer on the date in question, till that point of time,
when he had seen An Inspector Hamill talking too other people at the gate than
himself as he was approaching, Mr Cordell will state he does remember the
police trying to speak to him and that he felt that the police was accusing him
of being an organiser, to which he was not, so he choose not to say any think,
without a solicitor being present.
The Police and council let Mr
Cordell go and he walked across the road to the petrol station, while waiting
for his friend to turn up, which he had to give a set of keys back too.
Crown Road == There was no
Licensable events or private parties on the 2nd apart from Crown Road that is
contained within the applicant’s bundle, a council freedom of information act
has been provided, from local council as proof of this statement. (Exhibit)
(Cad 3151 8th June 2014 page
278) clearly states that the rave / private party was at crown road not
progress way relating to cad 3151 8th June 2014 and that members of the public
were using Southbury train station, to get to this location, which is across
the road from Crown Road the old man building which is grid reference; X
(Easting) 534960 Y (Northing) 196240
Under oath to the DJ A/Insp
concealed the truth true facts of evidence. Please read court train scrip off
(A) Inspector Hamill below.
(This also proofs that all the
Cad’s are linked together and corrupt)
Witness 1 - inspector Hamill -R.
O - 11.15am Statement contained in tab 9-lead
DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source,
checked by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place
indoors.
I have not personal spoken to
the owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday
on the evening of the 7th Saturday.
I did not go inside; the gates
were closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D’S Van reg is known to the
police but I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I
did not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people
squatting in that building at that time.
(Hearsay of officers continues D
@ venue but (unreadable text) Officer (unreadable text) Not present here
today.)
There was a rave on an
adjourning RD but not on that day. (Please Take Note Here of inspector Hamill
stating under oath that he was sure all locations were to do with progress way
on this date.)
Phone calls received were not
relating to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone
calls related to this particular rave. (Progress Way)
Cad 3319 8th June 14 page 283 is
also related to Southbury train STN /Crown RD (cad 11822 8th June 14 page 302)
Southbury STN cad 2410 8th Jun
14 page 276. Also blocked out so no person can see, apart from the makers of
the bundle themselves, when creating their application towards Mr Simon
Cordell, what evidence there is to support this claim is the mistake of A and J
cars Enfield not
6
503,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
504,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE states;
"There I spoke with a man who I recognized as Simon Cordell, from previous
illegal rave events on Enfield Borough. I would describe him as a light skinned
black male, and at the time he was wearing a white long-sleeved T shirt and
Grey bottoms, he is approximately f5;09 tall and of medium build. He refused to
provide his details to the council representatives in order that a noise
abatement order could be served, however he was provided with a copy.
Approximately 10 minutes later we left the scene having risk assessed the
incident."
"Mr Simon Cordell will
state; that he was attending an occupied building that was being lived in
under section 144 LASPO on the 8th at around 200 hours on the 8th June 2014 as
a visitor and not on the 7th June 2014.
His intentions were to drop keys
to a friend which had been left at his flat.
When Mr Cordell approached
progress way a man, he now knows to be a police officer from the statements
provided, approached him while he was walking down a foot path leading to the
occupied building. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was accused of being an
organizer to which he gave no reply and decided at this point to cross the road
and call his friend to come out side to give him his keys back, to which he
had, came to visit.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he then left and headed home and at no point did he except any paper work of
any person(s) nor did he give his name or personal details to anybody for his
personal details to be on any official headed piece of paper, to which in the statement
he is being accused of being presented to him.
It is also noted that in A/Insp
Hamill 201566 statement that he did not note that a copy of the paperwork had
not been handed to anyone.
Which Mr Simon Cordell will
state that he is sure he would have noted in his statement. As from his
statement he was the main person dealing with this matter.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he would like to ask for any noise abatement order made on the 6th 7th 8th June
2014."
It is also noted that police
statement was written on the 02/08/2014, 26 days after therefore Mr Simon
Cordell is asking for a copy of the 101 books.
A/PS Charles Miles 724YE states;
“ that he returned to the venue approximately two hours later, he again asked
to speak with the organiser however none came forward, he asked the two men on
the door, who appeared to be party goers to let him in to have a look around.
He walked around and there was extremely loud drum and bass music playing, with
approximately 100 people dancing. Party goers observed him in Police uniform
and ran away into the large open area, presumably because of drug misuse
matters - there was significant evidence to suggest illegal drugs were being
used such as discarded self-seal bags, and empty canisters consistent with
'laughing gas' use."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"As officers where not permitted access into the venue it is unknown to
the extent of drug and alcohol abuse which may or may not have taken place
within."
A/PS CHARLES MILES 724YE states;
"At approximately 06:30Hrs we received a call to nearby Wood grange
Gardens, to reports of a male assaulted. Following an initial investigation
this individual matched the description of a male earlier observed on the
warehouse roof. It appeared that he had fallen off of the roof and into some
bushes and his injuries were consistent with a fall from height. He was heavily
under the influence of alcohol and quite probably illegal drugs. He went to
North Middlesex Hospital with the London Ambulance Service."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"At 05:04hrs CAD 2290 8th June police were called to a male assaulted in
the street. Officers and LAS have attended the location of Wood Grange Avenue,
where the male had injuries of suspected broken wrists and a bloody mouth, he
initially stated that he had been attacked from behind but on investigation it
transpired that this male had been one of the people seen on the roof earlier
and had fallen whilst getting down."
"Mr Simon Cordell will
state; That it was only ever noted by PS 92YE that 1 male was seen on the
roof, but if the call came 05:04hrs CAD 2290 how is it his statement it says a
call came in at 06:30Hrs this is 1 hour and 26 mins after the first call was
made and A/Insp Hamill 201566 had sent officers to the location.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; That
he did notice when approaching the building a Section 144 Laspo
notice was in place, in turn meaning occupiers were occupying the free hold of
the land sleeping in the commercial building and treating it as their home. Mr
Simon Cordell will state Nobody could have spoken to him or his brother Tyrone
Benjamin, or see Tyrone as his brother Tyrone Benjamin was involved in an ATR
involving, a vehicle LRO9BMV he was knocked of his moped on the 10th April 2014
the injuries his brother occurred has changed his life for ever. On the
07/06/2014 Mr Simon Cordell’s brother Tyrone Benjamin could not walk; he was
Air lifted to The Royal London Hospital. Mr Simon Cordell will disagree
strongly that his brother was at this event dated 06th 07th 08th June 2014 or
in any case that is in question presented within this ASBO application, nor did
he attend. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he arrived at progress way about
01:45am on the 8th but on his own and on arrival police spoke to him outside
the front gates and he then left and went home.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; That
allegations of misleading information is being held under his and his brothers
name on the police national Computer, and he has been trying to get this
rectified, He has provided his brothers medical notes as proof of this as well
as stated many other facts and provided a copy of the Police National Computer
and the errors that have tarnished his life agreed by the courts.
He would also like to make it
noted that the police already have on their system the people they were
prettying while he was on curfew for some of the cases within this ASBO
application and that the police had contacted other people leading up to dates
of the incident numbers but not Mr Simon Cordell in relation to illegal raves.
The public order team has confirmed on the phone to his mother and Essex police
have too.
It has taken months to gather
this information relating to the dates within this ASBO application so that Mr
Simon Cordell can clear his name.
Witness Statement
A/Inspector Hamill 201566
Friday 6th June 2014 Progress
Way
It is noted that your statement
was written on the 06/08/2014 this is 62 days after the fact, Mr Simon Cordell
will state that he is therefore asking for a copy of your 101 books."
8
505,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
at no point of time did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing
or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was did not organize any events within this ASBO application.
And at no point in time did he
encourage any other people to commit any offence causing or likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he at no point has he committed or been rightfully arrested and charged for an
offence to one of a similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 On Friday 6th
June 2014 states; when on duty in full uniform working as the Duty Officer for
the Borough of Enfield, was working between the hours of 2200hrs to 0700hrs.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"During the early hours of the 7th June I was made aware of a potential
Rave that was in progress in a discussed Industrial Building on Progress
Way."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"I have had a CAD created reference 1047I 7June dispatched officers to the
location to access numbers, crowd dynamics and gather information around times
the event is likely to run until and
also to make contact or identify the potential organiser.
Officers have reported back that
Tyrone Benjamin and Simon Cordell where at location and to be the believed the
event organisers, there were approximately 200 people in attendance, the event
was covered by security officers who had stated that they were volunteers and
not licensed through SIA. Officers have spoken with staff to confirm that all
fire escapes where clear, that there were sufficient fire extinguishers in
place and that there were first aid kits available."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this incorrect and not to be true as his brother had medical injuries stopping
him from being mobile or transported. Evidence will be supplied.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was not in attendance to attend any rave in fact he was dropping keys to a
friend as they had been left at his address when he was there last."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"Police Officers have reported back:
Mr Simon Cordell will state; The
police sent by inspector Hamill reported back to him and said they had spoken
to Security officers at the gate of progress way, who stated that they were
volunteers not security as believed by police offices. "Who made this
statement?"
If they were believed by police
officers to be security, but had said they were volunteers, what makes the
police sure beyond reasonable doubt that the people in question presented to be
security acting as volunteers could have in fact off been the organisers. As Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he was not the organiser neither did he hire any
sound equipment, nor did he take part in any form of organization on the 6th
7th 8th June 2014 or act in an Anti-Social Manner. In the new skeleton
argument, the inspector clearly states that he now trusts the security guards
when officers state that they believed they were security but said they were
volunteers and looked like party goers.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"Police Officers have reported back: Staff was forthcoming with
information but refused to allow offices inside the venue."
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"As stated they never believed the information provide by said staff at
the gates of progress way to be true, as it was believed the security was to be
presenting them self's as volunteers, so why would any information provided to
officers can be classed and stated as forthcoming be classed as to be true, if
not believed to be true by the person writing the statement in the beginning,
as said by police officers, the people at the gate also refused to allow police
officers inside the venue."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"Due to call demand during the shift and low policing numbers it was
inappropriate to enter the premises to seize the equipment and close the event,
but he deployed officers to conduct regular visits to the venue, where number
at their peak where 500 but reported to be quiet and peaceful."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not involved in any event or Anti-Social Behaviour on the 6th 7th 8th
June2014, he only went to drop some keys off to a friend that he had a call
from due to him leaving his keys at his address the last time he was there and
his friend needed them back."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"Local authority noise team were contacted reference T548832. The event
was expected to run until 0700hrs on Saturday 7th June, with plans for the
event to continue again later in the evening on the 7th June. During the course
of the shift we received a total of calls from local residence complaining
about the noise of the rave."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"On Saturday 7th June 2014 I was again on duty in full uniform working as
the Borough's Duty Officer for the hours of 2200hrs to 0700hrs, as with the
previous evening I was made aware again of a Rave at an empty warehouse of
Progress Way. As with the previous evening, I have posted officers to make
regular visits to the venue to access numbers, crowd dynamics and general
intelligence around the event.
During the course of the number
numbers at the event were around 300.
At 02:00hrs I have attended the
venue with A/PS Miles and two environmental officers.
The entrance to the venue was
located off progress way, down the side off "Tops Tiles". The
warehouse was at the bottom of this side road behind a metal gate, the gate
padlock had been removed and security officers were opening the gate to allow
access. As Insp Hamill and A/PS Miles and the EO have approached the gate they
have closed the gate preventing us access."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
for Inspector Hamill: To be able to state the gate padlock had been removed.”
By this statement made Inspector Hamill was this close to pay this much
attention to such an object as a pad lock on the gate, he then states a
security officer was opening the gate to allow access. Followed by them have
closed the gate, with so many people walking in and out of such numbers of 300
people in attendance Mr Simon Cordell will state that he believes the inspector
see Mr Simon Cordell and took his own believes.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"I have introduced myself and asked to speak with the event organisers, to
which a member of staff has disappeared into the venue and returned with a male
who I would describe as light skinned black male, Approximate age of 35,
wearing a white long sleeved t-shirt, grey bottoms. I recognized this male as
Simon Cordell.
“Inspector Hamill states; that
he then introduced himself and asked if we could speak at the bottom of the'
road where the noise levels would allow us to talk. We all moved to the bottom
of Progress Way where I have introduced myself and explained the purpose of the
visit and asked
9
506,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
"It's Simon isn't it?" to
which he has replied "Yes" I have then further asked "Simon
Cordell" to which he has indicted that it was but not verbally confirmed
the answer. I have introduced the two EO's the Simon who have explained the
purpose of their visit and the fact that they were going to severe a noise abatement
order, they have produced the paperwork and asked the male for his name to
which he has refused to provide his details, It was explained that without the
name of a person from the venue the EO's are unable to serve the paperwork. As
we have been unable to progress this line of action, I have made the request to
Simon Cordell to turn the music down."
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that Inspector Hamill: States he approached the gate and spoke to security,
but the police are not sure if they were in fact security, police state in
there statements that the people on the gate introduced themselves as
volunteers. The case is the police did not know who they were they could have
been security/volunteers or organisers. The police only believed Tyrone
Benjamin and Simon Cordell could have been the organisers, which is not the
case.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
Inspector Hamill: Asked to speak to an organiser and has said that a member of
said staff disappeared into the occupied building. For a male Inspector Hamill
recognised to be Simon Cordell to approach him. This could not have been the
case as Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was not in the building and that he
was walking up to the building when he was approach by Inspector Hamill and
others.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that he does remember this day 08th June 2014 a friend who had stayed at his
who had forgotten to take his set of keys with him, when he left his flat prior
to the 06th and 07th 8th June 2014.”
He will state that his friend had
contacted him and told him that he need his keys back
and wanted him to meet him at progress way were he had been residing and asked
Mr Simon Cordell to drop the keys to him.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that he was given a post code and had never been to this location before. That
he travelled by car and parked outside a company that he remembers to be tops
tiles, as he approached he could hear music, after finding the address given to
him he had to walk down a side ally leading to the front gates to be seen by a
man he now know to be Inspector Hamill from the statement provided he asked him
his name to which Mr Simon Cordell will state that he gave no reply to his
question. ”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that as he see the police leave the people on the gate he was already chatting
to him and asked Mr Simon Cordell to follow him to the road side which he did,
at no time did Mr Simon Cordell talk to any police officers or any other
person(s) as he felt he had not done any think wrong and new how the police was
with him and he just did not want any problems.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that he was the police officer was with other people, who Mr Simon Cordell now
know to be environmental officers due to the statements. Mr Cordell remembers
feeling like he was being accused of being an organiser by the way in which the
police officer was talking to him.
This is the reason he did not want to
talk to the police as he knew how they was with him from over many years of
being harassed by the police.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that he just wanted to leave so he decided at this point to cross the road to
the local petrol station and call his friend to come outside to give him his
keys back.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that at no time did he speak to police and give any details and did not take
any paper work from anyone, the police did not follow him across the road to
the petrol station where he called his friend to come and get his keys.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that he did notice sound coming from said occupied building and at this point
in time he would like everyone to make a note that he did not hire any sound
equipment or any other form of equipment or neither was he involved in the
organisation of any events on dates of the
6th 7th
or the 8th June 2014.
He then gave his friend their keys and
headed home, at no point did Mr Simon Cordell except any paper work of any
person nor did he give his name or personal details to any other body, for his
personal details to be on any official piece of paper.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
would like to ask for said paperwork Noise abatement order."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states;
"Inspector Hamill: Asked "It's Simon isn't it?" to which he
replied, "yes he then further asked "Simon Cordell" to which he
has indicated that it was but not verbally confirmed the answer."
Mr Cordell will state; "As stated
above at no point did he speak to any police office to give his name and do not
understand how he could have done so in a none verbally manner as he did not
shake his head or shake the police offices hand to indicate this to be true.
Police states that Mr Simon Cordell replied yes than states but would not
verbally confirm the answer"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; “To which
Mr Simon Cordell refused to provide his details."
Mr Cordell will state; "A/Insp
Hamill further verifies that he did not in fact speak to himself."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; “It was
explained that without the name of a person from the venue the EO's are unable
to serve the paperwork, as we have been unable to progress this line of
action."
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“The police state they see him on the 7th June 2014 walking up to
the front gates in pc Shinick statements time stamped 01:59 7th June
14 and no he was in attendance with Inspector Hamill at 02:00 hours on the 8Th
June 2014in true fact and that he had walked back to where his car was parked
on the Great Cambridge Road Enfield, Mr Cordell believes that if he had walked
into the building it would have been in there notes, so there for see him leave
after not gaining entry to a friend’s place of residence. The police also
understand that this party had been going on since the 6th June 2014.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
that he did not speak to any one as said in their statement and that he did not
accept any noise abatement order section 80 as he was not an organiser neither
an occupier nor did he accept any money from any event on the 6th 7th
8th June 2014.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; “I have
made the request to Simon Cordell to turn the music down."
"I had left the grounds and waited
in the petrol station for my friend to come out of progress way to me next to
the petrol station and get his keys, then left and went home."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; “During
the course of the 8th of June 2014 we had approximately 40 calls
complaining about the noise."
10
507,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state: "That he did only attended
progress way on the 08th for about 30 mins max and left to go home.
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; “During
the course of the shift police had contact with several groups that had been
attending at the Rave all of which were extremely intoxicated and their
behaviour had clearly been using drugs which they all confirm they had used but
on police contact did not have any drugs on them."
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“"At no point did he travel with any of the said people in relation to the
police statements, nor did he invite them to any place to rave or attended to
supply any equipment or source of entertainment for them or any drinks or
drugs."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; as
officers were not permitted access into the venue it is unknown the extent of
drugs and alcohol abuse which may or may not have taken place within."
Mr Simon Cordell would like it noted
that A/Insp Hamill states; "You say that no officers were allowed in the
building yet police officer A/PS Charles Miles 724YE says people allowed him to
enter but you have not been told nothing about this, in your reports from the
police officers."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; A call
from CAD 2410 of the 8th June received at 05:35hrs stated that drugs were
openly being sold."
"Mr Cordell will state that he was
not at the occupied building at this point of time, neither does he sell drugs
or advise or in courage any other person to do so"
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; "At
03:10hrs on the 8th June PS 92YE noticed a male from the roof of the adjourning
building to the venue. The venue backs onto that of the police parade site
which did mean as officers entre and left the premises they had a full and
unobstructed view of the rear of the rave premises, officers have attended the
venue, however the male had already come down of the roof. Staff where given
advice as to ensuring that people do not get onto the roof again."
"I had no involvement in organising
this said event on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 and do not feel I should be held
responsible and was not attending to rave at a private house party."
Mr Simon Cordell would like it noted
that; "As noted the police arrived at 03:10hrs to deal with the matter of
a person on a nearby roof of the occupied building located in progress way,
however the male had already come down from the roof.
Police state: "Staff occupying another building was notified.
"At no point would Mr Cordell have
been notified as he was not the organiser on the 8th June 2014."
A/Insp Hamill 201566 states; "At
05:04hrs CAD 2290 8th June 2014 police were called to a male assaulted in the
street. Officers and LAS have attended the location of wood Grange Avenue were
the male had injuries of suspected broken wrist and a bloody mouth, he
initially stated that he had been attacked from behind but on investigation it
transpired that this male had been one of the people seen on the roof earlier
and had fallen whilst getting down."
"If checked there is a time laps
in the statements made by police PS 92YE it states that he attended at 03:10hrs
and noted the boy had come down from a roof in Wood Grange Avenue the rear of
Progress Way and then Police spoke to staff at progress way.
But CAD number 2290 8th June at 05:04
states the same boy is in wood Grange Avenue again and made a 999 call making a
claim of assault 01:54 mins after and is believed to be the man fallen of the
roof at 03:10 who was seen getting down safely and police state that they can see
the roof top clearly from there police service centre.
It is also noted A/PS CHARLES MILES
724YE "statement at approximately 06:30Hrs we received a call to nearby
Wood grange Gardens, to reports of a male assaulted. Following an initial
investigation this individual matched the description of a male earlier
observed on the warehouse roof. It appeared that he had fallen off of the roof
and into some bushes and his injuries were consistent with a fall from height.
He was heavily under the influence of alcohol and quite probably illegal drugs.
He went to North Middlesex Hospital with the London Ambulance Service."
These times do not match up as in A/Insp
Hamill 201566 statement he says he sent someone to the attack at 05:04 CAD 2290
and in A/PS CHARLES MILES 724YE statement he said the call did not happen until
06:30Hrs.
Was it 5 or 6 hundred hours or at 1
hundred hours and if it was at 100 hours why did police leave him to go and
speak to people at the gate of progress way, if his injuries were so server he
had to go to the hospital at 5 0r 6 hundred hours?
Mr Simon Cordell would state;
that he believes the police already have on their systems, the person’s name
they were in contact with leading up to this. The public Order Unit at Scotland
Yard would hold the information and also the police in Essex would have
information.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
It has taken him months to gather information to the dates in this ASBO
application, and he feels that the police already hold the information that he
is being accused off.
Statement off: Eric Baker Police
Officer 219382 Dated 19/08/2014
He is a police officer in London
Borough of Enfield and has been tasked to contact residents of the Borough who
had called police to inform them of an illegal rave that took place over Friday
7th June 2014 and Saturday 8th June 2014, in a warehouse in Progress Way
Enfield
On Tuesday 19th August 2014 I contacted
the caller of the CAD 10471/07June 2014 by telephone that was happy to give an
impact statement regarding how illegal rave affected her and her husband over
the above dates mentioned.
The caller wishes to remain anonymous.
I will refer to her as complainant "A" The original notes taken from
the below statement are present in my pocketbook serial 370/14, page 1.
Complainant "a" said it was a
warm evening and we had to keep the windows shut because of the noise. The next
day we could not even go out into the garden because of the noise. It kept me
and my husband up all night and made us very anxious the next day. The illegal
rave totally ruined our weakened" This concluded what complainant 'A"
said regarding this matter.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“that at no point did he take part in any form of Anti
Social behaviour and he did not
organize or hire any equipment to this private house party neither was he
attending a rave on the 6th 7th 8th June
2014th.
11
508,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Doglas Skinner:
Dated 09/09/2014 Addition to
15th /08/2014 Referring to 07th /June /2014
Doglas Skinner states; He had been
asked to clarify how he knows that Simon Cordell is an organizer of raves.
Mr Simon Cordell will states;
“that he does not know a Doglas Skinner, and do not see how he can clarify that
he is the organizer of illegal raves because this is not true, and at no point
was he setting up a rave on 6th 7th 8th June 2014 or on any date within the
applicants application off an ASBO.
Doglas Skinner states; “I have
known of Simon Cordell for over 20 years.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has had no other dealing in relation to illegal raves with Mr Skinner.
Doglas Skinner states; “That he
was tasked to speak to the organizer to see how long it would be carrying on
for.”
Mr Simon Cordell will states;
that on the 6th June Inspector Hamill sent officers to the expected to be rave
in the occupied building under section 144 Laspo, to
see how long it would be carrying on for, to which police reported back that
they spoke to organisers on the gate who were acting as security as well
stating to be just volunteers police state; “who were quite forth coming with
information.” The police officer also state they see my younger brother and
myself present, which at no point can be true for both Mr Simon Cordell and his
brother Mr Tyrone Benjamin on the 6th 7th June 14 in fact only Mr Simon Cordell
arrived early hours on the 8th but left due to police attendance.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point did he gain entry to the occupied building on the 6th 7th 8th June
2014.
On the 7th June Inspector
Charles 724ye states that Inspector Hamill attended Progress way at 10:03pm to
which stating in their statement presented within this
ASBO application was in fact
June 8th June 2014, while waiting for a female to get the organizer that
Inspector Hamill and A/ps Charles had been talking to
on the gate acting as security or volunteers as well, while waiting they
noticed Mr Simon Cordell approaching progress way and asked him to walk back to
the street the way he had just come from. Mr Simon Cordell will state that at
no point did he speak to any officers on the 6th June 2014, and on the 7th June
2014 and at no point of time on the 8th June 2014 did any female ask him to
speak to police as a organizer or supplier of sound
equipment.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
that he never attended a rave or caused any Anti-social behaviour.”
Doglas Skinner will state; I
waked to the location referring to premises in progress way and see a white
van.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point did he drive into the occupied land under a section 144 Laspo, otherwise referred to as progress way on the 6th 7th
8th June 2014 and he does not understand how anybody can state otherwise, as
this would not be true and incorrect.
Doglas Skinner states; Inside
this van was a male I no to be Cordell.
Mr Simon Cordell will state: If taken that Cordell is referred to
himself Mr Simon Cordell, he did not talk to any police on the 6th 7th June
2014 as stated in inspector Hamill statement made on the 06/08/2014 referring
to the 8th June 2014."
Doglas Skinner states As I got
closer to the van he got out and walked over towards me.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
it was not him who got out of a van on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 and was not
approach by pc Doglas Skinner Leading towards the premises in question on the
6th 7th June 2014 in progress way, but does remember police officers and
councillors officers walking towards him outside the gate as he was approaching
Progress way and then asked by police to walk the way leading back to where he
had just come from back to the A10 great Cambridge road." “As Inspector
Hamill states”
Mr Simon Cordell states; On the
7th It was not himself who shock Pc Doglas Skinners hand and said hello and
talked to him about how he remembered him as a youngest over twenty years ago
as he never spook to the police on the 6th 7th and 8th June as stated in
Inspector Hamill statement.
• In reference to 2 members of
the public statements that are in relation to progress way 6th 7th 8th June 2014.
WITNESS STATEMENT
Statement taken by PC Donald Mc
mikan
Dated 14 August 2014
In regard to dates: 6th 7th 8th
June 2014
This statement refers to an
illegal rave which took place between 6th June and 8th June 2014 on the
industrial Estate near Wood grange Avenue. On Thursday 14th August 2014, 1
spoke with a resident who lives in Wood grange Avenue, Enfield.
WITNESS STATEMENT
Statement made by: PC Donald Mc
Millen 759YE
Police officer
Dated:14 August 2014
Referring from phone caller
taken.6th 7th 8th June 2014
Regards Unit 6 Progress way
Victim off statement is to
remain anonymous
This statement refers to an
illegal Rave which took place 6th June and 8t" June 2014. On Thursday 14th
August 2014 I spoke to a resident in Wood grange Avenue N9 who wished not to be
named and remain anonymous.
12
509,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will State.
At no point did Mr Simon Cordell
take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, causing or likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress and that he did not organize any events within
this ASBO application and at no time did he encourage any other person's to
commit any offence causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
However he is sorry for any
problems that any person may have suffered as this is the last thing as an
honourable person that he would like to hear that is off any suffering of other
tenants or citizens of the United Kingdom or any other part of the world.
At no point did Mr Simon Cordell
commit or have any intention of causing any problems that any person may have
suffered neither has he been rightfully arrested and charged for an offence to
one of a similar nature presented within this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell would again
like to state that he did not supply any equipment on the 6th 7th 8th June 2014
or take part in the organisation of any party on the dates in question.
Falcon Park 20th 06 14
In reference to Page’s 77 to 94 in
the first applicant’s bundle.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
on the 20.06.2014 he was not involved in the organization of and/ supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at 1 Falcon Park, Neasden Lane,
NWIO
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was at home; Address Burncroft Avenue Enfield and did not cause any
Anti-social behaviour. He will state that he did attended a friend’s home
address, who had hired equipment off himself and that he had hired the
equipment in good faith.”
Mr Simon Cordell will also
state; that he attended the premises of (1 Falcon Park), this was due to police
involvement in what he understood to be a private house party, after he was
contacted by his friend at the time of; 01:00am.”
Mr Simon Cordell will sate; “that
he was travelling that day in his vehicle for 2 hours of the 5 hours 15 mins
before arrival to (1 Falcon park and arrived at around 03:00, as Mr Simon
Cordell was asked to collect his equipment by the hirer.
Mr Simon Cordell will then
State; that he went home by 05:15 hours and was told by police to collect his
equipment at a later date, to which he did do.
At no point is Mr Simon Cordell
being accused of acting in an anti-social manner on the 20:06:14 within the
ASBO application.
There are no Cad numbers in the
applicant’s application in regard to 1 Falcon park.
There are no 999 calls relating
to alarm harm and distress.
Mr Simon Cordell has never been
arrested for any incident, relating to l. Falcon park, as he had no involvement
in the organization of any rave or private party on this date.
Carpet Right 19th 07 14 Duty
officer
Statement made dated 15/08/2014
States, On Saturday 19th July
2014 he was on active duty as an officer for Enfield borough. At 2210hrs
Doglas Skinner made his first
statement 29 days after the 7th June. and has made additions to his statements
3 months 4 days after. In total 4 month 5 days a total of 70 days after said
incident, why would there be such a need.
Doglas Skinner states; 20 people
pulling into an estate, the information thought was the 20 people were trying
to set up a rave.
Mr Simon Cordell states: “At no
point was he one of the 20 people talked about and that he did not take part in
organising of any event on the19th or 20th July 2014 nor did he supply any
equipment.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not attend the occupied premises to rave. In fact, he pulled over
because he sees a friend being detained outside carpet right and at this time
he had been helping with food and washing clothes with a lot of homeless people
in and around London.”
The CAD number of the call that
came in referred to in his statement to 20 people pulling into an estate, the
caller states 20 males and females all white people and the address are listed
in the CAD, with names and DVLA records of vehicles.
Doglas Skinner states: “The
crowd was by an empty building called carpet right and had gained entry to the
rear premises.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “If the
building had not been occupied under section 144 LASPO and being lived in as a
place of residence the 20 people seen and contained in the premises would have
been arrested for trespassing or burglary and was not in fact arrested.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was arrested outside the old carpet right and had taking no part in any
activity that happened in the premises of the old carpet right 198 Great
Cambridge Road Enfield Town En1 LUJ.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"At no point was he one of the people or vans referred to on the land of
carpet right or was he attending a rave, neither was he acting in an
Anti-Social Manner in reference to pages 295 to 296 of the first applicants
bundle."
Doglas Skinner states: “That he
sent officers to the scene to stop anyone else gaining entry to the premises.
“This was the 1st set of officers sent to the old carpet right 198 Great
Cambridge Road Enfield Town EN1 LUJ, pc Doglas Skinner: Made his way to the
scene.
"The 2nd set of officers
who attended the scene was Doglas Skinner Duty officer."
13
510,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Doglas Skinner states: “There
was a metal gate across the entry to the car park, but this had a thick chain
and a padlock around it so that it could not be opened.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"At no point had he been to this location before, any of the date in
question and neither did he put any lock, chain or padlock on any gate and at
no point did he instruct any other person to do so.
Doglas Skinner states: “That he
walked around to the rear of the premises where there were several vehicles and
about 15 persons.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"At no point was he one of the 15 people or vehicles being mentioned in
Doglas Skinner statement"
Doglas Skinner states: “That he
saw a large black box which had sound speakers and sound system inside them.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"At no point of time did he hire any sound equipment to anybody on the
19th 8 2014 neither did he take part in any event organized on the 19th 8
2014"
Doglas Skinner states: “That he
received a call from our control room stating they believed up to 100 people
were going to arrive at south bury road train station to attend a rave at this
location. As a result, to this intelligence he believed that the premises and
there was going to be used for a rave.
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"Please take note to pc Doglas Skinner statement paragraph two dated
15/8/2014 1st line down page 36 of the applicants first bundle,
Doglas Skinner states: I saw a male
I knew to be Simon Cordell who came out of the building.
Now please take note to witness
statement Doglas Skinner dated 15/8/2014 paragraph three, 1st line page 36
"Outside Carpet right I spoke to Cordell.
Mr Simon Cordell will states;
"At no point did he go on the land or in the premises, as stated by Doglas
skinner;” “the police had contained all occupiers and sound system and vehicles
on the land and in the premises hours before his arrival as the time stamps
clearly prove by the start and time of Mr Simon Cordell’s detention, as well as
having police officers being at the front gates stopping people gaining entry
to the premises otherwise mentioned in statements as the old carpet right 198
Great Cambridge Road Enfield Town EN1 1 UJ, along the Al0 in cads 9804 pages
287 to 290 time stamped 20:51 19th July 2014 and cad 10635 pages 291 to 301
time stamped 22:07. on page number 298 at 03:50:25 on the 20th July 2014 1
arrested by Inspector Skinner for Bop clearly 7 hours Later, after the building
had been contained by police on the 19th July 2014 at 22:21 on page number 295.
Doglas Skinner states; He
admitted that he was just organising a party for some friends and that was all.
Mr Simon Cordell will states; At
no point did he organize any private party or open air party as he feels that
he is being accused of doing and at no point would he have said that he did do
so, as he had just stopped to help a friend, that he see getting detained by
the police and at no point from his arrival was any person permitted by police
to go on the land.
Doglas Skinner states; I
explained to him I was holding him responsible, Him referring to Simon
Cordell.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
"At no point should he get held responsible for any offence that he has
not committed.
He was not involved in
organising or hiring of any equipment on the 19th 8 2014.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he approached carpet right when the police had it contained stopping access to
any person(s) other than police officers gaining entry.
Mr Simon Cordell will states; “
that he was not one of the 20 people being accused of looking for venues in
paragraph one dated 15/8/2014 in witness statement made by Doglas Skinner as
his name would have been noted in police books as everyone else's on the land did
on pages 295 to 296.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
Mr Simon Cordell was arrested and detained. That he continued to try and state
his points that he had nothing to do with the event and also stated that it was
unjustified that he had been detained and only himself. As stated in the
statement provided by police officers stating that people were detained in the
land and building.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that as
he approached carpet right after the problem had been contained by 2nd set of
officer’s arrivals provided by the information in the statements presented in
this ASBO application.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; Police
offices as well as his friend who Mr Cordell had stopped to help as he had seen
him being detained outside carpet right, also see Mr Cordell walk down the foot
to his aid.
After he parked his car in the
car park which belongs to a company called magnet three company's down from
carpet right.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “He
was on a pubic foot pavement as he approached the officer and his friend being
detained and never had any sound system or equipment and at no point was he
involved in the supply of equipment or organisation of any event 19th July
2014. The premises were contained by the police stopping entry in and out as
stated in the statements at no point did, he attempted or did he agree to take
part in any event on the 19th June 2014.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; At no
point did he go on the land or the premises attached to that land and that the
police had said occupiers /potential organizer of the private party or accused
rave in the said land including the sound system contained within.
Doglas Skinner states; "The
main organizer was spoken to by police."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not the main organizer on the 19th July 2014.
Doglas Skinner states; “It is
said that Mr Simon Cordell admitted to police that he was an organizing to the
party and said he was expecting several hundred people."
14
511,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this is not correct as stated the keys were found on the premises and he never
was on the premises, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he was arrested outside
on the pavement as shown in Inspector Douglas Skinner statement and that he
could not have left the premises as said by Inspector Douglas
Skinner the police had secured
the premises 7 hours before he had arrived."
Doglas Skinner states; “As a
result the people inside the venue all left."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he never went in the premises or venue at any time and that he mealy stopped
out of care off a fellow companion,
Mr Simon Cordell will state; That
it was wrong for himself to be detained by members of the metropolitan police
force, wrongfully without charge or interview.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he feels this shows the way he has been treated over the years and discriminated
by police. He states that the facts are the police had secured the premises,
they had a sound system contained in the premises, and occupiers on the land,
one of these people was arrested then de arrested (Mr Simon Cordell will state
that he has found this out since he has contacted the director at company house
of every decibel matters, who has provided a statement as he was one of the
people detained inside the premises, by the police to then latter be released.)
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that he
was outside and was arrested for no reason."
Alma Road 24th 07 14 Statement
pc Edgoose Dated: 31st August 2014 Referring to: Thursday 24th July 2014
Officer Pc Edgoose States; “On
Thursday 24th July2014 I was on duty in plain clothes as operator of an unmarked
police vehicle in company with APS 212YE Martin, PC Robertson, and PC 229YE
O'NEILL. At around 16:25 hours on Alma
Road EN3, we had cause to stop a
silver Ford Focus VRM MA57LDY due to the manner of its driving. The driver was
a male I know to be Simon Cordell dob21/01/1981.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has no disputes with reference to statement made by pc Edgoose above, apart
from the manner to which Mr Simon Cordell is being accused of driving.
Officer Pc Edgoose States; “I
know him as I have dealt with on a number of previous occasions. He was
initially hostile about having been stopped, but once he had calmed down, he
engaged in conversation with us.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point was he acting in an Anti-Social Manner Officer Pc Edgoose States:
he stated that he is staying out of trouble.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has not caused any offence since he was much younger; and that he just gets
pulled over and accused and harassed by members of the metropolitan police a
lot.
Officer Pc Edgoose States; He
stated that he has four brand new speakers at home which are suitable for use
at raves, but he does not use them and has offered to lend them to any
"youngsters" to use.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he had been on curfew for one year for a case he proved his innocents in and
had been working hard in his Local community trying to make a positive effect
towards his self and other that he could help, so he had been spending his time
building his company and would not link himself to illegal raves,
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did say he had been getting his equipment ready and proposals for pickets
lock including barley lands ready and had been in contact with both venues. Mr
Simon Cordell will state that he had also been working at his local community
hall as well as Muswell Hill festival ponders end festival lock to lock
festival and Enfield town festival and would have been talking about such on
goings and that he had been working with the youngsters from Kemp Hall
Community Hall.
Officer Pc Edgoose States; “He
went on to say that they are not interested though, as these days they just
want to steal everything.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
the people he meets appreciated the work he was doing for them at the time.”
Officer Pc Edgoose States; “He
said he gets inundated with requests to run raves all the time, but he doesn't get
involved now. He claims to have 20,000 followers on one social media site, and
70,000 on another. He said he could organize a rave and get 20,000 people at it
with no problems whatsoever.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
the word Rave has been used and he does not see how this relates to the
conversation on the day or his activities as he was talking about the hard work
he had been committing himself to, constrictive legal work and for the term
Rave to be used without the key elements it is an injustice.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
did not cause any Anti-social behaviour on this date in question.
Officer Pc Edgoose States; He
gets requests from anarchist type groups to run raves for them.
He went on to say that he had
been asked by Occupy London, Black Block and other
anarchist type groups to run a rave at Notting Hill Carnival for them so that
they could cause carnage and mayhem, but he had refused.
15
512,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he disputes” that he would not say this as he knows that he is not black
neither is he white. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is mixed race of
British Nationality and that he has neither heard of a group called Black
Block, neither would he promote verbally of such a group the same as he would
not verbally promote such anarchist type groups such as the kkk
because he has been created by both.
Officer Pc Edgoose States;
“Whilst on public order duty at Notting Hill Carnival I saw Mr. Cordell walking
through the area I was deployed around Tavi Stock
Road. He was pushing a wheelie
bin, and he was approached by members of a group of around 10 - 20 people who
had been waiting at a junction near our location.
This group had been playing drum
and bass music and had told officers they were heading to an event but were
awaiting the location. It was somewhere between 2200
2300 hours when I had seen the
group, and Mr. Cordell.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
at no point did he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour or Alarm harm or distress on
the date in question.
Mill Marsh Lane 27th 07 14
On the 27th July 2014
Ref:
yerto0376227 pc Chandler:
Information had been received
that a rave would be taken place."
Mr Simon Cordell believes if
sourced by way of an information request this could prove his innocents in the
allegations presented in this police statements and believes that the public
order unit at Scotland Yard does in fact hold the information to all dates in
question contained within this ASBO application, which would prove Mr Simon
Cordell was not the organizer,"
Pc Chandler states: “Police
drove down and found the rave."
Mr Simon Cordell would like to
see proof that this was a rave that he organised as he states for fact that he
never organised any event and was not in breach of any licensing act at the
occupied place of residence, nor did he make any profit as the licensing act
2003 clearly states for it to be an illegal rave as does section 63 state that
trespass must be present, neither to his knowledge has there been anyone
charged with holding a rave on this date in question."
Pc Chandler states: “of which
people at said rave had the keys for.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not the occupier of the land and he did not have any keys to it."
Pc Chandler states: “Police
spoke to people inside."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “At
no point did any police speak to Mr Simon Cordell as if he was not involved in
any form of the organization of what is being accused of being an illegal rave,
to which he stated he was not."
Pc Chandler states: There was a
big stack of speakers which was being powered by a van belonging to Simon
Cordell."
Mr Simon Cordell van is a ford
transit 2002 this cannot power any think above12v
and a sound system is 240v each
appliance, the size of Mr Simon Cordell generator is the size of a transit van
and would have been noted down by a police officer due to this Mr Simon Cordell
exhibit a picture his generator off his mobile trailer as an (Exhibit.)
Mr Simon Cordell did not hire
any sound equipment, or have any involvement in the private birthday party, he
will state that he just knew someone, who was treating the premises as their
home on the date in question and was living in the local squats in and around
Enfield on the dates in the ASBO application, Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he was at the premises as a guest."
Pc Chandler states: “The rave
accused of it being was a 20th birthday party for one of the occupiers.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this was not the person Mr Simon Cordell was there to visit."
The police talked to the persons
whose private birthday party it was. Mr Simon Cordell does not agree with being
accused of organizing his birthday party or any form of Anti-Social Behaviour
on this date in question, Mr Simon Cordell will state it was not his birthday
and he did not hire out any equipment, nor was he involved in the organization
of any rave.
Pc Chandler states: “The rave
was organized by Simon Cordell”
Mr Simon Cordell states: “that
this said rave was not set up by him and in fact was a private birthday party
as police offices state them self’s and they’re for could not be an illegal
rave.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has never been charged for the organization of this said rave and believes
that if this had been a correct statement that he would have been arrested.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this date in question was not his birthday or a party he organised and that he
was just merely invited due to knowing someone who was living at the premises.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he is not homeless and that he does in fact
live in his own council flat.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point did he in fact cause any actions that was likely to cause Alarm Harm
or Distress.”
Pc Chandler states: “that this
was connected to another rave on Alma Road.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; Alma Road
is a road just of Green Street, to which Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
lives two roads away Green Street then Burncroft Avenue a four minute drive
from the incident location dated 24th 7 2014, with mostly private housing
developed on it, there is a few long term companies and he does not know of any
rave location ever along Alma road that a Rave has ever taken place, or off
16
513,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
any place people have lived as
he keeps his private life to himself and only in exceptional circumstances
offer official governing body(s) of relevance towards them issues, that may be
of concern contained within their departments. Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he has checked face book and applied to Enfield local council to be told no
rave has happened on Alma Road and asks please can you supply evidence
supporting your claims stating connected to another rave along Alma Road.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not involved in any said rave and has never been to a party on Alma
Road.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he does in fact drive down Alma Road a fair amount due to his Nan Once living
just off there before her recent departure and her living two roads away.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
that he does also travel down Alma Road to get between his flat and his
mother’s address.
The only event on Alma Road
involving the metropolitan police, that Mr Simon
Cordell remembers was when he
was pulled over on Thursday 24th 07 2014, in his car index MA57 LDY.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point was he Anti-Social towards the police that pulled him, or he would
have been arrested for a section 5 or of a similar offence and he surely would
not have walked away, without even a ticket. He will state that he did in fact
shake the police officers’ hands as he left after being pulled over on the 24th
07 2014.”
Thursday 24th July 2014, At
around 16.25 hours: Alma Road:
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he was driving index MA57LDY as he stated down Alma Road, and this is a road
that he travels down regally.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he uses this road to travel between his mother’s house and his own flat, as it
is one of the only routes of access between both flat and house, and it is also
the fastest route to take. Mr Simon Cordell will state that this Nan also lived
just off Alma Road before her resent death.
On travelling from his mother’s
house on Thursday 24th July 2014 from seeing his Nan and mother due to his
Nan's illness he was going home to his flat and used Alma Road as a route to
travel as he always does do so.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that
he noticed an unmarked police car, as it was indicating to take a right turn
the opposite way from which he was travelling.
The reason he knew this to be an
unmarked police car was because he knew the police Officers who was driving
from seeing him on active duty within the local area.
As he drove past it changed its
indication to the way he had been heading, which was a left direction.
The unmarked police car
continued to follow him in turn putting on the blue lights in their vehicle, he
pulled over to the left had side of the road opposite the BMW repair centre
along Alma Road, on the left hand side of the pavement leading to the back
entrance of Durant's park.
A male office got out of the
passenger side and approached Mr Simon Cordell driver’s door, he un done his
car window to a jar asking why he had been pulled over to which the police
office replied he was not sure and said his college had instructed him to do
so. He then went back to his police car and then reproached his car window with
his college the driver of the undercover police car.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was asked again why he had been pulled over to the reply of the driver of
the police car pulling out his police truncheon forcing him to get out of his
car or if he declined his window will be smashed.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he got out of his car as he did not have any think to hide, neither had he
committed any traffic or criminal offence, nor was he wanted.
The reason given to Mr Simon
Cordell for being stopped was that such of an accusation stating that he had
been driving to close to the car in front of him. This car did not stop nor was
it pulled over by police. Mr Simon Cordell will then state that he was then
accused of having drugs; he was searched and so was his vehicle and nothing was
found.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was asked by police what he had been up to and that he told them that he was
setting up his catalogue that he and his friend had been building. That is why
Mr Simon Cordell’s website was well underway to being completed, and he was
trying to establish positive effects within his business in today's society,
within the business industry. This was a Thursday at 16:25.
Once the police had checked
every think that they had needed to, everybody parted and shock each other’s’
hands and went on then, Mr Simon Cordell will state that he made his way home.
Mr Simon Cordell will state: “that he cannot understand why the
police officers have said that he was driving in this manner as this would have
been classed as dangers driving, and he would have been punished accordingly.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
there is no way that someone can drive linch” from
the car in front, off each other’s car’s bumpers; this would have been clearly
in possible. If the male’s car in front had been stopped or went to the police
stating that, Mr Simon Cordell had being doing this action, would have be taken
against Mr Simon Cordell for YR then surely the police would have taken the
persons details in there 101 Book of reports.
Mill Marsh Lane 10th 08 2014
It is said that on the 10.08.14
Mr Simon Cordell was involved in the organization of and / or supplied
equipment for and / or attended an illegal rave at an empty ware house on Mill
Marsh Lane and that Mr Simon Cordell further actively sought to encourage a
large group of people to breach the peace. ”
17
514,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will; dispute
that he encouraged a large group of people to break the front line of the
police.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not organise any raves at mill marsh lane.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
Mill Marsh Lane does in fact contain warehouses that were being occupied under
section 144.” (Evidence
Google screen shoots
(Evidence of picture taken at
the location)
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not have Nitrous oxide and was in fact carrying Co2 Canisters in
accordance of the law.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not carry any sound equipment as he was travelling in his car.”
Statement of Aaron King,
Police officer PS 91YE,
Statement made 15/08/14,
Referring to 9th August 2014
Mill Marsh Lane
Officer Aaron King States: On
Saturday 9th August 2014 I was on duty in full uniform posted as Acting
Inspector. Shortly before 223ohrs I was informed via us
GPC that Intel had been received
via social media that there was going to be a large illegal rave somewhere in
the region of Millmarsh Lane, Enfield, EN3. I was advised that this was being
advertised on Face book by "Every Decibel Matters" who run unlicensed
events.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he understands that information received was by police via social media,
stating that there was going to be a large illegal rave, this was said to be
some were in the region of Mill Marsh Lane, Enfield En3. This intelligence was
past to police Intel Unit public order team, who had been in contact with the
director of Every Decibel matters, prior to the information being pasted on to
Aaron King, police had attended a location and had spoken to members who were
intending to hold a private birthday party in open air in regards to the
private birthday party, after taking advise it was then moved into private air
and there was to be no breaches of the licensing act 2003 made.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not present at the first location, it then got stopped and moved to the
location in private air mill marsh lane, to which he had no control over. This
was to no arrangement of his.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he is not a director to Every Decibel Matters Company, neither was he working
for the company name every Decibel Matters on this date.
Officer Aaron King States: At
this time, I was in company with P5 Ames 123YE and we made our way to the
location. On route, I informed the control room of what was potentially
occurring and accepted the offer; from some units to attend the location to
assist me. On arrival in Millmarsh" Lane it was obvious that something was
about to happen. There were a number, of groups of teenagers who were milling
around clearly looking for something.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not one of the people in question; neither did he take part in any
Anti-social behaviour, organising or should he be accountable for other
people’s actions.
Officer Aaron King States: After
a brief search I noticed two metal gates next to the
Greggs Factory which suddenly
closed as we passed them. We stopped and I got out and approached the gates.
Although dark, street lighting was on and I could see a male was using a chain
and lock to secure the gates.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not the person locking the gate and he did not have a key as he was not
an occupier of the land and that he was just a visitor. Mr Simon Cordell was
sitting in his car Ma57ldy parked next to the gates as the police arrived at
the place of residence.
Officer Aaron King States: “He
could hear music coming from further inside.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state;
“There was no power source and the music was coming from a car related to the
same land in another warehouse owned by the same landlord as the land connected
to this incident being rented out.”
Officer Aaron King States: Stood
by the gate I immediately noticed a 1C3 male who I know to be Simon Cordell. I
recognised Mr. Cordell as I have previously spoken to him recently at illegal
raves where I have seen him setting up sound equipment and subsequently taking
it away.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has nether been arrested and charged for illegal raves.”
Officer Aaron King States: when
confronted by Police...I explained to Mr. Cordell why we were there, but he
immediately denied it was a rave. Mr. Cordell stated first it was a private
conference but then said it was a birthday party.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was there to have a conference with a friend who lived at the premises at
the same time another occupier of the land agreed to have a friend’s private
birthday party at the location, to no involvement of his own and no profit was
intended to be made.
Officer Aaron King States: “When
asked about permission to be there he stated friends were squatting on the land
and they had said he could stay.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “This
is true.”
18
515,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Officer Aaron King States; “I
explained to Mr. Cordell that I needed to come onto the site to see what was
going on as for all I knew he could be damaging it or stealing from it,
eventually after promising I would not remove anyone squatting and only myself and
Pc Ames would come in, Mr. Cordell agreed that we could come in.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did get involved and speak to the police as they knew him by name and had
already chosen to involve him.
Officer Aaron King States: “Near
to the gate was a silver Ford Focus index MA57LDY which I knew was Mr.
Cordell's, -The boot was open, and I noticed it contained three large thin
industrial gas bottles. From experience I knew this was likely to contain
nitrous oxide which is currently used on the rave scene as a legal high. As we
passed the car Mr. Cordell quickly lowered the boot. I queried Mr. Cordell
about the gas and pointed out that it was on the news earlier how Nitrous oxide
was dangerous and Mr. Cordell stated that the Government would probably ban it
soon like everything else.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he does remember talking to the police in regards too Nitrous Oxide but at no
point did he cause any Anti-Social Behaviour or was he breaking the Law.”
Officer Aaron King States: “Mr Cordell
was polite and showed us around the site which appeared to be a large concreted
area that was completely open to the air.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this location was being occupied under section 144 and also has self-contained
warehouse on it, evidence supplied in case bundles this is not open to air
land.”
Officer Aaron King States:
“There was a large sound system to the rear which was amplified though I could
not see any power source.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this proves the fact that music could not have been made by anyone spoken to by
police.”
Officer Aaron King States:
“There were a number of people wearing yellow hi-vis jackets who Mr. Cordell
stated were first aiders and there was a pallet of water near to the sound
system as well as a couple of tents closer to the gates.”
Mr Simon Cordell will states;
“that a female who had just past her first aid test, who was an occupier of the
land who was present, wearing a yellow hi vest jacket as it was cold and a load
of yellow hi - vest jackets had been donated and he does remember everybody
present talking about her doing so.”
Officer Aaron King States: I
could see no obvious Toilet facilities nor shelter from what had been forecast
as a stormy night. Inside the venue mostly just stood around in small groups
were about 30 people, mostly teenagers.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
no police officers walked into the part of the building being occupied while he
was present and that he remembers running water and toilets.”
Officer Aaron King States: “Mr
Cordell stated he was an entrepreneur and was awaiting licenses from the
council so that he would soon be legitimate.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was and still does intended to create a festival if this ASBO case stops
darkening his name in turn stopping him from gaining a personal licence as well
as permission to hold events.”
Officer Aaron King States: “When
I explained all the "ingredients" for a rave were present Mr. Cordell
began to try and argue his point that it was not a rave and that it was a
private party. I spoke at length with Mr. Cordell explaining the legal
situation and how by definition this was a rave and that ultimately there were
too few people present at the time to stop police and so on this occasion I
could act and close the rave.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
at no point of time did he take part in any form of
Anti-Social behaviour, nor did
he organize the private birthday party or hire any equipment or was he
attending a rave on the 9th June 2014 in regards to the allegations presented
within the ASBO application, as he states he did attended a friends private
birthday dinner party as a guest and no money was to be charge, as he did not
pay himself.”
Officer Aaron King States;
“Whilst on an industrial estate it was my opinion that such was the proximity
to local housing and my knowledge of the volume music is played and the
duration it is played for, often throughout the weekend that a rave would
constitute serious disruption.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
Google Earth shows the closest house to Mill Marsh Lane the premises in
question, to be one mile from the closest house.” (Exhibit)
Officer Aaron King States: “Mr.
Cordell was clearly not happy but did not want his equipment seized so agreed
to start packing up the sound equipment.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
as noted by officers and officer Aaron King Mr Cordell was present in a ford
focus and with three empty welding cylinders, so he could not have been
carrying any sound equipment as this would not have fitted into his vehicle. ”
Officer Aaron King States:
“Whilst talking with Mr. Cordell there were small groups of teenagers arriving
at the site and entering via a break in the fence, (the gates still being shut
at this time). I got Ps Ames to get units to us to prevent further people
trespassing on the land and to discourage people from attending the location
and exited the venue to a wait.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he should not be accountable for other people(s) actions that he took no part
in a negative manner, he was not a trespasser and was a visitor invited to
visit his friends who was living under section 144 lasbo.
For people to further be trespassing someone would have had to be arrested for
trespass as it was a commercial dwelling, who is this person.”
19
516,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Officer Aaron King States: “Mr.
Simon Cordell's exited with the sound equipment. Whilst waiting I radioed for the
on-call Superintendent so I could get the various Rave legislation approved so
that I could seize the sound equipment and enforce a rave cordon on Millmarsh
Lane to prevent people entering.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
Inspector Aaron has been told this third party and he knows that he has stated
the true facts in his statements of truth, and that Mr Simon Cordell was
present in a car and would not have been able to carry such large sound
equipment.
Officer Aaron King States:
“Whilst stood by the venue a number of people began leaving, most were laughing
but the odd one was blaming police for stopping the event. Suddenly there were
a huge number of mainly teenagers walking towards me from the direction of
Mollison Avenue. Apparently, this group had all arrived together from the
nearby railway station. Straight away some of this group headed straight
towards us saying they were going to storm the place. I had been joined by a
few team officers and we advised them that the rave had been closed down and
they would not be allowed to enter. There was some verbal confrontation but the
large group which was up to 100 strong moved off round the comer with some
overheard saying they would break in round the comer.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point did he take part in anyone else’s Anti-Social Behaviour and he did
not cause Anti-social Behaviour.
Officer Aaron King States: “As
they began to move off Mr. Cordell stood by the break in the fence and shouted
words to the effect of, "Come on, there is more of you". And he
quickly went up to Mr Cordell and told him to stop or he would arrest him to
prevent a breach of the peace. At this Mr Cordell went back and stayed away.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point of time would he say this, and he would never in danger another
person’s life in such a manner. Mr Simon Cordell will state that he would never
encourage activities that would lead to incitement of a riot, and as there was
more than 12 people present he know if this statement was true he would have
been arrested under offences contrary to section’s 5, 4A, 4, of the Criminal
Justice Act 1967 and or section 91.”
Officer Aaron King States: “The
large group did indeed try to get into adjoining premises that they thought led
to the rave venue but were stopped by officers and moved off back into
Millmarsh lane, although one officer Pc Wale was injured during a struggle. T
requested the attendance of as many units as possible including dogs and TSG as
the group were becoming more hostile towards officers despite there being no
music now and being informed of the closure. A short while later officers I had
positioned at the junction radioed that there was now an even bigger crowd
advancing on them. I arrived at the junction to see a very large number of
people, now up to 200 walking with purpose towards officers stood in the road.
Suddenly objects began to get thrown from the crowd towards police. I saw
traffic cones; cone lights, bottles and stones begin to land near Officers so
that they had to quickly move out of the way. I again heard phrases similar to
"storm them". Fearing imminent violence, I drew and extended my baton
as did my colleagues. I could hear shouts of "get back" but the crowd
continued to throw items, some of which were landing on cars that had been
temporarily stopped due to the group. We had been joined by two dog units who
took the lead in dispersing the crowd. At this point there were two arrests to
my left and along with the dogs this seemed to make the crowd withdraw. I told
my officers and the dogs not to follow the crowd as they were now by the train
station with nowhere to go as the barriers were down. There was a tense
standoff for some time, but the group eventually got onto trains and left the
area.”
Officer Aaron King states: “I
could hear shouts”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not the person shouting or causing any Anti-Social Behaviour neither did
he take part in the organisation of the private birthday party.”
Officer Aaron King States: “I
was informed by another unit that Mr Cordell had also left with his equipment.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this proves police were told third party, but already new Mr Simon Cordell was
in his car that was full because he was carrying cylinder bottles in accordance
to the law of the carriage of dangers goods cdg.
Officer Aaron King States: “I
tasked arriving TSG with local reassurance patrols but shortly after they
started, I was advised that most of the group were wandering around near to
Ponders End. I tasked TSG with following this group and was informed by their
Inspector that their unmarked unit had overheard talk that the' rave was now
going to be South West of the original location.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not involved in the organisation of any illegal rave or when he was
arrested was he given the right to an interview or to speak to a solicitor
neither was he charged for any offence or given a public warning.” I was aware
that TSG subsequently saw Simon Cordell by the Crown lane Industrial Estate
where he has held a rave before and had stopped the group from forcibly
breaking into this location.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
this is two occupied building of 6 within a 2 mile radius, that were all being
occupied in Enfield, within the same Local Borough that he has lived in a
resided in since his Birth, and he does not think that it is right for police
to say who he can and can’t have as friends or as associates.
Statement of Aaron King Dated
07/09/2014
Further to his statement dated
15/08/2014 Regarding Saturday 9th August 2014
Aaron King state’s: “Further to
his statement Dated 15/08/2014 regarding an illegal rave on Saturday 9th August
2014
20
517,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
The version of events declared in the statement
of Aaron King Dated 07/09/2014 and 15/08/ 14 are both in correct and misleading
to each other as pointed out.
Aaron King states: I could see a male
was using a chain to lock and secure the gates.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point was he this person, as there was no reason for me to have a key as
he was just a visitor.”
Aaron King state’s: “I
could see a male was using a chain and lock to secure the gates he then states,
while stood at the gates I immediately noticed an ic3 male who I no to be Simon
Cordell,
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
to which is true as he was sitting in the car index MA57LDY parked close to the
gates, when approached from the street, as noted by Aaron king Near to the gate
was a silver Ford Focus index MA57LDY, which he knew was Mr Cordell's. This
statement was made 15/08/2014 seven days after the occurrence of accused events
referred to on the 9th August 2014 then another statement was made to
amendments of this statement dated 07/09/2014 stating they know it was Mr Simon
Cordell locking the gate a mix ic3 male who they no to be himself. which is a
contradiction of events that have been noted on two different dates by the same
police officer leading to events within his and their witness statements, that
Mr
Simon Cordell is being accused in that
should not justified towards an Asbo application and should not have no effect
on his way of life, by way off effecting his civil liberty’s human rights or
acting as a bad marker in his name of reference, to which he feels punished for
and now in turn has effected on his life.
Aaron King state’s: “I
have been asked to clarify the role that Mr Simon Cordell had during the
incident.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he does not see how any person can preserve his role off being an organizer, as
he was only being helpful and polite and curites, in
his friend’s place of residence towards the police, while being a invited in as
a visitor. It was his friend’s birthday and he had been invited for dinner. At
no point did he take part in any form of Anti-Social behaviour, nor did he
organize or hire any equipment and he was not present to attend a rave on the 9th
June 2014.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did attend a friend’s birthday dinner party as a guest.”
Aaron King states: “as
a male quickly locked the gates upon apparently seeing my marked police
vehicle. This male was Mr. Cordell
“Mr Simon Cordell will state that he
could not have locked the gates as he was only a guest and at no point in time
had the keys to the lock on the gates.
Aaron King states: “It
was initially Mr. Cordell who said he could not entre and it was him who was
very much in charge of deciding if police were going to be let in.”
21
518,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was asked by police if he would let them in to which he explained he was not
the occupier and never had any keys. At this point in time one of the occupiers
went of to get the keys and let the police in.”
Officer Aaron King States: “Finally
after close to three hours later, the group dispersed, and I was informed that
social media was indicating the rave would now be Epping Forest.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did not go to Epping Forest on this date.
Officer Aaron King States: “The
whole incident took a vast number of resources to police and there were two
arrests for drugs possession and two for drunk and disorderly behaviour. One
officer was injured with a deep cut to his elbow requiring first aid by the
Police FME and emergency calls whilst answered were subject to delay.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
he is sorry to hear that any police officers had been hurt and understands the
offenders faced criminal prosecution for the offences they had caused.
Statement of Jason Ames Police office
206011 Statement made 15/08/2014 Referring to date 09 August 2014 Millmarsh
Lane
Officer Jason Ames States: “on
the 9th August 2014 he was driving a marked police car in the company of A/IN SP
King at 2221 hours.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “they
were informed of CAD 9717 which relates to intelligence received that states
there was likely to be an illegal open-air rave.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he attending the occupied premises to which he had been to before to visit a
friends, who were living and residing on the premises at Millmarsh lane in an
occupied building and out back tents who are an occupation, which is a
collective of people. Mr Simon Cordell understands that they had been treating
the premises as their home since around 16/05/2014, on the 15/02/2015.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he remembers this day clearly as he had been invited to a friend’s private
birthday party who live on the private self-contained land in question along
Millmarsh Lane.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he requests to see all information in regard to CAD9717 as he believes this
contains evidence of his innocents in the events in question.
Officer Jason Ames States: “The
intelligence received started that there was likely to be an open-Air rave.
22
519,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “Mill
Mars Lane is a 20,000 Square feet self-contained land with 4 large commercial
premises contained within. I have provided evidence supporting this and this
location is in fact in (Private Air) as well as in (Open Air classed as a back
garden) and was being lived in as accepted by police Under section 144 LASPO or
Trespass would have taken place.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point did he cause Anti-Social Behaviour on this date and he did not
organize or take part in an illegal open air rave, that was likely to take
place, as stated by way of being accused in Officer Jason Aim’s statements. The
occupiers who was living on the land were treating the premises as their home
and was in private Air. The occupiers were living in accordance to the law,
living in tents and the occupied attached building on the land.
The term open air rave was used by
Jason aims, on stead of in private air while as defined by section 63 CDA.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was not arrested for any criminal offence or neither did any person take
civil action against himself as he did not cause any Anti-Social Behaviour.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “the
key elements are present for a rave, be accused occupiers.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “It
could not be possible to create an illegal rave especially with no power supply
being present.
Officer Jason Ames States: “The
intelligence received stated that there was likely to be an illegal open-air
rave.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
at no point of time did he organize or take part in an illegal open-air rave
that was likely to take place, as stated by way of being accused in.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
attended Millmarsh Lane at 2232 hours.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
could see small pockets of young people walking east along Millmarsh Lane. “Mr
Simon Cordell will state that at no point of time was he one of the people in
question or did he organize the accused rave of being. He was invited to a
birthday party.”
Aaron King Dated 15/08/2014 states; “it
was a birthday party, which has stated by Mr Simon Cordell "He was invited
to this private birthday party"
On the 9th august 2014 Mr Simon Cordell
will state; “that he did not encouraged or neither did he
invite other people or take part in actions that may have led to an open-air
rave in the region of Millmarsh Lane.”
23
520,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Officer Jason Ames States: “We
worked out these youths were making their way to an open-air rave. Mr Simon Cordell
will state that this was a private birthday party to which he was invited and
never believed to be an illegal rave until police notified him that the key
elements were believed to be in place and stopped the private birthday party to
which he had been invited to, this was on private land contained by security
gates to the premises.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “This
area appeared to be the ground on which a building used to stand. “There was an
occupied building at the rear of the land. The land in question is a forecourt
to the occupied building.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “It
was fenced off and the front gates were chained shut with a motorcycle chain
and padlock.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
could hear music coming from the venue.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
no sound could be played as there was no power, “The land was fenced off and
the front, gates were chained shut with a motorcycle chain and padlock as in
police statement made by Aaron King dated 15/08/2014 referring to the 9th
August 2014 " I explained to Mr Cordell that he needed to come on the site
to see what was going on for all he knew he could be damaging it or steeling
from it. Mr Simon Cordell state at this time the occupiers of the land was
present and had been from the start of police arrival, Mr Simon Cordell was a
guest as explained on the 9th August 2014. Aaron King states:
Eventually after promising he would not remove anyone squatting/ occupying the
land that were treating it as their home under a section 144 Laspo. Aaron King and PC Ames could come in if they also
treated it as the occupiers of the land do, as their private home of residence,
as noted in statements provided there was no power or generator present to the
self-contained private Land and premises. Any amplified music on the 9th
June was coming from the next-door premises in fact from a car.
Officer Jason Ames States: “I
could see small numbers inside and a couple of tents. Officer Jason Ames
States: We exited our vehicle and approached the gates in order to speak with
the organizer.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “Manning
the gate was a mixed-race man I know to be Simon Cordell.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he remembers this day very clearly and what happened. It was a Saturday and he
had been looking forward to this day as he was visiting a friend of his, at
were his friend was living, Mr Cordell latter found out it was one of his
friend birthdays and they were having a get together of friends and family . As
he attend the premises in question on the 9th august it was about
8pm. he intended to stay and had some birthday cake and dinner, until the point
of police arrival when in fact he was sitting in a car Index MA57LDY 200 yards
from the gates within the self-contained land, he remembers this because, he had
arrived because he had been invited and on
24
521,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
arrival the gates were unlocked by the occupiers,
so that his vehicle and himself could gain access as a visitor, by the
occupiers of the land.
Mr Simon Cordell will state; that
as stated he had been invited to attend a friend’s birthday party not a illegal rave by a man who lived
at Millmarsh Lane.
Officer Jason Ames States: “I
was aware of a lot of intelligence on our indices that suggests Cordell is
known to be the organizer of most of the raves that have been happening in the
Enfield area.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he has never been arrested and charged and feels that this is slander of
definition of character, and for such here say to be admissible as court
evidence or reference of character is criminal and unjustified, no weight
should be taken. As for fact he is a valid member of his community.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “We
asked if we could come into the venue and speak to him. Cordell refused
initially starting that there was no rave.”
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he was just a visitor and had no right without consent of the occupiers to
unlock the gate, at no point did he have the key to the gate,
To which the occupiers use to unlock
the gates to allow access for the police to come in.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
stated that it was a private "conference."
Mr Simon Cordell will state; “that
he did say he had also gone to have a conference with his friends in regard to
get the empty c02 gas cylinders he was carrying to be re filled as well as to
attend to see his friends.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
stated that there have been a few people camping on the land as they had been
no were to go. The people were in fact the occupiers of the land and also
occupying the building on the premises, who were at the gate on police
arrival.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “He
stated that they are having a few friends over for a private party.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “After
persuasion Cordell allowed A/Insp King to gain entry to survey the area.”
Officer Jason Ames States: “Inside
he could see around 20-30 people milling around, in small tents, a large set of
speakers and sound system and a supply of bottled water.
AT no point did I take part or organise
a birthday party or an illegal rave or bring any equipment leading to a large
sound system on said premises as it would not fit in my car Index MA57LDY a
ford focus as mentioned in police statement for me to be driving on the 9th
June 2014.
25
522,
STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc
Officer Jason Ames States: Cordell was
informed that the rave was going to be closed down and despite a slight
resistance to this by him trying to quote legislation to us he agreed to pack
up and leave. Yes, when asked to leave by police.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that he did
get into index Ma57Ldy and go home to his fiat 109 Burncroft avenue Enfield to
be he lives and reside every night.
Officer Jason Ames States: Cordell was
informed that the rave was going to be closed down and despite a slight
resistance to this by him trying to quote legislation to us he agreed to pack
up and leave. "At no point would he go against police directions” Officer
Jason Ames States: He was reluctant but co-operated at this stage.
Mr Simon Cordell will state that at no
point would he go against police directions”
26
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 29-02-2016 16-18
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 523,524,525,526,527,528
529,530,531,532,533,534
535,536,537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544,545,546
547
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 29-02-2016
16-18
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 523,524,525,526,527,528
529,530,531,532,533,534
535,536,537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544,545,546
547
--
523,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 04:17:55 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: witness
statement
Attachments: STATEMENT OF WITNESS
Done New
29.02.2016.doc
This is as far as I am going to
go with all the statements, they are all done and accounted for. is it ok to go
to josie once I have sorted the rest of the files need for her. I am going to
create a pdf's files of my new bundle.
524,
Same as 29/02/2016 02:19:05 PM
email!
525,526,527,528,529,530,531,532,533,534,535,536,537,538,539,540,541,542,543,544,545,546,547,
41.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - RE What osey this one 29-02-2016 12-51
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 548
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - RE What osey this one 29-02-2016 12-51
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 548
--
548,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 12:50:59 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: What
you need to send Josey this one
Use this one Dear Josey
What you are saying in your
emails is that the judge says in his letter that I have got to have an
assessment, but this is not the case as part 3 of his letter states if the
Appellant wishes to rely on any medical evidence as to his mental health, then
any report dealing with such matters must be before the court on the 4th April
2016"
Which clearly states if I wish
to rely on any mental health evidence then a report has to be in by the
04/04/2016, But this does not say I must rely on this, and I do not wish to
rely on this.
Can you please take my case back
to court so that my conditions can be defined, and also have a meeting once you
get the letters you are waiting on so we can deal with the appeal.
Can you also please send me the
notes from court from the public defender that was there for me please as I
have not had these yet.
Also, the issue about the public
order unit if they are not willing to give the information then they need to be
summoned to court for the appeal.
Also, what is going to happen as
to the missing CAD and the errors in the CAD Simon
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1.
2
Asbo
RE Medical Information 29-02-2016 17-48
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 549,550
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1. 2
Asbo RE Medical Information
29-02-2016 17-48
29/02/2016
/ Page Numbers: 549,550
--
549,
On 29 February 2016 at 15:00
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Dear Josey
What you are saying in your
emails is that the judge says in his letter that I have got to have an
assessment, but this is not the case as part 3 of his letter states if the
Appellant wishes to rely on any medical evidence as to his mental health, then
any report dealing with such matters must be before the court on the 4th April
2016"
Which clearly states; “if I wish
to rely on any mental health evidence then a report has to be submitted by the
04/04/2016,” but this does not say I must rely on this, and I do not wish to
rely on this.
Can you please take my case back
to court so that my conditions can be defined, and also have a meeting once you
get the letters you are waiting on from Superintendent Adrian Coombs so we can
deal with the appeal.
Can you also please send me the
notes from court from the public defender that was there for me please as I
have not had these as of yet.
Also, the issue about the public
order unit if they are not willing to give the information then they need to be
summoned to court for the appeal.
Also, what is going to happen as
to the missing CAD and the errors in the CAD
The case is that I organised
illegal raves on page two of the applicants first bundle it clearly states I
quote "The Defendant is involved in the
From: Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 29/02/2016 05:47:50 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
Medical Information
Dear Simon
Thank you for your email.
Simon please sign and return the
authority form. If the Mental Health Team confirms there are no issues, we can
progress matters.
I have spoken to the Public
Defender and he would like a conference with you before the mention hearing on
4th April 2016 subject to the above being resolved. If you do not have the
Mental Health Team's assessment or do not wish me to have sight of the
assessment, then I can apply for funding so that you can be assessed.
Once the psychiatrist reports
back that there are no issues then I have covered myself professionally, should
there be any issues raised re your Mental Health at a later date. The Mental
Health question has been raised and now needs to be formally addressed and
dealt with. I know you are not happy about this and I do not mean to cause you
distress by raising this. The quickest way would be by disclosing the recent
Mental Health assessments but if I have to apply for funding to have you
assessed then I will do this, assuming you in fact dispute the recent Mental
Health findings. The decision is yours, but I need to resolve this question as
soon as possible.
I will notify you as soon as
Superintendent Coombes statement comes in which will hopefully arrive this
week.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
550,
organisation and conduct of
illegal raves. These primarily take place on disused or industrial land in
London and cause alarm and distress to the local residents. These raves are licensing
activity, cause significant noise pollution and directly lead to destruction of
property and breaches of peace."
In defence to my case the 2nd
line down clearly states The Defendant is involved in the organisation and
conduct of illegal raves, I have sent you the licensing act 2003 apex 4 which
states, house party’s and places of residents do not need a licence, which all
the incidents in the applicants bundle are places of residence in contained
fencing in private air. In the licensing act it states this includes gardens
and private car parks. I have linked index page 4 off the licensing act 2003
within this document, which clearly states unless profit is being made, to
which I am not being accused off, then there is no breach of the law, and they’re
for not illegal.
For members of the public to
have a moving in-house party is not a breach of law and there for not illegal.
The word rave clearly states the
key element such as in open air must be present and when in private air
trespass must be present.
So what law have I broken to
make the case law abiding under reasonable doubt if I am not being accused of
making profit it is not illegal to organize a private house party for any
British citizen, as long as you have respect for the residence living in around
the local area?
In regard to the statement off,
“These primarily take place on disused or industrial land in London and cause
alarm and distress to the local residents.” All locations are a place of fixed
a bow and residence.
In reference to “These raves are
licensing activity, cause significant noise pollution and directly lead to
destruction of property and breaches of peace." No home is licensable,
unless a breach of the 2003 licensing act has been made, to which contained
within the applicants bundle their ins none.
I have a bundle of the laws that
are relevant to my case that should be in my defence bundle, please will you
help me go over them.
I would like to start trading my
company as I have explained to you for months and keep asking you to take the
case back to court to get my bail conditions defined, to which you have not to
date even low Andy Lock states that I am right in my points of law and how it
leaves me in a state of utter confusion to what I am aloud to do or not as the
applicants case is based on illegal raves there for banning me from what is
lawfully legal.
I cannot think of any jobs the
conditions will not have an effect of that my professions are in, I cannot be a
delivery driver, as most company deliver to industrial estates,
I cannot deliver parcels or
goods to any person living under a section 144, this is not correct in law.
I am very concerned as the
applicant’s case is for an ASBO in its civil manner, and the case is based on
illegal activities, to which I have never had the right to defended my
innocents in.
An ASBO on convection is when a
person has committed criminal activities and has been found guilty and there is
such a need to apply for a court to sit in its civil capacity to obtain such an
order against any person, straight or therefore after.
I have a standalone ASBO which
should be on the 3rd strike of a smaller criminal conviction, to which I have
never been arrested for illegal raves is and in being granted is a breach of my
human rights, a standalone ASBO put against myself with no criminal conviction
is wrong in practice of law.
Thanks
Simon
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Josephine War medical check 01-03-2016 11-23
01/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 551,552
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1. 2
Asbo Re Josephine War medical
check 01-03-2016 11-23
01/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 551,552
--
551,
From: Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 01/03/2016 11:22:42 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Josephine
Ward wants me to have a medical check
Simon
Please attend my office Friday
4th March 2016 at 11am with any documentation from the Mental Health Team so
that I can photocopy it.
I will have a meeting with you
to discuss the areas identified by HHJ Pawlak in his letter.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
On 29 February 2016 at 22:48
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Josephine I am not will to sign
any form giving you consent to my personnel records as no judge has ordered for
you to do so, I would not be a free man if there was a chance of me being a
danger to myself or the general public. As I am sure you would understand the
Mental Health Team are trained in dealing with people in such cases under
section 135, 136, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Mental Health Act 1983 & 2007 as amended
2016. I do in fact take offence in you questioning my ability to make decisions
for myself and them decisions that I make I am making being of clear judgement
towards the applicants case which contains false facts such as me being white
and contained in side a warehouse surrounded by police, marked in the cads.
You know this not to be true for
as long as two years.
For two years I have asked you
and Michelle Carroll and co solicitors to write to the witness also the
applicant and point out the true facts of law but most importantly make sure I
have a fair trial.
Any person can get a calculator
and see that the time stamps are in error as I have been emailing you and
stating.
All I ask from you, is to have
my best interest at heart and you refuse to see me for months now try to force
me to see doctors when you have no legal obligation too.
I have a hard copy bundle of all
the emails that have been sent to you from the start of this case and a list of
the questions and guidance that I have been given I have taken the time to work
out how many times and the dates, myself and my mother have had to asked you to
deal with the same question(s) I am still asking to date 29/02/2016. to answer
and the points of law that make my case illegal that I am supposed to have
broken in fact how I have this standalone Asbo with no previous convictions of
similar nature and it was not an Asbo on conviction granted.
I feel as if I have missed a whole
interview and being charged for some think that clearly states that it is
illegal in turn not having the right to defend myself.
I want the case taken back to
court this week if possible as I want to start a night job driving and it
involves me delivering to any possible address, can you please sort this.
Josephine, I have started to
seek legal guidance as you will not give it to me, this is not right.
I will not wait till April for a
pretrial hearing that will not go ahead as I cannot stand a fair trial, as I
have explained I will bring a calculator to you and show you what I sent you in
my drafted witness statement months ago asking you to defend me, in the fact
that it would be impossible to stand a fair trial with us both knowing this.
The other day in your office you
told me that I might lose my case knowing about the only evidence being that of
the time stamps and the same people who created the application corrupting the
time stamps then making statements about myself also that of me clearly pointing
out the law and that I never done any think illegal and even you cannot explain
to me how my case states it is illegal but I have not been arrested and in the
understanding off section 63 inclusive of the licensing act as well as the
warehouse becoming a place of residence when a section 144 is present.
As stated, I want to work can
you bring this back to court please.
If you want, I will bring you
the copy of the section 135 and that it has been signed now as void and you can
see that I
552,
am still here.
If any think needs covering, it
is what has not been done in this case already to date.
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1.
2
Asbo Fwd.
Re R v Simon hearsay Notice 02-03-2016 10-32
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 553,554,555,556
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1. 2
Asbo Fwd. Re R v Simon hearsay
Notice 02-03-2016 10-32
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 553,554,555,556
--
553,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 10:31:50 AM
To: re_wired@ymail.com;
Andrew.Morris@legalaid.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fwd.: Re:
R v Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Attachments: R v
Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice.pdf
Dear Simon / Andrew
Please see Respondent's hearsay
application forwarded.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.
Yours sincerely Josephine
Original Message
From:
Patrick Mc Elligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 02 March 2016 at 10:14
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
554,
555,
556,
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Fwd. Re R v Si hearsay Notice 02-03-2016 15-14
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 557
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1. 2
Asbo Re Fwd. Re R v Si hearsay
Notice 02-03-2016 15-14
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 557
--
557,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 03:13:35 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd.:
Re: R v Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Why did you type the message to
Simon / Andrew as well, Its Simon Cordell. lol
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
10:31, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Dear Simon / Andrew
Please see Respondent's hearsay
application forwarded.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.
Yours sincerely Josephine
Original Message
From: Patrick
Mc Elligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 02 March 2016 at 10:14
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Fwd. Re R v Si hearsay Notice 02-03-2016 15-40
04/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 558
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1. 2
Asbo Re Fwd. Re R v Si hearsay
Notice 02-03-2016 15-40
04/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 558
--
558,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 03:40:13 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd.:
Re: R v Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Simon
Sorry, this was a typo.
Josephine
On 02 March 2016 at 15:13
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Why did you type the message to
Simon / Andrew as well, Its Simon Cordell. lol
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
10:31, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroNandco.com> wrote:
Dear Simon / Andrew
Please see Respondent's hearsay
application forwarded.
Kindly acknowledge safe receipt.
Yours sincerely Josephine
Original Message
From: Patrick
McElligott <patrick@michaelcarrollandco.com>
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 02 March 2016 at 10:14
Subject: Re: R v
Simon Cordell Hearsay Notice
Hi,
Please find attached.
Regards.
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Josephine War medical check 02-03-2016 12-42
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 559,560
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1. 2
Asbo Re Josephine War medical
check 02-03-2016 12-42
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 559,560
--
559,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 12:41:55 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarToUandco.com>
Subject: Re:
Josephine Ward wants me to have a medical check
Thank you. My internet has been
down for a day or so, this is why my reply has taken so long.
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016, 11:22,
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroNandco.com> wrote:
Simon
Please attend my office Friday 4th
March 2016 at 11am with any documentation from the Mental Health Team so that I
can photocopy it.
I will have a meeting with you
to discuss the areas identified by HHJ Pawlak in his letter.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
On 29 February 2016 at 22:48
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Josephine I am not will to sign
any form giving you consent to my personnel records as no judge has ordered for
you to do so, I would not be a free man if there was a chance of me being a
danger to myself or the general public. As I am sure you would understand the
Mental Health Team are trained in dealing with people in such cases under
section 135, 136, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Mental Health Act 1983 & 2007 as amended
2016. I do in fact take offence in you questioning my ability to make decisions
for myself and them decisions that I make I am making being of clear judgement
towards the applicants case which contains false facts such as me being white
and contained in side a warehouse surrounded by police, marked in the cads.
You know this not to be true for
as long as two years.
For two years I have asked you
and Michelle Carroll and co solicitors to write to the witness also the
applicant and point out the true facts of law but most importantly make sure I
have a fair trial.
Any person can get a calculator
and see that the time stamps are in error as I have been emailing you and
stating.
All I ask from you, is to have
my best interest at heart and you refuse to see me for months now try to force
me to see doctors when you have no legal obligation too.
I have a hard copy bundle of all
the emails that have been sent to you from the start of this case and a list of
the questions and guidance that I have been given I have taken the time to work
out how many times and the dates, myself and my mother have had to asked you to
deal with the same question(s) I am still asking to date 29/02/2016. to answer
and the points of law that make my case illegal that I am supposed to have broken
in fact how I have this standalone Asbo with no previous convictions of similar
nature and it was not an Asbo on conviction granted.
I feel as if I have missed a
whole interview and being charged for some think that clearly states that it is
illegal in turn not having the right to defend myself.
I want the case taken back to
court this week if possible as I want to start a night job driving and it
involves me delivering to any possible address, can you please sort this.
Josephine, I have started to seek
legal guidance as you will not give it to me, this is not right.
I will not wait till April for a
pretrial hearing that will not go ahead as I cannot stand a fair trial, as I
have explained I will bring a calculator to you and show you what I sent you in
my drafted witness statement months ago asking you to defend me, in the fact
that it would be impossible to stand a fair trial with us both knowing this.
The other day in your office you
told me that I might lose my case knowing about the only evidence being that of
the time stamps and the same people who created the application corrupting the
time stamps then making statements about myself also that of me clearly
pointing out the law and that I never done any think illegal and even you
cannot explain to me how my case states it is illegal but I have not been
arrested and in the understanding off section 63 inclusive of the licensing act
as well as the warehouse becoming a place of residence when
560,
a section 144 is present.
AS stated, I want to work can
you bring this back to court please.
If you want, I will bring you
the copy of the section 135 and that it has been signed now as void and you can
see that I am still here.
If any think needs covering, it
is what has not been done in this case already to date.
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Simon Cordell’s for mention 02-03-2016 13-49
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 561,562
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell’s for
mention 02-03-2016 13-49
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 561,562
--
561,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 01:49:13 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>; Andrew.Morris@legalaid.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for mention on
4th April 2016 at Wood Green Crown Court
Thank you for taking your time
to do this, however I do have a question to ask, in the beginning of the court
case leading up to the trial, I believed that the justice system would prove my
innocents, but due to the District Judge finding me guilty under the applicants
case of organising illegal raves, that is said to have cause< harm or
distress to one or more over house hold, To which the barrister representing me
at the time, having that of the same opinion about the law as myself, “the
should not be illegal if there is no law or regulations to make it illegal or
none that have been breached.”
I was not an organiser as
trespass was not present neither have, I broke any conditions in the licensing
act 2003. After the trial, I went home and applied for the a| stage as I knew
that this was wrong, this also made me look into the case even further to
notice the time stamps and so many over errors, My question to you is, “no the
errors have been pointed out, how can we ask the police for more information
such as the missing cads and hope that they do not fabricate more evidence m it
so condemning that I would never stand a fair trial under article six.
(I am scared to ask for more
evidence that should prove my innocents, as I believe the police will make it
up, as we can prove happened all ready.)
Please can you explain this to me, before I agree for you to send any think?
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
10:11, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Simon
Can you please review the
initial response to the Respondent's application to adduce the hearsay evidence.
I have included some of the points that you take issue with. A full skeleton
legal argument will be served addressing all points you wish raised following
our meeting on Friday morning at 11am subject to you confirming that you can
attend. I need a response to the email which I am proposing on sending over to
the court so that our objection to the hearsay evidence is noted.
Please confirm in writing your
specific instructions with regards to the email below and confirm your
authorisation for me to send it, in addition to any amendments that you wish me
to consider including. I need a response to this before 3pm today, 2nd March
2016 please.
Regards
Josephine
Dear Sir or Madam
We refer to the hearsay
application dated 23rd February 2016, received in the DX at our office
1st March 2016.
We require all witnesses to
attend as listed on page 5 - 66 to be cross examined.
We confirm that we object to the
Respondent's application to adduce hearsay evidence contained in the CRIMINT
reports pages 79 - 92, 109 - 121 of the Respondent bundles.
· CRIMINT
- YERT00376728 - Aaron King is required to attend to be cross examined
· CRIMINT
-YERT00376227 - PC Chandler is required to attend to be cross examined
· CRIMINT
- YERT00376229 - PC Edgoose is required to attend to be cross examined.
· The
Appellant also specifically requests disclosure of police checks made on the
vehicle he was driving and the vehicle he was alleged to have been driving
bumper to bumper to. The Appellant also requests specific confirmation in a
statement from PC Edgoose the following: (a) why he was not arrested for any
offences in relation to his driving as PC Edgoose makes specific reference to
the driver he was following confirming that the Appellant had been driving in
the same manner from YR. (b) Summons for any road traffic violations (c) CADS /
communications concerning name checks
· CRIMINT
-YERT00376024 - PS Skinner is required to attend to be cross examined. The
Appellant seeks specific disclosure as to the vehicle checks carried out on
PE52 UHW. Whether Simon Cordell was ever stopped in this vehicle in the past?
Whether Simon Cordell was ever stopped in company with Elliot Laidler in the
past? Why was the music system not seized? Full names of all other persons
inside the premises to confirm the number of people present. Results of the
search of the premises, in addition to the keys found at the premises. Whether
any other persons were arrested, if so what for? Disclosure of CADS /
statements / complaints regarding anti-social behaviour? Whether any
allegations of criminal damage / commercial burglary were made? What enquiries
were made from the owners of the building as to the premises being occupied?
· CRIS
1914855/14 - Statements from officers who attended the premises, confirming
from whom the sound system was seized? Whether Simon Cordell was present at the
event? Why was the sound system restored?
· CRIMINT
- YERT00374531 - PC Shinnick is required to attend to be cross examined.
· CAD's
re 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014 Progress Way.
562,
The Appellant seeks full
disclosure of all CADs linked to this CAD. The Intelligence report suggests
that Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin set up and organised this rave. The
Appellant requests a full detailed statement report as to the basis of this
comment. The Appellant disputes ever being inside Progress Way premises on 7th
June 2014. The Appellant disputes supplying equipment at this location. The
Appellant disputes that he set up or organised this event. The Appellant seeks
disclosure of all intelligence, names etc of persons present at this event. The
Appellant specifically requests disclosure of all CADs from 6th June 2014
onwards in correct chronological, timed and dated order. The Appellant also
seeks confirmation as to whether the complaints made with regards to anti-
social behaviour were made in respect of Progress Way or Crown Road, the
premises of which was subject to numerous complaints in the past by local
residents etc. The Appellant also seeks specifically disclosure from the Public
Order Unit whether they were provided with the names of other persons present,
vehicles etc and whether the named persons have been known in the past for
organising similar events.
The Appellant takes issue with
the CADs in respect of this event and the manner in which they have been
presented. The Appellant is raising issues with the timings of the CAD's and he
instructs us to specifically challenge the accuracy and to question whether the
CAD system was defective or manipulated by the Respondent's employees.
The Appellant also notes from
the CAD's served that there are CAD's explicitly linked from 1st June 2014 and
2nd June 2014. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all CAD's as he contests that
they will reveal who the organiser of this event on 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014
was. The Appellant will state that he was not present on any occasion inside
the premises of Progress Way and he will state that the Respondent is in
possession of information which would reveal the real identity of the
organisers of this event. The Appellant believes that the redacted CAD's are
concealing the locations and complainants as the complainant's may be on duty
police officers making complaints to bolster an application for an ASBO against
the Appellant. The Appellant also believes that the CAD's may specifically be
in relation to Crown Road, Southbury Road a distance of approximately one mile
from Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that
the officers who made the entries, reports etc should be called to give
evidence as by not doing so it is disproportionate towards him as he is trying
to establish a legitimate entertainment company. The Appellant alleges that the
Respondent is deliberately exaggerating his involvement in the events cited in
the ASBO application. An ASBO against his name will significantly tarnish his
ability to conduct legitimate business. The Appellant also takes issue with the
misleading press releases in relation to the original imposition of the ASBO in
the Magistrates Court. The Appellant will state that the District Judge in delivering
her judgement could not find any form of illegality, or that the events alleged
were in fact "raves" as defined by the legislation. The Metropolitan
police published this in local media to tarnish his reputation.
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Simon Cordell’s for mention 02-03-2016 14-14
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 563,564
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell’s for
mention 02-03-2016 14-14
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 563,564
--
563,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 02:14:25 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for mention on 4th
April 2016 at Wood Green Crown Court
Simon
I think it is better if I speak
to you tomorrow face to face as may be misinterpreting the tactical approach
that I am taking. The email that I drafted and sent to you for approval has not
been sent to the Respondent just to the Public Defender.
I will see you on Friday at 11am
in my office.
Josephine
On 02 March 2016 at 13:49
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Thank you for taking your time to
do this, however I do have a question to ask, in the beginning of the court
case leading up to the trial, I believed the justice system would prove my
innocents, but due to the District Judge finding me guilty under the applicants
case of organising illegal raves, the is said to have caused alarm harm or
distress to one or more over house hold, To which the barrister representing me
at the time, having that of the same opinion about the law as myself, “that it
should not be illegal if there is no law or regulations to make it illegal or
none that have been breached.”
I was not an organiser as
trespass was not present neither have, I broke any conditions in the licensing
act 2003. After the trial, I went home and applied for the appeal stage as I
knew that this was wrong, this also made me look into the case even further to
notice the time stamps and so many over errors, My question to you is, “now
that the errors have been pointed out, how can we ask the police for more
information such as the missing cat and hope that they do not fabricate more
evidence making it so condemning that I would never stand a fair trial under
article six.
(I am scared to ask for more
evidence that should prove my innocents, as I believe the police will make it
up, as we can prove happened all ready.) Please can you explain this to me, before I agree for you to send any think?
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
10:11, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Simon
Can you please review the
initial response to the Respondent's application to adduce the hearsay
evidence. I have included some of the points that you take issue with. A full
skeleton legal argument will be served addressing all points you wish raised
following our meeting on Friday morning at 11am subject to you confirming that
you can attend. I need a response to the email which I am proposing on sending
over to the court so that our objection to the hearsay evidence is noted.
Please confirm in writing your
specific instructions with regards to the email below and confirm your
authorisation for me to send it, in addition to any amendments that you wish me
to consider including. I need a response to this before 3pm today, 2nd March
2016 please.
Regards
Josephine
Dear Sir or Madam
We refer to the hearsay
application dated 23rd February 2016, received in the DX at our office
1st March 2016.
We require all witnesses to
attend as listed on page 5 - 66 to be cross examined.
We confirm that we object to the
Respondent's application to adduce hearsay evidence contained in the CRIMINT
reports pages 79 - 92, 109 - 121 of the Respondent bundles. CRIMINT -
YERT00376728 - Aaron King is required to attend to be cross examined CRIMINT
-YERT00376227 - PC Chandler is required to attend to be cross examined CRIMINT
- YERT00376229 - PC Edgoose is required to attend to be cross examined. The
Appellant also specifically requests disclosure of police checks made on the
vehicle he was driving and the vehicle he was alleged to have been driving
bumper to bumper to. The
564,
Appellant also requests specific
confirmation in a statement from PC Edgoose the following: (a) why he was not
arrested for any offences in relation to his driving as PC Edgoose makes
specific reference to the driver he was following confirming that the Appellant
had been driving in the same manner from YR. (b) Summons for any road traffic
violations (c) CADS / communications concerning name checks CRIMINT
-YERT00376024 - PS Skinner is required to attend to be cross examined. The
Appellant seeks specific disclosure as to the vehicle checks carried out on
PE52 UHW. Whether Simon Cordell was ever stopped in this vehicle in the past?
Whether Simon Cordell was ever stopped in company with Elliot Laidler in the
past? Why was the music system not seized? Full names of all other persons
inside the premises to confirm the number of people present. Results of the
search of the premises, in addition to the keys found at the premises. Whether
any other persons were arrested, if so what for? Disclosure of CADS /
statements / complaints regarding anti-social behaviour? Whether any
allegations of criminal damage / commercial burglary were made? What enquiries
were made from the owners of the building as to the premises being occupied?
CRIS 1914855/14 - Statements
from officers who attended the premises, confirming from whom the sound system
was seized? Whether Simon Cordell was present at the event? Why was the sound
system restored?
CRIMINT - YERT00374531 - PC
Shinnick is required to attend to be cross examined. CAD's re 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014 Progress Way.
The Appellant seeks full
disclosure of all CADs linked to this CAD. The Intelligence report suggests
that Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin set up and organised this rave. The
Appellant requests a full detailed statement report as to the basis of this
comment. The Appellant disputes ever being inside Progress Way premises on 7th
June 2014. The Appellant disputes supplying equipment at this location. The
Appellant disputes that he set up or organised this event. The Appellant seeks
disclosure of all intelligence, names etc of persons present at this event. The
Appellant specifically requests disclosure of all CADs from 6th June 2014 onwards
in correct chronological, timed and dated order. The Appellant also seeks
confirmation as to whether the complaints made with regards to antisocial
behaviour were made in respect of Progress Way or Crown Road, the premises of
which was subject to numerous complaints in the past by local residents etc.
The Appellant also seeks specifically disclosure from the Public Order Unit
whether they were provided with the names of other persons present, vehicles
etc and whether the named persons have been known in the past for organising
similar events.
The Appellant takes issue with
the CADs in respect of this event and the manner in which they have been
presented. The Appellant is raising issues with the timings of the CAD's and he
instructs us to specifically challenge the accuracy and to question whether the
CAD system was defective or manipulated by the Respondent's employees.
The Appellant also notes from
the CAD's served that there are CAD's explicitly linked from 1st June 2014 and
2nd June 2014. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all CAD's as he contests that
they will reveal who the organiser of this event on 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014
was. The Appellant will state that he was not present on any occasion inside
the premises of Progress Way and he will state that the Respondent is in
possession of information which would reveal the real identity of the
organisers of this event. The Appellant believes that the redacted CAD's are
concealing the locations and complainants as the complainant's may be on duty police
officers making complaints to bolster an application for an ASBO against the
Appellant. The Appellant also believes that the CAD's may specifically be in
relation to Crown Road, Southbury Road a distance of approximately one mile
from Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that
the officers who made the entries, reports etc should be called to give
evidence as by not doing so it is disproportionate towards him as he is trying
to establish a legitimate entertainment company. The Appellant alleges that the
Respondent is deliberately exaggerating his involvement in the events cited in
the ASBO application.
An ASBO against his name will
significantly tarnish his ability to conduct legitimate business. The Appellant
also takes issue with the misleading press releases in relation to the original
imposition of the ASBO in the Magistrates Court. The Appellant will state that
the District Judge in delivering her judgement could not find any form of
illegality, or that the events alleged were in fact "raves" as defined
by the legislation. The Metropolitan police published this in local media to
tarnish his reputation.
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1.
2
Asbo Re
Simon Cordell’s for mention 02-03-2016 14-19
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 565,566,567
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell’s for
mention 02-03-2016 14-19
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 565,566,567
--
565,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 02:19:15 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for mention on 4th
April 2016 at Wood Green Crown Court
See you then.
Thanks
Simon. C
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
14:14, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroNandco.com> wrote:
Simon
I think it is better if I speak
to you tomorrow face to face as may be misinterpreting the tactical approach
that I am taking.
The email that I drafted and sent
to you for approval has not been sent to the Respondent just to the Public
Defender.
I will see you on Friday at 11am
in my office.
Josephine
On 02 March 2016 at 13:49
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Thank you for taking your time
to do this, however I do have a question to ask, in the beginning of the court
case leading up to the trial, I believed that the justice system would prove my
innocents, but due to the District Judge finding me guilty under the applicants
case of organising illegal raves, that is said to have caused alarm harm or
distress to one or more over house hold, To which the barrister representing me
at the time, having that of the same opinion about the law as myself, “that it
should not be illegal if there is no law or regulations to make it illegal or
none that have been breached.”
I was not an organiser as
trespass was not present neither have, I broke any conditions in the licensing
act 2003. After the trial, I went home and applied for the appeal stage as I
knew that this was wrong, this also made me look into the case even further to
notice the time stamps and so many over errors, My question to you is, “now
that the errors have been pointed out, how can we ask the police for more information
such as the missing cads and hope that they do not fabricate more evidence
making it so condemning that I would never stand a fair trial under article
six.
(I am scared to ask for more
evidence that should prove my innocents, as I believe the police will make it
up, as we can prove happened all ready.)
Please can you explain this to me, before I agree for you to send any think?
On Wednesday, 2 March 2016,
10:11, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Simon
Can you please review the
initial response to the Respondent's application to adduce the hearsay
evidence. I have included some of the points that you take issue with. A full
skeleton legal argument will be served addressing all points you wish raised
following our meeting on Friday morning at 11am subject to you confirming that
you can attend. I need a response to the email which I am proposing on sending
over to the court so that our objection to the hearsay evidence is noted.
Please confirm in writing your
specific instructions with regards to the email below and confirm your
authorisation for me to send it, in addition to any amendments that you wish me
to consider including. I need a response to this before 3pm today, 2nd March 2016
please.
Regards
Josephine
Dear Sir or Madam
We refer to the hearsay
application dated 23rd February 2016, received in the DX at our office
1st March 2016.
We require all witnesses to
attend as listed on page 5 - 66 to be cross examined.
We confirm that we object to the
Respondent's application to adduce hearsay evidence contained in the CRIMINT
reports pages 79 - 92, 109 - 121 of the
566,
Respondent bundles.
CRIMINT - YERT00376728 - Aaron
King is required to attend to be cross examined
CRIMINT -YERT00376227 - PC
Chandler is required to attend to be cross examined
CRIMINT - YERT00376229 - PC
Edgoose is required to attend to be cross examined. The Appellant also
specifically requests disclosure of police checks made on the vehicle he was
driving and the vehicle he was alleged to have been driving bumper to bumper
to. The Appellant also requests specific confirmation in a statement from PC
Edgoose the following: (a) why he was not arrested for any offences in relation
to his driving as PC Edgoose makes specific reference to the driver he was
following confirming that the Appellant had been driving in the same manner
from YR. (b) Summons for any road traffic violations (c) CADS / communications
concerning name checks
CRIMINT -YERT00376024 - PS
Skinner is required to attend to be cross examined. The Appellant seeks
specific disclosure as to the vehicle checks carried out on PE52 UHW. Whether
Simon Cordell was ever stopped in this vehicle in the past? Whether Simon
Cordell was ever stopped in company with Elliot Laidler in the past? Why was
the music system not seized? Full names of all other persons inside the
premises to confirm the number of people present.
Results of the search of the
premises, in addition to the keys found at the premises. Whether any other persons
were arrested, if so what for? Disclosure of CADS / statements / complaints
regarding anti-social behaviour? Whether any allegations of criminal damage /
commercial burglary were made? What enquiries were made from the owners of the
building as to the premises being occupied? CRIS 1914855/14 - Statements from
officers who attended the premises, confirming from whom the sound system was
seized? Whether Simon Cordell was present at the event? Why was the sound
system restored?
CRIMINT - YERT00374531 - PC
Shinnick is required to attend to be cross examined.
CAD's re 6th, 7th
and 8th June 2014 Progress Way.
The Appellant seeks full disclosure
of all CADs linked to this CAD. The Intelligence report suggests that Simon
Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin set up and organised this rave. The Appellant
requests a full detailed statement report as to the basis of this comment. The
Appellant disputes ever being inside Progress Way premises on 7th June 2014.
The Appellant disputes supplying equipment at this location. The Appellant
disputes that he set up or organised this event. The Appellant seeks disclosure
of all intelligence, names etc of persons present at this event. The Appellant
specifically requests disclosure of all CADs from 6th June 2014 onwards in
correct chronological, timed and dated order. The Appellant also seeks
confirmation as to whether the complaints made with regards to anti- social
behaviour were made in respect of Progress Way or Crown Road, the premises of
which was subject to numerous complaints in the past by local residents etc.
The Appellant also seeks specifically disclosure from the Public Order Unit
whether they were provided with the names of other persons present, vehicles
etc and whether the named persons have been known in the past for organising
similar events.
The Appellant takes issue with
the CADs in respect of this event and the manner in which they have been presented.
The Appellant is raising issues with the timings of the CAD's and he instructs
us to specifically challenge the accuracy and to question whether the CAD
system was defective or manipulated by the Respondent's employees.
The Appellant also notes from
the CAD's served that there are CAD's explicitly linked from 1st
June 2014 and 2nd June 2014. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all CAD's as he
contests that they will reveal who the organiser of this event on 6th, 7th and
8th June 2014 was. The Appellant will state that he was not present on any
occasion inside the premises of Progress Way and he will state that the
Respondent is in possession of information which would reveal the real identity
of the organisers of this event. The Appellant believes that the redacted CAD's
are concealing the locations and complainants as the complainant's may be on
duty police officers making complaints to bolster an application for an ASBO
against the Appellant. The Appellant also believes that the CAD's may specifically
be in relation to Crown Road, Southbury Road a distance of approximately one
mile from Progress Way.
567,
The Appellant will state that
the officers who made the entries, reports etc should be called to give
evidence as by not doing so it is disproportionate towards him as he is trying
to establish a legitimate entertainment company. The Appellant alleges that the
Respondent is deliberately exaggerating his involvement in the events cited in
the ASBO application. An ASBO against his name will significantly tarnish his
ability to conduct legitimate business. The Appellant also takes issue with the
misleading press releases in relation to the original imposition of the ASBO in
the Magistrates Court. The Appellant will state that the District Judge in
delivering her judgement could not find any form of illegality, or that the
events alleged were in fact "raves" as defined by the legislation.
The Metropolitan police published this in local media to tarnish his
reputation.
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1.
2
Asbo
Simon Cordell vs. for mention 02-03-2016 10-11
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 568,569
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell vs. for
mention 02-03-2016 10-11
02/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 568,569
--
568,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 02/03/2016 10:11:01 AM
To: re_wired@ymail.com;
Andrew.Morris@legalaid.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for mention on 4th
April 2016 at Wood Green Crown Court
Simon
Can you please review the initial
response to the Respondent's application to adduce the hearsay evidence. I have
included some of the points that you take issue with. A full skeleton legal
argument will be served addressing all points you wish raised following our
meeting on Friday morning at 11am subject to you confirming that you can
attend. I need a response to the email which I am proposing on sending over to
the court so that our objection to the hearsay evidence is noted.
Please confirm in writing your
specific instructions with regards to the email below and confirm your
authorisation for me to send it, in addition to any amendments that you wish me
to consider including. I need a response to this before 3pm today, 2nd March
2016 please.
Regards
Josephine
Dear Sir or Madam
We refer to the hearsay
application dated 23rd February 2016, received in the DX at our office
1st March 2016.
We require all witnesses to
attend as listed on page 5 - 66 to be cross examined.
We confirm that we object to the
Respondent's application to adduce hearsay evidence contained in the CRIMINT
reports pages 79 - 92, 109 - 121 of the Respondent bundles.
CRIMINT - YERT00376728 - Aaron
King is required to attend to be cross examined CRIMINT -YERT00376227 - PC
Chandler is required to attend to be cross examined
CRIMINT - YERT00376229 - PC
Edgoose is required to attend to be cross examined. The Appellant also
specifically requests disclosure of police checks made on the vehicle he was
driving and the vehicle he was alleged to have been driving bumper to bumper to.
The Appellant also requests specific confirmation in a statement from PC
Edgoose the following: (a) why he was not arrested for any offences in relation
to his driving as PC Edgoose makes specific reference to the driver he was
following confirming that the Appellant had been driving in the same manner
from YR. (b) Summons for any road traffic violations (c) CADS / communications
concerning name checks
CRIMINT -YERT00376024 - PS
Skinner is required to attend to be cross examined. The Appellant seeks specific
disclosure as to the vehicle checks carried out on PE52 UHW. Whether Simon
Cordell was ever stopped in this vehicle in the past? Whether Simon Cordell was
ever stopped in company with Elliot Laidler in the past? Why was the music
system not seized? Full names of all other persons inside the premises to
confirm the number of people present. Results of the search of the premises, in
addition to the keys found at the premises. Whether any other persons were
arrested, if so what for? Disclosure of CADS / statements / complaints
regarding anti-social behaviour? Whether any allegations of criminal damage /
commercial burglary were made? What enquiries were made from the owners of the
building as to the premises being occupied?
CRIS 1914855/14 - Statements
from officers who attended the premises, confirming from whom the sound system
was seized?
569,
Whether Simon Cordell was
present at the event? Why was the sound system restored?
CRIMINT - YERT00374531 - PC
Shinnick is required to attend to be cross examined.
CAD's re 6th, 7th
and 8th June 2014 Progress Way.
The Appellant seeks full
disclosure of all CADs linked to this CAD. The Intelligence report suggests
that Simon Cordell and Tyrone Benjamin set up and organised this rave. The
Appellant requests a full detailed statement report as to the basis of this
comment. The Appellant disputes ever being inside Progress Way premises on 7th
June 2014. The Appellant disputes supplying equipment at this location. The
Appellant disputes that he set up or organised this event. The Appellant seeks
disclosure of all intelligence, names etc of persons present at this event. The
Appellant specifically requests disclosure of all CADs from 6th June 2014
onwards in correct chronological, timed and dated order. The Appellant also seeks
confirmation as to whether the complaints made with regards to anti- social
behaviour were made in respect of Progress Way or Crown Road, the premises of
which was subject to numerous complaints in the past by local residents etc.
The Appellant also seeks specifically disclosure from the Public Order Unit
whether they were provided with the names of other persons present, vehicles
etc and whether the named persons have been known in the past for organising
similar events.
The Appellant takes issue with the
CADs in respect of this event and the manner in which they have been presented.
The Appellant is raising issues with the timings of the CAD's and he instructs
us to specifically challenge the accuracy and to question whether the CAD
system was defective or manipulated by the Respondent's employees.
The Appellant also notes from
the CAD's served that there are CAD's explicitly linked from 1st June 2014 and
2nd June 2014. The Appellant seeks disclosure of all CAD's as he contests that
they will reveal who the organiser of this event on 6th, 7th and 8th June 2014
was. The Appellant will state that he was not present on any occasion inside
the premises of Progress Way and he will state that the Respondent is in
possession of information which would reveal the real identity of the
organisers of this event. The Appellant believes that the redacted CAD's are
concealing the locations and complainants as the complainant's may be on duty
police officers making complaints to bolster an application for an ASBO against
the Appellant. The Appellant also believes that the CAD's may specifically be
in relation to Crown Road, Southbury Road a distance of approximately one mile
from Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that
the officers who made the entries, reports etc should be called to give
evidence as by not doing so it is disproportionate towards him as he is trying
to establish a legitimate entertainment company. The Appellant alleges that the
Respondent is deliberately exaggerating his involvement in the events cited in
the ASBO application. An ASBO against his name will significantly tarnish his
ability to conduct legitimate business. The Appellant also takes issue with the
misleading press releases in relation to the original imposition of the ASBO in
the Magistrates Court. The Appellant will state that the District Judge in
delivering her judgement could not find any form of illegality, or that the
events alleged were in fact "raves" as defined by the legislation.
The Metropolitan police published this in local media to tarnish his
reputation.
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1.
2
Asbo
-Re Meeting 0403t your office 03-03-2016 14-44
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 570
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1. 2
Asbo -Re Meeting 0403t your
office 03-03-2016 14-44
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 570
--
570,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:03/03/2016 02:44:00 PM
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Subject: Re:
Meeting 04/03/2016 at your office
Josie
Really sorry to do this at short
notice but the meeting that was set for 04/03/2016 at 11am can this be put off
to early next week as I got no way to get there I just called mum and she got
to go hospital tomorrow and I was hoping she would take me in her car.
Can you let me know please.
Simon
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
53. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Meeting 04032t your office 03-03-2016 15-09
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 571
53.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
53. 1. 2
Asbo Re Meeting 04032t your
office 03-03-2016 15-09
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 571
--
571,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com>
Sent time: 03/03/2016 03:08:42 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Meeting 04/03/2016 at your office
Simon
That is okay.
Next week Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday I am tied up with legal visit to various prisons, also on Thursday
morning.
I am available either Saturday
or Sunday of this weekend but again subject to call outs. I would prefer to get
your statement and specific instructions on HHJ Pawlaks' letter. I want to
schedule a meeting between you and the Public Defender preferably Tuesday afternoon.
I await hearing from you but
tomorrow morning's meeting has been cancelled at your request.
Josephine
On 03 March 2016 at 14:44
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Josie
Really sorry to do this at short
notice but the meeting that was set for 04/03/2016 at 11am can this be put off
to early next week as I got no way to get there I just called mum and she got
to go hospital tomorrow and I was hoping she would take me in her car.
Can you let me know please.
Simon
54.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Meeting 04032t your office 03-03-2016 15-36
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 572
54.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1. 2
Asbo Re Meeting 04032t your
office 03-03-2016 15-36
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 572
--
572,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 03/03/2016 03:35:34 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Subject: Re:
Meeting 04/03/2016 at your office
Josie
Thank you so much and sorry for
the short notice Sunday would be fine just let me know what time.
Simon
On Thursday, 3 March 2016,
15:08, Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarrollandco.com> wrote:
Simon That is okay.
Next week Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday I am tied up with legal visit to various prisons, also on Thursday
morning.
I am available either Saturday
or Sunday of this weekend but again subject to call outs. I would prefer to get
your statement and specific instructions on HHJ Pawlaks' letter. I want to
schedule a meeting between you and the Public Defender preferably Tuesday
afternoon.
I await hearing from you but
tomorrow morning's meeting has been cancelled at your request.
Josephine
On 03 March 2016 at 14:44
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Josie
Really sorry to do this at short
notice but the meeting that was set for 04/03/2016 at 11am can this be put off
to early next week as I got no way to get there I just called mum and she got
to go hospital tomorrow and I was hoping she would take me in her car.
Can you let me know please.
Simon
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 08-03-2016 11-48
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 573,574
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 08-03-2016
11-48
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 573,574
--
573,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
08/03/2016 11:48:12 AM
To: Josephine Ward <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Please
reply
I have a few questions I have to ask
off you that have built up and I know that I have been asking since the start
of my court case, that I do feel have not been addressed correctly? So please
can you answer each question individually and bulletined in the same format, so
I can understand my case, with your legal guidance.
· Why have I not ever been arrested, for
some think that clearly states that it is illegal?
· Is it wrong for my Asbo case to be
sitting in its civil capacity at court when it states in the applicant’s case I
am being accused of the organisation of illegal raves with no previous
convictions?
· Why did the distract Jude in the
magistrates court say to me which can be checked in the court transcripts which
has been provided to you that private air and open air are the same in turn
stating that it is illegal to listen to music without licensing to which myself
and barrister clearly state otherwise? And am I Wong in believing that the
district Jude was wrong in stating this to be a true fact of law?
· I ask you my solicitor Josephine ward
to check my pnc recorded provided within the
applicants bundle to see that off me not having any similar convictions under
the criminal justice act 1998 before the incident(s) dates that I am being
accused of relating to the organisation of illegal raves and to confirm this in
a company headed letter with the rest of the answers regarding your guidance in
the points of law to each specific questions contained within this letter
addressed to yourself who is my acting solicitor representing me in the ongoing
of the applicants case towards an ASBO application? I ask of you to do this
before our next needed meeting that has been agreed.
· I ask you for your guidance in the
question of “How can I get the blame for being the company named ever decibel
matters, when I have provided a company head letter with the company number
listed at company house, off the director that I have managed to acquire due to
the ongoing Asbo application? To which explains that I was not involved in the
date in question also that being of the court transcripts stating of office Pc
Elsmore that he has done no further investigation in to the allegations he has
accused myself off on the dates relating to mill marsh lane in reference to
every decibel matters?
· Please can you reply to this question,
How can I stand a fair trial in 2016 with my up and coming appeal date, with
the evidence the applicant rests it case on being of backward time stamps
relating to the incident numbers and previous correspondents.? To which I would
like you to confirm is more than likely to be in error form the list of
correspondents I have provided you with so far relating to the management of
national standards for incident recording NSIR and collection and recording of
police procedure (Command and Control) and Emergency services command and
control?
· I ask you my acting solicitor the
question of “Why has the applicant not removed cases that when the Asbo
application was in development was clearly added incorrectly due to the other
whelming fact that I Mr Simon Cordell clearly could have not committed such
offence as dated the 19th August 2013, which does in fact relate to
cad 10635 19th July 2014 page 294 to which a member of the public
made a emergency 999 call in relation to “all white
males and females entering a premises, to which the cad continues to explain
that members of the met police attended the location to contain the people who
were in fact occupiers of the Land within their home, also listing all name and
vehicles of the occupiers contained in the building to which I am none of the
listed?
· My next question I require you to help
give your legal guidance in is “What was the need for the applicant to updated
their incident reports also named as (information Reports) at such a later
date(s) after the information had already been created after the event date, in
turn creating such lengthy time periods between the initial event date
contained within the national police computer to the entry of the police
statements intelligence, Is that incorrect in police procedure?
· I ask you to take reference to all
blocked out att locations that are relating to other
house parties that was within a two minute distance from the location in
question On the 6th 7th 8th June 2014,
otherwise known and named as the old man building adjourned to Crown Road, to
which officer Pc Elsmore states at trial under oath that he was sure that there
was no other house party's on the same date that are contained within the
applicants bundle and that all incident that are contained relate to (progress
way on the 7th June 2014) The officer's statement can be checked by
the transcripts of the day of my trial that has been provided to yourself of
him clearly stating to the district Jude to obtain a guilty plea against my
self-inaccuracies when being questioned by the representing barrister in
relation to the statement that I just quoted. Please can you confirm that I am
correct in stating this?
· Can you also reply to the question of
why has the applicant not reduced the evidence that it submitted in the first
bundle that is of the issue relating to blocked out locations of cads otherwise
known as incident numbers that I have been accused of that members of the Met
police have in development of the application inputted and submitted
incorrectly that do in fact relate to wide spread geological location off the
incidents that occurred on the same date of the incident I am being wrongfully
accused of and that being of the developers of the application blocking out the
att locations and not blocking out the grid reference
numbers making it possible to prove my innocents gratefully, also errors like
land marks such as A&J cars which is a cab station across the road from
crown road not the private house party that I am being questioned for. I would
not have been able to prove the truth. My question to you in regard to this
issue can I stand a fair trial with the applicant not addressing the issues as
we highlighted and raise them?
· The definition of the legal term of
(Raves) defines outdoor (in open space) to which none of the applicant’s cases
are in fact outdoors (in open space). As defined by section 63 what does also
state that trespass must be present inside a premise of residence to which I
have never been accused off. I ask you is this correct in law.
574,
· I ask you to reply to the question of
is it true to believe in accordance of the united kingdom laws and regulations
that house party(s) that are in a places of residence are not illegal to hold,
when holding such private events in accordance of the licensing act 2003 to
which states in such incidents unless proof of profit has being made when
providing entertainment it shall not be regulated under the licensing act 2003
to which the applicant does not mention money?
· In reference to the ADR bill relating
to the carriage of dangerous goods, is it against the law to carry nitro's
oxide or any co2 gas when having the correct signage on the vehicle
transporting the cylinders?
· I ask is it against the law for an Asbo
application to made when there is a conflict of work under the crime and
disorder act 1998, in such incidents were the defendant has been working for
the Local council authority who the police have asked to be in support of the
application?
· Has Adrian coombs contacted you or do
you have a date in mind that you will have the notes that I have asked of you
to request of him?
· my questions is that of their being so
many inconsistencies contained within the police statements, by recognising so
may irregularities that I know I have not had the right to challenge I feel the
need to defend myself against such illegal statements made by police officers
the same as I would if made by a member of the public for allegations such as
(organising illegal raves) So this brought me to the basics of law civil and
criminal, I learnt and believe in the understanding of criminal cases were some
think is alleged to be illegal the correct Police procedure is that a crime
will be created under the crime and disorder act 1998 by way of a victim or
witness making a report then members of the police will be allocated to the
incident and start investigations depending on the matter of relevance to the
initial report to the resources available at the time. The investigations may
lead to an arrest what will lead the detainee to his or her statuary legal
rights. In the early 1980's the police did have the power to take cases to
court without the decision of without the decision of any other governing body,
but now in 2016 the burden relays solely on the cps who are in calibration with
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and is headed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) who is independent but subject to the superintendence of the
Attorney General that is accountable to members of Parliament that do work for
the prosecution services. If charged any person’s rights are gained under
section 24 and 25 which does relate to the rights of any person charged and the
minimum standards of criminal procedure. But my case seems to sit in its civil
capacity at court with none of the above regulations and my rights being
carried out in accordance of the United Kingdom laws; please can you explain this
to me?
Thank you, Josephine Simon.
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 08-03-2016 15-40
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 575,576
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 08-03-2016
15-40
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 575,576
--
575,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
08/03/2016 03:40:19 PM
To: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephmewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:
Please reply
I would like you to deal with the
issues I have raised before we go any further as I feel it is un fair for you
not to address them as they are to with my case and I have asked the same
questions to yourself time and time again will you do this for me p[lease in a
headed company l please reply.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 14:23,
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
Please confirm you can attend my
office this Thursday at 6pm so that I can deal with the relevant aspects of your
appeal and the questions raised by HHJ Pawlak.
Many thanks Josephine
On 8 Mar 2016 11:48, "Rewired
" <re wired@vmail.com>
wrote:
I have a few questions I have to ask
off you that have built up and I know that I have been asking since the start
of my court case, that I do feel have not been addressed correctly? So please
can you answer each question individually and bulletined in the same format, so
I can understand my case, with your legal guidance.
· Why have I not ever been arrested, for
some think that clearly states that it is illegal?
· Is it wrong for my Asbo case to be
sitting in its civil capacity at court when it states in the applicant’s case I
am being accused of the organisation of illegal raves with no previous
convictions?
· Why did the distract Jude in the
magistrates court say to me which can be checked in the court transcripts which
has been provided to you that private air and open air are the same in turn
stating that it is illegal to listen to music without licensing to which myself
and barrister clearly state otherwise? And am I Wong in believing that the
district Jude was wrong in stating this to be a true fact of law?
· I ask you my solicitor Josephine ward
to check my PNC recorded provided within the applicants bundle to see that off
me not having any similar convictions under the criminal justice act 1998
before the incident(s) dates that I am being accused of relating to the
organisation of illegal raves and to confirm this in a company headed letter
with the rest of the answers regarding your guidance in the points of law to
each specific questions contained within this letter addressed to yourself who
is my acting solicitor representing me in the ongoing of the applicants case
towards an ASBO application? I ask of you to do this before our next needed
meeting that has been agreed.
· I ask you for your guidance in the
question of “How can I get the blame for being the company named ever decibel
matters, when I have provided a company head letter with the company number
listed at company house, off the director that I have managed to acquire due to
the ongoing Asbo application? To which explains that I was not involved in the
date in question also that being of the court transcripts stating of office Pc
Elsmore that he has done no further investigation in to the allegations he has
accused myself off on the dates relating to mill marsh lane in reference to
every decibel matters?
· Please can you reply to this question,
How can I stand a fair trial in 2016 with my up and coming appeal date, with
the evidence the applicant rests it case on being of backward time stamps
relating to the incident numbers and previous correspondents.? To which I would
like you to confirm is more than likely to be in error form the list of
correspondents I have provided you with so far relating to the management of
national standards for incident recording NSIR and collection and recording of
police procedure (Command and Control) and Emergency services command and
control?
· I ask you my acting solicitor the
question of “Why has the applicant not removed cases that when the Asbo
application was in development was clearly added incorrectly due to the other
whelming fact that I Mr Simon Cordell clearly could have not committed such offence
as dated the 19th August 2013, which does in fact relate to cad
10635 19th July 2014 page 294 to which a member of the public made
an emergency 999 call in relation to “all white males and females entering a
premises, to which the cad continues to explain that members of the met police
attended the location to contain the people who were in fact occupiers of the
Land within their home, also listing all name and vehicles of the occupiers
contained in the building to which I am none of the listed?
· My next question I require you to help
give your legal guidance in is “What was the need for the applicant to updated
their incident reports also named as (information Reports) at such a later
date(s) after the information had already been created after the event date, in
turn creating such lengthy time periods between the initial event date
contained within the national police computer to the entry of the police
statements intelligence, Is that incorrect in police procedure?
· I ask you to take reference to all
blocked out ATT, locations that are relating to other house parties that was
within a two minute distance from the location in question On the 6th
7th 8th June 2014, otherwise known and named as the old
man building adjourned to Crown Road, to which officer Pc Elsmore states at
trial under oath that he was sure that there was no other house party's on the
same date that are contained within the applicants bundle and that all incident
that are contained relate
576,
to (progress way on the 7th
June 2014) The officer's statement can be checked by the transcripts of the day
of my trial that has been provided to yourself of him clearly stating to the
district Jude to obtain a guilty plea against my self-inaccuracies when being
questioned by the representing barrister in relation to the statement that I
just quoted. Please can you confirm that I am correct in stating this?
• Can you also reply to the question of
why has the applicant not reduced the evidence that it submitted in the first
bundle that is of the issue relating to blocked out locations of cads otherwise
known as incident numbers that I have been accused of that members of the Met police
have in development of the application inputted and submitted incorrectly that
do in fact relate to wide spread geological location off the incidents that
occurred on the same date of the incident I am being wrongfully accused of and
that being of the developers of the application blocking out the ATT, locations
and not blocking out the grid reference numbers making it possible to prove my
innocents gratefully, also errors like land marks such as A&J cars which is
a cab station across the road from crown road not the private house party that
I am being questioned for. I would not have been able to prove the truth. My
question to you in regard to this issue can I stand a fair trial with the
applicant not addressing the issues as we highlighted and raise them?
• The definition of the legal term of
(Raves) defines outdoor (in open space) to which none of the applicant’s cases
are in fact outdoors (in open space). As defined by section 63 what does also
state that trespass must be present inside a premise of residence to which I
have never been accused off. I ask you is this correct in law.
· I ask you to reply to the question of
is it true to believe in accordance of the united kingdom laws and regulations
that house party(s) that are in a places of residence are not illegal to hold,
when holding such private events in accordance of the licensing act 2003 to
which states in such incidents unless proof of profit has being made when
providing entertainment it shall not be regulated under the licensing act 2003
to which the applicant does not mention money?
· In reference to the ADR bill relating
to the carriage of dangerous goods, is it against the law to carry nitro's
oxide or any co2 gas when having the correct signage on the vehicle
transporting the cylinders?
· I ask is it against the law for an Asbo
application to made when there is a conflict of work under the crime and
disorder act 1998, in such incidents were the defendant has been working for
the Local council authority who the police have asked to be in support of the
application?
· Has Adrian coombs contacted you or do
you have a date in mind that you will have the notes that I have asked of you
to request of him?
· my questions is that of their being so
many inconsistencies contained within the police statements, by recognising so
may irregularities that I know I have not had the right to challenge I feel the
need to defend myself against such illegal statements made by police officers
the same as I would if made by a member of the public for allegations such as
(organising illegal raves) So this brought me to the basics of law civil and
criminal, I learnt and believe in the understanding of criminal cases were some
think is alleged to be illegal the correct Police procedure is that a crime
will be created under the crime and disorder act 1998 by way of a victim or
witness making a report then members of the police will be allocated to the
incident and start investigations depending on the matter of relevance to the
initial report to the resources available at the time. The investigations may
lead to an arrest what will lead the detainee to his or her statuary legal
rights. In the early 1980's the police did have the power to take cases to
court without the decision of without the decision of any other governing body,
but now in 2016 the burden relays solely on the cps who are in calibration with
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and is headed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) who is independent but subject to the superintendence of the
Attorney General that is accountable to members of Parliament that do work for
the prosecution services. If charged any person’s rights are gained under
section 24 and 25 which does relate to the rights of any person charged and the
minimum standards of criminal procedure. But my case seems to sit in its civil
capacity at court with none of the above regulations and my rights being
carried out in accordance of the United Kingdom laws; please can you explain
this to me?
Thank you, Josephine Simon.
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie -08-03-2016 15-51
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 577,578
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie -08-03-2016
15-51
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 577,578
--
577,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
08/03/2016 03:51:23 PM
To: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephmewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:
Please reply
If you will not reply to my questions, I
will be forced to go to the legal omblishman and
legal aid department as well as seek legal advice in the public domain to
weather, you should or not.
I have asked you the same questions
over and over again and you steer away from them making me feel as if you are
holding me hostage to laws that you no should never be imposed upon myself as I
clearly keep pointing out the points of law and the barrister clearly agrees
with me in the submissions as does anyone else I ask for their legal opinion
please can you reply back to my questions in the emails I have sent about my
case before we go any further I have been locked in my house for two years
telling you the same think asking the same questions and still am not any of
the wiser.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 15:40,
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
I would like you to deal with the issues
I have raised before we go any further as I feel it is un fair for you not to
address them as they are to do with my case and I have asked the same questions
to yourself time and time again will you do this for me p[lease in a headed
company letter. please reply.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, 14:23,
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
Please confirm you can attend my
office this Thursday at 6pm so that I can deal with the relevant aspects of
your appeal and the questions raised by HHJ Pawlak.
Many thanks Josephine
On 8 Mar 2016 11:48,
"Rewired " <re wired@ymail.com> wrote:
I have a few questions I have to ask
off you that have built up and I know that I have been asking since the start
of my court case, that I do feel have not been addressed correctly? So please
can you answer each question individually and bulletined in the same format, so
I can understand my case, with your legal guidance.
· Why have I not ever been arrested, for
some think that clearly states that it is illegal?
· Is it wrong for my Asbo case to be
sitting in its civil capacity at court when it states in the applicant’s case I
am being accused of the organisation of illegal raves with no previous
convictions?
· Why did the distract Jude in the
magistrates court say to me which can be checked in the court transcripts which
has been provided to you that private air and open air are the same in turn
stating that it is illegal to listen to music without licensing to which myself
and barrister clearly state otherwise? And am I Wong in believing that the
district Jude was wrong in stating this to be a true fact of law?
· I ask you my solicitor Josephine ward
to check my PNC recorded provided within the applicants bundle to see that off
me not having any similar convictions under the criminal justice act 1998
before the incident(s) dates that I am being accused of relating to the
organisation of illegal raves and to confirm this in a company headed letter
with the rest of the answers regarding your guidance in the points of law to
each specific questions contained within this letter addressed to yourself who
is my acting solicitor representing me in the ongoing of the applicants case
towards an ASBO application? I ask of you to do this before our next needed
meeting that has been agreed.
· I ask you for your guidance in the
question of “How can I get the blame for being the company named ever decibel
matters, when I have provided a company head letter with the company number
listed at company house, off the director that I have managed to acquire due to
the ongoing Asbo application? To which explains that I was not involved in the
date in question also that being of the court transcripts stating of office Pc
Elsmore that he has done no further investigation in to the allegations he has
accused myself off on the dates relating to mill marsh lane in reference to
every decibel matters?
· Please can you reply to this question,
How can I stand a fair trial in 2016 with my up and coming appeal date, with
the evidence the applicant rests it case on being of backward time stamps
relating to the incident numbers and previous correspondents.? To which I would
like you to confirm is more than likely to be in error form the list of
correspondents I have provided you with so far relating to the management of
national standards for incident recording NSIR and collection and recording of
police procedure (Command and Control) and Emergency services command and
control?
· I ask you my acting solicitor the
question of “Why has the applicant not removed cases that when the Asbo
application was in development was clearly added incorrectly due to the other
whelming fact that I Mr Simon Cordell clearly could have not committed such
offence as dated the 19th August 2013, which does in fact relate to
cad
578,
10635 19th July 2014 page
294 to which a member of the public made a emergency
999 call in relation to “all white males and females entering a premises, to
which the cad continues to explain that members of the met police attended the
location to contain the people who were in fact occupiers of the Land within
their home, also listing all name and vehicles of the occupiers contained in
the building to which I am none of the listed?
• My next question I require you to
help give your legal guidance in is “What was the need for the applicant to
updated their incident reports also named as (information Reports) at such a
later date(s) after the information had already been created after the event
date, in turn creating such lengthy time periods between the initial event date
contained within the national police computer to the entry of the police
statements intelligence, Is that incorrect in police procedure?
• I ask you to take reference to all
blocked out ATT, locations that are relating to other house parties that was
within a two minute distance from the location in question On the 6th
7th 8th June 2014, otherwise known and named as the old
man building adjourned to Crown Road, to which officer Pc Elsmore states at
trial under oath that he was sure that there was no other house party's on the
same date that are contained within the applicants bundle and that all incident
that are contained relate to (progress way on the 7th June 2014) The
officer's statement can be checked by the transcripts of the day of my trial
that has been provided to yourself of him clearly stating to the district Jude
to obtain a guilty plea against my self-inaccuracies when being questioned by
the representing barrister in relation to the statement that I just quoted.
Please can you confirm that I am correct in stating this?
• Can you also reply to the question of
why has the applicant not reduced the evidence that it submitted in the first
bundle that is of the issue relating to blocked out locations of cads otherwise
known as incident numbers that I have been accused of that members of the Met
police have in development of the application inputted and submitted
incorrectly that do in fact relate to wide spread geological location off the
incidents that occurred on the same date of the incident I am being wrongfully
accused of and that being of the developers of the application blocking out the
ATT, locations and not blocking out the grid reference numbers making it
possible to prove my innocents gratefully, also errors like land marks such as
A&J cars which is a cab station across the road from crown road not the
private house party that I am being questioned for. I would not have been able
to prove the truth. My question to you in regard to this issue can I stand a
fair trial with the applicant not addressing the issues as we highlighted and
raise them?
• The definition of the legal term of
(Raves) defines outdoor (in open space) to which none of the applicant’s cases
are in fact outdoors (in open space). As defined by section 63 what does also
state that trespass must be present inside a premise of residence to which I
have never been accused off. I ask you is this correct in law.
• I ask you to reply to the question of
is it true to believe in accordance of the united kingdom laws and regulations
that house party(s) that are in a places of residence are not illegal to hold,
when holding such private events in accordance of the licensing act 2003 to
which states in such incidents unless proof of profit has being made when
providing entertainment it shall not be regulated under the licensing act 2003
to which the applicant does not mention money?
• In reference to the ADR bill relating
to the carriage of dangerous goods, is it against the law to carry nitro's
oxide or any co2 gas when having the correct signage on the vehicle
transporting the cylinders?
• I ask is it against the law for an
Asbo application to made when there is a conflict of work under the crime and
disorder act 1998, in such incidents were the defendant has been working for
the Local council authority who the police have asked to be in support of the
application?
• Has Adrian coombs contacted you or do
you have a date in mind that you will have the notes that I have asked of you
to request of him?
• my questions is that of their being
so many inconsistencies contained within the police statements, by recognising
so may irregularities that I know I have not had the right to challenge I feel
the need to defend myself against such illegal statements made by police
officers the same as I would if made by a member of the public for allegations
such as (organising illegal raves) So this brought me to the basics of law
civil and criminal, I learnt and believe in the understanding of criminal cases
were some think is alleged to be illegal the correct Police procedure is that a
crime will be created under the crime and disorder act 1998 by way of a victim
or witness making a report then members of the police will be allocated to the
incident and start investigations depending on the matter of relevance to the
initial report to the resources available at the time. The investigations may
lead to an arrest what will lead the detainee to his or her statuary legal
rights. In the early 1980's the police did have the power to take cases to
court without the decision of without the decision of any other governing body,
but now in 2016 the burden relays solely on the cps who are in calibration with
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and is headed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) who is independent but subject to the superintendence of the
Attorney General that is accountable to members of Parliament that do work for
the prosecution services. If charged any person’s rights are gained under
section 24 and 25 which does relate to the rights of any person charged and the
minimum standards of criminal procedure. But my case seems to sit in its civil
capacity at court with none of the above regulations and my rights being
carried out in accordance of the United Kingdom laws; please can you explain
this to me?
Thank you, Josephine Simon.
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1.
2
Asbo Re
Please reply 08-03-2016 14-23
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 579,580
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1. 2
Asbo Re Please reply 08-03-2016
14-23
08/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 579,580
--
579,
From: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time:
08/03/2016 02:23:07 PM
To: too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Please reply
Simon
Please confirm you can attend my
office this Thursday at 6pm so that I can deal with the relevant aspects of
your appeal and the questions raised by HHJ Pawlak.
Many thanks
Josephine
On 8 Mar 2016 11:48,
"Rewired " <re_wired@ymail.com> wrote:
I have a few questions I have to ask
off you that have built up and I know that I have been asking since the start
of my court case, that I do feel have not been addressed correctly? So please
can you answer each question individually and bulletined in the same format, so
I can understand my case, with your legal guidance.
· Why have I not ever been arrested, for
some think that clearly states that it is illegal?
· Is it wrong for my Asbo case to be
sitting in its civil capacity at court when it states in the applicant’s case I
am being accused of the organisation of illegal raves with no previous
convictions?
· Why did the distract Jude in the
magistrates court say to me which can be checked in the court transcripts which
has been provided to you that private air and open air are the same in turn
stating that it is illegal to listen to music without licensing to which myself
and barrister clearly state otherwise? And am I Wong in believing that the
district Jude was wrong in stating this to be a true fact of law?
· I ask you my solicitor Josephine ward
to check my PNC recorded provided within the applicants bundle to see that off
me not having any similar convictions under the criminal justice act 1998
before the incident(s) dates that I am being accused of relating to the
organisation of illegal raves and to confirm this in a company headed letter
with the rest of the answers regarding your guidance in the points of law to
each specific questions contained within this letter addressed to yourself who
is my acting solicitor representing me in the ongoing of the applicants case
towards an ASBO application? I ask of you to do this before our next needed
meeting that has been agreed.
· I ask you for your guidance in the
question of “How can I get the blame for being the company named ever decibel
matters, when I have provided a company head letter with the company number
listed at company house, off the director that I have managed to acquire due to
the ongoing Asbo application? To which explains that I was not involved in the
date in question also that being of the court transcripts stating of office Pc
Elsmore that he has done no further investigation in to the allegations he has
accused myself off on the dates relating to mill marsh lane in reference to
every decibel matters?
· Please can you reply to this question,
How can I stand a fair trial in 2016 with my up and coming appeal date, with
the evidence the applicant rests it case on being of backward time stamps
relating to the incident numbers and previous correspondents.? To which I would
like you to confirm is more than likely to be in error form the list of
correspondents I have provided you with so far relating to the management of
national standards for incident recording NSIR and collection and recording of
police procedure (Command and Control) and Emergency services command and
control?
· I ask you my acting solicitor the
question of “Why has the applicant not removed cases that when the Asbo
application was in development was clearly added incorrectly due to the other
whelming fact that I Mr Simon Cordell clearly could have not committed such
offence as dated the 19th August 2013, which does in fact relate to
cad 10635 19th July 2014 page 294 to which a member of the public
made a emergency 999 call in relation to “all white
males and females entering a premises, to which the cad continues to explain
that members of the met police attended the location to contain the people who
were in fact occupiers of the Land within their home, also listing all name and
vehicles of the occupiers contained in the building to which I am none of the
listed?
· My next question I require you to help
give your legal guidance in is “What was the need for the applicant to updated
their incident reports also named as (information Reports) at such a later
date(s) after the information had already been created after the event date, in
turn creating such lengthy time periods between the initial event date
contained within the national police computer to the entry of the police
statements intelligence, Is that incorrect in police procedure?
· I ask you to take reference to all
blocked out ATT, locations that are relating to other house parties that was
within a two minute distance from the location in question On the 6th
7th 8th June 2014, otherwise known and named as the old
man building adjourned to Crown Road, to which officer Pc Elsmore states at
trial under oath that he was sure that there was no other house party's on the
same date that are contained within the applicants bundle and that all incident
that are contained relate to (progress way on the 7th June 2014)
The officer's statement can be checked
by the transcripts of the day of my trial that has been provided to yourself of
him clearly stating to the district Jude to obtain a guilty plea against my
self-inaccuracies when being questioned by the representing barrister in
relation to the statement that I just quoted. Please can you confirm that I am
correct in stating this?
· Can you also reply to the question of
why the applicant has not reduced the evidence that it submitted in the first
bundle that is of the
580,
issue relating to blocked out locations
of cads otherwise known as incident numbers that I have been accused of that
members of the Met police have in development of the application inputted and
submitted incorrectly that do in fact relate to wide spread geological location
off the incidents that occurred on the same date of the incident I am being
wrongfully accused of and that being of the developers of the application
blocking out the ATT, locations and not blocking out the grid reference numbers
making it possible to prove my innocents gratefully, also errors like land
marks such as A&J cars which is a cab station across the road from crown
road not the private house party that I am being questioned for. I would not
have been able to prove the truth. My question to you in regard to this issue
can I stand a fair trial with the applicant not addressing the issues as we
highlighted and raise them?
· The definition of the legal term of
(Raves) defines outdoor (in open space) to which none of the applicant’s cases
are in fact outdoors (in open space). As defined by section 63 what does also
state that trespass must be present inside a premise of residence to which I
have never been accused off. I ask you is this correct in law.
· I ask you to reply to the question of
is it true to believe in accordance of the united kingdom laws and regulations
that house party(s) that are in a places of residence are not illegal to hold,
when holding such private events in accordance of the licensing act 2003 to
which states in such incidents unless proof of profit has being made when
providing entertainment it shall not be regulated under the licensing act 2003
to which the applicant does not mention money?
· In reference to the ADR bill relating
to the carriage of dangerous goods, is it against the law to carry nitro's
oxide or any co2 gas when having the correct signage on the vehicle
transporting the cylinders?
· I ask is it against the law for an Asbo
application to made when there is a conflict of work under the crime and
disorder act 1998, in such incidents were the defendant has been working for
the Local council authority who the police have asked to be in support of the
application?
· Has Adrian coombs contacted you or do
you have a date in mind that you will have the notes that I have asked of you
to request of him?
• my questions are that of their being
so many inconsistencies contained within the police statements, by recognising
so may
irregularities that I know I have not
had the right to challenge I feel the need to defend myself against such
illegal statements made by police officers the same as I would if made by a
member of the public for allegations such as (organising illegal raves) So this
brought me to the basics of law civil and criminal, I learnt and believe in the
understanding of criminal cases were some think is alleged to be illegal the
correct Police procedure is that a crime will be created under the crime and
disorder act 1998 by way of a victim or witness making a report then members of
the police will be allocated to the incident and start investigations depending
on the matter of relevance to the initial report to the resources available at
the time. The investigations may lead to an arrest what will lead the detainee
to his or her statuary legal rights. In the early 1980's the police did have
the power to take cases to court without the decision of without the decision
of any other governing body, but now in 2016 the burden relays solely on the
cps who are in calibration with Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and is
headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who is independent but subject
to the superintendence of the Attorney General that is accountable to members
of Parliament that do work for the prosecution services. If charged any
person’s rights are gained under section 24 and 25 which does relate to the
rights of any person charged and the minimum standards of criminal procedure.
But my case seems to sit in its civil capacity at court with none of the above
regulations and my rights being carried out in accordance of the United Kingdom
laws; please can you explain this to me?
Thank you, Josephine Simon.
59.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1.
2
Asbo
Office appointment 10-03-2016 11-14
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 581
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1. 2
Asbo Office appointment
10-03-2016 11-14
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 581
--
581,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time:
10/03/2016 11:14:29 AM
To: too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Office
appointment
Simon
I need to do the following on your case
before Monday 14th March 2016:
· Take your instructions on the specific
issues raised in HHJ Pawlak's letter
· Book a conference with the Public
Defender so that the mention hearing can progress in April 2016.
I will be working on Saturday and
Sunday of this weekend subject to call outs.
It is imperative that you attend so
that I can progress these matters.
I am leaving Michael Carroll & Co's
employment and my last day of work is 2nd June 2016 so I would very much like
to have your appeal ready before then. I need your co-operation in order to do
this. If you do not want to co-operate with me then I will have to list the
case for mention for non-co-operation. I do not want to do this.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Office appointment 10-03-2016 12-15
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 582
60.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1. 2
Asbo Re Office appointment
10-03-2016 12-15
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 582
--
582,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 10/03/2016 01:40:12 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Office appointment
Josie
I will be there on Sunday I did send
you an email to confirm this. I will be there at 11:30 with mum.
If you need to change the time due to
call outs just let mum know please as she is the one taking me as I got no
other way to get there. Simon
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 13:11,
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
The decision has to do with a lot of
issues. It is not appropriate to get into the reasons. I am not authorised to
disclose that I am leaving and have only done so, so I can sort your case
before I leave.
I would appreciate if you can attend
the office Sunday so that I can have your case ready for hand over on 2nd June
2016.
Thanks
Josephine
On 10 Mar 2016 12:15, "Rewired
" <re wired@vmail.com>
wrote:
I just see your email. I do care about
you a lot. Why would you leave the office?
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 11:28,
JOSEPHINE WARD <iosephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I need to do the following on your case
before Monday 14th March 2016:
· Take your instructions on the specific
issues raised in HHJ Pawlak's letter
· Book a conference with the Public
Defender so that the mention hearing can progress in April 2016.
I will be working on Saturday and
Sunday of this weekend subject to call outs.
It is imperative that you attend so
that I can progress these matters.
I am leaving Michael Carroll & Co's
employment and my last day of work is 2nd June 2016 so I would very much like
to have your appeal ready before then. I need your co-operation in order to do
this. If you do not want to co-operate with me then I will have to list the
case for mention for non-co-operation. I do not want to do this.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Office appointment 10-03-2016 13-11
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 583
61.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1. 2
Asbo Re Office appointment
10-03-2016 13-11
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 583
--
583,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 10/03/2016 01:11:22 PM
To: too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Office appointment
Simon
The decision has to do with a lot of
issues. It is not appropriate to get into the reasons. I am not authorised to
disclose that I am leaving and have only done so, so I can sort your case
before I leave.
I would appreciate if you can attend
the office Sunday so that I can have your case ready for hand over on 2nd June
2016.
Thanks
Josephine
On 10 Mar 2016 12:15, "Rewired
" <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
I just see your email. I do care about
you a lot. Why would you leave the office?
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 11:28,
JOSEPHINE WARD <iosephinewardsolicitor@amail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I need to do the following on your case
before Monday 14th March 2016:
· Take your instructions on the specific
issues raised in HHJ Pawlak's letter
· Book a conference with the Public
Defender so that the mention hearing can progress in April 2016.
I will be working on Saturday and
Sunday of this weekend subject to call outs.
It is imperative that you attend so
that I can progress these matters.
I am leaving Michael Carroll & Co's
employment and my last day of work is 2nd June 2016 so I would very much like
to have your appeal ready before then. I need your co-operation in order to do
this. If you do not want to co-operate with me then I will have to list the
case for mention for non-co-operation. I do not want to do this.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
62.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Office appointment 10-03-2016 13-40
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 584
62.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1. 2
Asbo Re Office appointment
10-03-2016 13-40
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 584
--
584,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 10/03/2016 01:40:12 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Office appointment
Josie
I will be there on Sunday I did send you
an email to confirm this. I will be there at 11:30 with mum.
If you need to change the time due to
call outs just let mum know please as she is the one taking me as I got no
other way to get there. Simon
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 13:11,
JOSEPHINE WARD josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com wrote:
Simon
The decision has to do with a lot of
issues. It is not appropriate to get into the reasons. I am not authorised to
disclose that I am leaving and have only done so, so I can sort your case
before I leave.
I would appreciate if you can attend
the office Sunday so that I can have your case ready for hand over on 2nd June
2016.
Thanks
Josephine
On 10 Mar 2016 12:15, "Rewired
" <re wired@vmail.com>
wrote:
I just see your email. I do care about
you a lot. Why would you leave the office?
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 11:28,
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I need to do the following on your case
before Monday 14th March 2016:
· Take your instructions on the specific
issues raised in HHJ Pawlak's letter
· Book a conference with the Public
Defender so that the mention hearing can progress in April 2016.
I will be working on Saturday and
Sunday of this weekend subject to call outs.
It is imperative that you attend so
that I can progress these matters.
I am leaving Michael Carroll & Co's
employment and my last day of work is 2nd June 2016 so I would very much like
to have your appeal ready before then. I need your co-operation in order to do
this. If you do not want to co-operate with me then I will have to list the
case for mention for non-co-operation. I do not want to do this.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Office appointment 10-03-2016 13-50
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 585
63.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1. 2
Asbo Re Office appointment
10-03-2016 13-50
10/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 585
--
585,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 10/03/2016 01:50:12 PM
To: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephmewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:
Office appointment
Josie
I will be there on Sunday I did send
you an email to confirm this. I will be there at 11:30 with mum.
If you need to change the time due to
call outs just let mum know please as she is the one taking me as I got no
other way to get there. Simon
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 13:11,
JOSEPHINE WARD
josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
wrote:
Simon
The decision has to do with a lot of
issues. It is not appropriate to get into the reasons. I am not authorised to
disclose that I am leaving and have only done so, so I can sort your case
before I leave.
I would appreciate if you can attend
the office Sunday so that I can have your case ready for hand over on 2nd June
2016.
Thanks
Josephine
On 10 Mar 2016 12:15, "Rewired
" <re wired@vmail.com>
wrote:
I just see your email. I do care about
you a lot. Why would you leave the office?
On Thursday, 10 March 2016, 11:28,
JOSEPHINE WARD <iosephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I need to do the following on your case
before Monday 14th March 2016:
· Take your instructions on the specific
issues raised in HHJ Pawlak's letter
· Book a conference with the Public
Defender so that the mention hearing can progress in April 2016.
I will be working on Saturday and
Sunday of this weekend subject to call outs.
It is imperative that you attend so
that I can progress these matters.
I am leaving Michael Carroll & Co's
employment and my last day of work is 2nd June 2016 so I would very much like
to have your appeal ready before then. I need your co-operation in order to do
this. If you do not want to co-operate with me then I will have to list the case
for mention for non-co-operation. I do not want to do this.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 12-03-2016 18-38
12/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623
64.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 12-03-2016
18-38
12/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623
--
586,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/03/2016 06:37:31 PM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: some
files
working on SIMON CORDELL APPELLANT
RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new.doc fair trial article
Attachments:
' 6 Si-Information-Part-Edite.doc 1st
OF INDEXED REQUESTS AND SUPPORTED EVIERDAINCE THAT IS
Some files that I have made that need
to be gone over with josie I have all the backbone points of law in the file
ready as well can you check them please.
587,
Already documented!
588,
Already documented!
589,
Already documented!
590,591,592,593,594,
595,596,597,598,599,600,
601,602,603,604,605,606,
607,608,609,610,611,612,
613,614,615,616,617,618,
619,620,621,622,623,
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - RE some files 12-03-2016 23-39
12/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650
65.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - RE some files
12-03-2016 23-39
12/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650
--
624,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 12/03/2016 11:38:57 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
some files
Attachments: STATEMENT OF WITNESS new new-01.doc
Simon please see attached I
wrote in red where I am up to. but I have read more and Simon there is so many
things that are wrong. you are putting yourself more in this then needs and
sorry you are getting really carried away with yourself. in this statement and
are going to get the ASBO if this goes in like this.
down to you really you send me
files to look at then just have a go at me for what I say when I say something
is wrong.
Yes, I changed bits up to where I
am but hell you got the one you wrote and if you really want to keep that then
that’s down to you.
From: Rewired
[mailto:re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 12
March 2016 18:38
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: some
files
Some files that I have made that need
to be gone over with josie I have all the backbone points of law in the file
ready as well can you check them please.
625,
Already documented!
626,
Already documented!
627,
Already documented!
628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650,
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1.
2
Asbo R
v Simon Cordell Crown Court 03-04-2016 01-11
03/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658
66.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1. 2
Asbo R v Simon Cordell Crown
Court 03-04-2016 01-11
03/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658
--
651,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 03/04/2016 01:10:33 AM
To: too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: R
v Simon Cordell - for mention at Wood Green Crown Court on 4th April 2016
Attachments: RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
Simon
Please see attached the document that I
have drafted for Monday's hearing.
Can you indicate any amendments you
want included.
The points that you take issue with
will be put to the officers giving live evidence.
I will confirm the time of the hearing
by separate email.
Regards
Josephine
652,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK'S LETTER DATED
22NDFEBRUARY 2016
· WHAT INVOLVEMENT IN EACH EVENT (RAVE)
RELIED ON BY THE RESPONDENT, THE APPELLANT ADMITS TO HAVING HAD.
(A) 25.05.2014 - 5 ST GEORGES
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WHITE HART LANE
the Appellant relies on his previous
statement served.
The Appellant will state that he was
delivering food to some homeless people.
The Appellant will state that there was
no rave, no sound equipment, lights, generators etc in his van.
The Appellant will state that there was
no rave in progress and no intention for any event to take place.
The Appellant will state that there was
a section 144 LAPSO notice clearly displayed by the occupants who were treating
the premises as their home.
The Appellant will state that he had
empty speaker cases in his van. The van was used to store the speakers. The
Appellant will state that he specifically requested that the officers who
attended note down the fact that he had only speakers inside his van and no
other component parts for a sound system.
The Appellant will state that he did
not commit any criminal offences on 25th May 2014. The Appellant
will state that the premises were not broken into as alleged but were being
legally squatted. The Appellant will state that the occupation was legal by
virtue of section 144 LAPSO notice being clearly displayed and this was within
the law.
The Appellant will state that no
Licensing authorisation was required as there was no music being played or
intended to be played.
The Appellant will state that he did
not engage in any acts of Anti-social behaviour as defined by section 1 of the
Act.
The Appellant requests disclosure of
the CCTV of the persons breaking into the premises, the CRIS and details of any
persons arrested for criminal damage / burglary.
The Appellant will state that he did
not break any laws on 25th May 2014nor did he engage in any acts of
anti-social behaviour.
653,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that the
description of events on this day has been altered and recorded in a biased way
towards him.
The Appellant requests full details of
the original intelligence report inputted on 25th May 2014 and also
reasons why there was a need to update this report on 19th June
2014. The Intelligence report should not be allowed in evidence under the
hearsay rules as it is prejudicial to him. The report has been amended.
(A) PROGRESS WAY 6th, 7th AND 8th JUNE 2014
The Appellant disputes any involvement
whatsoever in the event at Progress Way.
The Appellant accepts that he
approached the gates with a view to dropping off house keys to a friend. The
Appellant did not enter the premises / venue at Progress Way.
The Appellant did not provide any sound
equipment, speakers, generators to any person inside Progress Way.
The Appellant will state that he is
being wrongly accused of organising this rave/ event. The Appellant will state
his brother is also wrongly named as being involved. The Appellant will state
that his brother was severely disabled at the time and in a wheelchair
following a very serious road traffic accident.
The Appellant questions the accuracy
and truthfulness of the statements, CADS etc served in support of the above.
The Appellant questions why some of the CAD reports have been redacted. The
Appellant believes that the CAD's may well confirm the names of the real
organisers, vehicle registrations etc that will confirm no vehicle belonging to
the Appellant being inside the venue. The Appellant also questions the
chronological sequence of the CAD messages.
The Appellant believes that some of the
complainants are police officers and no civilians. The Appellant believes that
some of the CADs may relate to completely different areas but are being added
in to and wrongly linked to Progress Way.
In the interests of a fair hearing the
Appellant requests all CAD's cross linked and referred to should be served in
unedited. Any CAD's that refer to a different location should be removed from
the Respondent's bundle as they are too prejudicial.
The Appellant will state that this is
yet another example of the police manipulating the evidence to paint him in a
bad light. The Appellant strongly believes that the police are presenting their
evidence to persuade the court that he was an organiser of this event.
654,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The statements presented are unreliable
and prejudicial. The Appellant will state that he cannot possibly have a fair
hearing and as a result his Human Right to having a fair hearing will be
violated due to the way the Respondent is selecting and presenting CAD's. The
Appellant specifically requests that the redacted CADS be served unedited or
excluded from the Respondent's bundle as he cannot challenge the content.
The Appellant will state that he is
being deliberately targeted by the police as is his younger brother. Neither
organised or attended and participated in Progress Way.
The Appellant specifically asks the
Respondent to confirm why the event was not closed down, if
it was in fact a rave. The Appellant asks why the sound systems were not seized
under section 63 of the CJPOA.
The Appellant seeks clarification as
whether a section 144 LAPSO notice was on display. If it was then this event
could not be classed as an illegal rave.
The Appellant also questions why the
Respondent has not supplied any CADs from 6th June 2014, the date
when this event started.
For the purposes of clarity, the
Appellant denies being an organiser. He denies providing any sound system
equipment to the organisers of this event. He denies entering the venue but
accepts that he approached to deliver keys. The Appellant did not commit any
criminal offences. The Appellant did not engage in any anti-social behaviour.
· FALCON PARK 20TH JUNE 2014
The Appellant was not present at this
event.
The Appellant accepts that he hired out
his sound equipment in good faith for what he believed to be a house party.
The Appellant will state that he was at
home when he was contacted by the hirer to come to collect his equipment which
was then seized by police. The Appellant will state that his equipment was
restored to him by the police.
The Appellant will state that he did
not commit any criminal offences, nor did he engage in any acts of anti-social
behaviour.
The Appellant will state that he was
not an organiser and merely hired out his equipment in good faith.
· CARPET
RIGHT 19th JULY 2014
The Appellant denies organising or
supplying equipment for the above event.
655,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant never entered the
premises Carpet Right. The Appellant will state that the true organisers were
inside the premises and the police ought to be in possession of their details.
This has never been disclosed to the Appellant.
The Appellant will state that none of
his vehicles were inside the premises.
The Appellant notes from the
Respondent's bundle there was no rave /event, no sound recording equipment
inside the premises and therefore no rave was taking place.
· ALMA ROAD - 24th JULY 2014
The Appellant disputes the conversation
with PC Edgoose regarding raves.
The Appellant will state that he did
discuss with PC Edgoose his entertainment company and his dream of hosting a
local festival at Picketts Lock for the benefit of the community. He will also
say that he discussed other charitable events that he had participated in and
events in the pipeline.
The Appellant will state that this date
should be struck from the Respondent's bundle as there was no rave. The
Appellant did not supply any sound recording equipment.
The admission of this disputed
conversation is extremely prejudicial to the Appellant. The Appellant finds it
bizarre that he was not arrested for any criminal offences bearing in mind the
manner of driving described. The Appellant will state that he did not engage in
any anti-social behaviour on this date. The Appellant will also state that he
was in his private motor vehicle.
· MILLMARSH LANE- 9th AUGUST
2014
The Appellant will state that he was
invited to a private birthday party by one of the persons occupying the
premises at Millmarsh Lane.
The Appellant will state that there was
a section 144 LAPSO notice displayed and the building was being treated as a
home. The Appellant will state that he was an invited guest and not a
trespasser.
The Appellant will state that there was
no rave as the location was not open air and by virtue of him being invited by
one of the occupiers who had established a section 144 LAPSO notice he was not
a trespasser so the legal definition of a rave could not be made out.
656,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant was a guest at the
location and not an organiser. He attended the location in his private motor
vehicle. He did not provide any audio or sound equipment.
The second event at Millmarsh Lane the
Appellant disputes that he was an organiser. He disputes that he was operating
the gate.
The Appellant will state that this was
not an illegal rave but a private party that he attended as a guest and not as
an organiser.
The Appellant will state that there
were no residential areas close by.
· WHETHER THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE
INVOLVEMENT HE ADMITS, WASIN FACT WITHIN THE LAW, IF SO WHY
Please see above.
· WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES THAT ANY
OF THE RAVES DIDOR COULD HAVE CAUSED DISTRESS TO LOCAL RESIDENTS BY WAY OF
NOISE OR MOVEMENT OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN RAVES
The Appellant can only comment on his
own behaviour and he refers the court to the fact that he himself has not acted
in an anti-social manner. He has not been arrested for any criminal offences.
The Appellant accepts that such events
could cause noise nuisance, but he is adamant that he did not organise or supply
equipment for any of the events cited in the Respondent's application.
· WHETHER THE APPELLANT AGREES THAT A
PREMISES LICENCE WAS REQUIRED FOR EACH RAVE
The Appellant will state that he
believes that no licence was required for Millmarsh Lane as the premises were
being occupied and treated as a home due to a section 144 LAPSO notice being
displayed. The building was being used as a home and not as a commercial
building. The Appellant will also state that as the building was being occupied
as a home then no licence was required for a private house party and also no
money was charged for persons entering.
· WHETHER THE APPELLANT CONCEDES THAT FOR
ANY OF THE RAVES IN WHICH HE WAS INVOLVED, WHETHERBY HELPING TO ARRANGE OR BY
PROVIDING SOUND EQUIPMENT HE BELIEVED THE EVENT TO BE A LICENSED EVENT AND
THEREFORE WAS AN INNOCENT SUPPLIER OF EQUIPMENT,AND IF SOFOR WHICH RAVE OR
RAVES IN PARTICULAR.
657,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that he
supplied equipment on one occasion only, in good faith to what he believed to
be a private party. He did not attend the premises beforehand and therefore did
not know the equipment would be used at a different place. The Appellant will
state that his equipment was restored to him by police after they concluded he
had no part in the event and had innocently hired out his equipment. The event
the Appellant is referring to is Falcon Road.
The Appellant on no occasions
cited in the Respondent's bundle hired out any sound equipment, audio equipment
or organised any rave in the London Borough of Enfield on the dates cited in
the original application.
PROPORTIONALITY:
The Appellant will state that
the current ASBO was imposed by the District Judge after the police had failed
to establish that the Appellant had engaged in any acts of anti-social
behaviour.
The Appellant will also argue
that the Respondent could not establish that the Appellant engaged in any
illegal acts. The Appellant will state that the Respondent could not establish
that any of the events cited came within the definition of an illegal rave as
defined under section 63 of the CJPOA 1994.
The Appellant will state that
the ASBO has significantly impacted his ability to run his Entertainment
Company and also his future plans to hold an open-air festival. The ASBO would
significantly prevent his ability to apply for licences to run out-door
festival events. No other entertainments company is subject to the same due
diligence when hiring out equipment.
The Appellant will argue that
the terms of the ASBO are too restrictive and the geographical restriction too
broad.
The Court did not take into
consideration the fact that the Appellant was made subject an interim ASBO and
the duration was not reduced accordingly.
The Appellant will argue that
the court was wrong in principle in granting the original ASBO application as
the Respondent made the original application based on the Applicant being
involved in illegal raves. The Respondent did not establish this at the initial
hearing and the District Judge erred in granting this ASBO.
658,
RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK.docx
The Appellant will state that he
has attempted to engage in legitimate business activities, and he has been
spurned at all attempts by the Police.
The Appellant has designed a
business plan, created a website, researched and
developed a proposal for an open-air licensed festival.
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1.
2
Asbo Simon
Cordell v Crown Court 03-04-2016 01-18
03/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 659
67.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell v Crown Court
03-04-2016 01-18
03/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 659
--
659,
From: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 03/04/2016 01:18:10 AM
To: too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>;
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. Commissioner of the Metropolis Police at Wood Green Crown Court on
4th April 2016
Dear Simon /Lorraine
Your mention hearing is listed
on Monday 4th April 2016 at 2pm. Please attend court for1. 30pm.The case will
be listed in court 1.
Simon can you review and confirm
by email that you approve the document that I sent to you so that I can forward
onto the barrister please email me any suggested amendments /additions.
Many thanks
Josephine
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1.
2
Asbo
Simon Cordell v. Crown Court 03-04-2016 18-37
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 660
68.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell v Crown Court
03-04-2016 18-37
03/03/2016
/ Page Numbers: 660
--
660,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 03/04/2016 06:37:03 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolis Police Commissioner for mention at Wood Green Crown Court
on 4th April 2016
Simon
I have forwarded the document to the advocate
who will be representing you tomorrow.
Can you please email across any
additions /amendments before 9pm tonight so that I can forward on to the
advocate. Please email me to josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com so
that I can forward before I board my flight.
Many thanks
Josephine
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 04-04-2016 11-58
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 661
69.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 04-04-2016
11-58
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 661
--
661,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 04/04/2016 11:57:32 AM
To: JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner for mention at 2pm at Wood Green
Crown Court on 4th April 2
josie@michaelcarroNandco.com
this one
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:56,
JOSEPHINE WARD
josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
wrote:
Simon
Which email address did you send
it to?
Josephine
On 4 Apr 2016 11:55,
"Rewired " <re wired@ymail.com> wrote:
Hi Josie
I sent the last one over last
night but I will resend it now. I will also bring copies to court with me.
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:47,
JOSEPHINE WARD
Josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com wrote:
Simon
I refer to the above.
Can you please send across any
further documents so that I can forward to the barrister.
Thanks
Josephine
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Simon Cordell for mention 04-04-2016 11-55
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell for
mention 04-04-2016 11-55
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671
--
662,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 04/04/2016 11:55:21 AM
To:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner for mention at 2pm at Wood Green
Crown Court on 4th April 2016.
Attachments: RESPONSE TO HHJ PAWLAK (6).docx
Hi Josie
I sent the last one over last
night but I will resend it now. I will also bring copies to court with me.
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:47,
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com> wrote:
Simon
I refer to the above.
Can you please send across any further
documents so that I can forward to the barrister.
Thanks
Josephine
663,
Already Documented!
664,
Already Documented!
665,666,667,668,669,670,671,
71.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Simon Cordell for mention 04-04-2016 11-56
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 672
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell for
mention 04-04-2016 11-56
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 672
--
672,
From:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 04/04/2016 11:56:12 AM
To: too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner for mention at 2pm at Wood Green
Crown Court on 4th April 2016.
Simon
Which email address did you send
it to?
Josephine
On 4 Apr 2016 11:55,
"Rewired " <re wired@ymail.com> wrote:
Hi Josie
I sent the last one over last
night but I will resend it now. I will also bring copies to court with me.
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:47,
JOSEPHINE WARD <Josephinewardsolicitor@amail.com>
wrote:
Simon
I refer to the above.
Can you please send across any
further documents so that I can forward to the barrister.
Thanks
Josephine
72.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1.
2
Asbo Re
Simon Cordell for mention 04-04-2016 12-04
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 673
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1. 2
Asbo Re Simon Cordell for
mention 04-04-2016 12-04
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 673
--
673,
From:
JOSEPHINE WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 04/04/2016 12:03:42 PM
To: too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner for mention at 2pm at Wood Green
Crown Court on 4th Apr
Simon
I did not receive. Please send
again.
Thanks
Josephine
On 4 Apr 2016 11:57,
"Rewired " <re_wired@ymail.com> wrote:
josie@michaelcarroNandco.com
this one
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:56,
JOSEPHINE WARD <Josephinewardsolicitor@amail.com> wrote:
Simon
Which email address did you send
it to?
Josephine
On 4 Apr 2016 11:55,
"Rewired " <re wired@ymail.com> wrote:
Hi Josie
I sent the last one over last
night but I will resend it now. I will also bring copies to court with me.
On Monday, 4 April 2016, 11:47,
JOSEPHINE WARD <Josephinewardsolicitor@amail.com> wrote:
Simon
I refer to the above.
Can you please send across any
further documents so that I can forward to the barrister.
Thanks
Josephine
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1.
2
Asbo
Simon Cordell v. Commissioner 04-04-2016 11-48
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 674
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell v.
Commissioner 04-04-2016 11-48
04/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 674
--
674,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time: 04/04/2016 11:47:42 AM
To: too
smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner for mention at 2pm at Wood Green
Crown Court on 4th April 2016.
Simon
I refer to the above.
Can you please send across any
further documents so that I can forward to the barrister.
Thanks
Josephine
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 12-04-2016 17-30
12/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 675
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 12-04-2016
17-30
12/04/2016
/ Page Numbers: 675
--
675,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/04/2016 05:29:32 PM
To:
Josephine Ward <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: can
we do something please
hi josie
Is there any update about taking
this to court to get the conditions defined I can’t take no more of not knowing
what I am allowed to do and what I am not.
Simon
On Friday, 8 April 2016, 21:03,
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
hi Josie
please Josie can we do something
to define these conditions please. I can't stand no more Josie not knowing what
I can and can't do.
Please can you get back to me.
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 13-04-2016 16-32
13/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 676
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 13-04-2016
16-32
13/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 676
--
676,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 13/04/2016 04:31:55 PM
To: Josephine
Ward <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: can
we do something please
Hi Josie
can you please let me have an update
as to getting these ASBO conditions defined please.
Also can you give me the notes
from court on the 04/04/2016 and why did the Judge give them until the
01/09/2016 to hand over the information this does not give us any time to go
over anything I think this should have been handed over earlier so we had time.
can you explain it to me please.
Simon
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016,
17:29, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
hi josie
Is there any update about taking
this to court to get the conditions defined I can’t take no more of not knowing
what I am allowed to do and what I am not.
Simon
On Friday, 8 April 2016, 21:03,
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
hi Josie
please Josie can we do something
to define these conditions please. I can't stand no more Josie not knowing what
I can and can't do.
Please can you get back to me.
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 05-05-2016 14-15
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 677
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 05-05-2016
14-15
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 677
--
677,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/05/2016 02:14:33 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Can
you take a look at this please and tell me what you think about sending it
05/05/2016
Dear Josephine
How are you I hope all is well?
I would appreciate it if you can reply to my questions below. In the
understanding of the on goings that did occur at the court mentioning at wood
green crown court on the 22nd 23rd and 24th 02/2016, when on that date
mentioned the company, who you are acting for that is representing myself Mr.
Simon Cordell, that is named Michael Carroll & co solicitors, that you do
or did represent a contract with till the 2nd June 2016.
Before the 22nd 23rd and 24th
02/2016 when giving your legal guidance to such accusations of incidents,
referring to the organisation of illegal raves, that said in my defence this is
inclusive of the understanding to the ongoing of the case, that is being
brought by the commission of the metropolitan police, that being of a
standalone Anti-Social Behaviour Order 2003, an Act to make further provision
in relation to criminal justice and disorder act 1994, itis being said that you
did in fact explain before the date of the hearing, that being of information
regarding to the past representing barrister Mr. Andy Lock, relating to that of
Intel stating that he would not be able to attended due to being on leave and
this being of the only issue raised by yourself said to be regarding myself,
but on the date of the hearing another barrister did apply the judge in aid of
my acting solicitors yourself, so to be sure of that you have to no longer
represent me due to a breach in communication between our self's, the judge
ruled that Michael Carroll and co.’s must act till the conclusion of the case,
the Point is the judge has ordered the company to act for myself and in that
understanding I ask and request for you to direct for my case to be carried out
in such a manner, if legal to do so? I request that being of; at the day of my
trial to act litigant with my mother as a McKenzie friend and for a barrister
we select together to b< instructed to represent myself on the days of
court, also I ask of you to set up a meeting within one month of this dated
letter, between who will be taking on the case after you leave your office with
the acting barrister chosen. I believe and understand that this is within the
constraints of the law I take my guidance from https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview I also request that you call for questioning the
following officers;
I ask again am I correct in
believing that this is my rights and I can still have Michael Carroll and co
solicitors represent me if I do so?
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 05-05-2016 16-25
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 678
679,680,681,682,683
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 05-05-2016
16-25
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 678
679,680,681,682,683
--
678,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/05/2016 04:25:17 PM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: hhh
05/05/2016
Dear Josephine
How are you I hope all is well? I would
appreciate it if you can reply to my questions below. In the understanding of
the on goings that did occur at the court mentioning at wood green crown court
on the 22nd 23rd and 24th 02/2016, when on
that date mentioned the company, who you are acting for that is representing
myself Mr. Simon Cordell, that is named Michael Carroll & co solicitors,
that you do or did represent a contract with till the 2nd June 2016.
Before the 22nd 23rd
and 24th 02/2016 when giving your legal guidance to such accusations
of incidents, referring to the organisation
of
illegal raves, that said in my defence this is
inclusive of the understanding to the ongoing of the case, that is being
brought by the commissioner of the metropolitan police, that being of a standalone Anti-Social Behaviour Order 2003, an Act to make further provision
in relation
to criminal justice and disorder act 1994, it is being said that
you did in fact explain before the date of the hearing, that being of
information regarding to the past representing barrister Mr. Andy Lock,
relating to that of Intel stating that he would not be able to attended due to
being on leave and this being of the only issue raised by yourself said to be
regarding myself, but on the date of the hearing another barrister did apply to
the judge in aid of my acting solicitors yourself, so to be sure of that you
have to no longer represent me due to a breach in communication between our
self's, the judge ruled that Michael Carroll and co.’s must act till the
conclusion of the case, the Point is the judge has ordered the company to act
for myself and in that understanding I ask and request for you to direct for my
case to be carried out in such a manner, if legal to do so? I request that
being of; at the day of my trial to act litigant with my mother as a McKenzie
friend and for a barrister we select together to be instructed to represent
myself on the days of court, also I ask of you to set up a meeting within one
month of this dated letter, between who will be taking on the case after you
leave your office with the acting barrister chosen. I believe and understand
that this is within the constraints of the law I take my guidance from https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview
I
also request that you call for questioning the following officers;
I
have also made the basics of a police complaint as documented here.
Met
Police Complaint 1 |
1of
3 |
created |
on |
date |
06/00/2014 |
cad |
number |
00 |
Met
Police Complaint 2 |
2of
3 |
created |
on |
date |
16/04/2016 |
cad |
number |
00 |
Met
Police Complaint 3 |
3of
3 |
created |
on |
date |
17/04/2016 |
cad |
number |
00 |
In
reference to Met Police complaint 3 of 3 that is in
relation to an Anti-Social Behaviour order under the criminal and public order
act 1994 in order of the commissioner of the metropolitan police.
I
am Simon Cordell; my date of birth is 25th January 1981. My home address is as
stated above. I am making this official complaint further to my appeal dated
00/09 2016 in response to the police and local authority's application for an
Asbo order, to which, the case against my self is one of an hearing of application,
against the organising illegal raves, that has said too have been proven as a
guilty verdict, this is said to be against myself Mr. Simon Cordell, to which I
intend to prove that this is not correct. I was not found guilty under the
applicants case alongside many other issues of concern as listed, The day of
the courting was held at Highbury Corner Magistrate’s Court, to which I
intended to prove my innocents at, the next and earliest appeal hearing date
has now been set for Sep 2016 to my disappointment, as I have been proving my
innocents since 13th August 2014 when first accused and before this
application I had been on string Lent bail conditions that had been imposed for
other ongoing Met police procedures, to which I proved my innocents in start date
00/00/00 end date 00/00/00.
Substance
off the complaint made by Mr. Simon Cordell is;
Listing:
Issues:
(I)
Whether Mr. Simon Cordell has between the dates of January 2013 to the last
date being 10 August 2014 in the Borough of Enfield acted in an anti-social
manner likely to cause harassment alarm or distress to one or more persons not
of the same household as himself.
Mr
Simon Cordell is accused of being involved in the organisation of illegal
raves. These take place on disused warehouses or industrial land. These raves
are said to be licensable activities.
Mr.
Simon Cordell case is that he has not acted in an anti-social manner on the
dates in question.
and
that he has not organised or supplied any equipment for any the events cited in
the Respondent’s application.
Mr.
Simon Cordell has and still is in the legal framework as he challenges and
disputes the evidence presented that he
were
an organiser.
1.
It is Mr. Simon Cordell case that this ASBO was imposed upon him unlawfully for
the following reasons:
· He
was never consulted / or warned prior to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner
applying for an ASBO and this is in breach of the Guidance.
· The
imposition of the ASBO was wrong in law because nowhere in the Respondent’s case
has the Respondent proved that Mr. Simon Cordell engaged in any acts of
anti-social behaviour as defined under section 1(1) of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998. The dates as cited in the Respondent’s application dating from 12th
January 2013 up to 19th July 2014 do not specifically refer to any acts of
anti-social behaviour. Mr. Simon Cordell was and has not been arrested for any
offences on the dates in question, also supporting the fact being that of the
respondent’s case stating and being that of
679,
“The organisation of illegal raves”
under section 63 which is a criminal Act and that of the word illegal being
used when there is no breach under the licensing act 2003 this leads to a clear
breach of police enforcement of their police codes of conduct of power
regarding residences private homes of issues concerning “private house party’s”
under the Licensing act 2003 as in apex 4 of the 2003 licensing act it clearly
state as printed below “
(c) that on the 12/07/14 at time 09:53
a police officer of rank pc surname Elsmore first name Steve badge number
711243 YE was logged into the police national computer and did in development
of such an application for the commissioner of England and Wales, did fabricate
and manufacture such evidence alongside with other listed officers, this was
done by way of conspiring and concealing true
facts and if not for grid numbers not being retracted alongside other information that has been retracted creating
such forgery by officers, which could only lead a judge to gain a guilty
verdict at trial, this was also done while creating and editing statements of
truth, which can be proven by the associated unique
Urn numbers attached to police officers intelligence information reports
running consecutively with maybe a few minor adjustments, but still very clear
to see and understand as most do start with urn 000378829 then urn 000378829,
urn 000378830 and so on “as when police officers were
logged into the police national computer each report was created one after the
over but with falsified created date’s” a clear breach of police procedures,
falsifying this information could only be done to help aid in wrongful claims,
to in fact gain a guilty verdict against the defending applicant Mr. Simon
Cordell. while reciting and seeking for issue of wrongful jurisdiction of law as for fact section 63 crime
and disorder act 1998 regards outdoor
events as omitted unless trespass has taken place, no incidents that Mr. Simon
Cordell is being accused of is in fact on open air land and trespass did not
take place neither do the police provided
any evidence supporting such claims also that being of the fact relating to the
chronological sequence of the CAD reports due to the time stamps as clearly listed here;
CAD |
Numb |
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page
191 to 195 |
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page
196 to 198 |
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page
203 to 205 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page
179 to 183 |
680,
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page
233 to 237 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page
238 to 241 |
The Appellant will state that this ASBO
is disproportionate and it prevents him from engaging in lawful business. The
ASBO will prevent the Appellant from applying for licences to hold events. The
Appellant will state that whilst he is subject to an ASBO he will be prohibited
from applying for any entertainment licence and any licence application will
automatically fail and therefore this is disproportionate.
The Appellant has designed a business
plan, a festival plan and community event that sets out clearly the plans for
events including marketing, safety, stalls etc and also specifically refers to
cooperating with the police. The ASBO prevents any applications from being
successful.
The Appellant will state that he has
never been involved in the organisation of an illegal rave as defined under
section 63 of the CJPOA 1994.
Mr Simon Cordell State’s: “that he was
not rude to police, but he did feel like he cannot even go out for the day with
some of his friends, without getting stopped and searched by members of the
police.
Mr Simon Cordell State’s This Asbo
application was created in the understanding that by pc Steve Elsmore and other
acting officers acting in such a manner of the claims listed within this
document and or by allowing other officers to use his id logging to gain such
wrongful and illegal convections did do so upon oath to the legal services, new
Scotland yard London sw1h OBG Reference number L/107087/sag and stated that he
was sure that the defendant Mr. Simon Cordell was responsible for the acts to
which particulars had been given, in respect to the complaints made and
developed by them self's which are all concealed within the Asbo application,
in turn knowingly and deliberately while intentionally misusing his and their
powers of conduct, while and with complete disregard of regulations such as the
NSIR national standards incident report 2011, to aid in a manner to which was reckless
and caused extreme disregard for my and other human life's creating a breach of
many human rights as listed below with the relevant issues of concern in
regards to each set of human rights that have been breached.
• Article 2 Right to life
Article 2 requires that the Government
take steps to safeguard the lives of everyone within the U K's jurisdiction
inclusive of myself Mr. Simon Cordell:
· by having effective criminal
legislation (i.e. by making murder and manslaughter an offence so that to be
sure that no person has the right to kill any other human being this clearly is
inclusive of attempted manslaughter or attempted murder) and properly enforcing
it;
· by requiring the police to take
reasonable steps to protect an individual’s life if they know or ought to know
that there is a real and immediate risk to a person’s life - although this
should not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities;
and
· by requiring the State to take
appropriate steps to prevent accidental deaths by having a legal and
administrative framework in place to provide effective deterrence against
threats to the right to life.
I Mr.
Simon Cordell have attached to this document and have that of video evidence
supporting the fact of members of the metropolitan police who were in
attendance at my home address after I had made an emergency 999 call in regards
to myself being a victim to a threat to my life by way of two gentlemen pulling
a gun on myself out side of
my home in regards to an illegal
rave that had taken place in a warehouse that they stated was their
own and that they had seen the intelligence in the
metropolitan police website that had been published about similar offences,
making them believe I had some think or that I may have been connected to do with
their incident, the information in the police website was
wrong in law and in danger my life and was not pulled down
· Article 3 Freedom from torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment
I Mr.
Simon Cordell have suffered a servicer breach in regards to the prohibitions
relating to article three of my human rights leaving me with memories of
torture and inhuman treatment while being treated in a degrading manner by way
of being punished for allegations of a criminal offence and then having such
information published in the public domain; a punishment that was and should
have never been justified as there was no breach of the United
Kingdom Laws and such intelligence that does in fact create the bases of
evidence to support such claims is manufactured
It is an absolute right that in
no circumstances will it ever be justifiable for an officer of the state use
his powers to torture any tenant, resident person living in the United Kingdom
· Inhuman acts will amount to torture
when used to deliberately cause serious and cruel suffering.
· Treatment will be considered inhuman
when it causes intense physical or mental suffering.
· Treatment or punishment will be
degrading if it humiliates and debases a person beyond that which is usual from
punishment.
• Article 5 Right to liberty and
security
I Mr. Simon Cordell understand that my
human rights regarding my own liberty and security have been subject to a
server breaches due to members of the metropolitan police perjuring evidence in
turn creating miss gross miss conduct leading to myself being deprived of my
liberty's and security. I have been subject to gross corrupt police practice in
the understanding of a multitude of cads contained within the
681,
applicant’s application towards an
Anti-Social behaviour order that I Mr. Simon Cordell is being wrongfully
accused of being that of falsely created and audited evidence. Provided below
and contained within this document is a summary of the incidents co siding with
official dates that is also inclusive of cad numbers and relevant supported
evidence being referred too.
13th August 2014 |
The
Asbo application was created by Steve Elsmore |
13th
August 2014 |
A
meeting was held with Steve Hodgson who is a representative for Enfield Local
Authority Council and Jane Johnson on behalf of the Metropolitan police
alongside others. |
12th
September 2014 |
A
bundle is said to have been served on Mr Simon Cordell at 109 Burncroft
Avenue, to which he disputes. In reference to police complaint 1 of 3
contained at the top of the document. |
06/10/2014 |
Mr
Simon Cordell was meant to have a hearing for an interim Order, but legal aid
had not been granted. Michael
Carroll acting solicitor came to court, the judge overturned and granted
legal aid. The application for the Interim hearing the judge would not hear. |
22/10/2014 |
Interim
hearing but could not go ahead due to Andy Locke Acting Barrister had a flood
at his home address. |
05/11/2014 |
Interim
hearing and the order were granted. |
02/12/2014 |
Mr
Simon Cordell’s mother has a note on her mobile phone, stating he was in
court at Highbury Corner not sure what they were for. |
09th
10th 11th 03/2015 |
Meant
to have been set for trial but the court only booked 1-day hearing, this was
then put off until the 03rd and 04th Aug 2015 |
03rd
4th 08/2015 |
Highbury
Corner trial case part proven on the 04th 08/2015 |
26/10/2015 |
1st
hearing at Wood Green Crown to see if case was ready for appeal on the |
09/11/2015 |
Was
1st appeal date which was set for a 1-hour hearing |
22nd
23rd and 24th 02/2016 |
Set
for appeal at the crown court. |
It is said that Mr Cordell had been
found guilty on the 3rd 4th August 2015, to which he
disputes to be correct, evidence of Mr. Simon Cordell Barristers submissions
inclusive of the court transcripts of the day of trial. The respondent’s case
is that Mr Simon Cordell has been accused of being integrally involved in the
organisation of illegal raves in Enfield.
Part of the Barrister submissions that
represented Simon Cordell, had been that the allegations were that he was
involved in the organizing of illegal raves, but the applicant hadn’t adduced
evidence, of trespass or evidence of breach of the licensing Act 2003 which is
a requirement for proving, that an indoor rave was illegal. The Deputy District
Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove illegality, - all the
needed to prove was he had acted in an anti-social manner. In the view of the
barrister this was a very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based
their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves
themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the presumption of
innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus, Simon
being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more
careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
It should be agreed with the barrister
statement as when dealing with this case Mr Simon Cordell was addressing the
applicant’s case to prove that he had not been involved in organizing illegal
raves, as this is what the application against him was.
In total to date 19/04/2016 the Asbo
application has been brought before the courts inclusive of magistrates and
crown a total of 9 times the 10th to be in September 2016 to which I
still do not understand how any person could stand a fair trial with such
questions as has been referred to regarding article 5.2 of my continental human
rights as for the fact of the supported application being that of myself Mr.
Simon Cordell being legally deprived of such rights as
Article 5(2) requires that anyone
arrested must be promptly informed as to why he or she has been arrested and
what the charge against them is.
This must be conveyed to them in a
language which he or she understands.
The defendant questions the facts that
of himself not being arrested for allegations of a criminal offence that do
clearly state that they are of an
682,
illegal nature such as “the
organisation of illegal raves” and that of how a court can be sitting in its
civil capacity sitting a criminal case under section 63 of the crime and pubic
disorder act 1998 as a standalone Asbo dated 00//00/2014 and associated to the
laws of this date as for a CBO Asbo application existed and still does and
states
The criminal behaviour order (CBO) will
replace the ASBO on conviction and the DBO on conviction and will be available
in the Crown Court, magistrates' courts, or the youth court. The CBO will be
available for the most seriously anti-social individuals and could be applied
for on conviction for any criminal offence in any criminal court. The CBO can
only be made on the application of the prosecutor (in most cases the Crown
Prosecution Service, either at their own initiative or at the request of the
police or local authority).
of as permitted under Article 5(2)
which clearly states the purpose of this requirement is to enable the person to
challenge the lawfulness of their arrest.
This requirement is not only limited to
criminal context.
Also that of their being so many
inconsistencies contained within the police statements as has been submitted in
the response from the defendant Mr. Simon Cordell in receipt to the applicant
dated 00/00/2016 which clearly shows that of mutable geological locations of
wide spread incidents on the same date and same time as the one incident that
Mr. Simon Cordell has been accused of on the 6th 7th 8th
June 2014 which does in fact have all the locations blocked out by members of
the metropolitan police force and if it was not for the grid numbers not being
blocked out no person other than the developers of the application would have
known the true facts as just explained.
Once checked and recognised by any
other person in response to the claims I have just quoted, I believe that any
other body would also notice many of the irregularities that I have shown to be
fact and come to the same conclusion, so in the understanding of the statements
just made and the understanding that Mr. Simon Cordell is and was an innocent
man from the start of on goings of the Asbo application and knows that he has
not committed nor has he had the right to challenge such allegations under the
criminal justice acts that represent the United kingdom Laws and European
Treaties. As from the start of the application Mr Simon Cordell feels the need
to defend his legal right’s against such allegations of illegal statements made
by police officers against himself the same as he would if the allegations were
made by any member(s) off the public to
which no members of the public have mentioned him or a description of his
person or any associated company or business names relating to the incidents of such offences creating
the bases of a legal conviction of (organising illegal raves) In the
understanding of civil and criminal
law, Mr Simon Cordell has learnt in the understanding off all criminal cases
were some think is alleged to have taken place that is said to have been
illegal the correct Police procedure in them circumstances is that a crime will
be created under the crime and disorder act 1998 by way of a victim or witness
making a report then members of the police will be allocated to the incident
and start investigations depending on the matter of relevance to the initial
report to the resources available at the time. The investigations may lead to
an arrest what will lead the detainee to his or her statuary legal rights. In
the early 1980’s the police did have the power to take cases to court without
the decision of any other governing body, but now in 2016 the burden relays solely on the cps who are in calibration with
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and is headed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) who is independent but subject to the superintendence of the
Attorney General that is accountable to members of Parliament that do work for
the prosecution services. If charged any person’s rights are gained under
section 24 and 25 which does relate to the rights of any person charged and the
minimum standards of criminal procedure. But my case seems to sit in its civil
capacity at court with none of the above regulations and my rights being
carried out in accordance of the United Kingdom laws; please can you explain
this to me? As I have no previous convictions of similar nature neither was the
Asbo application a CBO or Asbo on conviction it is in fact a standalone Asbo
and the legal guidance is for the application not to be based upon
At the appeal date that had been set
for Feb 22nd 23rd 24th 2016 Legal aid was re
granted on the 00/00/2015
On the 2nd appeal date set
Mr Simon Cordell’s acting solicitor explained to him that she could not arrange
a barrister till April 2016, due to the past acting barrister being on leave.
Mr. Simon Cordell had many concerns
with the applicants case put towards him and had prepared a computer typed copy
of an article six that does in fact raise some of the issues of concern that he
had with the on goings of the application being put towards himself “a attached
file of a copy of what was handed to the judge has
been attached as (Exhibit 2 that being of this document
being off Exhibit 1)”, this was given to the Judge HHJ Pawlaks who refused to
read and take note to such human continental rights and ordered that I the
applicant Mr. Simon Cordell answer 5 questions A to E by a pre hearing
date of the 4th April 2016 the questions asked and answered are in
another attached file(Exhibit 3) in numeric order to this complaint. On the
same day of 22nd /4/2016 I again asked in a written letter handed to
the judge requesting for the right to a fair trial and in that letter I
believed I had proven to him more than beyond reasonable doubt that the
developers such as officer pc Steve Elsmore in the making of the Asbo
application had manufactured and fabricated such evidence of claims of
evidence, I supported this by drawing a table contained within my hand written
letter to the right to a fair trial I know this shows the errors in the time
stamps too be corrupt, I also explained that I had been held under my free
will, as the laws that do represent “the organisation of illegal raves”
relating to such a section as section 63 does not account to an indoor private
house parties unless trespass has taken place and that on the 00/00/0014 at the
day of trial at the magistrates court I was not found guilty of such crimes or
offences as stated in the transcripts of the day at court and in the barristers
submissions to my acting solicitor, also the fact that being of under the
licensing act2003 there is no breach of law when holding such private events in
private air when no profit is being made to which the applicant has not adduced
any evidence supporting claims of money equalling to profit, the incidents Mr.
Simon Cordell is and have been accused of was in fact in private place of
residence
It was explained to the judge that by
not paying attention to the true facts of the case and not putting the police
officer under investigation would in fact in danger my life Mr. Simon Cordell
as I had been explaining to every person of interest relevant to the ongoing of
my accused case load from the start of the case as I felt and still do feel
intimidated and at threat, off the police office being given time to edit more
evidence in the case to manipulate the truth and take
disregard to rules and regulation to avoid a complaint of investigation pending against himself in turn
avoiding by method of prolonging disciplinary action in turn taking away my own
security off walking down my own home streets for a period of this case to date
19/04/2016 equalling to the time length of start date of application said to
have been served in accordance
to the united kingdom laws to which an official police complaint was raisin as
listed in the first chapter of this document is 12th September 2014
total days are 00000000 The judge once again asked
held hostage to corrupt officers
allegations It was written by myself as I felt I have been if granted by the
Jude this would in fact set the new appeal date to be two months after the
already agreed appeal date of Feb 22nd, if the court aggress to such
a date, contained within the time
683,
scale of April 2016 and not any time
after, due to the court diary already being pre booked.
Points of concern leading to a breach
of article 5 of Mr. Simon Cordell human rights.
· Police complaints procedure being
that of a bios manner to aid officers from rightful investigation that would
lead to rightful tribunal action being taken against such officer’s wrongful
claims.
· L
· Article 6 Right to a fair trial
As referred to in the previous articles
of this official complaint I would like to again take reference to any person's
contravental
human rights article six
· Article 7 No punishment without law
· Article 8 Respect for your private
and family life, home and correspondence
· Article 9 Freedom of thought, belief and religion
· Article 10 Freedom of expression
· Article 11 Freedom of assembly and
association
· Article 12 Right to marry and start a
family
· Article 14 Protection from
discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
• Protocol 1, Article 1 Right to
peaceful enjoyment of your property
78.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1. 2 Asbo Me to
Josie 05-05-2
016
16-27
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 684
685,686,687,688,689
78.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1. 2 Asbo Me to Josie 05-05-2
016 16-27
05/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 684
685,686,687,688,689
--
684,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/05/2016 04:27:27 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: hhh
05/05/2016
Dear Josephine
How are you I hope all is well?
I would appreciate it if you can reply to my questions below. In the understanding
of the on goings that did occur at the court mentioning at wood green crown
court on the 22nd 23rd and 24th 02/2016, when on that date mentioned the
company, who you are acting for that is representing myself Mr. Simon Cordell,
that is named Michael Carroll & co solicitors, that you do or did represent
a contract with till the 2nd June 2016.
Before the 22nd 23rd and 24th
02/2016 when giving your legal guidance to such accusations of incidents,
referring to the organisation of illegal raves, that said in my defence this is
inclusive of the understanding to the ongoing of the case, that is being
brought by the commissioner of the metropolitan police, that being of a
standalone Anti-Social Behaviour Order 2003, an Act to make further provision
in relation to criminal justice and disorder act 1994, it is being said that
you did in fact explain before the date of the hearing, that being of
information regarding to the past representing barrister Mr. Andy Lock,
relating to that of Intel stating that he would not be able to attended due to
being on leave and this being of the only issue raised by yourself said to be
regarding myself, but on the date of the hearing another barrister did apply to
the judge in aid of my acting solicitors yourself, so to be sure of that you
have to no longer represent me due to a breach in communication between our
self's, the judge ruled that Michael Carroll and co.’s must act till the
conclusion of the case, the Point is the judge has ordered the company to act
for myself and in that understanding I ask and request for you to direct for my
case to be carried out in such a manner, if legal to do so? I request that
being of; at the day of my trial to act litigant with my mother as a McKenzie
friend and for a barrister we select together to be instructed to represent
myself on the days of court, also I ask of you to set up a meeting within one
month of this dated letter, between who will be taking on the case after you
leave your office with the acting barrister chosen. I believe and understand
that this is within the constraints of the law I take my guidance from https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview
I also request that you call for questioning the following officers;
I have also made the basics of a police complaint
as documented here.
Met Police Complaint 1 |
1of 3 |
created |
on |
date |
06/00/2014 |
cad |
number |
00 |
Met Police Complaint 2 |
2of 3 |
created |
on |
date |
16/04/2016 |
cad |
number |
00 |
Met Police Complaint 3 |
3of 3 |
created |
on |
date |
17/04/2016 |
cad |
number |
00 |
In reference to Metropolitan Police
complaint 3 of 3 that is in relation to an Anti-Social Behaviour order under
the criminal and public order act 1994 in order of the commissioner of the
metropolitan police.
I am Simon Cordell; my date of birth is
25th January 1981. My home address is as stated above. I am making this
official complaint further to my appeal dated 00/09 2016 in response to the
police and local authority's application for an Asbo order, to which, the case
against my self is one of an hearing of application, against the organising
illegal raves, that has said too have been proven as a guilty verdict, this is
said to be against myself Mr. Simon Cordell, to which I intend to prove that
this is not correct. I was not found guilty under the applicants case alongside
many other issues of concern as listed, The day of the courting was held at
Highbury Corner Magistrate’s Court, to which I intended to prove my innocents
at, the next and earliest appeal hearing date has now been set for Sep 2016 to
my disappointment, as I have been proving my innocents since 13th August
2014 when first accused and before this application I had been on string Lent
bail conditions that had been imposed for other ongoing Met police procedures,
to which I proved my innocents in start date 00/00/00 end date 00/00/00.
Substance off the complaint made by Mr.
Simon Cordell is;
Listing:
Issues:
(I) Whether Mr. Simon Cordell has
between the dates of January 2013 to the last date being 10 August 2014 in the
Borough of Enfield acted in an anti-social manner likely to cause harassment
alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself.
Mr Simon Cordell is accused of being
involved in the organisation of illegal raves. These take place on disused
warehouses or industrial land. These raves are said to be licensable
activities.
Mr. Simon Cordell case is that he has
not acted in an anti-social manner on the dates in question.
and that he has not organised or
supplied any equipment for any the events cited in the Respondent’s
application.
Mr. Simon Cordell has and still is in
the legal framework as he challenges and disputes the evidence presented that
he
were an organiser.
1. It is Mr. Simon Cordell case that
this ASBO was imposed upon him unlawfully for the following reasons:
· He was never consulted / or warned
prior to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner applying for an ASBO and this is
in breach of the Guidance.
· The imposition of the ASBO was wrong in
law because nowhere in the Respondent’s case has the Respondent proved that Mr.
Simon Cordell engaged in any acts of anti-social behaviour as defined under
section 1(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The dates as cited in the
Respondent’s application dating from 12th January 2013 up to 19th July 2014 do
not specifically refer to any acts of anti-social behaviour. Mr. Simon Cordell
was and has not been arrested for any offences on the dates in question, also
supporting the fact being that of the respondent’s case stating and being that
of
685,
Already Documented!
686,687,688,689,
79.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 18-05-2016 14-14
18/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 690
79.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 18-05-2016
14-14
18/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 690
--
690,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 18/05/2016 02:14:19 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Here
Thank you.
On Wednesday, 18 May 2016,
13:51, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: here is the file I started bbbbb and the one you sent me.
at this time working on an email
for josie to found out what is going to happen it should be ready later today
but I want to make sure I get the point across that's needs to be in one email.
I will send that when it is ready
I have also ordered the chips
now
Mum
80.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1.
2
Asbo Mother
- Re Email for Josie 22-05-2016 15-48
22/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 691,692,693
80.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - Re Email for Josie
22-05-2016 15-48
22/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 691,692,693
--
691,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 22/05/2016 03:48:15 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Email for Josie
Attachments:
case_asbo_letter_where_i_stand_22-05-2016.doc
Simon
Please see attached letter and read all
at end I written in red for you to del before it sent when sending send to both
Josie emails
692,
Hi Josie
Would it please be possible for you to
send me the barrister's notes for the last hearing please and a copy of his
submission that he wrote I know it was not handed in but would like a copy of
it please. Also, the date on my appeal I know it is in Sep 2016 at some point.
There was something’s I did want to ask
and that was why did the Judge give them until the 01/09/2016 to hand over
anything that was needed and what the judge himself asked to be given, as that
will gave us very little time in order to go over anything they hand to us and
the court. Why did no one say anything about that date as it is so close to the
appeal?
I would also like to know where I
stand; I know you are leaving Michael Carroll & Co on the 03/06/2016. So,
would like to know the person that will be taking my case over at Michael
Carroll’s & CO after you leave, is someone actually taking over my case at
the office?
The worry I have is when I spoke to
Michael Carroll at the office and he then went down and spoke to my mother he
said he will not do anything more on my case that to
much money had already be spent. So, to me he is only worried about money and
not someone’s life.
But I do feel the reason so much more
has been spent on this Appeal is due to things that I asked for and my mother
asked for to be dealt with for the trial was never done, if it had been done it
would never have taken up so much time for the Appeal hearing as it would have
already been done, so this has now needed to be addressed for the Appeal and
this work has then been added to the appeal costs, and I feel that this has
caused the cost to go up due to this so this is not my fault. As if it was done
before the trial when we were asking over and over again, the cost would have
been added to the trial costs and not the appeal costs. But it seems I get the
blame for this when I should not as it should have been addressed for the
trial.
I believe since you have looked into
what was being asked to be done for the trial you have seen the reason why we
wanted this addressed before the trial
as it is real points that should have been dealt with at the trial, you
can see yourself that parts of their
main case in their file is totally not correct and the timelines are out and
other
important parts which was never dealt
with and the police was allowed to pass this off at trial as being
correct when clearly it was not
correct. And this is an important part of this case for me to get a fair trial
which I never
got at trial.
Could I also be forwarded the trial
cost invoice for legal aid so I can see it please?
I have spoken to Michael Carroll on the
phone the other day also and he is not willing to do any other work on this
case, and states that the case is ready for appeal, how can it be ready when
there is still information to come from the CPS not later than the 01/09/2016
ordered by the Judge?
So where am I left with this no acting
solicitor to act on my behalf to deal with my appeal as Michael Carroll clearly
does not want to do anything and only says to me to talk to you, but I know you
are leaving the company so where does this leave me? And I feel I will never
get a fair appeal why because of costs, because things were not done which I
asked to be done and my mother asked for them to be done, why do I feel the way
I do about this case and the worry I have had to suffer?
There are real big issues I know that
Michael Carroll & Co does not wish to deal with this Appeal is this due to
the mess up due to things not being addressed at trial? I know Michael and you
want to get broken away from this appeal and the judge never allowed this to
happen, yet when you leave will Michael Carroll asked for this again?
How am I to know anything how am I not
meant to worry?
This is my life and I have asked time
and time again and so has my mother since this case started for the conditions
to be defined, for this to be taken back to court and get them defined no one
has done this in the case.
Even at trial Andy Locke tried to get
this dealt with and the judge would not deal with this. Why can’t these
conditions be defined by the court why have I got to suffer not going out in
fear the police will arrest me due to these conditions when I don’t understand
the conditions and how they were put in place? Surely you yourself can see the
conditions are wrong in law?
693,
I am left on conditions that have never
been defined that are a beach to my human rights and nothing has been done, yet
we have asked over and over again for this to be addressed.
I could say a lot more in this email
but time and time again things have been asked and I never get a reason or
reply.
But I would like the above issues
addressed before you leave the company on the 03/06/2016 so I know where I
stand for the appeal please.
Simon
If you think other points needs adding
then add them but Simon you need to keep this short and to point or you will
not get anywhere and you won’t get replied to any points that need to be
replied to and these are the most important points at this time once we get a
reply to these we can ask more.
81.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1.
2
Asbo
Court Transcripts Lower Court -23-05-2016 03-31
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701
81.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1. 2
Asbo Court Transcripts Lower
Court -23-05-2016 03-31
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701
--
694,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/05/2016 03:31:31 AM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Letter
Please see a copy of the court
transcripts as listed below.
R v Cordell 1
695,
Already Documented!
696,
Already Documented!
697,698,699,700,701,
82.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 23-05-2016 03-18
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 702
703,704
82.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 23-05-2016
03-18
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 702
703,704
--
702,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/05/2016 03:18:21 AM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
Dear Josephine.
How are you, I hope all is well? After
all, things considered, I will get straight into business, this letter is,
furthermore, towards our conversations, however I would appreciate it if you
can reply to my questions below, as soon as practically possible and with due
time before you finish your contract and leave office, so that we can conclude
the case files and agreed activities, such as taking the case to court, so that
to be sure that the conditions are imposed and defined within accordance of
jurisdiction of the law, as you have already agreed to do so, this is also
inclusive of all information ready for the next representative of Michael
Carroll's office, who will be the new case handler, so that he or she can be
prepared to instruct any barrister for any court herrings, as per-listed.
Some of the questions are in relation
to the understanding of the on goings that did occur, at and in the court
mentioning at wood green crown court, on the 22nd 23rd this is also inclusive
of the 24th 02/2016.
On that date mentioned the company,
who you are acting for, that is, representing myself Mr. Simon Cordell, and
further named as Michael Carroll & co solicitors, that you do or did
represent a contract with till the 2nd June 2016,
This information was also inclusive
of the understanding of the solicitor firms running objectives towards the
ongoing of this case, that in this instance is being brought against myself Mr.
Simon Cordell by the commissioner of the metropolitan police and his acting
officers, this is also inclusive of any other local authorities governing
bodies, one mentioned as Enfield council.
This being quoted being of an
application representing a standalone Anti-Social Behaviour Order 2003, an Act
to make further provision in relation to criminal justice and disorder act
1994.
It is being said that Miss Josephine
Ward, at a point of time before the date of the said trial hearing at Court,
that was postponed and did not go ahead, that she undoubtedly mentioned, when
giving her legal guidance too, such accusations of incidents, that does refer
to the organisation of illegal raves, that still said "acting in my
defence."
It is being said that you did in fact
explain before the date of the hearing, I quote; explain being of information
regarding to the past representing barrister a Mr. Andy Lock, relating to that
of Intel stating that he would not be able to attend court and act for myself
as he did previously at the magistrates court, due to being away on leave and
this being off the only issue raised by yourself, said to be regarded myself of
your concern.
On the date of the hearing another
barrister did apply to the judge, in aid of my acting solicitors yourself, so
to be sure, that of you, having to no longer represent me in the court
proceedings, due to a breakdown in communication between our self's, the judge
ruled that Michael Carroll and co.’s solicitors, must act till the conclusion
of the case, the overall Point I am highlighting as referred to is that the
judge, "on the whole" has ordered the company to act for myself Mr.
Simon Cordell.
First Question and request is.
In that understanding, I ask and
request for you to direct the case to be carried out in such a manner, if what
is being request is legal to do so. I request that being off; at the day of my
trial, to act litigant with my mother as a McKenzie friend and for a barrister
that we do select together, to represent me inclusive, so for he or she to be
well instructed to represent myself (in the background" on the days of
court.
Second Question is.
I also ask of you to set up a meeting
and for this request to be inserted within one month of this dated letter, this
meeting will and should be between who will be taking on the case, after you
leave your office, alongside with the acting barrister chosen. I believe and
understand that this is within the constraints of the law; I take my guidance
from; https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-
court/overview Second Request is;
I also request that you call for
questioning the following officers and civilians.
· Josher Holyfield
· Superintendent Jane Johnson dated 30/
October 2014
· Steve Hodgson Dated 30th October 2014
· Dc Steve Elsmore Dated
· A/PS Charles Miles Dated 2nd August
2014
· A/Inspector Hamill Dated 6th August
2014
· Pc Donald McMillan Dated 14th August
2014 and 19th August 2014^ A/Inspector Douglas Skinner Dated 15th August 2014
and 9th September 2014
· A/PS Jason Ames Dated 15th August
2014
· Pc Aaron King Dated 1 5th August 2014
and 7th September 2014
· Pc Jhon Anderson Dated 19th August
2014
· Pc Eric Baker Dated 19th August 2014
· Pc Edgoose Dated 31 August 2014
· Hugh Giles, Director of Legal
Services Metropolitan Police Director of legal services.
· Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
703,
Third question is.
Would it, please be possible for you
to send me the barrister's notes, submission that he wrote for the last hearing
also inclusive of a copy of the submission he prepared for myself in regards to
the admittance of hearsay in the ongoing of the respondent's, case.
Forth question is.
I also request the date of my up and coming
appeal, I know it is in Sep 2016 at some point in time, but I am not sure what
date.
Fifth question is.
There is the fact of the matter,
which leads me to the concern of the Judge at Wood Green Crown Court giving the
respondent, until the 01/09/2016 to hand over anything that was needed and what
the judge himself asked to be given, as this date set will give me and the
representatives of Michael carol and co solicitors, very little time in order
to go over anything that will be handed over to us and the court.
The question is why did no one say
anything about that date as it is so close to the appeal?
Sixth question is.
As has already been mentioned, I
would like to know where I stand; I know you are leaving Michael Carroll &
Co on the 03/06/2016. So, I would like to know the person that will be taking
my case over at Michael Carroll's & CO after you leave, I ask is someone
actually taking over my case at the office?
The worry I have is when I spoke to
Michael Carroll at the office, when meeting you Miss Josephine Ward, is that
Mr. Carroll then went downstairs "Outside of his office" and then
spoke to my mother, there confiscation was.
Mr. Carroll said he will not do
anything more on my case, because too much money had already been spent. So, to
me he is only worried about money and not someone's life he is acting for.
I have asked repeatedly for many
issues to be addressed from the start of the on goings of the case which has
never been done to date, issues such as defining the conditions that were wrongfully
imposed, as in fact it is clearly omitted in section 63 of the Crime and public
disorder act 1994, That stating section 63 is for outdoor events unless
trespass has taken place and all incidents being referred to are indoors, also
that being of the fact trespass clearly never happened.
The representing barrister clearly
states in his submissions to you in paragraph (11) of his notes, "Quoted
"that I was not found guilty under the respondent's case".
If such issues of concern had been
addressed as listed in all of the copies of correspondence of emails as asked
then I feel it would never have taken up so much of any person's time as listed
in date 22nd May 2016, inclusive of the new up and coming Appeal hearing, as
for sure my case would have already been rectified
I also believe I would not be feeling
deprived of justice and not with an even further risk of a further date than
the new set appeal date of September 2016.
I do believe you understand from the
barrister submissions, which were sent after the hearing at Wood Green Crown
Court to Michael carols office, this is also to be inclusive of all the emails
that I and my mother have previously sent to Miss Josephine Ward in regards to
my case, that being said in reference to myself handing to the judge on two
different occasions, a copy of an article six containing evidence of police
corruption in the development of the application you represent towards myself.
The issues listed and many other
concerns previously listed have now piled up that must be addressed for myself
to stand a fair and speedy trial, this work has then been added to the appeal
costs and I feel that this has caused the cost to go up due to no fault of my
own as I was never found guilty and the conditions were imposed wrongfully. As if
surely my concerns were managed before the start of the trial, when I and my
mother were asked over and over again, the cost would have been added to the
initial trial costs and not to the appeal costs. But it seems that I get the
blame for this when I should not.
I believe since you have looked more
into the case and what was being asked of you to be done for the trial, you
have seen and noticed the reason(s) and even further to that why we wanted this
addressed before the trial as it is real points that should have been dealt
with at the trial, you or any person
can see that parts of the respondents
case inclusive of the jurisdiction of the law is imposed wrong, there file is
totally incorrect and the timelines are not correspondent to their articles,
sort after many other important parts which was never dealt with correctly, as
for fact the police was allowed to pass such evidence off at the trial as being
correct when clearly it was not correct.
Just listed are many important facts
of this case, which should and will aid in myself to get a fair trial,"
which I never got at trial."
· Seventh question is.
Could I also be forwarded the trial
cost invoice for legal aid so I can see it please?
· Eighth question is.
I have spoken to Michael Carroll on
the phone the other day and he is also not willing to do any other work on this
case, and states that the case is ready for appeal, how can it be ready when
there is still information to come from the CPS not later than the 01/09/2016
ordered by the Judge?
704,
· Ninth question is.
So where am I left with this no
acting solicitor to act on my behalf to deal with my appeal as Michael Carroll
clearly does not want to do anything and only says to me to talk to you, but I
know you are leaving the company so where does this leave me? And I feel I will
never get a fair appeal why because of costs, because things were not done,
which I asked to be done and my mother asked for them to be done, why do I feel
the way I do about this case and the worry I have had to suffer?
· Tenth question is.
There are real big issues, I know
that Michael Carroll & Co does not wish to deal with this Appeal is this
due to the mess up due to things not being addressed at trial? I know Michael
and you want to get broken away from this appeal and the judge never allowed
this to happen, yet when you leave will Michael Carroll asked for this again?
How am I to know anything how am I
not meant to worry?
This is my life and I have asked time
and time again and so has my mother since this case started for the conditions
to be defined, for this to be taken back to court and get them defined no one
has done this in the case.
Even at trial Andy Locke tried to get
this dealt with and the judge would not deal with this. Why can't these
conditions be defined by the court why have I got to suffer not going out in
fear the police will arrest me due to these conditions an avoiding tribunal and
disciplinary action.
· Eleventh question is.
I keep explaining that I do not
understand the conditions also that being of how they were legally put in
place, so I ask you, if you yourself can see the conditions are wrong in law
and if so why?
· Twelfth question is.
I have also attached a copy of the
court transcripts of the day at Highbury Magistrates Court and request that you
verify them to be true articles and submit them to the respondent, in support
of the evidence of my trial, and confirm so?
I am left on conditions that have never
been defined that are a beach to my human rights and nothing has been done, yet
we have asked over and over again for this to be addressed.
I would like the above issues
addressed before you leave the company on the 03/06/2016 so I know where I
stand for the appeal please.
Yours fifthly Mr. Simon Cordell
83.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1.
2
Asbo
Please see a cop listed below 23-05-2016 03-32
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712
83.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1. 2
Asbo Please see a cop listed
below 23-05-2016 03-32
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712
--
705,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/05/2016 03:31:31 AM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Letter
Please see a copy of the court
transcripts as listed below.
R v Cordell 1
Def
Mother of D in court + potentially
giving evidence.
Met
Police - No objections.
Probably case will go over till
tomorrow.
· Witness of facts.
1. Officer in the case.
To be 6 witness + 22 case statements.
Def
Just gave possession of new info on
face book, not in bundles before court, but should be. Shows info suggesting
never organised but other people did, nothing to do with w/d.
DJ
Interim ASBO made case by been well?
nan?
DEF
This evidence shows that Rave on 6th
7th 8th June 2014 was nothing to do with w/d.
Miss Cordell mother has carried out her
own investigations as she was not happy with results of investigating officer /
so/s.
This is a large bundle to get through
this late.
If the material can be vied by the DJ
and then if (Possible metered) then DJ can decide on admissibility of the
evidence.
DJ
Producing material, however relevant,
10 minutes before a trial is not acceptable.
Met Police 1st Statement
DEF.
Has made a application for an ASBO Order.
Inspector Hamill to lead....
Witness 1 - Inspector Hamill - 11.15am
Statement contained in tab 9-lead DEF XEX
Intel would be by open source, checked
by an officer but was not done by me.
The rave was taking place indoors.
I have not personal spoken to the
owners of the venue.
I only see the D on the Saturday on the
evening of the 7th Saturday.
I did not go inside; the gates were
closed.
I did not see any vehicles.
D'S Van registration is known to the
police, but I would not personally know.
There were vehicles parked but I did
not notice whether defendants van was there.
He was not aware of people squatting in
that building at that time.
R v Cordell 2
Hearsay of officers continues.
D @ venue but officer does not present
here today.
There was a rave on an adjourning RD
but not on that day.
Phone calls received were not relating
to Crown Rd Rave on that day.
On the day in question phone calls
related to this particular rave. (Progress Way.)
Met Police RE-XE
My understanding is the door staff @
gate presented D as the event organiser, referring to page 184 Info re:
caller reporting incident.
DJ
Was? SH? opp
raised previously.
DEF
No.
Witness 2 Pc Miles - RO - 11:45 Am EIC
Attended venue on the 7th
alone - did look @ Intel before attending.
Officer did not speak to any of the
owners.
Did not know D was with Tyrone
Benjamin.
WINTNESS 3 - PC Skinner - Bundle Tabs
12 of 13 Lead Statement 1 Tab 13
On the 7th Duty officer +
walked into Estate and saw a van but did not recognise van.
He saw D however who admitted he was
the organiser of the rave.
Statement 2 Tab 12
Youths were committing shop lifting out
of the petrol station.
I had to call for reserve intervention.
I arrested D and people dispersed and D
was realised.
Rave did not take place.
No doght the
rave would have continued had he not arrested D.
DEF XEX.
1 9th
July event @ Carpet right company building was occupied.
Saw speakers - Intel were loading
equipment indoors.
706,
Details of van taken but was not D.
Carpet right was padlock round metal
barrier.
Other car park had a front entrance.
I was senior officer attending the
venue.
Later on I instructed the sergeant to
contact the owners.
I latter see the defendant getting out
the van.
I can't remember that, I may have updated
others in relation to D getting out of van. But I may or may not have updated
the system. On the 7th June D made admissions to me not aware of
squatters.
Met XEX
Refers to statement on page 76
Witness Pc Edgoose - R.O 12:14pm EIC
Read
Statement 21
Incident of 24th July:
I was in a vehicle that stopped D's
Vehicle.
No threat to break defendant's window
(ok)
It was all about drug issues.
Witness VI - Pc King 12:28pm EIC Tab
15/16
RVCORDELL 3
Statement Page 41
Officer has only met D once before.
D has all ways been polite.
Has never had any problem with the
defendant.
D was relying eloquent of clearly knows
the how.
Witness Pc Ames - Acting sergeant - R.O
-12:46 Pm EIC DEF XEX
Event was outdoors.
Saw sound equipment substance speaker’s
box.
Approximately the size of witness box
but could not remember really as he was distracted by people.
No further questions.
Witness - Pc Elsmore - R.O - 14:10 EIC
Tab 6 - pg DEF XEX
The Council is confused that of the PNC
info of the statements, Council adds no probationary value of info Re:
Witness being “afraid of D” Which he puts down to the way he worded, but he
meant that people actually are afraid of possibly giving evidence in court.
DEF
Counsel argues that officer’s statement
is designed to cause on evidence reaction of this of no value and speculatory
in nature.
DJ
How many calls from public did police
receive?
Witness
In excess of 15 calls - how many to the
same venue and not other address.
Officer does not know the number of
callers in relation to each of these occasions.
On page 15 - Allegations re:
Mill marsh Lane, evidence from officer not first-hand - relied on cads and
another Intel.
Query Re:”3 massive nitrous
tanks”
DJ
Where did you get such info officer
Witness
From Page 65 - sergeant King - Crimit's
Re reports, other Intel but not from people at the venue.
COUNSEL
Officer you signed a statement of truth
===to other witness statements.
DJ
We all know that on ASBO apps hearsay
is allowed.
Counsel
Why did officer no and rely on Pc Kings
Statements later than on the Crimit's reported.
R V CORDELL 4
Officer no and involved in taking info
from Pc King.
Confesses he did it.
Did not, notice the discrepancy on
statements.
Have heard of Every Decibel Matters -
They were advertising and I believe the D knows a member of the above company.
No evidence D is involved in running
their operations.
No attempt has been made to speak to
directors of company.
No reason to why you didn't /contact
the company.
I think from memory have met D once @
Edmonton police station.
At Page 16 1st paragraph -
not consistent to fact that he met him on the 7/6/2014
All notes with cad number were listed
from reports not officers’ own words - same applies from Cads that had not
input.
Has not made any attempts to contact
owners of premises.
Officers unable to assist courts in
relation to why statements were not signed on notebooks profiles.
Another example of doings put in
statements to blacken Mr Cordell's evidence in statement @ point 12, No
convictions that of class A drugs unlike what's written in
Statements - another example of untrue
cut and paste.
DJ
Ill ignore because no convections of
class A drugs or supplying.
707,
Counsel
You cannot assist with witness
reliability of info contained, can you?
Can Intel be wrongfully inaccurate? No
Officer
On that particular re post, it appears
to be right.
I did not speak to Parcell
he is force @ 7 boroughs.
I believe he was not included in the email,
because Intel (text missing) Email sent to LDE only.
Searched (text missing) for info on
Cordell's convections.
Moving on to statement on Page 30
Does PO investigating unit have more
info than it is letting on?
Officer
No
Are you aware that Miss Cordell has
spoken to other officers Re: Rave?
Suggests that you do not want DS Tanner
to be examined on these proceedings because she has information Re knowledge of
raves and them not being connected to W/D
Spoke to Pc Tanner but not written what
- spoke to (text missing) this year.
You have no recorded that you emailed
her but then spoken to her.
Emails have been deleted and no copies
keep on record.
Met police
XEX OF Witness vii
Done oath seductions:
Nothing in the contents of this report
is inaccurate to my knowledge.
DEF
Hopefully the 2 witnesses on behalf of
D should be able to give evidence tomorrow.
Witness viii
Miss Cordell ATT - 16:05 - EIC
RVCORDELL 5
D (her son) lives separately from me
but I have been trying to help him sort out inaccuracies with both his PNC and
other police matters.
Police is still popping around to his
house - Simon tells me and also, I physically get to his flat before police
have left.
He is being harassed by police.
DJ
Are 6 officers not reliant - on witness
statement - there for putting a line though RD.?
DEF
Material deters with PNC that was
included by Met - Therefore right to challenge. Plus, PNC in evidence does not
correct.
DJ
Very little weight will be given to
PNC.
DJ
Miss Cordell Met XEX
Bottom of Page 8 - Leaving party for
Dwayne Edwards.
I got there at 7:30PM and left about
9:30 Pm 6th - 8thJune - D was also with Dwayne the days of Saturday
and Sunday as well.
He was at my house for a 1 hour and half
on Saturday and 1 hour on Sunday during the day. I agree I did not include it
in my statement.
On Sunday it was around midday.
· was not with D from about 2AM on
Sunday, no I was not.
Nor at 2AM on Saturday either.
On the 7th June I did see my
son and so did all my family members that were at the party.
At Page 14
“Police did not have 101 books “
· and 3 paragraphs
Accepts that was told to me by DS
Chapman.
DS Tanner called me on 11th
or 12th. I believe they have a lot more information.
I am aware of full (text missing)
Alleged involvement but not raves.
I do believe that met have a vendetta
against my whole family including Tyrone - Harassment: pull them out for
no reason, I would not say from every officer.
Miss Cordell continues
I am saying that there may be some
truth but allegations of my son organising raves is
horrendous.
Been scribbled out?
About medical statements of info has
not been contained re question: D had been stabbed and was in hospital Been
scribbled out?
20th June couldn't give
evidence as to D were about but believe he had been arrested on the 19th
20th July does not witness him - did not give detailed route in
statement because did not think it was relevant.
Problems with service of docs with
police and would not take bundle because (text missing) with police, he panics
and rings me every time he is stopped.
I have so (text missing) and right down
all encounters with police all low not in the bundle.
DEF XEX
R V CORDELL 6
I accept involvement of police - they
interact with her son and family.
You said Met police have a lot of info
of you said “accepted involvement but not raves “
I have involvement with police of lots
of data practically with Simon, but not in regard to raves, issues other than
raves. I don't accept he is involved in organisation of raves.
Case Continues Tomorrow.
R V CORDELL 2/2 DAYS 1
Witness XEX
So, you are not yet Charity registered
“Too Smooth”
Company were young eutrepures can
advertise their Business. Page 77
708,
Retail brunches relating to music,
sound equipment and co involved in provision of sound equipment.
Never took profit money from company.
Page 87
Deposit of Ł700-.00 daily rate is Ł100.
It is my signature at the end of this
(text missing) the figures have not been edited - Page 88
All deposits are non-returnable under
any circumstances on this mandatory if the equipment got confiscated, I did not
make any profit, and I just did it to get to no people.
Non-profit it is just a hobby.
Statement from Page 2 - Bottom of Page:
You state that I accept, and aim was to
rent equipment.
Its
being suggested to you that the business you was
designed was to make a profit.
DJ
As you own entertainment equipment -
Yes -
I was not renting out equipment - being
it a lot suggested that primary aim was to make a profit.
Renting him out sound equipment,” no I
was not at all.”
Are you aware that music is a licensed
activity and beliefs need a licence to play music?
I need a licence for both premises -Yes
- I would not check if lending equipment to a private party.
Too Smooth Is registered but not
trading because of the ASBO including Interim Order, my reputation has been
ruined.
Interim App on 18th 2014 so
before then June 2014? 4th? September Were any business transaction conducted
during them periods.
I sold Business transactions.
I have lent to councils but not for
business transactions, as a friend only.
It's incorrect that I was setting up
raves.
Page 50 - bundle tab 9 - Inspector
Hamill
I walked from Great Cambridge Rd
towards them, it would be, impossible for door staff to get me for I was on the
other side of Rd, never on the premises.
“Yes” it is incorrect.
RVCORDELL
7
“Yes” POs mistaken.
Page 38 - Tab 13 - Detective Skinner 2
events Page 75 - Tab 24
D denies knowing people alleged to have
worked for him on the night - either Pc or person mentioned in statement is
wrong.
Reason why you're found in these raves
is because you help organise them.
Page 141
Vehicle was owned by me but was sold
and now brought back.
Statement Page 3 Page 104
I was not with Holly Field on that day.
Page 99
Accept I was there in the van inside
the unit.
The report is wrong; I had 2 boxes in
the van - No speakers - I was not in the premises.
Did not help organise Rave and sound
equipment was not mine.
I have tried to hire equipment but
organisation of event - Birthday party nothing to do with me.
Is Pc Chandlers report wrong as well?
“Yes”
9 / 10 - August 2014 Bottom Page 7
(Statement)
Accept I attended venue - for Birthday
dinner - I was invited 200 People turning up had nothing to do with me.
With social networking it is easy for some one to have 200friends.
I had cylinders in my vehicle, requires
legal authorisations, I have them on my car, for welding - I do welding
continuously. I do it as a hobby.
I was not at the location for a large
rave.
I do remember many people turning up.
I remember police being in attendance.
I would never shout @ crowd - to busy
talking to the police.
Pc statements are wrong.
There's a possibility that I did say to
police that it was a private conference.
DJ
Do you know that 20 people is the
maximum - Yes Def XEX
Was Pc Edgoose out of car? - I know two
of them come out of car and approached me.
24th May Incident - Do you
remember speaking with Pc Jackson? Do not remember names.
Paragraph of T and C'S Re Falcon Park
(Statement)
Deposit does go back unless damage or loss
stopping due to breach of agreement.
Amount = No Fee
NFO
DEF
Additional witness not here, statement
can be read but less weight because witness not here.
Witness 2 can be here in 1 half hours
Half evidence
R V CORDELL
8
13:30pm DEF
N.F Witness.
Case closing subs.
Statutory test key:
· Whether D has acted in an Anti-Social
Manner: Alarm / Distress.
· Astonishing of council to make that
whole 11 officers were wrong.
· D's evidence is also not merit and
neither his witness statements.
709,
· D's Mothers evidence - totally
irrelevant - her evidence is based on conspiracy police have against her
family.
· 7th June Witness Inspector
Hamill and SO, Miles witness, Cordell (D). Inspector Hamill miles points, to D
being the organiser.
· Disruption and concern Rave caused that
is outlined by Cad Reports and officers’ statements.
· 19th July Inspector Skinner
describes a rave and Cordell being organiser, another statement as far as D is
concerned, which is totally wrong,
· Crimit's reports show D as organiser,
of large raves according to officer's statements.
· Test mode out of submissions above.
· Consistent Patten of behaviour as by of
D concerned.
1. Test
of Public Nuisance? Does not (text missing) delaminates? Of fact, but from
Cad's Re: alarm distress etc. Shows this has happened.
The impact this has on police resources
looking @ noise levels and potentially speculating out of control. - Disorder
due to shutting events down.
2. Pc
Elsmore: Description (of crime) levels after the D was subject to order
has reduced - only 3 - when D was active was significant more.
3. The
order is necessary, and attention drawn to carefully word interim order.
Def Closing subs
1) Test to be passed can the
allegations be proven? Deceived that alleged it may be illegal, it does not
need to cause Alarm harm or Distress. Page 2 and 3,
Hearsay from Steve Elsmore is a copy
and paste job.
Pc Parcel does not correct to file
evidence, of Crimit's, which contained incorrect evidence that cannot be backed
up, of D known for class A drugs and or supply - info is widely inaccurate.
Totality of evidence is hearsay as well
as reports at Cannery Wharf.
No proof this was an illegal rave, as
S.63 CJO 1994, No proof of Tress Pass - determination not proved to Criminal
Legal Standards.
I did XEX Officer of @ no time did he
indicate where info had come from, 24/05/2014.
2nd Allegations -
Application relies on Hearsay again and Crimit's Pages 104 - 107, noted from
evidence.
2nd Could hearsay from
Josher Holyfield, who allegedly confessed that was looking to set up raves --(A
large section of court transcripts are missing)
Crimit's, “steward not her again.”
RVCORDELL 8
Page 98-100 - hearsay - from a Pc again
- all in 3rd person, no indication that Pc attended himself.
No evidence that it was illegal rave.
Show determination in view of illegal rave
and no proof has been submitted or covers witness as victim.
No allegations where app. Produced 1st
hand evidence.
The particulars of allegations states illegal rave and no proof of the required standards
has been submitted, nothing adduced.
It may be unlikely for presumption that
given but it's possible.
In XEX.
App (text missing) del failed to
Enfield Council, who did not pursue.
Does it show the organiser or just
someone getting involved in things he shouldn't.
Hearsay be (text missing) Grounds are not
here.
No evidence police confirmed D to be
organiser.
D spoke to police; he gives reasonable
Intel, calming he can't keep his mouth shut.
A man who state's his someone else's
lawyer.
This is a rave said to have lasted 3
days, but evidence is weak.
Tyrone's presence was untrue, due to
life threatening injuries. No competent evidence.
Police had Intel, Re: Every
Decibel Matters, with no further line of investigation.
Additional hearsay, only evidence is a
van of equipment hired equipment for free.
19/07/2014
Carpet Right - Inspector Skinners
evidence - the indoor test of legality is proof of trespass and nothing
adducted.
Mystery why no statement was taken from
owner of keys? Also, whether or not consultation's had
been given to access the premises.
On another occasion: Mr Cordell gave
explanations to his presents.
24/07/14
“D does not accept he organised”, Pc
Edgoose Page 50 - statement said he “did organise illegal raves” Admissions
alleged from evidence, Entirely of conversations of others, not clear.
27/07/14
Same on Mill marsh Lane, hearsay
evidence of a number of Pc's, who were called and gave evidence.
Interesting that someone other than D,
(lost text) has supported evidence of people living and potentially others on
the land treating it as home. Further evidence inaccurate regards shoplifters.
9/10 August
Evidence of Pc officers, does not match
up with allegations in the application - on his duties, odd their being
squatters, also did not try to contact owner while on duty suggesting D there
at private party - due to lack of suitable equipment, evidence D was attending
a private party.
Councillor.
General credibility of witnesses was
errors, because hearsay of Crimit's of no prominence taking into account weight
of statement.
Page 32? day and event 2.
Inconsistencies that are bios of
officers to include evidence that favours the application by being unreadable.
R V CORDELL -09-
Allegation of 15 to10 boys (text
missing) to talk unrelative of conduct.
Fear of reprisals.
LTC when given evidence was to prove
sound organisation possibly which D accepts.
If? D was polite on his case.
Investigation not performed with
measurements as it should have been.
Vendetta families highlighted.
Inconsistence's between start of
Crimit's, a complete absinth of follow up, “is simply worrying”.
What other info is wrong, that we have
not been able to check?
DJ
Mr Justio?? Pitions??? - sum ???? and????
Test of???? - Not related to police
resources.
Was ASBO serious and persistent?
Decrease in activity - “huge decrees
since Interim ASBO “but no indication of trends: before - after and previous
years.
710,
Pc Elsmore, couldn't say, why there was
a decrease in raves.
Correspondence of consultation - so far
this relies wrongfully on weak evidence.
Met on points of how then the statutory
test, in relation to raves and into what is required.
DJ
Delivery of judgment @ 15:32pm
Satisfied so that she is sure, that the
D acted, during the dates in a manner so for the ABSBO to be Granted.
Order necessary for reasons:
· Nature of conduct of these parties’
· Noise of ????/? of ?????? civil
· Police officers have to attend in large
numbers.
· Since interim order there has been a
decrease in this type of activity.
· Satisfied D has acted in as manner, of
such conduct, that he caused harassment alarm, distress.
· Conduct is necessary to protect
residents of Enfield, from anti-social acts, from Simon Cordell.
DJ
Need to ensure probations are precise
to award.
DEF
D's attendance at raves is not an issue
and places unreasonable burden on him for attending parties when 20 people
attended and what appears to be illegal then turns out to be legal, also places
D in a difficult position if false steps are made to legality of parties, ASBO
must be prevelitive
DJ
D can carry out legitimate and licensed
business.
Point D; “or local authority addition”
DJ “To a period of 5 years”
Propitiations are precise and plain.
Terms of the Order.
D to upset then left room but lawyer
present.
Terms need adding
END OF THE COPY OF THE Highbury
Magistrates Court Transcripts.
On Monday, 23 May 2016, 3:18, Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Dear Josephine.
How are you, I hope all is well?
After all, things considered, I will get straight into business, this letter
is, furthermore, towards our conversations, however I would appreciate it if
you can reply to my questions below, as soon as practically possible and with
due time before you finish your contract and leave office, so that we can
conclude the case files and agreed activities, such as taking the case to
court, so that to be sure that the conditions are imposed and defined within
accordance of jurisdiction of the law, as you have already agreed to do so,
this is also inclusive of all information ready for the next representative of
Michael Carroll's office, who will be the new case handler, so that he or she
can be prepared to instruct any barrister for any court herrings, as
per-listed.
Some of the questions are in relation
to the understanding of the on goings that did occur, at and in the court
mentioning at wood green crown court, on the 22nd 23rd this is also inclusive
of the 24th 02/2016.
On that date mentioned the company,
who you are acting for, that is, representing myself Mr. Simon Cordell, and
further named as Michael Carroll & co solicitors, that you do or did
represent a contract with till the 2nd June 2016,
This information was also inclusive
of the understanding of the solicitor firms running objectives towards the
ongoing of this case, that in this instance is being brought against myself Mr.
Simon Cordell by the commissioner of the metropolitan police and his acting
officers, this is also inclusive of any other local authorities governing
bodies, one mentioned as Enfield council. This being quoted being of an
application representing a standalone Anti-Social Behaviour Order 2003, an Act
to make further provision in relation to criminal justice and disorder act
1994.
It is being said that Miss Josephine
Ward, at a point of time before the date of the said trial hearing at Court,
that was postponed and did not go ahead, that she undoubtedly mentioned, when
giving her legal guidance too, such accusations of incidents, that does refer
to the organisation of illegal raves, that still said "acting in my
defence."
It is being said that you did in fact
explain before the date of the hearing, I quote; explain being of information
regarding to the past representing barrister a Mr. Andy Lock, relating to that
of Intel stating that he would not be able to attend court and act for myself
as he did previously at the magistrates court, due to being away on leave and
this being off the only issue raised by yourself, said to be regarded myself of
your concern.
On the date of the hearing another
barrister did apply to the judge, in aid of my acting solicitors yourself, so
to be sure, that of you, having to no longer represent me in the court
proceedings, due to a breakdown in communication between our self's, the judge
ruled that Michael Carroll and co.’s solicitors, must act till the conclusion
of the case, the overall Point I am highlighting as referred to is that the
judge, "on the whole" has ordered the company to act for myself Mr.
Simon Cordell.
First Question and request is.
In that understanding, I ask and
request for you to direct the case to be carried out in such a manner, if what
is being request is legal to do so. I request that being off; at the day of my
trial, to act litigant with my mother as a McKenzie friend and for a barrister
that we do select together, to represent me inclusive, so for he or she to be
well instructed to represent myself (in
711,
the background" on the days of
court.
Second Question is.
I also ask of you to set up a meeting
and for this request to be inserted within one month of this dated letter, this
meeting will and should be between who will be taking on the case, after you
leave your office, alongside with the acting barrister chosen. I believe and
understand that this is within the constraints of the law; I take my guidance
from; https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview
Second Request is;
I also request that you call for
questioning the following officers and civilians.
· Josher Holyfield
· Superintendent Jane Johnson dated 30/
October 2014
· Steve Hodgson Dated 30th October 2014
· Dc Steve Elsmore Dated
· A/PS Charles Miles Dated 2nd August
2014
· A/Inspector Hamill Dated 6th August
2014
· Pc Donald McMillan Dated 14th August
2014 and 19th August 2014^ A/Inspector Douglas Skinner Dated 15th August 2014
and 9th September 2014
· A/PS Jason Ames Dated 15th August
2014
· Pc Aaron King Dated 15th August 2014 and
7th September 2014
· Pc Jhon Anderson Dated 19th August
2014
· Pc Eric Baker Dated 19th August 2014
· Pc Edgoose Dated 31 August 2014
· Hugh Giles, Director of Legal
Services Metropolitan Police Director of legal services.
· Sally Gilchrist Legal Executive
Third question is.
Would it, please be possible for you
to send me the barrister's notes, submission that he wrote for the last hearing
also inclusive of a copy of the submission he prepared for myself in regards to
the admittance of hearsay in the ongoing of the respondent's, case.
Forth question is.
I also request the date of my up and
coming appeal, I know it is in Sep 2016 at some point in time but I am not sure
what date.
Fifth question is.
There is the fact of the matter,
which leads me to the concern of the Judge at Wood Green Crown Court giving the
respondent, until the 01/09/2016 to hand over anything that was needed and what
the judge himself asked to be given, as this date set will give me and the
representatives of Michael carol and co solicitors, very little time in order
to go over anything that will be handed over to us and the court.
The question is why did no one say
anything about that date as it is so close to the appeal?
Sixth question is.
As has already been mentioned, I
would like to know where I stand; I know you are leaving Michael Carroll &
Co on the 03/06/2016. So, I would like to know the person that will be taking my
case over at Michael Carroll's & CO after you leave, I ask is someone
actually taking over my case at the office?
The worry I have is when I spoke to
Michael Carroll at the office, when meeting you Miss Josephine Ward, is that
Mr. Carroll then went downstairs "Outside of his office" and then
spoke to my mother, there confiscation was.
Mr. Carroll said he will not do
anything more on my case, because too much money had already been spent. So, to
me he is only worried about money and not someone's life he is acting for.
I have asked repeatedly for many
issues to be addressed from the start of the on goings of the case which has
never been done to date, issues such as defining the conditions that were
wrongfully imposed, as in fact it is clearly omitted in section 63 of the Crime
and public disorder act 1994, That stating section 63 is for outdoor events
unless trespass has taken place and all incidents being referred to are
indoors, also that being of the fact trespass clearly never happened.
The representing barrister clearly
states in his submissions to you in paragraph (11) of his notes, "Quoted
"that I was not found guilty under the respondent's case".
If such issues of concern had been
addressed as listed in all of the copies of correspondence of emails as asked
then I feel it would never have taken up so much of any person's time as listed
in date 22nd May 2016, inclusive of the new up and coming Appeal hearing, as
for sure my case would have already been rectified
I also believe I would not be feeling
deprived of justice and not with an even further risk of a further date than
the new set appeal date of September 2016.
I do believe you understand from the
barrister submissions, which were sent after the hearing at Wood Green Crown
Court to Michael carols office, this is also to be inclusive of all the emails
that I and my mother have previously sent to Miss Josephine Ward in regards to
my case, that being said in reference to myself handing to the judge on two
different
712,
occasions, a copy of an article six
containing evidence of police corruption in the development of the application
you represent towards myself.
The issues listed and many other
concerns previously listed have now piled up that must be addressed for myself
to stand a fair and speedy trial, this work has then been added to the appeal
costs and I feel that this has caused the cost to go up due to no fault of my
own as I was never found guilty and the conditions were imposed wrongfully.
As if surely my concerns were managed
before the start of the trial, when I and my mother were asked over and over
again, the cost would have been added to the initial trial costs and not to the
appeal costs. But it seems that I get the blame for this when I should not.
I believe since you have looked more into
the case and what was being asked of you to be done for the trial, you have
seen and noticed the reason(s) and even further to that why we wanted this
addressed before the trial as it is real points that should have been dealt
with at the trial, you or any person
can see that parts of the respondents
case inclusive of the jurisdiction of the law is imposed wrong, there file is totally
incorrect and the timelines are not correspondent to their articles, sort after
many other important parts which was never dealt with correctly, as for fact
the police was allowed to pass such evidence off at the trial as being correct
when clearly it was not correct.
Just listed are many important facts
of this case, which should and will aid in myself to get a fair trial,"
which I never got at trial."
· Seventh question is.
Could I also be forwarded the trial
cost invoice for legal aid so I can see it please?
· Eighth question is.
I have spoken to Michael Carroll on
the phone the other day and he is also not willing to do any other work on this
case, and states that the case is ready for appeal, how can it be ready when
there is still information to come from the CPS not later than the 01/09/2016
ordered by the Judge?
· Ninth question is.
So where am I left with this no
acting solicitor to act on my behalf to deal with my appeal as Michael Carroll
clearly does not want to do anything and only says to me to talk to you, but I
know you are leaving the company so where does this leave me? And I feel I will
never get a fair appeal why because of costs, because things were not done,
which I asked to be done and my mother asked for them to be done, why do I feel
the way I do about this case and the worry I have had to suffer?
· Tenth question is.
There are real big issues, I know
that Michael Carroll & Co does not wish to deal with this Appeal is this
due to the mess up due to things not being addressed at trial? I know Michael
and you want to get broken away from this appeal and the judge never allowed
this to happen, yet when you leave will Michael Carroll asked for this again?
How am I to know anything how am I
not meant to worry?
This is my life and I have asked time
and time again and so has my mother since this case started for the conditions
to be defined, for this to be taken back to court and get them defined no one
has done this in the case.
Even at trial Andy Locke tried to get
this dealt with and the judge would not deal with this. Why can't these
conditions be defined by the court why have I got to suffer not going out in
fear the police will arrest me due to these conditions an avoiding tribunal and
disciplinary action.
· Eleventh question is.
I keep explaining that I do not
understand the conditions also that being of how they were legally put in
place, so I ask you, if you yourself can see the conditions are wrong in law
and if so why?
· Twelfth question is.
I have also attached a copy of the
court transcripts of the day at Highbury Magistrates Court and request that you
verify them to be true articles and submit them to the respondent, in support
of the evidence of my trial, and confirm so?
I am left on conditions that have never
been defined that are a beach to my human rights and nothing has been done, yet
we have asked over and over again for this to be addressed.
I would like the above issues
addressed before you leave the company on the 03/06/2016 so I know where I
stand for the appeal please.
Yours fifthly Mr. Simon Cordell
84.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1.
2
Asbo
Re Letter 23-05-2016 03-32
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
84.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1. 2
Asbo Re Letter 23-05-2016 03-32
23/05/2016
/ Page Numbers: 713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
--
713,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/05/2016 03:31:31 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Letter
Please see a copy of the court
transcripts as listed below.
R v Cordell
714,
Same as Above!
715,
Same as Above!
716,717,718,719,720,
85.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1.
2
Asbo
Simon Cordell v Commissioner 12-07-2016 13-17
12/07/2016
/ Page Numbers: 721
85.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1. 2
Asbo Simon Cordell v Commissioner
12-07-2016 13-17
12/07/2016
/ Page Numbers: 721
--
721,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 12/07/2016 01:16:57 PM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
re_wired@ymail.com
Subject: Simon
Cordell v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner appeal against imposition of an
ASBO 29th, 30th September 2016 and 1st October 2016
Dear Simon / Lorraine I refer to
the above matter.
Please note that Mr Andrew Locke
has returned from a career sabbatical and he has agreed to deal with the appeal
against the imposition of an ASBO. I am in the process of confirming a
conference date with Mr Locke, hopefully within the next two weeks. I have
notified Mr Morris from the Public Defender Service that Mr Locke is your
preferred choice and I have requested the written submissions that he had
prepared for the mention hearing in April 2016 that you did not consent to or
permit us to serve upon the prosecution, instead your own document was served
at your insistence and contrary to the advice given by both Mr Andrew Morris
and myself. Please confirm any dates that you are not available so that this
conference can be arranged.
I have requested previously the
complete list of witnesses that you now insist on calling and specifying their
relevance to the ASBO appeal and the issues as to whether you were an organiser
of illegal raves. I cannot advise on whether the witnesses are relevant to an
issue in the appeal without you confirming the list and specifying their
relevance.
I await hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
86.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
86. 1.
2
Asbo
Conference with h July 2016 - 13-07-2016 12-53
13/07/2016
/ Page Numbers: 722
86.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
86. 1. 2
Asbo Conference with h July 2016
- 13-07-2016 12-53
13/07/2016
/ Page Numbers: 722
--
722,
From:
Josephine Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 13/07/2016 12:53:17 PM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
re_wired@ymail.com
Subject: Conference
with Mr Andrew Locke - 27th July 2016
Dear Simon / Lorraine
The earliest date that Mr Locke
is available for a conference to discuss your appeal is the 27th July 2016. Can
you please ensure that you make yourself available on that date. I will confirm
the time and location on Monday 25th July 2016.
Yours sincerely
Josephine Ward MICHAEL CARROLL
& CO.
87.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
87. 1.
2
NHS
Complaints Advocate 02-09-2016 20-57
02/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 723
87.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
87. 1. 2
NHS Complaints Advocate 02-09-2016
20-57
02/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 723
--
723,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 02/09/2016 08:57:16 PM
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Hello Paige
I am Mr Simon Cordell and this
is just a quick reply back to yourself in regard to our conversation earlier
today on the telephone, It was very nice to talk with you and you was a great
help with lots of well needed information I will be sending you the consent
form completed with my statements of facts I hope to achieve this by tomorrow
say mid-day.
Kind regards,
Mr Simon Cordell
If ever any quires, please don’t
hastate to contact me by way of my personal mobile phone.
On Friday, 2 September 2016,
14:57, Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org> wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent
form as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your
case and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
t: 07918
561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630
Company No. 3798884 (England and
Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact us/#Email
88.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1.
2
Me to
Mother Reports uding a reply 03-09-2016 10-47
03/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737
88.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1. 2
Me to Mother Reports uding a reply 03-09-2016 10-47
03/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737
--
724,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 03/09/2016 10:46:31 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Here
Attachments: julia_report.pdf Goodie_Full.pdf
I added files so they are in one
see attached
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 02
September 2016 20:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: files
This is the reports from the hospital
including a reply I am up to my statement at the end.
725,
Mental Health NHS Trust
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Haringey Assessment Ward St
Ann’s Hospital St Ann’s Road N15 3TH
Telephone No: 020
8702 6120
julia_report.pdf
25/08/16
Inpatient Psychiatric Report for
Mental Health Tribunal on 26/08/16
Name: Mr
Simon Cordell
Home address: 109 Burncroft
Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex
Date of birth: 26 Jan 1981
Hospital: St
Ann’s Hospital, St Ann’s Road, London, N15 3TH
MHA status: Section
2
Responsible Clinician: Dr
Julia Cranitch
Date admitted: 16
August 2016
1. Preamble
1.1 I am preparing
this report for Simon Cordell's Mental Health Act Tribunal in my function as
the ST4 doctor working at the Haringey Assessment Ward under the supervision of
Dr Cranitch (Consultant Psychiatrist in General Adult Psychiatry). I am a full
member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists since 2015.
1.2 This
report has been prepared for the Mental Health Tribunal hearing-w 26th August
2016. In preparing this report I have had access to Mr Cordell’s electronic
patient record or RIO, and I have had personal knowledge of Mr Cordell since
22nd August 2016.
726,
2.
History of Presenting circumstances
2.1 5/8/16
Mr Cordell was arrested by police at his home after allegations that he had
made threats to harm his neighbour and her children. The forensic medical
examiner requested a mental health act assessment due to concerns about Mr
Cordell’s mental state.
2.2 Assessing
doctors felt that Mr Cordell presented with features suggestive of mental
illness, in particular paranoid persecutory ideas about the police and his
mother Collateral history suggested deterioration in Mr Cordell’s mental state: that he has been withdrawn and
expressed beliefs that the television is talking about him and paranoid ideas
about his mother alongside recreational use of 'laughing gas' Neighbours had
reported verbal aggression, playing loud music. Mr Cordell presented with
pressure of speech, angry and paranoid ideas about the police and the assessing
doctors felt that Mr Cordell had impaired insight about his condition and
required further assessment in hospital.
3. Mental State Examination on admission
3.1 Appearance
and Behaviour: medium height, slim mixed-race gentleman.
Slightly dishevelled, dressed in black tracksuit, noted to be
missing several teeth. Initially good rapport but became quite irritable at
times
Speech: Fast rate, pressured speech. Tangential.
Mood: subjectively Tm really good', objectively
appears elevated Thoughts: no formal thought disorder. Denied thoughts
to harm him or others.
Perceptions: denied hallucinations
Insight: limited. Aware
of
reasons
for admission but does not agree that he may have a mental illness”
3.2 "Simon
stated
that he has been very busy setting up his company recently.
Spoke
about working very hard and spending years 'studying'.
He
spoke in grandiose terms, describing his
company as managing mental health services and
working in the entertainment industry. He spoke about buying speakers
for
Ł50,000 each and hiring out equipment to Glastonbury and
Isle of Wight festivals. Simon stated that he owns a 'city'
and it is his job to understand the various roles that people have in society
so that he can 'look after people’. When asked how he was
able
to fund these projects he described a system of fundraising
using 'charity bars' and websites".
4. Physical
Examination on admission
4.1 Physical
exam, ECG and routine blood tests were initially refused by Mr Cordell, however
he
consented for this to be completed on 18th August 2016 results as
follows:
4.2 ECG:
Normal sinus rhythm
727,
4.3 Physical
examination: pulse 76bpm, warm and well perfused, cap refill <2 secs. No
signs of anaemia, no central or peripheral cyanosis. Heart sounds normal, no
added sounds. Chest clear. Abdo soft non-tender No calf swelling or tenderness.
Neurology not formally assessed but grossly intact.
4.4 Blood
tests have been within normal range.
5.
Psychiatric History
5.1 Mr
Cordell has received previous diagnoses of Unspecified nonorganic psychosis F29
in 2015 and Adjustment disorder F34.2 in 2014.
5.2 11/3/2014
- Mr Cordell was assessed by Dr Jarvis of Enfield Triage Team after a referral
by GP with a history of 9 months of anxiety symptoms which were
exacerbated by an upcoming court date. Diagnosed as Adjustment reaction. Dr
Jarvis suggested IAPT, gave option of sertraline, crisis plan, and contacts
given
5.3 19/11/14
Mr Cordell was referred to the Home treatment team due to concerns about his
mental
state,
|had
become paranoid about his mother. Police also attended the house due to Mr
Cordell screaming out in distress, continued
to present as verbally abusive and paranoid Assessment terminated as not safe to
enter the premises.
5.4 25/11/14
MHA assessment completed, found to be much calmer, not legally detainable under
the MHA, given crisis contacts.
5.5 8/12/15
Referred to Early intervention services, Mr Cordell presented as unwell, rapid
speech, thought disordered, spoke mostly about misdiagnosis and mistreatment by
police, paranoid persecutory delusions regarding conspiracies to damage his
reputation and to kill him organised by a global agency called 'Storm',
referred to subliminal messages through his TV. Believed that upstairs neighbour
was stalking him. she has since moved, and he felt that she was still harassing mm and
had CCTV of this.
5.6 19/1/16
Referred for MHA due to concerns by early intervention service -
"He appeared paranoid about people, police especially
and had grandiose delusions. Not eating well. No apparent evidence of
self-harm
or harm to others".
5.7 22/1/16
"Simon presented as paranoid, suspicious, and grandiose with flights of
ideas, clear evidence that he is suffering from a mental disorder" Section
135 applied for as Mr Cordell not allowing access to his property.
5.8 2/2/16
MHA assessment completed, assessed as not detainable, plan made for follow up
with Early Intervention Service.
5.9 29/2/16
Mr Cordell was discharged from EIS as he was not willing to engage with the
team and did not feel that he had a mental illness.
728,
6.
Past Medical History
6.1 Electronic
notes state that Mr Cordell has Crohn’s disease; however, this is elsewhere
described as irritable bowel syndrome.
6.2 Mr
Cordell currently has an injury to his left 5th finger which is
under review by ward doctors.
7.
Medication prior to admission
7.1 None
8.
Family History
8.1 Mr
Cordell’s maternal grandmother suffered from a mental illness, most likely schizophrenia,
for which she received clozapine treatment and had admissions to hospital.
9.
Personal History
9.1 Mr
Cordell was born at North Middlesex University Hospital. He has a younger
brother and sister. Mr Cordell's father worked as a union representative and
his mother ran her own computer company.
9.2 Mr
Cordell says he did not get on well with his father who was a violent man. He
was violent towards Mr Cordell, Mr Cordell's mother and siblings. Mr Cordell
left home at the age of fifteen and was homeless for a while. He was placed in
to care after stealing a pint of milk. He was placed in a series of children's
care homes around the UK but says that each time he would steal a car and drive
back to London.
9.3 Mr
Cordell said he was pushed hard to achieve at school by his father and that he
was "an A-star student" for most of the time. He says he was
intelligent and would do the work at other times and as a result would often
just "mess about" in class. He went on to college and studied engine
mechanics, completing a city & guilds qualification. After leaving school
he went on to get jobs in the construction industry.
9.4 Mr
Cordell says he has tried to build himself up a business for providing party
entertainment, he is also setting up a charity. At the moment he says he is not
able to earn from this due to the restrictions of his bail.
10. Forensic
History
10.1
Mr Cordell was put in a Young
Offender's Institution at the age of 16 after repeated driving offences
(driving without a license)
10.2
2015 Received a 5-year ASBO for
organising illegal raves- not allowed to enter industrial or disused premises
between 10pm and 7 am.
729,
10.3
Mr Cordell has stated that he is
currently on bail for making threats to harm his neighbours; he has a court
date relating to this on 8"1 October 2016.
11. Drug
and Alcohol History
11.1
Documented on RIO notes in December
2015 to have been using cannabis 'skunk' on a daily basis at that time.
11.2
Admitted to A+E in 2012 for
assessment after allegedly using LSD and drinking a bottle of rum at a festival.
11.3
Mr Cordell reports that he has not
taken any illicit substances recently, has used cannabis occasionally in the
past ‘recreationally’. Mr Cordell denies alcohol consumption or any drug use
recently.
11.4
Unfortunately, I have been unable to
find record of a urine drug screen since admission to hospital.
12. Social
History
12.1
Mr Cordell lives alone in a 1-bedroom
flat which he says he owns outright. Mrs Cordell lives nearby and provides
support to Mr Cordell. There are also siblings and other extended family that
live in the local area.
13. Progress
on the ward
13.1
15/8/16 Upon
admission
to
Haringey
assessment ward, Mr Cordell was clerked in by the _SHO,
who documented
that Mr Cordell presented as irritable, with pressured speech, tangential
thought patterns, appeared elated and spoke of several
projects of a grandiose nature including his business in the
entertainment industry, buying speakers for Ł50,000 and hiring
them to Glastonbury. Mr
Cordell
described owning a 'city' and that it is
'his
job
to
understand the various roles people have in society so that
he can
look
after people.
13.2
16/8/16 Mr
Cordell refused routine blood tests, physical
exam and ECG on the ground that he treats his
body like a temple. Mr Cordell was documented as appearing
settled
and calm on the ward, eating and drinking well.
13.3
17/8/16 72-hour CPA review - Mr
Cordell presented with rapid speech, often talking about unrelated themes, and
stated he felt he was being persecuted. Mr Cordell became irate shouting at his
mother, angry that she has not appealed his section. Mr Cordell presented with
paranoid persecutory and grandiose delusions with tangential thought pattern,
no insight into mental health. It was agreed by the team to commence regular
1mg lorazepam bd.
730,
13.4
18/8/16 little change in
presentation, generally calm on the ward however quick to become agitated
during interaction with staff, can be unpredictable. Refused prescribed
lorazepam. Consented to physical exam, bloods and ECG
by SHO who also reviewed injury to 5iri finger.
13.5
19/8/16 Presented as fairly settled
and calm in mood, continued to refuse medication as prescribed. Discussed this
with Dr Humphries and agreed to take night-time dose of lorazepam, which he
subsequently did with lots of reassurance from staff.
13.6
20/8/18 Presented as calm in mood,
polite and appropriate with peers, spent the day playing music on laptop with
peers. Ate and drank well, attended to personal care.
13.7
21/8/16 Calm, slept well, accepted
lorazepam as prescribed at night, however, refused
olanzapine 5mg. Further discussion with nursing staff to explore his feelings
about this, however Mr Cordell told staff that he had been recording the
interaction on his phone and taking pictures. Complained of painful finger,
accepted PRN ibuprofen.
13.8
13 8.22/8/16 Nursing notes describe
Mr Cordell as quite settled however remains consumed with same preoccupations
which he relates with pressured, uninterruptible speech, preoccupied with proving
that he was wrongfully admitted to hospital. Otherwise interacting with peers
appropriately, accepted 1mg lorazepam as prescribed, refused olanzapine.
13.9
23/8/16 Consultant review by Dr
Cranitch and MDT, during the interview Mr Cordell spoke with pressure of
speech, in an over inclusive and tangential fashion, largely preoccupied with
injustices in the past particularly by the police which made it difficult for
him to focus on the present. He also expressed rather grandiose plans about his
business and his ability to help others in the world. Mr Cordell denied any
thoughts or threats to harm others and stated that he did not feel he was
mentally unwell at present. Mr Cordell however agreed to trial a small dose of
olanzapine 5mg at night as recommended by Dr Cranitch for psychotic symptoms.
13.10
24/8/16 Mr Cordell has accepted his
prescribed medication overnight and slept well.
14. Current
Medication
14.1
Lorazepam 1mg nocte
14.2
Olanzapine 5mg nocte
15. Most
Recent Mental State Examination (04/08/16)
731,
15.1
Appearance and Behaviour –
Well kempt and casually dressed slim gentleman in
his early thirties Staring eye contact, remained seated throughout the
interview.
15.2
Speech –
Fast pace and very difficult to interrupt, normal
volume and tone.
15.3
Mood –
Subjectively ‘happy’, objectively appears quite
irritable, reports sleeping well, good appetite, positive plans for the
future, no plans, or thoughts to harm self or others.
15.4
Thought –
Evidence of tangentiality, struggled to stay on
topic without repeated prompting. Overinclusive, spoke at length about minutiae
of legal aspects of organising a festival, grandiose
plans to help others across the country which were difficult to follow. Denied
worries about the police, more focussed on health professionals
and legal aspects of his admission to hospital and alleged wrongdoings
15.5
Perception –
No evidence of responding to abnormal perceptions,
denied same.
15.6
Cognition –
Alert and orientated to time place and person.
15.7
Insight –
Mr Cordell feels he does not have a mental
disorder.
16. Factors
affecting this hearing
16.1
Mr Cordell has made recordings of
assessments and other interactions with health professionals and police in the
past
and refers to this frequently. Mr Cordell has attempted to make recordings of
encounters with staff during his admission, there is a chance he may attempt to
make recordings of tribunal proceedings.
17. Opinion
and Recommendations
17.1
Mr Cordell is currently suffering
from a mental disorder:
17.2
He presents with persisting psychotic
symptoms of paranoid persecutory delusions involving police and mental health
services, he also presents with pressured speech, and has presented as elated
and irritable, which may represent a mood disturbance Whilst Mr Cordell has
indeed had several encounters with the police and has a forensic history, it is
my opinion that his interpretation and experience of these
encounters
goes beyond reality into beliefs of a delusional nature. These beliefs have
dominated Mr Cordell's life and his behaviour at the expense of his
wellbeing
and ability to function safely in the community.
17.3
In the past these persecutory ideas
have also focused on family members and
neighbours, one of his neighbours was also a service user
and
needed to be rehoused as a result of encounters with Mr Cordell. Mr Cordell
presents with evidence of thought disorder; his speech is pressured and
tangential upon interview.
17.4
His mental disorder is currently of a
nature or degree to justify ongoing detention in hospital.
732,
17.5
If he insisted on leaving the ward, we
would ask our home treatment team to monitor him at home and offer him
medication - historically Mr Cordell has not engaged well with community
services due to his lack of insight.
18. If
Mr Cordell is NOT discharged from his Section:
18.1
We would encourage Mr Cordell to take
antipsychotic medication, starting with a low dose and monitoring closely for
response and any side effects.
18.2
We would titrate the dose antipsychotic
medication according to his mental state and side effect profile.
18.3
Once regularly taking antipsychotic
medication and stabilised in mental state we would start to introduce some
leave from the ward initially escorted before moving to longer periods of
unescorted leave.
18.4
Once deemed stable in mental state we
would look at discharge to his home with Home treatment team support and
referral to community team.
Signed: Dr
Rosemary Mills ST4 to Dr Julia Cranitch, Consultant Psychiatrist
Dated:
24th August 2016
733,
Barnet,
Enfield, and Haringey
Mental
Health NHS Trust A University Teaching Trust
SOCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE REPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH ACT TRIBUNAL
HEARING
Name of Patient: Mr
Simon CORDELL
Date of Birth: 26 January 1981
Hospital Number:
11214451
NHS Number: 434
096 1671
Address: Permanent: 109
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield. EN3 7JQ
Current: Haringey
Assessment Ward, St Ann’s Hospital, Tottenham. N15
Status: Section
2
GP: Dr Y
Chong, Nightingale HSE Surgery, 1 Nightingale Road N9 8AJ
Responsible Clinician: Dr
Julia Cranitch, Haringey Assessment Ward, St Ann’s Hospital.
Report Author:
Goodie Adama
Locum Community Mental Health
Nurse
Early Intervention for Psychosis
Lucas House 305-309 Fore Street
London. N9
Date of Report: 25
August 2016
I am a Locum Community Mental
Health Nurse and allocated care co-ordinator to Mr Simon Cordell. I work for
the Enfield Mental Health NHS Trust in partnership with the London Borough of
Enfield, the local Social Services Authority that has statutory responsibility
for providing after care to Mr Cordell under Sectionll7 when he leaves
hospital.
4
In preparing this report I had
access to previous reports, nursing and medical notes
on electronic data base - RIO. I had the opportunity to speak with Mr Cordell
as his care co-ordinator. And with his consent, I spoke with his mother Mrs
Loraine Cordell by telephone. Mr Simon Cordell prefers to be called by his
first name, Simon.
1
SIMON CORDELL
734,
Goodie_Full.pdf
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey NHS
Mental Health NHS Trust A
University Teaching Trust
CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO ADMISSION
Arrested at
his
home address after his mother raised concerns about his mental state - he was
allegedly
verbally threatening towards his neighbour and (?)
neighbour's
children. Simon's mother called police who arrested him. He
was
seen
by
the
FME at
Wood
Green
police station, then referred for MHA.
CURRENT MEDICATION
Olanzapine 5mg
PERSONAL & FAMILY HISTORY
Mr Cordell was
born
at
North
Middlesex University Hospital. He has a younger
brother
and
sister. Mr Cordell says he knows his maternal
grandmother attempted suicide on a number of occasions and had had admissions to
mental
hospital. Mr Cordell's father worked as a union representative and his
mother
ran
her
own computer
company.
Mr Cordell says he did not get on
well with his father who was a violent man. He was
violent towards Mr Cordell, Mr Cordell's mother and
siblings Mr Cordell left home at
the
age of fifteen and was homeless for a while. He was placed in to
care
after stealing a pint of milk He was placed in a series of
children's care homes around the UK but says that each time he would steal a
car
and drive
back
to London.
Mr Cordell said he was pushed hard to
achieve at school by his father and that
he was
"an A-star student" for most of the time. He says he was intelligent
and would
do
the
work at other times and as a result would often just
"mess
about" in class. He went on to college and
studied engine mechanics, completing a city & guilds
qualification. After leaving school
he went on to get jobs in the construction industry.
Mr Cordell says he
has
tried
to build
himself up a business for providing party
entertainment. At the moment he says he is not
able
to earn from this due to the restrictions of his bail.
Mr Cordell has had one long term
relationship which he describes as "my first true
love". This is with a woman called Diana who is currently studying physiotherapy.
They were together thirteen years, but he says she has moved back out of his
flat in recent months. Mr Cordell thinks this is
SIMON CORDELL
2
735,
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
secondary to the repeated involvement
of the police in their lives and the stress this has caused.
Mr Cordell says he does not smoke
tobacco and does not drink alcohol.
Grandmother (? maternal) had BPAD
and/or schizophrenia
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY in brief
-Has previously been open to Enfield EIS,
discharged in March 2016 due to non-engagement -Has been assessed under the MHA
in 2014 and early 2016 but was not detained as there
was not sufficient evidence of a mental disorder
FORENSIC HISTORY
Mr Cordell was put in a Young Offender's
Institution at the age of 16 after repeated driving offences (driving without a
license)
Mr Cordell says he has not been in trouble
with
the police for a number of years. He had stolen some trainers at a festival in 2009
and
prior to that had not been in trouble since 2005.
He denied any violent
offences.
Mr Cordell currently
stands accused of burglary. He has a solicitor and the case will not be heard until
July
at the earliest.
MEDICAL HISTORY
Simon said he had Crohn's disease as
a child. He denied any other physical health problems. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
He said he only
got
drunk once a teenager and has since not taken alcohol or drugs. He denied
current use
FINANCE
Simon receives Ł200 Income Support
every fortnight VIEWS OF THE NEAREST RELATIVE
With Simon's consent I spoke with his
mother
Mrs Loraine Cordell. Mrs Cordell's views were that "I don't think he [Simon]
needs
to be on section; he is not a danger to himself or other
people" Mrs
SIMON CORDELL
3
736,
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
Cordell said as far as she knows Simon
is willing to work with the doctors and take his medication. Mrs Cordell will
not say her views if Simon changes his mind and her response summed up as
"we cross the bridge when we get there".
VIEWS OF THE PATIENT
Simon is willing to co-operative with
mental
health
services.
He
said he is willing to
take
his medication.
He gave me a
letter
he wrote
to
indicate his commitment to treatment and
willingness to engage. I attach it for your information.
POSITIVE ASPECTS OF PATIENT
Simon was able to access community
resources independently and had the ability and capacity to make some choices.
He is competent in his activities of daily living skills.
He plans to register a charity to
raise funds to support causes dear to his heart One of such causes is towards
premature babies. He said his sister was born premature. The other is to help
homeless people.
AFTERCARE
Simon lives on his own in a
one-bedroom ground floor flat in Enfield. His mother is supportive and in
constant contact with him.
Enfield Council will have section 117
responsibilities and will provide the appropriate housing and care in the
community.
Simon will also have the support of an
allocated care co-ordinator who will regularly monitor his mental state and
concordance with medication. The team will offer Simon psychology assessment
and or input; he will be seen and reviewed by psychiatrist regularly i.e. every
2-3 months or sooner If required. He will be offered interventions around
concordance to medication, identifying triggers and relapse preventions. A
referral to dual diagnosis worker will be offered. Simon will have access to
groups such as social recovery and mental well-being and specialist services
for vocational/occupation recovery.
SIMON CORDELL
4
737,
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey NHS
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
RECOMMENDATION
I met with Simon today on the ward and
assessed him in preparation of the report. Simon recognised me immediately. He
was warm, welcoming, polite and co-operative
throughout the meeting. He stated about half a dozen times that he is willing
to work with the services and also willing to accept medication.
It would be helpful if Simon will agree
to stay in hospital to continue treatment as he appeared to have made good
progress since admission. As part of the medical and nursing team I believe
that Simon will benefit from staying in hospital for further assessment and
continue treatment.
Goodie Ada mo Locum CMHN
Early Intervention for
Psychosis
SIMON CORDELL
5
89.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1.
2
Asbo Me
to Mother 05-09-2016 16-24
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 738
89.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 05-09-2016
16-24
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 738
--
738,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/09/2016 04:23:59 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Can
you help me sort this out please?
ok thanks
On Monday, 5 September 2016,
16:22, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Simon I will need to pick your
card up and put the money into my bank so I can pay for it as I have no money.
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 05
September 2016 16:17 To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Can
you help me sort this out please?
Can you help me sort this out
please?
Ł83:00
hash=item2a6f93035c: g:
eXgAAOSwtnpXo5Ww
try to get for Ł35 pounds please
say for starting company + Ł20 delivery and I need a roll of plan paper. I see
it for about Ł60, I think.
90.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
90. 1.
2
NHS
Complaint Advocate -05-09-2016 12-34
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 739
90.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
90. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate
-05-09-2016 12-34
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 739
--
739,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time: 05/09/2016 12:25:34 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
introductory call
Simon,
Not a problem.
Regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
t: 07918
561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630
Company No. 3798884 (England and
Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact us/#Email
From:
Rewired [mailto:re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 05
September 2016 12:07
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Dear Paige
I know I said I would get the
paper work over to you but it is taking longer than I was thinking it would, I
am hoping to complete this later today maybe tomorrow I am very sorry about the
delay and I will send everything r to you as soon as it is completed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
On Friday, 2 September 2016,
14:57, Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org> wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent
form as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your
case and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
91.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
91. 1.
2
NHS
Complaints Advocate 05-09-2016 12-07
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 740
91.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
91. 1. 2
NHS Complaints Advocate
05-09-2016 12-07
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 740
--
740,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/09/2016 12:06:42 PM
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Dear Paige
I know I said I would get the paper
work over to you but it is taking longer than I was thinking it would, I am
hoping to complete this later today maybe tomorrow I am very sorry about the
delay and I will send everything r to you as soon as it is completed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
On Friday, 2 September 2016,
14:57, Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org> wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent
form as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your
case and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630
Company No. 3798884 (England and
Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
92.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
92. 1.
2
Too Smooth
RE Can you is out please 05-09-2016 16-23
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 741
92.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
92. 1. 2
Too Smooth RE Can you is out
please 05-09-2016 16-23
05/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 741
--
741,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 05/09/2016 04:22:47 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Can
you help me sort this out please?
Simon I will need to pick your
card up and put the money into my bank so I can pay for it as I have no money.
From:
Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 05
September 2016 16:17 To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Can
you help me sort this out please?
Can you help me sort this out
please?
Ł83:00
hash=item2a6f93035c: g:
eXgAAOSwtnpXo5Ww
try to get for Ł35 pounds please
say for starting company + Ł20 delivery and I need a roll of plan paper. I see
it for about Ł60, I think.
93.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
93. 1.
2
Asbo
Josie to Me 08-09-2016 01-40
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 742,743,744
745,746
93.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
93. 1. 2
Asbo Josie to Me 08-09-2016
01-40
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 742,743,744,745,746
--
742,
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD <josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com>
Sent time:
08/09/2016 04:01:40 PM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
too smooth <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
Proposed letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
Attachments: Specific disclosure requests by Simon Cordell 08.09.2016.docx
Lorraine / Simon
Simon, I do not believe that it is in
your best interests for me to serve the suggested amendments to the letter that
I proposed sending to the Ms Sally Gilchrist. The reason for this advice is
similar to the advice given to you by Mr Morris on 4th April 2016 and you
decided to ignore his advice. A lot of the matters you raise I have previously
advised you can be dealt with by cross examination. Your instructions are
simply that you have not organised, provided equipment, or been concerned in
the organisation of illegal raves. In relation to all events with the exception
of Millmarsh Lane you dispute providing equipment or any intention to hold any
events. In some you are visiting friends who are homeless and have a LAPSO
notice up confirming they are treating the building as their residence. The
legal technicality you refer to i.e. absence of trespass does not prevent any
parties from being held at the buildings in question as amounting to
anti-social behaviour. You are well aware of how anti-social behaviour is
defined and loud music being played over two nights would satisfy this
definition as it undoubtedly causes noise nuisance and distress to neighbours.
Your defence to Progress Way is denying being in attendance inside the premises
on any occasion and you merely dropped off keys. The question as to whether the
premises were being squatted and the appropriate notice was on display to
prevent trespass does not affect whether anti-social behaviour was caused. I
have advised you that championing the rights of persons squatting in a building
to hold a party where a couple of hundred people attend and justifying the
event as not being a rave due to lack of trespass does not prevent the event
from causing anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour was clearly caused as
a result of the Progress Way event. There is a significant risk that you will
alienate the Judge if you advance the argument that anyone squatting can hold a
loud party. The loud parties cause anti-social behaviour regardless of trespass
/ rave definition being satisfied.
I ask you to reconsider whether the
attached document should be served on the Respondent. This document I have
copied and pasted from the amendments you made to the letter that I sent to
you. The views you expressed in the letter and the requests made were your
requests and legal challenges, so I have changed "we" to, "I,
Simon Cordell" to reflect this. My view is that this document should not
be sent but if you insist then please confirm this in writing. Type in your
signature and email back to me please.
Mr Andy Locke is available for a
conference on 13th September 2016 at his Chambers and following this conference
a decision will be made whether to list the case for lack of disclosure or not.
Please confirm your instructions on the
service of the attached word document. I reiterate that I do not believe that
it is in your interests to serve the document.
Regards
Josephine
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:15 PM,
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Josey please see letter back
from Simon
From: JOSEPHINE
WARD mailto: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 08
September 2016 12:51
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Proposed
letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police Lorraine
Please confirm whether there are any
additions that Simon wants included in this letter. I need to send this
document across within the next hour.
743,
Many thanks
Josephine
744,
Specific disclosure requests by Simon
Cordell.docx
Specific disclosure requests by Mr
Simon Cordell who insists the below is forwarded.
I, Simon Cordell am of the view that a lot
of the CAD’s are fabricated and being used in support of this ongoing appeal.
Such as the Progress Way matters that
is in reference to completely different geographical locations, some distance
away from Progress Way.
The redacting of the CAD messages makes
this extremely difficult to stand a fair trial against under my Human Rights,
Article Six the Right to a fair trial.
Referring to the Grid numbers contained
in the respondents bundle that do show that a large amount of the evidence
being relied upon does in fact show wrong locations, leading further towards
the matter of concerns regarding the CADs, when taking a clear insight to CAD
1047 of the 8th June
2014, That does state the call name of a police officer on duty as PC Shink,
who’s grid reference location was 534380, 195513 this insight leads to other
issues of concern to be highlighted and them issues being that of a vast
majority of all other CADS relating to progress way, do in fact having the same
Grid number as the officer on duty PC Shink, but on each CAD, the Call name has
been redacted Mr Simon Cordell believes the cads are of police officers not
civil people and asks for the to be redacted.
I, Simon Cordell request all CADs /
crime reports for all events cited in the ASBO application where reference is
made to police attending the location in response to crimes being committed.
This includes all incident numbers that do not include the relevant Cad
intelligence contained in linked explicitly to and Linked implicitly to, that
is relevant to the bundle so that I can stand a fair appeal, this is to include
crown roads party at the old man building on the 6th 7th
8th June 2014 as in cad 3319 and mutable others CADS.
I, Simon Cordell request disclosure of
the CCTV of the persons breaking into the premises on the 25th May 2014, the
CRIS and details of any persons arrested for criminal damage / burglary.
I, Simon Cordell request the full details
of the original intelligence report inputted on 25th May 2014 and also reasons
why there was a need to update this report on 19th June 2014. The Intelligence
report should not be allowed in evidence under the hearsay rules as it is
prejudicial to me. The report has been amended.
I, Simon Cordell question the accuracy
and truthfulness of the statements, CADS etc served in support of the above. I
also question why some of the CAD reports have been redacted. I believe that
the CAD’s may well confirm the names of the real organisers, vehicle
registrations etc that will confirm no vehicle belonging to the Appellant being
inside the venue. I also question the chronological sequence of the CAD reports
due to the time stamps.
CAD Number: CAD
2637
Date: 07/06/2014
Time: 08:18
Page: Page 191 to 195
745,
Specific disclosure requests by Simon
Cordell.docx
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 - Page 196 to 198 |
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22
- Page 203 to 205 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20
- Page 179 to 183 |
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47
- Page 233 to 237 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44
- Page 238 to 241 |
I, Simon Cordell specifically ask the
Respondent to confirm why the event was not closed down or proof of trespass or
evidence of profit being made as required under the licensing act 2003 and
section 63 of the CJPOA, if it was in fact a rave.
I, Simon Cordell also asks why went the
sound systems not seized under section 63 of the CJPOA.
I, Simon Cordell seek clarification as
whether a section 144 LAPSO notice was on display or tress pass had taken
place.
I, Simon Cordell question why the
Respondent has not supplied any Cads from 6th June 2014, which is in fact the
date when this event started and why so many Cads’ are missing from the 07th
and the 08th June 2014.
ALMA ROAD - 24TH JULY 2014, I Simon
Cordell will state that this date should be struck from the Respondent’s bundle
as there was no rave / Event.
I, Simon Cordell will argue that the
court was wrong in principle in granting the original ASBO application as the
Respondent made the original application based on me being involved in illegal
raves. The Respondent did not establish this at the initial hearing and the
District Judge erred in granting this ASBO.
It has been noted and said by PC Parcel
that the I am known for class A drugs and or supplying drugs this was proved
not to be true as can be read in a copy of the magistrates court transcripts
and that of the district judge agreeing to take no weight in such statements,
why has this not yet been deducted?
In the interests of a fair hearing I,
Simon Cordell request all Cad’s cross linked and referred to should be served
in an unedited format.
I feel that contained in the
respondents bundle that there is so many fabricated irregularities, that they
should be investigated, and I feel without this being done I will not stand a
fair trial.
I also believe that all the anonymous
witnesses are police officers. I do not believe that they are civilian witnesses
and I require all anonymous witnesses to attend court to give evidence.
I, Simon Cordell also request that all
disclosure is made in respect of the raves at the Old Man Building, Crown Road
on 6th, 7th and 8th
June 2016.
746,
Signed:
Dated:
94.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
94. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Josie 08-09-2016 23-10
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 747,748,749
94.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
94. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 08-09-2016
23-10
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 747,748,749
--
747,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 08/09/2016 11:10:24 PM
To: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Dear Josie
I do not understand why it is not in
my best interests for you to serve the suggested amendments that I made in
relation towards the letter that you proposed sending to Ms Sally Gilchrist.
The reason I do not understand is
because:
1. Mr
Morris advice on 4th April 2016 was the same as what I had explained to
yourself when the case had started dated 12th September 2014 as received on
receipt by yourself and by method of email's and them email's referred to the
respondent's application of an Asbo order quoting "That a case should not
rely solely on hearsay" as mine seems to do by the police officer's. Most
of the hearsay in any case is reported to be third party and therefore carry
less weight in any case.
2. I want
to show the true facts about the case as I am the one who is suffering because
of untrue cut and paste facts that represent the basics of the respondent's
case and that singed evidence being off fabricated police statements, as
detailed in the amendments towards your letter to Sally Gilchrist, whom is already
in receipt of such evidence but refuses to act upon such intelligence in
accordance of the law and you advise me to ignore this even low I suffer.
3. I
understand that a lot of the matters that should be dealt with at court will
be.
4. I
still argue for a speedy and fair trial: and feel that when a judge asks the
respondent to reply by a set date such as the 1/08/2016 as the judge HHJ PAWLAK
has ordered to happen it should.
5. The
respondent should do so within the time duration as dated 01/09/2016 and agreed
with the judge and then received with the correct response, as has not
happened.
6. I have
been awaiting the reply since 00/02/2016 from an ongoing civil application that
is dated 13th August 2014 so to be able to have a fair trial.
7. After
waiting on the 01/-9-2016 with no response I waited till the 2/09/2016 and
telephoned the respondent I spoke with a lady called sally gill Hurst, she
states that she has served some paperwork to my solicitor's at the beginning of
august a month prior, after finishing our conversation I contacted my solicitor
she explained to me that she was away on holiday and that I must wait till she
gets back on the 6th September 2016.
8. I
again put the phone down and called my solicitor firm's office to see if any
paperwork had been served to be told no.
9. On the
8TH August I spoke with my mother who explained to me that she had been in
contact with my solicitor and that I would be reviving a letter to sign to be
sent to Sally Gill Hurst.
10. On
receiving this letter, it raised the following concerns.
11. The
paperwork has not been served in time.
12. In
a preliminary hearing, so to be ready for the appeal the judge ordered this to
be achieved.
13. The
respondent has had another 6 months sine 22/02/2016 from the start of the on
goings as dated 13/08/2014
14. We
are now at 08/09/2016 the appeal is on the 26/09/2016 this leads me to the
concerns of once again the case being postponed, as it has already been ten
times before.
15. I
have handed to article Six the right to a speedy and fair trial in regard to
some of my human rights being breached because of the on goings in the ASBO
proceedings drafting clear corruption and fabricated evidence asking for the
case to be investigated our the correct paperwork to be served in accordance to
my response to HHJ PAWLAK.
16. Yes,
my instructions are clear, I did not organised any illegal raves or provide any
equipment with an intention of holding an illegal rave and surely did not cause
any Anti-Social behaviour on the dates sighted, this is also to include Mill
Marsh Lane with no exception.
17. Yes,
in some I am visiting my friends who are or were homeless at the time.
18. The
legal technicality you state that I refer to i.e. absence of trespass that does
not prevent parties from being held in accordance of the law, may lead to a
standalone anti-social behaviour order if a person commits a public order
offence, to which I did not cause as I was not organizer neither did I take
part in the organisation of the party or did I commit any civil or criminal
offence. –
748,
-- In any one un-regular occasion over the duration
of the weekend I can a understand the noise nuisance and distress to neighbours
this can cause if the allegations were to be true and not fabricated by police
as I can prove. I was not the organizer of the event.
19. The
case is based on what the respondent based it upon and in my case, this is the
organisation of illegal raves not the organisation of raves: -
20. I
proved that indoor parties are not illegal unless there is a breach of the
licensing act 2003 as this is the law for entertainment.
21. That
the word rave cannot be used in a building as section 63 requires as a key
element unless tress pass has taken place.
22. I
proved that I was not the organizer of the events as I was not.
23. That
I never took part in any anti-social behaviour or intended or encouraged any
other person to neither.
24. Anti-social
behaviour was not clearly caused as a result of the Progress Way by myself or
my actions as I was only a visitor who never caused any offence.
25. I
feel as my solicitor you should have my best interest at heart and if you Know
a police officer to be caught for being corrupt for, the evidence that they
have supported so that your client faced a wrongful conviction of any sort you
should not encourage them to not stand up for what is correct and right, so I
do not understand why you would ask me to reconsider whether the attached
document should be served on the Respondent.
26. The
amendments I made have already been served on the 22/02/2016 and the Judge ask
for the respondent to answer them questions from the 01/02/2016 and the
respondent refuse to do so.
27. I
do insist for the challenges to be answered as it is my life that has been
tarnished for civil proceedings, so I do confirm this on writing.
28. I
feel that the meeting has been left by yourself to the last minute I have been
requesting this in a multitude of emails to be achieved well in advance to the
date that you have now sited a few days before the appeal, when I know that you
have had ample amounts of time, so if this is the earliest time I will take it
and I look forward to meeting Mr Andy Locke, thank you.
29. I
do not see how the case will not get re listed due to lack of disclosure to be
quite frank.
30. I
do not understand why any solicitor would encourage me to go to trial or appeal
and not draft out the police corruption that you can clearly see in turn making
me accept the clearly fabricated evidence and wrongful conditions that I know
have been imposed on myself under section 63 with no trespass taking place,
this being said as for any of the incidents contained in the Asbo and with you
knowing the true facts of them incidents being contained in private air.
31. There
is also that of the clearly fabricated evidence I am standing against as for
sure any solicitor works in Co Hurst towards the understanding of noun
precedent in relation to the weight of any evidence put towards a client. I am
concerned about the case, relying sole on hearsay by police. Is this correct in
procedure?
32. However
I do understand and take note, that all resident parties contained within the
respondent’s bundle, were held on single occasions and in places of residence
and were not held as a running commercial business by myself or by any other to
my knowledge. I have also read that any person is entitled to have a house or
resident party in private air under the licensing act 2003 or where they
reside. To my understanding, each accused incident in the respondent’s bundle
is a place of residence and was in fact different people holding their own
private parties at their places of residence.
33. Aloe
there may have been complaints in regard to issues of concern about them house
parties I was not the occupier of any of the accused locations; neither was I
the hire of equipment and surely not the organizer.
34. I
was establishing a hire company around the dates of the accused events and have
provided evidence of the work I had been committing myself to. I was not
trading at the time and whenever hiring out equipment I do with due care and
responsibility, however I do not accept responsibility for other people's
actions when hiring out such equipment in good faith. I do take legal action
for any persons when breaking my terms and conditions. I do not hire out
equipment to any person without being in the constraints of the law and in good
business practice or without the correct ID.
35. On
one occasion I did hire out a sound system in good faith on a pro Bono basis,
this being of the understanding that no laws were being broken and as a Ltd
company acting responsible. I know that I should not be liable for them persons
actions when hiring out equipment and having the correct protocols in place as
I clearly do.
36. I
do not feel that it is right for the respondent to obtain criminal punishments
such as section 63 of the crime and disorder act 1994 and for that section to
be then imposed against my freedom of movement and many other Human Right that
have been breached by being pro-claimed under wrongful civil proceedings, as
for a multitude of incorrect procedures and legislation that I have occurred,
for instance I have no previous nature offences of a similar sort as required
by law when applying a standalone Asbo on a person’s statue, as I do feel I
should of have had the right to challenge the allegations under a true Criminal
investigation, especially when
749,
37. referring
to the organisation of illegal raves as the respondent has clearly headlined
the offence to be.
RE: SIMON CORDELL V. THE COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF AN ASBO - 26TH
SEPTEMBER 2016 AT 10:00 AM
I write even further with concerns
regarding: Your issues of concern dated 08/09/2016 that was received by email
at the time:
06:00pm,
So as towards the letter drafted by
yourself and amended by myself is the response as detailed below, with the
listed concerns.
1. I
understand that the correct protocols for the offences I am being accused of
should be carried out in a manner to be of a high professional standard as
required by law, so for me to be able to defend myself.
2. I
am therefore not happy with the issues of police corruption not being
addressed, by you self and all other legal persons, as I know I cannot stand a
fair trial or appeal without them issues being rectified first and this is why
the amendments have been made to your letter to Sally Gilchrest Hurst.
3. I
have suffered since 2014 for conditions that have been wrongfully imposed upon
myself and still awaiting an appeal.
1.1 As
my acting solicitor you drafted a letter requesting the respondent to remove
any CADS that have been placed in the Asbo bundle served to myself Mr Simon
Cordell.
1.1.1
I understand that they cads are already
inputted incorrectly and you and the barrister take note of this, as do , we
all achieve this in the understanding that I could not have and did not commit
the alleged offices that I have been accused of that are contained with a vast
majority of other CADS within incorrect and blocked out context; such as the
Att Locations that are un-redacted and do state Crown road and other locations
such as Hardy Way, on the same day as progress way so I could not have
committed as I could not be in two places at once.
1.1.2
There is a further issue in relation
to a significant amount of Cads that should contain the Att Locations that have
been blocked out such as referred to as retracted and them CADS that also
contain the Grid reference numbers that also prove other locations already.
1.1.3
However I am even further worried
about CADS such as all the listed and any in the format such as fully retracted
where know person can, or is able to see the true CAD intelligence in regards
to the wrongful fabricated claims being held against my person, being so
reviled for all to see.
1.1.4
I do believe when all CADS do get
retracted and a blocked, then that will help any barrister and put them in a
better position to defend me, so for all Cads and pages in his Asbo application
being served in an unedited format and so for myself to understand the truth,
to why the conditions have been imposed upon myself since the Asbo's on goings.
2.1 I
am also seriously worried about the reasons why the case has taken so long with
all the evidence I have supported towards my innocent plea, such as: -
2.2 The
incorrect time stamps.
2.3 The
facts of the conditions of law relating to a section 63 of the crime and disorder
act being imposed upon myself for indoor house parties without tress pass
taking place.
2.4 The
Events that I am being accused of no police officers have gone and spoken to
any landlord’s or owners.
2.5 There
has been no evidence of a breach under the Licensing act 2003.2.5. No proof of
organisation being presented against myself.
2.6 There
is also the matter being of; all incidents that are in the Asbo application
with particulars to them members of the police involved, not having 101 books
that are time stamped for them incidents and I once again would like to request
them.
3. In relation to all cads that do have
a grid number of 53491,196790 and or Att location of Crown road I request that
the police officers involved in attending that incident attended court so to be
able to prove that what PC Elesmore stated to the Judge at the magistrates
court on the date of trial to obtain a guilty plea against my person, not to be
creditable in any weight , that being of all the statements he made that are
contained in a copy of the court transcripts, which do quote: When making the Asbo application and redacting any intelligence
he was sure that all event on the 7th 8th June 2014 was in fact 100% progress
way and that he was sure that there was no other parties / events in the
borough on them dates.
I intended for my acting barrister to
be able to use a copy of the magistrate's court trial transcripts on the date
of the appeal.
Pleas can you reply to this letter of
concern Kind regards Simon Cordell
95.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
95. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 08-09-2016 23-12
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 750
751,752
95.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
95. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 08-09-2016
23-12
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 750,751,752
--
750,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 08/09/2016 11:12:06 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: I sent
this to Josie
Dear Josie
--
Same as 08/09/2016 11:10:24 PM
751,
Same as 08/09/2016 11:10:24 PM
752,
Same as 08/09/2016 11:10:24 PM
96.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
96. 1.
2
Asbo Me
to Mother 08-09-2016 14-03
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 753
96.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
96. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 08-09-2016
14-03
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 753
--
753,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 08/09/2016 02:02:47 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Here
is a copy thanks
Attachments: 4686d991-e355-3707-4d08-656ca31aab33@yahoo.com
97.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
97. 1.
2
Asbo
Me to Mother 08-09-2016 14-05
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 754
97.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
97. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 08-09-2016
14-05
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 754
--
754,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 08/09/2016 02:05:25 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: mum
Attachments: 6329e4cc-4d86-b369-1fbd-11381fa923be@yahoo.com
98.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
98. 1.
2
Asbo
Mother - FW Metropolitan Police 08-09-2016 12-52
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 755,756
757
98.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
98. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - FW Metropolitan
Police 08-09-2016 12-52
08/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 755,756,757
--
755,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 08/09/2016 12:52:02 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW:
Proposed letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police
Attachments: Letter to Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
08.09.2016.doc
here read what she wants to see
to silly Gilchrest
From:
JOSEPHINE WARD
mailto: josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com
Sent: 08
September 2016 12:51
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: Proposed
letter for Commissioner of Metropolitan Police Lorraine
Please confirm whether there are
any additions that Simon wants included in this letter. I need to send this
document across within the next hour.
Many thanks
Josephine
756,
Letter to Commissioner of Police
of the Metrop.doc
FAO Miss Sally Gilchrist
Directorate of Legal Services Metropolitan Police 10 Lamb’s Conduit Street
London WC1N 3NR
Date: 8th September 2016
By fax: 0207
404 7089
By email: sally.gilchrist@met.police.uk
Dear Ms Gilchrist
RE: SIMON
CORDELL V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF
AN ASBO - 26th SEPTEMBER 2016 AT 10AM
I refer to the above matter.
As you are aware Mr Cordell’s
appeal is listed for 26th September 2016. On 4th April 2016 HHJ Pawlak made a
direction that the Respondent prepare and serve on the Appellant and the court
a schedule setting out the dates, times and locations of each incident and also
to specify the alleged involvement of the Appellant in the organisation of the
illegal raves by 1st September 2016.
You should also be in possession
of a lengthy document prepared by the Appellant and his request for disclosure
of all unredacted CAD’s that the Respondent is relying on. The Appellant is of
the view that a lot of the CAD’s used in support of the Progress Way matters
are in reference to completely different geographical locations, some distance
away from Progress Way. The redacting of the CAD messages makes this extremely
difficult to check. The Appellant has prepared in his bundle a number of maps
for each CAD. Can you please request that DC Elsmore double checks the accuracy
of the location of the CAD’s relied upon and please provide unredacted CADs or
remove CADs that are not geographically relevant. A request was also made for
statements to be obtained from DS Val Tanner and DC Chapman in relation to any
intelligence that the Public Order Unit holds that confirms Simon Cordell is an
organiser of illegal raves. This information is crucial to Mr Cordell’s appeal
as he disputes ever organising an illegal rave, under the legal definition.
Mr Cordell also specifically
requests that we obtain disclosure of a copy of all emails sent from DC Elsmore
or any officer involved in the investigation of this ASBO application against
Mr Cordell to the Public Order Unit in respect enquiries made by them in
relation to Mr Cordell’s involvement in the organisation of illegal raves and
the responses. The Bundle makes specific reference to DS Val Tanner responding
to an enquiry in DC Elsmore statement dated 26th June 2015. We request that DS
Tanner provides a statement in relation to her conversations with Ms Lorraine
Cordell and we also request that any recordings of these conversations be
provided.
Principal: Michael
Carroll LLB HONS
Authorised and Regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority
SRA ID: 307837
757,
We also request that the Public
Order Unit also discloses full details of all illegal events / raves that
"Every Decible Matters” are linked to as it is Mr Cordell’s specific
instructions that he is not an owner and does not have any business interest in
"Every Decible Matters” and it is his instructions that it was "Every
Decible Matters” that arranged the event on 9th August 2014 that Mr Cordell is
being blamed for.
We request all CADs / crime
reports for all events cited in the ASBO application where reference is made to
police attending the location in response to crimes being committed.
We thank you in advance and
await the service of the schedule re Mr Cordell’s involvement in the raves as
directed by HHJ Pawlak. Please provide by close of business today otherwise we
will have to request that the case be listed for mention on Monday 12th September
2016.
We await hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
MICHAEL CARROLL & CO.
2
Principal:
Michael Carroll LLB HONS
Authorised and Regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority
SRA ID: 307837
99.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
99. 1.
2
Too
Smooth 11-09-2016 10-41
11/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 758
99.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
99. 1. 2
Too Smooth 11-09-2016 10-41
11/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 758
--
758,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 11/09/2016 10:40:55 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Hi
Pleas read and reply.
this is what you want but I think
is wrong thing I think it stores info to their database which is no good for
you also think the users will need to pay.
unless it was installed could
not tell100%
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 10
September 2016 16:40
To: Lorraine
Cordell Subject: Hi Pleas read and reply.
This is what I want to pay for
but first I want to be sure that I can make the payment feature not charge the
clients’ money for the service.
WooCommerce Business Card & Flyer Design
Business card and flyer. jpg
WooCommerce Business Card &
Flyer Design
If this plugin is useful, could
you please help us to rate it? it will be a big encouragement to improve for
us....
I would like to make the menu
bar in the business directory the same as the word press menu so that it shows
a link to the festival pages Once this has been achieved then I believe I can
sort the rest please can you help me.
100.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
100.
1. 2
Too
Smooth 11-09-2016 10-56
11/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 759
100.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
100. 1. 2
Too Smooth 11-09-2016 10-56
11/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 759
--
759,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
11/09/2016 10:56:20 AM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
problems
Ř Your PHP
setting max file uploads is currently set to 20. We recommend to
set this value at least to 100 to avoid any issue with our plugin.
--
·
I fixed this
--
Ř Your PHP setting
post max size is currently set to 64M. We recommend to set this
value at least to 128M to avoid any issue with our plugin.
--
·
I fixed this
--
Ř Your PHP
setting upload max file size is currently set to 64M. We
recommend to set this value at least to 128M to avoid any issue with our
plugin.
--
·
I fixed this this will need to be done by farjat or
server side.
--
Ř Your PHP
setting max input vars is currently set to 1000. We recommend to
set this value at least to 5000 to avoid any issue with our plugin.
From: Rewired
mailto:
re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 10 September 2016 19:29
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: problems
WooCommerce Product Designer:
Ř Your PHP
setting max file uploads is currently set to 20. We recommend to
set this value at least to 100 to avoid any issue with our plugin.
Ř Your PHP
setting max input vars is currently set to 1000. We recommend to
set this value at least to 5000 to avoid any issue with our plugin.
Ř Your PHP
setting post max size is currently set to 64M. We recommend to
set this value at least to 128M to avoid any issue with our plugin.
Ř Your PHP
setting upload max file size is currently set to 64M. We
recommend to set this value at least to 128M to avoid any issue with our
plugin.
101.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
101.
1. 2
Asbo
Me to Mother 12-09-2016 11-57
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 760
101.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
101. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Mother 12-09-2016
11-57
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 760
--
760,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 11:57:22 AM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
report
I want to sue them I am showing the
solicitor
On
Monday, 12 September 2016, 10:18, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
I do not understand why you
would put the whole of the CD in this I just cannot understand it you keep them
wondering what's on that CD did they say anything they should have etc. why are
you giving them all the information so they can keep it on file about you.
Simon you are meant to be trying
to get your records corrected you want them to have as little as possible on
file about you why are you doing this in such a way, they can hold more on you.
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 12
September 2016 03:57
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: report
102.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
102.
1. 2
NHS Complaint
Advocate - 12-09-2016 02-36
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 761,762
102.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
102. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate -
12-09-2016 02-36
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 761,762
--
761,
From: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 02:36:36 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
introductory call
Thank you for this, I will review
it and call you later this week to discuss.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 12
September 2016 13:46
To: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Hello Paige, the report took me a bit
more time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you any
inconvenience. I attach a copy of the two hospital reports and also that of my
reply to them reports, this does include a personal statement and a copy of the
assessments transcripts that took place at my home address in February before
the 14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice towards amendments please tell
me, I have not sent the documents to any other person(s) other than yourself
and ask for your guidance.
I was also wondering, if you would be
so kind to give me a phone call once you have had time to process the reports,
so to tell myself your opinion.
Many thanks again Simon Cordell
On Monday, 5 September 2016, 12:25,
Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org> wrote:
Simon,
Not a problem.
Regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London
N7 9DP
t:
07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice
Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company No.
3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact us/#Email
From:
Rewired
mailto: re wired@ymail.com
Sent:
05 September 2016 12:07
762,
To: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Dear Paige
I know I said I would get the paper
work over to you but it is taking longer than I was thinking it would, I am
hoping to complete this later today maybe tomorrow I am very sorry about the
delay and I will send everything r to you as soon as it is completed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
On Friday, 2 September 2016, 14:57,
Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent form
as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your case
and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United House, 39-41 North Road, London
N7 9DP
t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company No.
3798884 (England and Wales) Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
103.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
103.
1. 2
NHS
Complaints Advocate 12-09-2016 13-46
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 763,764
103.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
103. 1. 2
NHS Complaints Advocate
12-09-2016 13-46
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 763,764
--
763,
Hello Paige, the report took me a bit
more time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you any
inconvenience. I attach a copy of the two hospital reports and also that of my
reply to them reports, this does include a personal statement and a copy of the
assessments transcripts that took place at my home address in February before
the 14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice towards amendments please tell
me, I have not sent the documents to any other person(s) other than yourself
and ask for your guidance.
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 01:45:30 PM
To: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Attachments: Reports.
Rar
Hello Paige, the report took me a bit
more time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you any
inconvenience. I at the two hospital reports and also that of my reply to them
reports, this does include a personal statement and a copy of the ass
transcripts that took place at my home address in February before the
14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice towards me tell me, I have not sent
the documents to any other person(s) other than yourself and ask for your
guidance.
I was also wondering, if you would be
so kind to give me a phone call once you have had time to process the reports,
so to tell n opinion.
Many thanks again Simon Cordell
On Monday, 5 September 2016, 12:25,
Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org> wrote:
Simon,
Not a
problem.
Regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United House, 39-41 North Road, London
N7 9DP
t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto:
re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 05
September 2016 12:07
To: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Dear Paige
I know I said I would get the paper work
over to you but it is taking longer than I was thinking it would, I am hoping
to complete today maybe tomorrow I am very sorry about the delay and I will
send everything r to you as soon as it is completed.
Regards
Simon Cordell
On Friday, 2 September 2016, 14:57,
Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org> wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent form
as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your case
and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
764,
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org
Charity No. 1076630 I Company No.
3798884 (England and Wales) Disclaimer: www.voiceabilitv.org/contact
us/#Email
104.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
104.
1. 2
NHS
Complaints Advocate 12-09-2016 14-42
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850,851,852
853,854,855,856,857,858
859
104.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
104. 1. 2
NHS Complaints Advocate
12-09-2016 14-42
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850,851,852
853,854,855,856,857,858
859
--
765,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 02:42:10 PM
To: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Subject: Re: introductory call
Att Copy of the
Minutes of February.pdf
Goodie_Full.pdf
julia_report.pdf Official Statement of Mr
Simon Cordell.pdf
Report -ac men S: Reply.pdf
Dear Paige
The report took me a bit more
time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you any
inconvenience. I attach a copy of the two hospital reports and also that of my
reply to them reports which has not been sent to them as I wanted you to go
over them before.
This does include a personal
statement and a copy of the assessments transcripts that took place at my home
address in February before the 14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice
towards amendments please tell me, I have not sent the documents to any other
person(s) other than yourself and ask for your guidance.
I was also wondering, if you
would be so kind to give me a phone call once you have had time to process the
reports, so to tell myself your opinion.
Many thanks again Simon Cordell
On Monday, 12 September 2016,
13:45, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Hello Paige, the report took me
a bit more time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you
any inconvenience. I attach a copy of the two hospital reports and also that of
my reply to them reports, this does include a personal statement and a copy of
the assessments transcripts that took place at my home address in February
before the 14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice towards amendments
please tell me, I have not sent the documents to any other person(s) other than
yourself and ask for your guidance.
I was also wondering, if you
would be so kind to give me a phone call once you have had time to process the
reports, so to tell myself your opinion.
Many thanks again Simon Cordell
On Monday, 5 September 2016,
12:25, Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org> wrote:
Simon,
Not a problem.
Regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company No.
3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceabilitv.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 05
September 2016 12:07
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
introductory call
Dear Paige
I know I said I would get the
paperwork over to you, but it is taking longer than I was thinking it would, I
am hoping to complete
766,
this later today maybe tomorrow I am
very sorry about the delay and I will send everything r to you as soon as it is
completed.
Regards Simon Cordell
On Friday, 2 September 2016, 14:57,
Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org> wrote:
Simon,
Please find attached the consent form
as discussed. Send over the information you have collated regarding your case
and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East London
a: United House, 39-41 North Road, London
N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceability.org
Voice Ability
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales) Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
767,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental
Health NHS Trust A University Teaching Trust
SOCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE REPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH ACT TRIBUNAL
HEARING
Name of Patient: Mr
Simon CORDELL
Date of Birth: 26 January 1981
Hospital Number:
11214451
NHS Number: 434
096 1671
Address: Permanent: 109
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield. EN3 7JQ
Current:
Haringey Assessment Ward, St Ann’s Hospital, Tottenham. N15
Status: Section
2
GP: Dr Y
Chong, Nightingale HSE Surgery, 1 Nightingale Road N9 8AJ
Responsible Clinician: Dr
Julia Cranitch, Haringey Assessment Ward, St Ann’s Hospital.
Report Author:
Goodie Adama
Locum Community Mental Health
Nurse
Early Intervention for Psychosis
Lucas House 305-309 Fore Street
London. N9
Date of Report: 25
August 2016
1 am a Locum Community Mental
Health Nurse and allocated care co-ordinator to Mr Simon Cordell. I work for
the Enfield Mental Health NHS Trust in partnership with the London Borough of
Enfield, the local Social Services Authority that has statutory responsibility
for providing after care to Mr Cordell under Sectionll7 when he leaves
hospital.
In preparing this report I had
access to previous reports, nursing, and medical notes on electronic data base
- RIO. I had the opportunity to speak with Mr Cordell as his care co-ordinator.
And with his consent, I spoke with his mother Mrs Loraine Cordell by telephone.
Mr Simon Cordell prefers to be called by his first name, Simon.
SIMON CORDELL
1
768,
Goodie_Full.pdf
Barnet, Enfield and Haringey NHS
Mental Health NHS Trust A
University Teaching Trust
CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO ADMISSION
Arrested at
his
home address after his mother raised concerns about his mental state - he was
allegedly
verbally threatening towards his neighbour and (?) neighbour's children.
Simon's mother called police who arrested him. He was seen by the
FME at
Wood
Green
police station, then referred for MHA.
CURRENT MEDICATION
Olanzapine 5mg
PERSONAL & FAMILY HISTORY
Mr Cordell was
born
at
North
Middlesex University Hospital. He has a younger
brother
and
sister. Mr Cordell says he knows his maternal grandmother attempted suicide on
a number
of
occasions
and had had admissions to mental hospital. Mr Cordell's father
worked as a union representative and his mother ran her own computer company.
Mr Cordell says he did not get on
well with his father who was a violent man. He was
violent towards Mr Cordell, Mr Cordell's mother and
siblings Mr Cordell left home at
the
age of fifteen and was homeless for a while. He was placed in to
care
after stealing a pint of milk He was placed in a series of
children's care homes around the UK but says that each time he would steal a
car
and drive back to London.
Mr Cordell said he was pushed hard to
achieve at school by his father and that
he was
"an A-star student" for most of the time. He says he was intelligent
and would
do
the
work at other times and as a result would often just
"mess about" in class. He went on to college and
studied engine mechanics, completing a city & guilds
qualification. After leaving school he went on to get jobs in the construction
industry.
Mr Cordell says he has tried
to build
himself up a business for providing party
entertainment. At the moment he says he is not
able
to earn from this due to the restrictions of his bail.
Mr
Cordell has had one long term relationship which he describes as "my first
true love". This is with a woman called Diana who
is currently studying physiotherapy. They were together thirteen years,
but he says she has moved back out of his flat in recent months. Mr Cordell thinks this is
SIMON CORDELL
2
769,
Barnet, Enfield and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
secondary to the repeated involvement
of the police in their lives and the stress this has caused.
Mr Cordell says he does not smoke
tobacco and does not drink alcohol.
Grandmother (? maternal) had BPAD
and/or schizophrenia
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY in brief
Has previously been open to Enfield EIS, discharged
in March 2016 due to non-engagement -Has been assessed under the MHA in 2014
and early
2016
but was not detained as there was not sufficient evidence of a mental disorder
FORENSIC HISTORY
Mr Cordell was put in a Young
Offender's Institution at the age of 16 after repeated driving offences
(driving without a license)
Mr Cordell says he has not been in trouble
with
the police for a number of years. He had stolen some trainers at a festival in 2009
and
prior to that had not been in trouble since 2005.
He denied any violent
offences.
Mr Cordell currently
stands accused of burglary. He has a solicitor and the case will not be heard until
July
at the earliest.
MEDICAL HISTORY
Simon said he had Crohn's disease as
a child. He denied any other physical health problems. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL
He said he only
got
drunk once a teenager and has since not taken alcohol or drugs. He denied
current use
FINANCE
Simon receives Ł200 Income Support
every fortnight
VIEWS OF THE NEAREST RELATIVE
With Simon's consent I spoke with his
mother
Mrs Loraine Cordell. Mrs Cordell's views were that "I don't think he [Simon]
needs
to be on section; he is not a danger to himself or other
people" Mrs
SIMON CORDELL
3
770,
Barnet, Enfield and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
Cordell said as far as she knows
Simon is willing to work with the doctors and take his medication. Mrs Cordell
will not say her views if Simon changes his mind and her response summed up as
"we cross the bridge when we get there".
VIEWS OF THE PATIENT
Simon is willing to co-operative with
mental
health
services.
He
said he is willing to
take
his medication.
He gave me a
letter
he wrote
to
indicate his commitment to treatment and
willingness to engage. I attach it for your information.
POSITIVE ASPECTS OF PATIENT
Simon was able to access community
resources independently and had the ability and capacity to make some choices.
He is competent in his activities of daily living skills.
He plans to register a charity to
raise funds to support causes dear to his heart One of such causes is towards
premature babies. He said his sister was born premature. The other is to help
homeless people.
AFTERCARE
Simon lives on his own in a
one-bedroom ground floor flat in Enfield. His mother is supportive and in
constant contact with him.
Enfield Council will have section 117
responsibilities and will provide the appropriate housing and care in the
community.
Simon will also have the support of
an allocated care co-ordinator who will regularly monitor his mental state and
concordance with medication. The team will offer Simon psychology assessment
and or input; he will be seen and reviewed by psychiatrist regularly i.e. every
2-3 months or sooner If required. He will be offered interventions around
concordance to medication, identifying triggers and relapse preventions. A
referral to dual diagnosis worker will be offered. Simon will have access to
groups such as social recovery and mental well-being and specialist services
for vocational/occupation recovery.
SIMON CORDELL
4
771,
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey NHS
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
RECOMMENDATION
I met with Simon today on the ward and
assessed him in preparation of the report. Simon recognised me immediately. He
was warm, welcoming, polite and co-operative
throughout the meeting. He stated about half a dozen times that he is willing
to work with the services and also willing to accept medication.
It would be helpful if Simon will agree
to stay in hospital to continue treatment as he appeared to have made good
progress since admission. As part of the medical and nursing team I believe
that Simon will benefit from staying in hospital for further assessment and
continue treatment.
Goodie Adamo
Locum CMHN
Early Intervention for Psychosis
SIMON CORDELL
5
772,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell
The Events Leading Up to My Wrongful
Detention of my Detainee: -
The events leading up to my wrongful detention
of my detainee that have been governed under civil proceeding, do in fact
relate to the following incidents:- On the 25th June 2013 the Metropolitan
police attended my home address that being of 109 Burncroft avenue Enfield En3
at around midday, the reason for them members of the met police to attend, was
about a criminal allegation, one offence of the nature of burglary, to which I
Mr Simon Cordell did In fact dispute and proved my innocents at court.
On this occasion I was charged and then
bail was denied I was then transferred to the world of scrubs her majesties
pleasure HMP, the reason given for bail to be denied was because there was
false and therefore wrongful criminal convictions that had been maliciously
fabricated on the police national computer containing the wrongful convictions
in my PNC , “to which I did disputed and then challenge and this has now been
proven to be incorrectly inputted on my Criminal record and therefore myself to
be correct, proof of this statement is contained within this official document
as exhibit sc1, this exhibit contains the proof of 8 false criminal convection
not in the court official registries (1 of the guilty verdict off failing to
surrender of which was the reason I was denied bail.)
On the 28th June 2013 I did apply to
the district judge to reconsider the application of bail to which he did choose
to overturn in my favour. I was then granted bail with the following condition
that the Prosecution’s opposed bail was:
·
Possibility of committing further offences
whilst on bail:
·
Possibility of Failure to surrender
Judge’s Decision Bail Granted with the
Following Conditions:
·
Surety of Ł1000 from Ms Lorraine
Cordell (To be surrendered to the nearest Police Station) - prior to release
from Custody.
·
Residence @ 109 Burncroft Road,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ
·
Not to enter the London Borough of
Southwark
·
Surrender Passport to nearest Police
Station
·
Report daily to Edmonton Police between
1400 - 1600do
·
Curfew 8pm - 6am (doorstep condition -
the Defendant should show himself to any officer upon that person knocking on
the front door.
I Mr Simon Cordell had to abide to the
strict regime of bail conditions until the date of 00/00/2014, this was the
date set for trial, but before the start of the trial I was found not guilty
due to the judge accepting my evidence of a till recipe of proof of punchers of
a garden gazebo too which was the basis of the prosecution's evidence regarding
the allegations of burglary.
While I was awaiting the on goings of
the case to proceed to trial to defend my rights of a non-guilty plea, I felt I
was being mistreated by the justice system as I knew I had not committed the
offence I was being accused off and this lead me Mr Simon Cordell to pre
arranging a meeting by way of telephone, this was accomplished at my own free
will, so for myself to be able to attend the silver street Mental health
department, to help my self-document a true understanding of the facts that was
present in my life
773,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
of concern I exhibit proof of this
contained and attached to this official document as sc2.
I also arranged an appointment with my
Doctor who was named Dr Warren at number 1 nightingale Rd, Edmonton, this
appointment was not arranged due to feeling Mentally unstable, but due to the
duration of the time the court proceeding had occurred and the effect the
Metropolitan Police wrongful claims of proceedings was therefore having on the
ruining abilities of myself Mr Simon Cordell being a high statue director for
my own company running objectives.
On the date of 00/00/00, I Mr S.
Cordell was at my home addresses as noted above, with the following friends who
are named 3 of 3 people not including myself Mr Simon Cordell.
1:
2.
3.
When to my unexpected attention I
received a phone call on my personal mobile telephone. When I asked whom the
caller was I received a name of a gentleman who claimed the name of Goody and
the occupation of this gentleman is an amp Mental health worker, the nature of
the reason given for the call was proclaimed to be about the appoint that was
previously arranged months prior with my personal GP as dated above. I clearly
remember when speaking to Goodies on the phone that of an appointment being
pre-arranged at my own home address, as also noted above in this document.
On the agreed date that the appointment
was made was 00/00/2015, the gentlemen whom I had previously had the telephone
conversation with arrived at my home address with another team member who I
know no to be called (Sandra) I invited them into my home, the flat was clean
as I knew I had been expecting guest and also because of the general fact I
keep a strict house upkeep policy, and as for this policy I like to have nice
essential utilities and personal accessories on this day my cupboards were full
of food and also that of my fridge and freeze, this was checked by Sandra and
goodie to my surprise.
The meeting started to take place once
I had asked every person to make them self’s feel at home, the meeting started
to initialise and I found myself and goodies conversation started to lead
towards what I had been up to prior to the visit, I explained that I was in the
process of establishing my own company.
Once the meeting had started, we all
started to settle into conversation within the average time duration of 5
minutes, the ladies phone whose name is Sandra started to ring she then asked
every person, if she can quickly answer the call, as she answered her phone she
walked into my front entrance corridor, myself and goodie continued to chat
about positive things that I had been applying my time to, when Sandra walked
back into the room after finishing her call, she asked if the meeting can be
stopped, as she had to leave due to her telephone conversation. Goodie
explained to myself that he was happy with my mental health assessment and that
he was going away on holiday for four weeks and that he would like to have a
follow up meeting once he
774,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
gets back from his work holiday leave,
I explained I would be very happy to meet with himself again, as it was a
pleasure to chat with himself.
At this stage in my life I had worked
hard to achieve in a positive view and it had taken me many years to save and
buy what I knew to be needed to start the company I wanted to build I would
have not been able to start without the help of my family.
I can clearly note that of the facts
that by 2010 I had things in place and needed to start on my next step with
building my website so I order my domain name http://toosmooth.co.uk
on the 22/07/2010, my mother was going to try and help build the website as money
was an issue and to build the type of website that was needed would have cost a
lot of money.
The development of the Website took
much longer than anticipated; this was due to the building process and also my
mother's health.
The coding beside the website is of a
large scale due to the 4 databases that was needed.
By 2012 the website was coming along I
order 2 other domains http://toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
and http://toosmoothentertainment.com
22/05/2012 these were ordered, I had also started looking ahead to the summer
of 2013 to start bridging out with contacts and doing some unpaid work in the
local community so to get my company name known in the public, and help my
local community.
I had planned to order the company name
just before the work started in 2013.
The following day after of Goodie
attending my private home, I was again at home working on my company I remember
this date to be 00/00/2015 as for I was programming parts of my website and
finding things reasonably hard to achieve, I noticed a knock on my front door
and went to see who it was, when I noticed a large group of people, when asking
whom them persons were I was told the name of elan, she stated that her
occupation was from the mental health department so I opened up my front door
and asked what they wanted to speak to me about in the safety of knowing all
was being recorded on CCTV. I showed some concern in regard to the team turning
up to my address unannounced and that I felt that this was a breach of my
privacy. I was un happy with the way I was spoken to by the Mental Health team,
on this occasion, especially with the understand of what had been portrayed to
me and that being that since goodie had gone away on leave that elan and the
other people standing at my front door had been made case handlers of myself
for no reason I was quite shocked and concerned as goodie was surely happy when
he had left prior and never said anything of the sort, it was then explained to
me that they wanted to do another assessment on me once again I explained that
I had just let goodie into my home less than 2 days, the team soon left.
once again with the concern of being
assessed without no true reason as I knew that I had mostly been indoors and
had travelled to the shops a few times with friends and family with no concern
about my well-being, After elan and team had arrived I called the mental health
team so to find out why they had truly attended and to raise my
775,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
concerns, while achieving this I used a
dictator to record the minutes of the conversation I managed to speak to Ellen
herself and explained to her that I was happy for the team to have a meeting
with my se
If they wanted but please could they
contact myself first or have a true reason under the mental health act.
A few days later I revived a phone call
of my mother and she seemed quite concerned for my wellbeing, on asking her
what was wrong she explained that the early prevention team had called her
mobile phone and told her that they were obtaining a warrant under a person of
interest section 135 of the mental health act 1983, this was said to be for the
reason that I would not allow them access into my home.
On the 00/00/2016 while at home with my
mother and civil partner I received a knock on the front door, on opening the
door there was a multitude of persons present when asking them who they were
they expanded police officers and doctors awaiting to serve a warrant to enter
my home under section 135 of the mental health act 1983 I explained to them
that I was happy to allow the doctors and medical teams access once again so to
be able to conclude their assessment but was not happy for members of the
police to enter due to the sensitivity of my personal information as I still
had ongoing complaints and cases that I was a subject towards, the police
agreed to await outside.
Before the meeting started, I pressed
play on my recording system so to be able to have a copy of the minutes of the
meeting as I find professional best for all people’s interest.
The general outcome of the meeting was
that the warrant had been obtained illegal due to my self-having a recording of
them being invited for a meeting into my home of my own free will prior and
that I had allowed goodie entry into my home two days before they arrived at my
front door unannounced, with no truth in decrease or evidence of an un stable
mental mentality of mine, between and on them dates. The warrant issued was and
is for a person who won’t allow access to mental health teams to which I
clearly did do; Ellen makes a full confection of this on CD.
I allowed the meeting to go ahead in
any case and was assessed as being mental stable with no issues of concern.
When listening to the transcripts of
the minutes that took place that day under the grounds of the assessment, after
being confirmed as well by the doctors, I was then asked if I was happy to be
assessed every day or once a week, I was not happy with this as I feel I have
worked hard to achieve my goals and this would have a negative impact on my
time and ability as it clearly is right now, I did however say that I will talk
with my partner about this and come to an agreement. After taking to my civil
partner we decided that the mental health team had come to the right conclusion
of me being well and that we were much more than capable of looking after our
self and felt more commutable do this.
I soon received a letter asking myself
to go to Edmonton green for another assessment as dated 2902/2016, I called the
centre and explained that me and my partners had made our decision and that was
that we can cope alone and if we ever find our self’s insure of any think that
we will contact the mental health team.
The care team called my mobile phone 14
August 2016.
776,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
In response to the allegations
of Threats to kill 14/08/2016
On the day in question I was in my home
address, all day my mother attended my home at around 3pm to collect my credit
card as arranged leaving myself with no other source of money as for this I had
no reason to leave my home. I have a text on my mobile phone and computer to
prove this from my mother.
I was then fortunate another to have
some good friends visit with their new born baby to which on their visit good
news was announced that I will be the god father to the new born baby, my
visitors stayed at my home address till around 7pm after their departure I was
left at home alone and started to listen to a music CD that was given to me by
my guests I continued to listen to music until at around 8pm, up and till I
notice a very large amount of uniformed police officers entering my communal
hall way and started to implosively bang on my front door intimating myself in
my own place of residence.
I clearly remember approaching my front
door with large concern for my safety as for I have other on goings cases
against the Metropolitan police that are in the process of the IPPC.
As I approached my home front door I
had that of my mobile phone in my hand and called for assistance of members of
my family who could be in support of me as they may be relevant as to a witness
to any ongoing about to occur.
When asking the police the reason for
their presents at my home address the reply back was that of the remark, that
they just wanted to speak to my person, I did reply back to them that I was not
happy to speak to them self’s as I knew I had done nothing un-law and was
therefore a victim.
I do remember asking the police to
contact my solicitors as a first point of contact for any incident as the
police have a full understanding when attended my home address that my home has
been my place of residents for over 11 years and I have no issues with
surrendering to police.
After about a 40 minute interview of
compulsive and aggressive knocking by on duty police officers on my front door,
I choose to explained to them members of active police that they were being
recorded by my CCTV, This caused a different reaction and the woman office who
was knocking on my front door choose to cause a criminal offence by way of
causing criminal damage to my personal property otherwise named as my CCTV
equipment, she achieved this by staring straight into the camera and
intentionally ripping out the cables in turn causing damage so that the
crammers were no longer active.
As this happened while my mother
attended with my uncle whom I had previously called and continued to recorded
the ongoing on their mobile phone’s crammers.
Another police officer a male offered
to repair the damage that had been caused by the female officer by asking
myself to pass them a screwdriver out of my letter box I found this an unusual
request.
777,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
On arrival of my mother and uncle
attending I felt much more at ease and secure of my own safety and opened my
front door knowing I had all the evidence I need on CD and mobile phones to
prove my innocents and the damage cause to my property.
As for other video footage I do dispute
the allegations of the Quoted fact off being taken out of cell number 3 for a
legal assessment by members of the MHA Mental Health Assessment Team as named
AMHP worker Maggie fuller and 2 x Doctors of the names (---) and (---) whom did
attended my cell while I was being recorded by CCTV as true as I am sure they
did walk up to my cell hatch and verbally said to myself that I was being
sectioned under the mental health act without caring out the correct procedures
to obtain such regulations.
While the AMHP workers was at my cell
door while being contained at wood green police station I did notice one of the
doctors to be an official person that I had a complaint against for attending
my home address in February 2016 and have a CD of evidence of the full mental
health team of the day which does prove illegal entry into my home by way of
completing a section 135 illegally in turn by stating to a judge under oath
that I would not give access to my place of fixed resentence and is clearly
admitted to be a lie on the CD as I have the evidence.
I Mr S. Cordell did in fact find this
to be un professional conduct as for I had been detained for 24 hours with no
issues of concern for my safety or any other persons and was left in my cell
while being a detainee with my full clothing inclusive of shoe lyses and belt
and all other articles of personal clothing that in any case would be taken of
a person acting with mental health issues of concern by the acting custody
officer.
I also would like to make the correct
notes regarding the statement of being seen by a police officer FME, as for
this is not true to its statements as quoted in Mr Goodie official statement as
dated the 25th August 2016 on page 2 chapter 1.
I do not feel I was correctly pre
assessed under the mental Health act 1983 at wood green police station never
was I interviewed or charged for any criminal offence, as the camera evidence
being becalmed will clearly show and for this reason I also request a copy of
the said official assessments doctors notes made on the day,
I Know the truth to be on the 14th
I was detained at my home address at around 9pm and booked into the police
station I was then held for 23 hours until the official case handler came to my
cell he asked me to contact my mother and ask for the video footage from my
mother and uncles mobile phone and for my mother to attended the police station
for an interview as in other occasion with the police I have needed an
appropriate adult as I had learning difficulties such classed as reading and
writing difficulties, I explained that I was willing to do the interview on my
own as over the last 3 years of my life I have had much practice in reading and
writing and have now improved on such needed skills, the police officer was not
happy with my reply and re appeared a shot time latter with the Mental health
team who never assessed me, in total I was detained for near on 30 hours taken
to St Ann’s Hospital and then first assed 72 hours after arriving for the first
time so I understand I was detained illegally for the average of 100 hours.
778,
Official Statement of Mr Simon
Cordell.pdf
Since detainee there has been many
issues of concern that are to be raised and them issues of concern do in fact,
contained wrongful personal information on the RIO data base and St Ann’s
computer systems inclusive of any other medical data in regards to doctor and
client personal data and that information being not correct of it facts, so for
any medical provisions to be able to use that information in a true positive
method, as for that information can be proved to be fabricated and therefore
false intelligence or classed as Intel.
Such fabricated medical intelligence
was prepared by a Dr Rosemary Mill a St4 doctor in response for Dr Julia
Cranitch, who states she has personal knowledge of Mr S. Cordell, Since the 22nd
of august which is understood to be the start of her Job title for St Ann’s
hospital, contained in a prepared doctors statement that was requested to be
served in a paper format as legal required for a tribunal.
on the 25th 08 2016 a
prepared copy of the doctors notes made from all nurses assessment notes and
their own personal involvement with myself, should have been served towards
myself so to be able to prepare a fair deface for tribunal this should have
been achieved by mid-day and was not. When staff was asked it was said my
acting solicitor will be able to show myself a copy even low a consent form had
been completed and submitted into St Ann’s hospital.
I Mr Simon Cordell feel that was I not
served in accordance of the legalisation framework that represents the mental
health act 1983, neither assessed at the correct opportunity falsifying my
illegal detainee.
I Mr S. Cordell was in fact shown a
copy of the doctor’s reports 20 minutes before the tribunal started by my
acting solicitor due to a break down in communications and never had the
opportunity to analyse any official documentation to in fact be able to stand a
true legal defence.
As a matter of fact the tribunal did go
in my favour and I feel a fair and equal decision was made by the boards
official panel this decision was of the conclusion as quoted The section 2
Mental Health act 1983 was removed of my statue of liberty and I agreed to the
doctors decision of staying in St Ann’s hospital as a formal patient,
As the tribunal is held in St Ann’s
hospital there is less than a 5 minute walk from the assessment wing to where I
have been detained while being assessed and on arriving back to the ward after
the panel turned the decision in my favour I had the first opportunity to
assess the doctors notes used in the tribunal in regards to myself that had
been pre drafted and not severed to myself in accordance of the duration of the
time limit that legal jurisdiction apposes and felt the need to correct
wrongful lintel and state the true claims such tribunals should be based upon.
I have contained evidence that is
overwhelming to the fact of the matters that I do quote within this official
document of complaint.
779,
This has led to my human rights
1998 being in breach such
as the listed: -
·
Article 3: Freedom
from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment what is the prohibition on
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, this is one of the
most important provisions in the Human Rights Act, and clearly states the
following: -
·
Article 3 is like the right to life
article 2, the prohibition in Article 3 requires an official and effective
investigation to take place where there are credible allegations of serious
ill-treatment by public officials to which Mr Simon Cordell claim and provide
the supported evidence beyond reasonable doubt R V Bones, as provided within
this official complaint.
The most obvious obligation that I claim my rights towards
do in fact prevent State officials from torturing a person or subjecting them
to inhuman or degrading treatment.
This applies anywhere in the UK jurisdictions and this can
include places outside the UK, as well as in UK prisons, hospitals, schools
etc.
Any person’s human rights may be affected within Article 3,
whom is being contained within a Government policy that does in fact put a
person in a situation where they face inhuman or degrading treatment to which I
Mr Simon Cordell do feel I have been subject towards.
·
Article 3 does
require that public authorities take all steps to prevent torture and ill- treatment.
This requires laws in place to adequately protect vulnerable groups from
ill-treatment and for public officials to act so to protect vulnerable people
from harm inflicted on them by others.
·
Article 5: Right
to liberty and security.
·
Article 7: No punishment
without law.
Hello Paige, the report took me a bit
more time than I first thought to finish. I am sorry if I have caused you any
inconvenience. I attach a copy of the two hospital reports and also that of my
reply to them reports, this does include a personal statement and a copy of the
assessments transcripts that took place at my home address in February before
the 14/08/2016 incident, if you have any advice towards amendments please tell
me, I have not sent the documents to any other person(s) other than yourself
and ask for your guidance.
Many thanks again Simon Cordell
780,
Julia_report.pdf
Barnet, Enfield
and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
Haringey Assessment Ward St Ann’s
Hospital St Ann’s Road N15 3TH
Telephone No: 020 8702 6120
25/08/16
Inpatient Psychiatric Report for
Mental Health Tribunal on 26/08/16
Name: Mr
Simon Cordell
Home address: 109
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex
Date of
birth: 26
Jan 1981
Hospital: St
Ann’s Hospital, St Ann’s Road, London, N15 3TH
MHA status: Section 2
Responsible Clinician: Dr
Julia Cranitch
Date admitted: 16
August 2016
1. Preamble
1.1.1
am preparing this report for Simon Cordell's Mental Health Act Tribunal in my function
as the ST4 doctor working at the Haringey Assessment Ward under the supervision
of Dr Cranitch (Consultant Psychiatrist in General Adult Psychiatry). I am a
full member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists since 2015.
1.2.
This report has been prepared for the Mental Health Tribunal hearing 26th August 2016. In preparing this report I
have had access to Mr Cordell’s electronic patient record or RIO
and I have had personal knowledge of Mr Cordell since 22nd August 2016.
781,
2 History of Presenting
circumstances
2.11
5/8/16 Mr Cordell was arrested by police at his home after allegations that he
had made threats to harm his neighbour and her children. The forensic medical
examiner requested a mental health act assessment due to concerns about Mr Cordell’s
mental state.
2.2 Assessing
doctors felt that Mr Cordell presented with features suggestive of mental
illness, in particular paranoid persecutory ideas about the police and his
mother Collateral history suggested deterioration in Mr Cordell’s mental state: that he has been withdrawn and
expressed beliefs that the television is talking about him and paranoid ideas
about his mother alongside recreational use of 'laughing gas' Neighbours had
reported verbal aggression, playing loud music. Mr Cordell presented with
pressure of speech, angry and paranoid ideas about the police and the assessing
doctors felt that Mr Cordell had impaired insight about his condition and
required further assessment in hospital.
3. Mental State Examination on
admission
·
“Appearance and Behaviour: medium
height, slim mixed-race gentleman. Slightly dishevelled, dressed in black
tracksuit, noted to be missing several teeth. Initially good rapport but became
quite irritable at times
·
Speech: Fast rate, pressured speech.
Tangential.
·
Mood: subjectively Tm really good',
objectively appears elevated Thoughts: no formal thought disorder. Denied
thoughts to harm him or others.
·
Perceptions: denied hallucinations
·
Insight: limited. Aware of
reasons for admission but does not agree that he may have a mental illness”
·
"Simon stated that he has been
very busy setting up his company recently. Spoke about working very hard and
spending years 'studying'. He spoke in grandiose terms, describing his company
as managing mental health services and working in the entertainment industry.
He spoke about buying speakers for Ł50,000 each and hiring out equipment to
Glastonbury and Isle of Wight festivals. Simon stated that he owns a 'city' and
it is his job to understand the various roles that people have in society so
that he can 'look after people’. When asked how he was able to fund these
projects he described a system of fundraising using 'charity bars' and
websites".
4. Physical Examination on
admission
·
Physical exam, ECG and routine blood
tests were initially refused by Mr Cordell, however he consented for this to be
completed on 18th August 2016 results as follows:
·
ECG: Normal sinus rhythm
782,
·
Physical examination: pulse 76bpm,
warm and well perfused, cap refill <2 secs. No signs of anaemia, no central
or peripheral cyanosis. Heart sounds normal, no added sounds. Chest clear. Abdo
soft non-tender No calf swelling or tenderness. Neurology not formally assessed
but grossly intact.
·
Blood tests have been within
normal
range.
5.
Psychiatric History
·
Mr Cordell has received previous
diagnoses of Unspecified nonorganic psychosis F29 in 2015 and Adjustment
disorder F34.2 in 2014.
·
11/3/2014 -
Mr Cordell was assessed by Dr Jarvis of Enfield Triage Team after a referral by
GP with a history of 9 months of anxiety symptoms which were
exacerbated by an upcoming court date. Diagnosed as Adjustment reaction. Dr
Jarvis suggested IAPT, gave option of sertraline, crisis plan, and contacts
given
·
19/11/14
Mr Cordell was referred to the Home treatment team due to concerns about his
mental
state,
|had
become paranoid about his mother. Police also attended the house due to Mr
Cordell screaming out in distress, continued
to present as verbally abusive and paranoid Assessment terminated as not safe to
enter the premises
·
25/11/14
MHA assessment completed, found to be much calmer, not legally detainable under
the MHA, given crisis contacts.
·
08/12/15
Referred to Early intervention services, Mr Cordell presented as unwell, rapid
speech, thought disordered, spoke mostly about misdiagnosis and mistreatment by
police, paranoid persecutory delusions regarding conspiracies to damage his
reputation and to kill him organised by a global agency called 'Storm',
referred to subliminal messages through his TV. Believed that upstairs neighbour
was stalking him. she has since moved, and he felt that she was still harassing mm and
had CCTV of this.
·
19/1/16
Referred for MHA due to concerns by early intervention service -
"He appeared paranoid about people, police especially
and had grandiose delusions. Not eating well. No apparent evidence of
self-harm
or harm to others".
·
22/1/16 "Simon
presented as paranoid, suspicious, and grandiose with flights of ideas, clear
evidence that he is suffering from a mental disorder" Section 135 applied
for as Mr Cordell not allowing access to his property.
·
02/2/16 MHA
assessment completed, assessed as not detainable, plan made for follow up with
Early Intervention Service.
·
29/2/16 Mr
Cordell was discharged from EIS as he was not willing to engage with the team
and did not feel that he had a mental illness.
783,
6.
Past Medical History
· Electronic
notes state that Mr Cordell has Crohn’s disease; however, this is elsewhere
described as irritable bowel syndrome.
· Mr
Cordell currently has an injury to his left 5th finger which is
under review by ward doctors.
7.
Medication prior to admission
· None
8.
Family History
· Mr
Cordell’s maternal grandmother suffered from a mental illness, most likely
schizophrenia, for which she received clozapine treatment and had admissions to
hospital.
9.
Personal History
· Mr
Cordell was born at North Middlesex University Hospital. He has a younger
brother and sister. Mr Cordell's father worked as a union representative and
his mother ran her own computer company.
· Mr
Cordell says he did not get on well with his father who was a violent man. He
was violent towards Mr Cordell, Mr Cordell's mother and siblings. Mr Cordell
left home at the age of fifteen and was homeless for a while. He was placed in
to care after stealing a pint of milk. He was placed in a series of children's
care homes around the UK but says that each time he would steal a car and drive
back to London.
· Mr
Cordell said he was pushed hard to achieve at school by his father and that he
was "an A-star student" for most of the time. He says he was
intelligent and would do the work at other times and as a result would often
just "mess about" in class. He went on to college and studied engine
mechanics, completing a city & guilds qualification. After leaving school
he went on to get jobs in the construction industry.
· Mr
Cordell says he has tried to build himself up a business for providing party
entertainment, he is also setting up a charity. At the moment he says he is not
able to earn from this due to the restrictions of his bail.
10. Forensic
History
· Mr
Cordell was put in a Young Offender's Institution at the age of 16 after
repeated driving offences (driving without a license)
· 2015
Received
a 5-year ASBO for organising illegal raves- not allowed to enter industrial or
disused premises between 10pm and 7 am.
784,
· Mr
Cordell has stated that he is currently on bail for making threats to harm his
neighbours; he has a court date relating to this on 8"1 October
2016.
11. Drug
and Alcohol History
· Documented
on RIO notes in December 2015 to have been using cannabis 'skunk' on a daily
basis at that time.
· Admitted
to A+E in 2012 for assessment after allegedly using LSD and drinking a bottle
of rum at a festival.
· Mr
Cordell reports that he has not taken any illicit substances recently, has used
cannabis occasionally in the past ‘recreationally’. Mr Cordell denies alcohol
consumption or any drug use recently.
· Unfortunately,
I have been unable to find record of a urine drug screen since admission to
hospital.
12. Social
History
· Mr
Cordell lives alone in a 1-bedroom flat which he says he owns
· outright.
Mrs Cordell lives nearby and provides support to Mr Cordell. There are also
siblings and other extended family that live in the local area.
13. Progress
on the ward
· 15/8/16
Upon
admission
to
Haringey
assessment ward, Mr Cordell was clerked in by the SHO,
who documented
that Mr Cordell presented as irritable, with pressured speech, tangential
thought patterns, appeared elated and spoke of several
projects of a grandiose nature including his business in the
entertainment industry, buying speakers for Ł50,000 and hiring
them to Glastonbury. Mr
Cordell
described owning a 'city' and that it is
'his
job
to
understand the various roles people have in society so that
he can
look
after people.
· 16/8/16
Mr
Cordell refused routine blood tests, physical
exam and ECG on the ground that he treats his
body like a temple. Mr Cordell was documented as appearing
settled
and calm on the ward, eating and drinking well.
· 17/8/16
72-hour CPA review - Mr Cordell presented with rapid speech,
· often
talking about unrelated themes and stated he felt he was being persecuted. Mr
Cordell became irate shouting at his mother, angry that she has not appealed
his section. Mr Cordell presented with paranoid persecutory and grandiose
delusions with tangential thought pattern, no insight into mental health. It
was agreed by the team to commence regular 1mg lorazepam bd.
785,
· 18/8/16
little change in presentation, generally calm on the ward however quick to
become agitated during interaction with staff, can be unpredictable. Refused
prescribed lorazepam. Consented to physical exam, bloods
and ECG by SHO who also reviewed injury to 5iri finger.
· 19/8/16
Presented
as fairly settled and calm in mood, continued to refuse medication as
prescribed. Discussed this with Dr Humphries and agreed to take night-time dose
of lorazepam, which he subsequently did with lots of reassurance from staff.
· 20/8/18
Presented
as calm in mood, polite and appropriate with peers, spent the day playing music
on laptop with peers. Ate and drank well, attended to personal care.
· 21/8/16
Calm, slept well, accepted lorazepam as prescribed at night, however, refused
olanzapine 5mg. Further discussion with nursing staff to explore his feelings
about this, however Mr Cordell told staff that he had been recording the
interaction on his phone and taking pictures. Complained of painful finger,
accepted PRN ibuprofen.
· 22/8/16
Nursing notes describe Mr Cordell as quite settled however remains consumed with same preoccupations which he
relates with pressured, uninterruptible speech, preoccupied with proving that
he was wrongfully admitted to hospital. Otherwise interacting with peers
appropriately, accepted 1mg lorazepam as prescribed, refused olanzapine.
· 23/8/16
Consultant review by Dr Cranitch and MDT, during the interview Mr Cordell spoke
with pressure of speech, in an over inclusive and tangential fashion, largely
preoccupied with injustices in the past particularly by the police which made
it difficult for him to focus on the present. He also expressed rather
grandiose plans about his business and his ability to help others in the world.
Mr Cordell denied any thoughts or threats to harm others and stated that he did
not feel he was mentally unwell at present. Mr Cordell however agreed to trial
a small dose of olanzapine 5mg at night as recommended by Dr Cranitch for
psychotic symptoms.
· 24/8/16
Mr Cordell has accepted his prescribed medication overnight and slept well.
14. Drug
chart
· Lorazepam
1mg nocte
· Olanzapine
5mg nocte
786,
15. Appearance
and Behaviour –
Well kempt and casually dressed slim
gentleman in his early thirties Staring eye contact, remained seated throughout
the interview.
Speech –
Fast pace and very difficult to
interrupt, normal volume and tone.
Mood –
Subjectively ‘happy’, objectively
appears quite irritable, reports sleeping well, good appetite, positive plans
for the future, no plans or thoughts to harm self or
others.
Thought –
Evidence of tangentiality, struggled
to stay on topic without repeated prompting. Overinclusive, spoke at length
about minutiae of legal aspects of organising a festival, grandiose plans to
help others across the country which were difficult to follow. Denied worries
about the police, more focussed on health professionals and legal aspects of
his admission to hospital and alleged wrongdoings
Perception –
No evidence of responding to abnormal
perceptions, denied same.
Cognition –
Alert and orientated to time place
and person.
Insight –
Mr Cordell feels he does not have a
mental disorder.
16. Factors affecting this hearing
· Mr
Cordell has made recordings of assessments and other interactions with health
professionals and police in the past and refers to this frequently. Mr Cordell
has attempted to make recordings of encounters with staff during his admission,
there is a chance he may attempt to make recordings of tribunal proceedings.
16. opinion
and Recommendations
· Mr
Cordell is currently suffering from a mental disorder:
· He
presents with persisting psychotic symptoms of paranoid persecutory delusions
involving police and mental health services, he also presents with pressured
speech, and has presented as elated and irritable, which may represent a mood
disturbance Whilst Mr Cordell has indeed had several encounters with the police
and has a forensic history, it is my opinion that his interpretation and
experience of these encounters goes beyond reality into beliefs of a delusional
nature. These beliefs have dominated Mr Cordell's life and his behaviour at the
expense of his wellbeing and ability to function safely in the community.
· In
the past these persecutory ideas have also focused on family members and
neighbours, one of his neighbours was also a service user and needed to be
rehoused as a result of encounters with Mr Cordell. Mr Cordell presents with
evidence of thought disorder; his speech is pressured and tangential upon
interview.
· His
mental disorder is currently of a nature or degree to justify ongoing
detention in hospital.
787,
· If
he insisted on leaving the ward, we would ask our home treatment team to
monitor him at home and offer him medication - historically Mr Cordell has not
engaged well with community services due to his lack of insight.
17. If
Mr Cordell is NOT discharged from his Section:
· We
would encourage Mr Cordell to take antipsychotic medication, starting with a
low dose and monitoring closely for response and any side effects.
· We
would titrate the dose antipsychotic medication according to his mental state
and side effect profile.
· Once
regularly taking antipsychotic medication and stabilised in mental state we
would start to introduce some leave from the ward initially escorted before
moving to longer periods of unescorted leave.
· Once
deemed stable in mental state we would look at discharge to his home with Home
treatment team support and referral to community team.
Signed: Dr Rosemary
Mills ST4 to Dr Julia Cranitch, Consultant Psychiatrist
Dated: 24th
August 2016
788,
Copy of the Minutes of
February.pdf
Copy
of the Minutes of February’s assessment when a Section 135 was wrongfully
issued
The Beeping sound starts of interview.
"Muttering" Simon:
all of you people are not coming into my house.
"Muttering" Mother:
Three two doctors and one social worker.
"Muttering" "Continues."
Mother: How
do I turn this television down?
Katie: I am not sure.
Mother: Simon
it's not going to work out when you are talking outside.
Katie: Simon stops shouting.
Simon: I want to go through all of the
corruption.
Katie: Simon, Simon.
Katie: Lorraine how do you shut the door.
Mother: Shut
what door.
Katie: That door.
Mother: Oh,
hold on, how do you turn this down I am turning it up.
Simon: How
are you all doing welcome to my home, I am not too happy.
Sam: There is a few of us I am afraid.
Simon: I understand.
Sam: Where is the best place for us all to
seat?
Simon: Just
take a seat anywhere you are all welcome to sit anywhere there are seats
available for everybody.
Sam: Then we will explain why we are here.
789,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: I
am not impressed with your "referring to Elan" I see you and meet you
before and I see what happened to you before.
Mother: How
many people are actually coming in that is needed to do this assessment.
Mother: The
police said that they will wait outside.
Unheard voice:
Katie: No, he didn't.
Mother: No,
he didn't he said that the police was going to wait outside.
Sam: OK. Simon: I am not impressed with the
way that use lot are using your Mental Health powers to obtain a warrant to
come into my house under false allegations, stating of facts that are not true
to obtain it.
Simon: you
may take a sit anywhere you have been welcomed in now and like take a sit.
Sam: OK.
Simon: You
have been welcomed in now like I would rather you lot take a sit rather than I
take a sit.
Sam: OK.
Simon: Take
a sit, sir please.
Mother: No
Sam, can I talk to you for a moment you said the police was waiting outside.
Simon: The
police are not coming into these premises, you're not coming in, and you can
get out.
Sam: Simon.
Simon: It's
a breach of conditions.
Simon: I
am explaining to the police.
Katie: You're not going to get anywhere.
790,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Because right now I got conflicting
cases going on with the police, and I do not want that having an effect on the
ongoing because of this.
Mother: His
got serious issues with police cases at the moment.
Sam: Could we just leave the door ajar and
have the police at the entrance, is that OK with the police officers.
Sam: Yes, just leave the door open with
the police not coming in, OK.
Katie: His exaggerated because of the police.
Simon: That
is correct in practice and that is how it should be, that is professional.
Sam: OK.
Simon:
Sam: OK.
Sam: OK, sure.
Sam: So, Simon the reason that we're here today
is because concerns have been raised.
"Noise in background made."
Sam: Oh, what's that?
Katie: Oh, it's all right, it
part of the printer.
Sam: OK.
Sam: A bout your Mental Health and we have
been asked to carry out something called a Mental Health Act assessment, so
were her to decide whether or not you need to be detained.
Simon: Section
1 or 2 or 3 and maybe a 4 of the acts in an Emergency.
Sam: Err yes.
Simon: I
understand your procedures.
791,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Sam: In order for that to happen and we have
not decided anything yet that is why we want to talk to you.
Simon: There
is no way that you can decide without being able to make an assessment of the
case.
Sam: Let’s just explain the legal situation
first thing you can do you hip hop or so myself.
Mother: Let
him, just talk Simon.
Sam: Two Doctors so there is: -
Doctor: Albazaz
Sam: and~
Doctor: Amin
Simon: How
you both doing.
Sam: For in order for the section to go ahead,
they would both need to make medical recommendations and I would need to agree.
Sam: Err but we really just want to find out
about how your mental health is two days.
Mother: So,
who are all of the other people?
Sam: They are from.
Aman: I
am from the Mental Health team.
Simon: So,
I meet you the other day and I spoke to you on the phone and I got through, I
got large concerns about yourself.
Alena: Yes
OK.
Simon: Because
this is how I am going to prove that you put wrong statements of facts in to get
this yesterday I spoke to you and I spoke to you a couple of days ago and did I
not say to you and you said to me at 14:22 I got you on the recording and I am
going to play your voice to you in a second.
792,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: You
do not need to.
Simon: And
I would like you to honest did I not say to you that you are allowed access to
my house whenever you would like on the phone last week and the week before.
Alena: Yep
yes and that is what is in your notes.
Simon: So
how has this court order was obtained under the grounds that I have not given
you access, the form has been filled in and when you are filling that form in
to get this court order it’s supposed to be filled in there is a statement of
facts that is said under oath to a judge, someone has filled that in
incorrectly and you have just absolutely admitted that I have said that it's OK
to you as I have given you permission to come into my house now.
Simon: So
that court order is a breach of violations.
Sam: That is the other thing we got a
warrant to come into the flat.
Simon: No,
the warrant is self is valid by a judge, but the fulfilment of that warrant is
incorrect.
Simon: Am
I correct in practice madam.
Alena: You
have said that I can come to the house the issue is seeing the doctors.
Doctor xxx: We
came last week, and you did not allow us in.
Mother: Hold
on can I accurately say some think.
Simon: May
I say some think to you two days before that before you attended my premises
for a month prior I had a gentlemen phoning me called Goodie I was speaking to
him and we was making good relations and I liked this persons attitude I liked
how he was talking to me and I thought maybe this person might be able to help
me prospect and go forward in my life so were building good relationships we
arrange a meeting for him to come around to my address his says OK his coming
round his going to bring a friend a colleague, I said that is perfect he said
his bringing Sandra with him, they both coming to this house I invite them in
perfectly my house is tidy its smells clean they check the fridge and that then
they sit down on the chair, Sandra sits actually were your sitting today yes
Allan two minutes later her phone rings she gets up and she walks into the hall
way and then she is on the phone in
793,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
the corridor yes this door is slightly
gets left ajar and Goodie is sitting here I talk to Goodie and I showed Goodie
my business plan and I start to start showing him things that I am doing in my
life and things like how I am going to help this community and I am going to be
a good tenant and resident of the United Kingdom, his happy he was saying that
he was amazed I am amazed Simon to see the good things that you are doing and
to see all the management systems and to see all the files that you have here,
five minutes later the woman walks back in and she goes Goodie we got to leave,
so she stops the interview that me and Goodie are having personally and they both
leave the premises two days later Goodie says to me, I shake Goodies hand,
Goodie says when I get back in four weeks I am your case handler Simon I am
going on holiday in four weeks I am going to come and I am going to visit you
in four weeks I said Goodie that will be nice to see you in for weeks yes.
Simon: Two
days later yourself Alena and another Sandra turns back up to my front door the
woman who was so rude when she come in and cut our interview.
Katie: No notification at all.
Simon: She
never writes any notes down, she never took any information. Katie: Why did you not contact him?
Simon: now
can I speak to yourself and I explained to you lot at the door that I do not
feel comfortable that you have turned up un-announced, I have got a visitor
coming to my house and I do not want them to know my personal life, right now I
am trying to make a good impression of myself to people and not show them that
you are here, this could be a business prospect or a business chance I might be
able to have in the future, so you lot might tarnish that chance for me by
being here, so please can you make your self-announced when your turning up to
my address, which is fair and you took offence and you threatened me I have you
on camera as well because I explained to you that you was on it and I said to
you, you said to me that I am going to go and get an order and I am going to
bring the police and come into your house I said you do not have the right to
go and use your Mental Health powers like that.
Doctor xx: I
think I did explain to you, that was not disputed to be the facts I told you
clearly if you do not allow us access.
Mother: But
he has allowed you access his allowed two sets of Doctors.
Doctor xxx: Not
to me.
794,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: No
but he allowed two doctors.
Simon: No
let him speak let him speak because I am going to listen to him no go on sir.
Simon: Sorry
mother.
Katie: No stop.
Doctor xx: I
told him that I am the independent psychiatrist and we were there to carry out
a Mental Health assessment and you insist that we only talk to you outside and
you did not want us to come in so we told you.
Katie: So should you not notify him
beforehand.
Doctor xxx: with
the mental health assessment we do not need, I do not have to.
Simon: They
do not have to the amp do not have to do that because they're two separate
bodies.
Sam: Si I think if you got complaints about
what has happened up till now that is fine, and you can make that.
Simon: Procedures.
Simon: No
it's not just complaints it’s you are in my house right now under a statement
that this woman has clearly just said to you has been filled out wrongly and
being handed to a judge to breech my private and family life.
Sam: Well we have used the warrant to gain
access today.
Simon: Yes,
but she is admitting that that warrant has been full filled wrong.
Simon: She
is admitting that it has been filled wrongly to breach my Human Rights.
Sam: What I would like to focus on is your
Mental Health at the moment and if you need any help with your Mental Health
and what is going on with you, can we talk about that a bit for now Simon.
795,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: Sir
I am happy to talk with you, sir I am happy to talk with you, I am happy to
talk to a degree with yourself and I am just going to go this with you.
Sam: Because how what is your own view about
your Mental Health.
Simon: My
own Health my Mental Health I am of good Health right now I am of good mind
body and soul, right now if you would like to see the work rat I am doing I
will show you what I am committing myself to every single day I can show you
what I do myself, I feel a bit of an offence with the way things have gone
because I was building good relationships with Goodie there two separate
departments and one does need to refer the other one to yourself to come into
this house Sharon has not been.
Mother: Sharon,
Simon: Sharon.
Mother: No
Sandra, sorry.
Simon: Has
not had permission of the department of Simon Clark, whom is the manager and
Debbie is the manager of the other one they did not have the correct protocols
in place for Sandra to be able to go and get this court order, but even low I
am going to continue with what you are saying let’s just forget about that it's
finished.
Sam: At the moment you are talking quite
fast, I know there are a lot of strangers that have come into your home and it
must be a difficult situation.
Simon: I
will speak fast.
Sam: Is this how you.
Katie: He is frustrated as well.
Sam: But is that, is this the usual self.
Simon: This
is how I will find myself and I will explain my self simply if I find somebody
who is of a higher profession and gets paid the living wage the same as you do
when and got the education took to be able to look after myself or another
member of the public I respect you the amount of time it would have took you to
do that and the hardship it would take for you to get that stage so I know that
I am educating myself an d that I am of a lower
796,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
education to you so I believe that you should
be able to understand and keep up the pace your time is valuable to yourself
and valuable 'to me so I want to use that to its most efficient as possible if
you want me to slow down and speak to you a bit slower.
Sam: If you could slow down because it would
also show us that ability to be calm because that would make us be able to
understand your mental Health at the moment.
Mother: Yes,
but he does speak fast.
Sam: He always speaks very so this is
Simon's usually personality. Mother: Yes, he speaks fast.
Simon: I
might be a bit happier in general.
Sam: Yes, this is a difficult situation
right now I appreciate that right now.
Simon: What
is a difficult situation right now?
Sam: The Mental Health assessment.
Simon: The
only difficult situation is the that this is being paired off on to me in such
a way, when I am sitting here right now every day working my hardest righting
files to look after every other member of the public and I am being treated
differently I am an equal to your self's and we are all equals.
Doctor: We
can understand all that we can understand all of that, but there Is concern
raised about you that is why we are here, to assess the situation to see how
and if you need any help or if we could offer any help, that is the reason why
we are here.
Sam: How is your sleep at the moment?
Sam: Sorry to interrupt you Doctor.
Doctor xxx: So,
it is because there is concern about you and that is why we are here.
Sam: How is your sleep at the moment?
Simon: But
why are there concerns about me at the moment if I have not spoken to my doctor
in years and use lot are the only people that seem to
797,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
have that concern and that concern is
based on this gentleman who has come to my door and I never gave him access.
Doctor xxx: No
before that.
Simon: Before
that the only other concern was that you lot came here on the 8th
December 2016 and there was no issue there I explained to your self's and
everybody was comfortable and you all left me and if there was a concern you
would have raised that yourself s as professionals.
Doctor XX: Tell
us a bit about your neighbours.
Simon: My
neighbours I got a letters of every single one of my neighbours here right now
I got a letter from my next doors I got a letter of them, I got a letter of
every person here now saying that I have lived here for eleven years.
Doctor xxx: Please
allow me to talk to please when we talk, listen to us and we will do the same
to you.
Simon: Yes,
for sure year for sure OK.
Doctor xx: Yes
please, yes so there is concern about you regarding the neighbours you feel
that the neighbours are harassing you.
Simon: Who.
Mother: No
that is totally wrong.
Sam: I think it would be better if you let
Simon talk.
Doctor: No
let him sort this. Simon: The only issue that I have had with my upstairs
neighbour.
Doctor: No
please let him talk.
Simon: The
only issue that I have had with my upstairs neighbour is that she is under your
team of assessments, she accepts money from you and she is supposed to have a
network in place such as your self's, now I have been living in this house for
eleven years she moved in here seven years ago she did she come here she was
already an alcoholic the alcoholism takes perception takes over the perception
of her Metal Heath she was paying for herself to be drunk, you lot have got
duty of care of her, she would not get a liver transplant in them situations
that is why she does not really get much
798,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
assistance at the age she is of your
self's I expect because there is other people who
deserve the chance a lot more than what she does.
Sam: Have you had any difficulties with her.
Simon: Now
what she does I have not had no conflicts with her.
Sam: OK.
Simon: But
I have always helped her I pick her up and take her shopping yet I do like she
would have her stuff coming in and I would lift her shopping upstairs, I would
carry it up to her house I would see her and I would always be polite to her
and say hello, bar, bar, bar I would lend her a Ł10.00 I would never let her In
this house because I could feel something was wrong with her yet.
Katie: She used to knock and ask for money.
Simon: She
used to knock on my door every day knocking, knocking, and knocking.
Simon: My
last girlfriend used to be so paranoid for 13 years because of the amount she
was knocking on my door and she being another female but I would never let this
woman into my house I would keep her at arm’s length I knew that she was a bit
of an alcoholic so I would keep a few beers in my fridge for her I do not drink
alcoholic myself I am t a total.
Doctor: Have
you ever had any conflict with her have you ever threaten her.
Simon: Why
would I threaten her I would never threaten another person.
Doctor xx: Never.
Simon: I
got a letter of her right here that I am the best neighbour in the world I am
going to show you them.
Doctor xx: Were.
Katie: She is causing problems.
Mother: He
is having some problems with her in the sense that.
Simon: She
won't leave me alone.
799,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: basically,
she won't leave him alone.
Simon: She
keeps stalking me under the criminal justice act 1997.
Mother: She
keeps putting the letters through his letter box.
Doctor: OK.
Mother: And
basically, I have been trying to deal with the council with that and there is a
year worth of emails.
Simon: And
she is always drunk.
Doctor: What
is the content of the letters?
Simon: I
have some here, right now loads of them.
Mother: she
is sorry, she is sorry for keep on banning.
Simon: No
I am total I like to look after other people.
Doctor xx: We
understand that in the past we have had some anti depression with depression
and you.
Simon: I
do not think that there is a person in this room that has not felt depression
once before in their life's them self's.
Sam: No, No that's right.
Doctor xx: No,
no talking about Mental Health issues, so you had depression.
Simon: When
I was a kid, I hard upbringing in North London, Enfield but as you can see here
right now, I have worked hard to keep myself up a float.
Doctor xx: Yes,
yes that is good.
Simon: I keep myself clean I keep myself
with every think I need.
Doctor xx: Have
you taken any medication.
Simon: I
got no need to take any medication.
800,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Doctor xx: Not
in the past Simon.
Simon: No
I have never taken medication.
Doctor: Never
taken any medication.
Doctor: How
was your desperation cured?
Simon: How
was my depression cured, I meet and let the beautiful people in my life, and
they have helped me along the road and every time somebody else might go
somebody else new might come along and help me.
Doctor: And
has recently had you been feeling low in mood and depressed.
Simon: Recently
I just wanted to get my civil liberties back because they have been tarnished
by the police because a section 63 what to a degree what they done is set me up
for being my friends to black boys funny and I then knew that I could have not
committed the crimes that I am being accused me of and another police officer
knows this and he is coming as a witness a superintendent is coming to talk.
"shh"
Doctor xx: What
crime are they.
Mother: We
do not want the police to hear.
Simon: Listen
there is serious issues there in a lot of trouble.
Sam: I mean we are not here to talk about
all the criminal aspects, what we are really concerned about are your mental.
Simon: I
am Mental.
Sam: What I want to do.
Simon: I
am defiantly not mental.
Sam: Questions that we ask everybody to help
us understand your mental Health at the moment do you, have you got any racing
thoughts do you find your thoughts going very quickly.
801,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: No
all I find myself doing is working every day on my business plan if you want to
see that I will show you.
Sam: that is fine and answer, their
questions afterwards.
Sam: How is your sleep at the moment Simon?
Simon: I
sleep perfectly 8 hours a day sometime 9 and that is at the most sometimes I
tend to stay up latter than what I do in the night, sometimes I tend to work
better on the computer at night times when It is quite and everybody is not
making so much noise and there is not so much banging about Because I am doing
a lot of writing so I stay up late sometimes it can change I can stay up a bit
latter at nights but I then come back to the day time and make sure that I
manage and everything mi make sure that all my paper work and ever think Is In
correct order things like that I need to do then I can go back to my place of
work my place of comfort which is their some times.
Doctor: Are
you eating.
Simon: yes,
I am eating.
Sam: how is your appetite are you eating OK
and any I no you said.
Simon: I
am a size 36 jeans.
Sam: Are you feeling any low mood at all.
Simon: I
just want civil liberties given back to me.
Mother: A
bit stressed but it's due to the court case.
Sam: OK.
Simon: A
Section 63 should not be, I basally won my case in court and I won it In court
and the judge new I won it because the facts of the matter are a section 63 you
must have trespass for it's a key element for that law to exist, I do not have
tress pass on my criminal record so I explained this to the judge so she said
do you know what you are right, then what her done was said do you know what
you are right then what she has done I got the transcripts what she done was
breaching my human rights she told me that there is no difference between private
air and public air.
802,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: No
know what she actual turned round her exact words was that basically the
applicant the case was based on illegality by the applicant.
Simon: They
darkened my name in the newspaper.
Mother: Yes.
Sam: Yes.
Sam: I just popped out to the police
officers to let them know everything is all right so the only other thing,
sorry to Interrupt that so the only other thing have you threatened any cops so
I know you're stressed at the moment has it ever affected you to the point
where you have felt life Is not worth living or other things.
Simon: No
I just want to continue with all the things that I am writing, I when I show
you what I am writing.
Sam: OK.
Simon: Wait
a second, I got to wait for my computer to turn on.
Simon: Then
you might be able to understand me.
Simon: This
Is all the things I have been doing in my life I have been building a festival
I been building my own constitution, learning everything that I need like
getting all the systems that I need In place the health and safety files all of
my food safety all the files I need to look after any other person all the
support programs that are in the areas and stuff like that that can be done
every think is all categorized then I got all like adult and youths files and
all my congiguuancey
plan I got everything that I need I got all my disability rights and all the
rest of it.
Doctor xx: Can
you tell us exactly what your work is all about.
Simon: I
built a festival and I built err a website and that website is going too
basically.
Simon: Built
a company that I can manage that is a worth it and I will be able to.
Katie: Is an entertainment company.
803,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: Yes,
it's an entertainment company.
Simon: But
at the same time I built a charity, basically I got the business directory and
what I have done Is written a constitution I wrote the memorandum of articles
and articles of association basically so what I can do is define different
people in different areas so rather than just having a community hall where
someone like a government would sponsor to the general public or to somebody a
team of people of beatifies, so I made my web site so I can have six different
beatifies "Directors" in different places across London.
Doctor: How
long have you been building?
Simon: I
have been building my company for about 10 years in total it takes time like
the website.
Mother: Well
his been building it.
Doctor: Hold
on please.
Doctor xx: How
have you managed to get any jobs.
Simon: What
do you mean within the website?
Doctor xx: Anywhere.
Simon: Yes
I have had jobs, but slowly but it was in slow little pieces and I got shut
down by the police as I explained, in the transcripts I got a judge saying to
me that I have to have permission to have private party's like in my house.
Katie: It's an addiction.
Mother: I
am sorry does anyone want a cup of tea or something.
Sam: And team: No were fine thanks.
Doctor: What
do you do with the big printers?
Simon: There
for part of the company.
Simon: There
for graphics.
Simon: I
will show you now.
804,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Katie: You know the sign writing that you 'put
on vans.
Sam: Oh yes, I know.
Sam: It for poster's and things.
Katie: yes.
Mother: Yes
posters and flyers and all that type of thing.
Sam: And like things for a festival.
Katie: Yes.
Mother: Yes.
Sam: OK.
Simon: No
what It for is I got my catering trailer and so forth, which is going into my
catalogue which is over there.
Sam: yes.
Simon: There
are loads of sections and it is a bit hard to through with you.
Simon: You
can have a look at it yourself; this is what I have been doing.
Sam: Hmm.
Simon: This
is what I have been doing, this is the formation of the company which has to go
to the commissioner and the director for CIC Company, now what this basically
does is show how I am going to register the company and my interest in the
company and how I would do it.
Simon: This
is a description of company in which it intends to help.
Simon: Too
Smooth's business directory it’s a CIC Community Interest Company Association
representing residents living in the whole of the United Kingdom and those who
are signed as a member to its online functions, this is achieved by governing
its members who are signed in use of the Too Smooth Business Directory and
form. Too Smooth Business Directory is hosted within the World Wide Web.
805,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: I
will show you it I got a business directory and I got my own LTD company section,
what I am going to do is donate the business directory section to 6 directors.
Doctor xx: So
what your company can do is help people in the whole of the United Kingdom and
those who are signed a member to it functions.
Simon: Yes
that is correct.
Doctor: So
who gave you the authority to do such a thing?
Simon: Who
gave me the authority?
Simon: Who
gave me the authority if I own my own building it’s up to me if I want to
sponsor it, if I wanted to sponsor you some think I got the right to sponsor it
if I own it it’s up to me.
Simon: I
own my own website I built the code behind my own website.
Doctor xx: No
sorry I am just asking you how you can delusion that you can represent the
residents of the whole United Kingdom.
Simon: What
it does what you can do yes this is the form that you can have I am going to
show you quickly now yes what you have to do is have to fill out this form
here, now what I am doing is letting six other people help manage my company
now normally you would have them six people defined in one area which would be
just this area but because I got the internet and I am governing the internet I
can have six separate directors one for this borough one for this estate one up
in south then one there and that means that there all managers in different
areas so that does make it so that I have a constitutions and defined what
sections I want, because I am not governing just one building like the old
community halls used to do I have done the whole of the United Kingdom.
Simon: So
now I got six people that are all directors that will all have access to a
section of my business directory now what they have is they have the power to
give the rest of the residents on the estates a login now they can all long in
and it has a face book link and the rest and they can click on that to the
Donor cause to be a Donor to any cause selected so one person say there is 33
boroughs in the surrounding areas I would have 6 of the boroughs that are
company directors yes so this will be one my mum would hopefully be one I
806,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
would be one for this estate and there
would be another one for another area and another one for another area and they
will all have logins.
Sam: So it is a way of expanding your
business.
Simon: No
it's not a way of expanding my business what it does is expand a business in
the community, not for myself. because what I do is give this to beneficial
which is the commissioner of charity's for England and Wales, this is who I am
writing this to now asking him or her and showing them this is my proposal to
you this is what I built and this is how I want to help people and with this I
will be one of the first people to govern the internet and I am going to
sponsor my business directory to the people and that is how I move on.
Doctor: And
then what is the benefit of this business of the people.
Simon: I
will show you what they can do this is coming along and they can add a business
card to a business card directory so that they can show other people their
business new starting business and existing company profiles.
Mother: Here
let me show you the website.
Simon: Why
just let me just do what I am doing for a sec.
Mother: Then
you can show them the business directory.
Simon: Look
if you would like to take a read through it, but it is not some think that will
take five minutes, it has taken a lot of work and a lifetime of work at that to
be able to build it for the people exactly how was done, I am rewriting
Glastonbury and others management system the same I am looking at the big
people behind me and how they archived what they wanted to achieve I am
achieving exactly the same goals but I am just doing it today in today's modern
world year and that is it.
Sam: You mentioned before that before all of
this happened that you was getting on quite well with Goodie is that some
correct Simon, how would you be if you did not go the hospital today, would you
be prepared to meet with Goodie again.
Simon: If
I did not go to hospital.
Simon: Well
year I would be happy to meet Goodie again of course, but it depends under what
grounds there is no reason for me to worry about
807,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
meeting him over than the fact being
that I am just a good person doing the correct things.
Katie: Is he not on leave at the moment.
Woman: In the background: Yes.
Sam: Yes
I understand Goodie is on leave at the moment.
Mother: He
is on leave. Mother: He has already agreed to meet Goodie again.
Sam: OK
Simon: "Referring
to the doctor" If you would like to read a bit more sir, you just seem
real interested and I love it when people are interested in my work yet.
Sam: I am just going outside to see how the
police are. Mother: If you actually show him the website
Simon: He
would probably understand a bit more.
Simon: Have
you seen the website before.
Katie: No one would.
Simon: OK
I am going to show the website now.
Katie: Basically you can hire out sound equipment.
Doctor: So
why have the police stopped him.
Mother: and
what he wants to do is community events, he has done a couple in 2013, like he
has done Ponders End festival with the council he done, Lock to Lock.
Simon: what
I own at present is an LTD company which Is Too Smooth Ltd, which is my Hire of
provisions company now what I want to do is keep Too Smooth Ltd as an umbrella
company I want to be able to maintain my limited foundation under that and
manage a charity in co-Hurst, if anything it Is for the community, what they
can do is advertise in the business directory it’s like 118 but It is a digital
business directory.
808,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Doctor: So
the charity is a business directory.
Simon: Yes
that is what it is.
Simon: And
what they can do is you can come along and advertise your business, what you
would do is set fee and that money will go to a chatty bar at the top and It
goes to the local community.
Simon: This
is another folder that I have built this is a charity that I have been
building.
Simon: And
this is also what I have been building for Bliss a sponsored walk that I have
been building for a company called Dem's working alongside Bliss.
Simon: "Referring
to another binder".
Sam: Simon I just wanted to ask you a few
more and I know its 100 questions and you got all these strange people In your
living room, but if I could ask you a few more questions, do you ever hear
voices when no one is around.
Simon: No.
Sam: And the police I know you got these
ongoing court cases and I do not want you to talk about the specifics of them,
but do you think the police have a kind of conspiracy going or something going
on with the police:
Simon: I
will show you one or two things that are going on at the moment.
Simon: These
are the letters going on with Debbie I am going to go through a couple of them
with you so you can see a bit of everything that we have talked about.
Simon: Take
a look at this "I show letters of Debbie."
Mother: Keep
your voice down Simon.
Simon: The
National call centre is a million-pound centre yet and Met cc time stamps can't
go backwards. For other start what colour am I, Can every one answer me what
colour am I mixed race would everyone agree that I am mixed race or light skin
for a start year now I would like to show you one little snip lit, here this is
a 999 call.
Mother: Sh.
809,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: This
is a 999 call and this is what I have been accused of, caller states on the day
there were about 20 people pulling into this estate, I was in this house on
this date yet I could never have done it, I could never have done It, I have
not even done a house party for nothing for years, caller looks like they're
planning to an illegal rave, caller states they have brought in alcohol and
carrying decks, caller states they are carrying box's.
Katie: Who's that at the door?
Mother: I
am just doing it because he is talking about the court case.
Katie: His not doing anything wrong.
Simon: Please
stop for a Sec.
Simon: Caller
states he can see them bring boxes into the building and states there defiantly
all there.
Simon: Caller
states they are all males and females and are all white people.
Katie: There trying to listen to you outside.
Mother: There
coming in and they can hear him.
Simon: All
white people.
Mother: Your
trying to hear what he is saying and talking about his accepting a court case.
Doctor xx: Yes
that is bad.
Simon: So
that is impossible for me to have done as I am mixed race.
Simon: So
that is one bad quite think yes but let me go to something else that is even
worse that is a bigger problem yet.
Sam: I would Amal your part of the team
could Goodie come.
Amal: It
could be the way Goodie could come here or you could come to them.
810,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: Then
what does this do this tarnishes my medical record, then when people what to
see me looking after other people in life, it looks dead,
Because right now I got the cleanest
name in the world apart from the police darkening my name in on the website to
which I have not because I ha have the transcripts, I am going to prove that in
a couple of weeks.
Sam: But Simon it won't all this is.
Simon: but
I am going to have a clean name again and I do not want my name on no mental
health charts yet.
Sam: But.
Simon: It won't all this is.
Sam: There is a difference between people
carrying out an assessment to see if they have a Mental Health problem.
Simon: Yes
but this is an assessment right now.
Sam: Yes this is an assessment.
Simon: But
what we are talking about is as if I do have a problem and now you want me to
go to meetings.
Sam: No but in order to have a proper
understanding is whether or not, you got the illness. I need to see you a few
times and for you to see a doctor.
Simon: Do
you understand what that would do to your career if someone were to do that to
you right now saying that, would put you under if someone come along and done
that to you and your living, right now her then that would tarnish the rest of
your career possibly.
Sam: Not necessary Simon because there is a
difference between.
Simon: I
am working hard.
Sam: I can see you have a really strong
business face. What is there a difference between you being assessed and people
cheeking that you are OK.
Simon: But
it is not going to be the same as every time you have already done this. Same: No all I am saying is that is a few,
perhaps have a meeting with one of the doctors in Goodies team.
811,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: Why
would you want that from me?
Sam: Because doctors have a pacific skill to
do a proper further assessment.
Simon: Well
I feel that is what you done today, and you know that you are intelligent, and
you know that you are going to leave me.
Sam: Well but I think it.
Simon: And
you are going to know that I am healthy as any think.
Sam: Well I just think that tit is just not in
you want, it will be in a period of times over a period of time.
Simon: So
you say I need another assessment then another one in a few months, what you're
telling me is that is not going to tarnish the rest of my life.
Sam: No because it may not be.
Simon: So
I am not going to get my medical record and it going to say Simon should not
look after 50 kids today because his slightly mentally ill.
Doctor: Simon.
Sam: Simon is not having a diagnoses which
has some thought completely different no one was diagnosing you with any mental
illness at this point there has been concerns raised so it is just a matter of
people wanting to do a further assessment and this is part of it and what I
think we would like to do after today is for you to see someone.
Simon: I
am going to take your advice for a little while.
Simon: As
long as you're not sectioning me, and you are not a doctor.
Doctor: Simon,
Simon because of all the things like this you could get shot up again
"Muttering" from the services if the team follow you and see you for
a couple I do not know for how long.
Sam: If you do not see people and they have
just got these concerns the people will just worry about you.
812,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: But
there is no reason to worry about me.
Sam: Well it is just because they haven't
had the chance the opportunity to do a report and assessment.
Simon: I
got my court case coming up soon and I cannot wait to prove my innocents and
then finish the rest of what I am doing and put every one right once justice is
done I will be happier more than I am.
Doctor: So
this is it you are most likely most likely most likely accurately you will be
discharged at the end of this if they cannot prove that you are mentally ill.
Sam: Health services in the future they can
have a look and they will receive a copy of the assessment OK, what I need to
do is just have a quick chat.
Katie: His never had any problems in his life.
Simon: Yes,
I have never had any problems in my whole life and I am 35 years old.
Sam: That is fine.
Katie: It is just how everyone going about it
if you go about it the wrong way, you're going to be defensive and that is what
has happened.
Sam: Yes, I can understand that people
coming into your room with some really negative issues from mental Health
services.
Katie: It is not just that.
Sam: OK.
Katie: It is not just that this guy has gone mad.
Katie: It was not necessary to bring all of
the police today to be honest.
Sam: I know well, I walked into this
situation for the first time today.
Katie: There dead, so
you do not know any previous.
Sam: Previous.
813,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Sam: What I would like to do is just have
a quick word outside with the doctors just to quickly decide what we want to do
and come in and let you know which will take a couple of minutes OK.
Sam: OK
Sam: Simon we are just going to pop outside
with the doctors for a couple of minutes and then we will come back and let you
know the outcome of the Mental Health assessment OK.
Simon: You
have left your bag here.
Sam: I am coming back in I am not leaving
it, but you can hang on to it, I am sure it will be safe here.
Doctor: Have
you been out on your motorbike.
Simon: No
not for a little while now.
Mother: No
he has not been using it.
Simon: I
have just been staying indoors and relaxing for a little while, but I have kept
it as an asset to be able to sell when I need to make some thinking constructive
with it.
Marry: Simon
my name is Mary I am one of the senior partions in the
home treatment team
Colin: I
am Colin
Simon: How
are you both?
Marry: Both
of us work in the home treatment team.
Simon: It
must be a hard team to work in some time.
Mother: Can
I ask a quick question.
Marry: Yes.
814,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: Err
due to the conditions that he has been put under by the police he will not go
out because he feels low the police are constantly on him and he's worried.
Katie: Is worried that he will get put into
prison.
Mother: So
he will not go out until all of this appeal is over with and everything else
and he starts getting his life back.
Simon: I
have actually been set up I never done anything.
Katie: Simon, Simon, Simon.
Mother: His
got an assessment tomorrow with ESA and his no going to go up there until it is
there anything the mental health team can do.
Simon: Have
you got the warrant.
Mother: Yes.
Mother: And
can say can you write on that and give us a copy that It was not executed and
that he allowed you entry.
Sam: I suppose the best thing to say, well
it is up to you, you let us in so I can suppose we can say that and then send
it back to the court.
Katie: Yes.
Mother: Yes
but can I keep a copy of it please.
Sam: Yes will give you a copy.
Mother: Yes
wonderful, thank you.
Simon: Would
use lot like a drink.
Marry: No
thanks.
Gentlemen's voice: In answer to your question and I do not have a
clear answer
Muttering"
815,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: No
it is not basically his on six conditions at the present moment until this goes
to the appeal.
Katie: It is not a curfew, but it is because
he is not allowed to go to places.
Mother: Like
to go out down the motorway after 10:00 pm he is not allowed onto industrial
estates and can't even stop at a petrol station '
Simon: I
have been looking in her for over three years and I have not even been found
guilty or arrested.
Mother: His
got an appointment tomorrow I have contacted them and said that it is going to
need to be rearranged told them that he was getting an assessment today.
Marry: Yes.
Mother: Hmm
you suggested that I have contact with them.
Marry: Hmm
Hm.
Mother: And
basically, they asked me to update them today as to what is going on err,
they're open till 8:00 pm tonight.
Marry: Hmm.
Mother: High
bury and Islington.
Katie: High bury.
Marry: Islington.
Simon: I
am barred from the whole of the central London.
Mother: Err
the building because it is classified.
Katie: His not allowed in any form of
industrial estate like you know were. Salisbury is and toys r us Great
Cambridge Rd he can't go to the McDonald's after 10:00 pm or any think.
Simon: I
cannot go MC Donald's or any think. "Muttering
816,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: If
I go into any night club I need permission any night club if I walk into a
house party and you got more 20 people in your house I can go to prison the
problem is normal you have got private air and public air I got freedom of
speech in this house this is my private air and that Is what I believe this is
our human right and what crated our statues of liberty's as human beings, now
what they have done because the buildings are in side there treated as people
private homes and that Is their way of living so now what they have done is
breach all my human rights and all the rules and regulations and say that
private air and public air are the same and that is what they have do to give
me this application.
Simon: Now
what the judge has written is she has write I am not allowed to have no private
birthday parties in this house today if I give you an amp and you take an amp
to your house if you have 20 people listening to music on that amp in your
house then I can go to prison I full fit for your actions
Carl: Does
it say 20.
Simon: Yes.
Katie: Yes.
Mother: Yes
but that is what is written in the section 63.
Simon: But
they're not allowed to do that in a house in a house I allow as many people as
I want like normally you are allowed as many people as you want in here.
Simon: Section
63 is for outdoors unless tress pass has taken place, but they want to use it
in to do me I am standing up for everybody.
Mother: It's
absolutely wrong and there is an appeal, but the appeal taking
Marry: If
it is your own place you can do what you want.
Katie: No he is not allowed under the. Marry:
What is that a section 63.
Katie: I do not know the sections I just know
what the Asbo restrictions cover.
Sam: Hmm Simon I will be showing you are pleased
to hear that you are not going to be put under a section of the mental health
Act today. Cheers in the room: -
817,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Sam: You are not going to the hospital what
would in courage you to do is to meet up with goodies and see the doctor in the
Goodies team because what I think is If we got some thinking on file to say
that there has been an assessment no Mental Health illness was found so next
time someone phones up we got that on our record because if you get some contact
to say that there is concern about Metal Health we have a duty of care to check
what is happening
Simon: A
duty of care.
Sam: So having the assessment getting out of
the way
Simon: So
now that you have said that this is exactly 'the point that I wanted to raise
her upstairs your team does have a duty of care of her, now these letters are
the letters that she has been writing me, I was in a 13 year relationship and
she was stalking me, following me around but I never paid her too much bother
to me because I did not have all the court dates and orders on me so I was not
in my house all the time.
Simon: Eventually
any way I broke up with my partner and this woman started writing me letters all
of a sudden this shows how clearly drunk she was and her mental state of mind
in the letters
Simon: She
is like dear Simon I thank you for your support through alcoholism Simon: So
she is admitting that she is always drunk.
Simon: I
was a where that I knocked on your door and borrowed money approximate Ł7
around 8 times.
Simon: So
you can see that I am always giving her money.
Simon: I
am always giving her money.
Katie: That is because she is asking for it.
Simon: Yes,
she is knocking on the door.
Simon: And
then she is like I do not have the way or the means of stalking you.
Simon: So
she clearly understands that she is stalking me and I am saying to her please
can you stop what you are doing to me, she keeps writing it when she is drunk,
it is an intrusion of my life.
818,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: Now
because of the case I am spending 24 hours a day in my home, do you know what she
does, sir she comes here and she get the tap in her flat the manufacture
intended it to be built for a purpose and that is not in the way she uses it,
what she is doing is sitting there at the tap and I mean she sleeps at the tap
" Description of her using the tap" going bang, bang, bang what it
was like is someone had turned the pressure up by the stop cock.
Doctor: Can
I stop you there please.
Simon: What
it is I cannot even take my clothes off in my own home as she will stamp and
follow me bang, bang, bang, bang on the floor all the way into the bathroom.
Mother: He
has so many witnesses I been trying to get the council to help with no luck.
Sam: Have you raped I mean, surely the
housing officers are aware that the. Mother: I have been I have been. Simon:
the police will not do anything.
Mother: I
have been trying to deal with it, I have gotten emails upon emails upon emails
that I have sent begging the council to deal with lady upstairs.
Mother: Even
when I am here, she follows me into the bathroom.
Simon: There
are loads of them here she writes me so many letters so many letters.
Simon: Yes
and none of my friends can take their clothes of in this house or nothing
'because of what she has been doing.
Mother: It
feels like she is continuing on top of your banging.
Simon: What
she does every time she hears a computer keyboard; what she does is she will
stand there and she will (Mr Simon Cordell makes a loud banging sound)
Sam: And it sounds like there is no sound proofing
here at all low.
Mother: No
there is not.
Simon: I
cannot even work in this house because of her I mean I have been sitting down
in this house for the last year still just waiting for her to stop
819,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
banning and this can cause my sleep
pattern to mess up a bit from time to time still.
Sam: No I am fine, I am fine.
Mother: And
I got emails upon emails asking the council to address it because it is not
fair on him, he feels as if he has no privacy in 'his own home.
Simon: Look
Simon, thank you I think I have sorted it and I believe you and would bend over
not to make an emissary of your life sorry I cannot see leaving just the wedged
headboard.
Katie: There are plenty of people who have
been here she has done it to me.
Simon: This
is how drunk she is when she wrote this.
Katie: You can hear her.
Louise Brown: Do
you live in this block too.
Katie: No but I am always here I am, here a
lot and I am also here a lot when mum is not here, I mean a lot of things have
happened.
Louise Brown: yes.
Katie: So it is not like he is making things
up as it has been seen by a lot of other people and no one does anything as it
is a council place for him.
Katie: I even told him that he should move
away from here.
Louise Brown: Hmm.
Simon: But
do you know what she means by the wedged head board yes like I said a Christmas
last Christmas I brought her a box of chocolates yes and I gave everyone in the
block a present yes times where hard for me as this time because I had not been
up to much because I had been on curfew for two years all ready at that stage
yes in this house Simon so I brought t them their boxes of chocolates then In a
couple of months later in February she started doing all this banging on the
tap on purpose and stamping bang, bang, banging but just before that she
knocked on my door one day and asked me to go upstairs into her flat and help
move her bed out this was the first time I had been into her flat I have not
been in that flat for years since she has lived there but I still went up their
as a gentlemen I went up there and I went in to
820,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
her house and the house did smell right
it was clean but it did not just smell clean so I felt funny as I am one of
them people that as if "She is lazy why is her house not clean" how
could she invite me In to her house like that so I quickly moved the bed fast
and UN-done it and got it out of the house and got out and got straight back to
my own house yes and that is why she wrote that funny bit about the head board
.
Simon: You
are being the best neighbour in the world Debbie, and this is the sort of
letters she keeps putting into my front door.
Mother: Even
the council 'has turned around and said that she has a fashion- nation with my
son, but they’re not doing nothing and it's driving him, he cannot even go into
the toilet and have a bath as she is on top of him banging continued.
Louise Brown: Hmm
OK.
Mother: Even
when I am sitting here and I go to the toilet and she does not even know that
it is me and she does the same to me and It does make you feel and the council
are really not doing nothing about it what so ever.
Louise Brown: Hmm.
Mother: He
knows that she has got problems.
Louise Brown: And
this has been going on for how long a long time.
Mother: A
year. Louise Brown: Oh right.
Mother: And
I put a complaint in because dawn Alena is his council officer.
Louise Brown: Yes.
Mother: I
was making phone calls and saying to dawn Alena, please try and address this
you know please its going too far now.
Louise Brown: Yes.
Mother: And
she wouldn't come out she wouldn't deal with it and wanted Simon to come up and
visit her and basically I put a complaint in and the they said that they’re
going to put it over to the anti-social team and they wouldn't do anything then
a Louise brown took up the case after months of not doing any think and I am
writing emails upon emails and then they come out she did
821,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
not take one note and he has video
tapes recordings and every think and you can hear it and you can hear the taps
were she was using the taps and they had the pressure up so high the noise that
come into his flat was terrible the noise she was just turning it on and off on
and off on and off.
Mother: He
could not even sleep propel.
Louise Brown: How
old is she Simon.
Simon: She
is four years old now.
Mother: How
old is Debbie.
Simon: Oh
she is about 12 years older than me I would say.
Louise Brown: 12.
Katie: Oh what the dog.
Simon: Oh
no the dog is four, four years of age.
Louise Brown: Arr.
"Muttering"45:14 till 45:34
Katie: She might be older than that.
Mother: And
like I put a complaint in because the Anti-Social Behaviour team was not
dealing with it and they was not taking the issue seriously and that was put in
October of last year and we have not heard a thing, so I keep asking them when
are we going to get a response from the formal complaint that was put in
because you are not addressing thing correctly.
Louise Brown: And
nothing.
Mother: nothing she actually phoned
because I think she made a mistake, because he phoned Louise, and it now I mean
Debbie was going off constant banging and he could not work or any think and it
is annoying to him so he phoned Louise up and he always gives out my number so
she actually phoned me by mistake and I turned round and said to Louise I said
I said She said is Simon Cordell there I said no who is it she said it Louise
Brown.
Louise Brown: I
am Louise brown.
822,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Mother: Oh
So you are Louise brown can you tell me why you have not responded to my formal
complaint I sure you have and I know "Muttering" and I have not
deleted them err, yet in another email you will have a response fast and
directly but it is still going on now and it is now February and sill nothing.
Marry: No
response.
Louise Brown: It
can take up to four months later.
Mother: Yes,
I Know.
Louise Brown: Any
way.
Mother: And
I have even been up because he has knocked on her door a few times when she was
bad and really banging the council has
"Muttering" A
bit so that you do not hear it so badly so bad when she is constantly banging.
Mother: I
mean, even the other day he had his entire bathroom ceiling flooded and it
knocked his entire electric out and basically, he had to call the Emergency.
Louise Brown: Yes,
the Emergency.
Mother: And
he went upstairs to say to her you have got a leak and it is all Flooding
through my bathroom then and then the council come out and then she well it
seems she has cleaned the mess up.
Louise Brown: Hmm.
Mother: And
basically, they have re-laid the whole of her pipes like they have re-laid his
heating because they were having issues with the heating systems, so they
re-laid the pipes over the wall.
Katie: You can see them on the walls over
there.
Louise Brown: Yes.
Mother: And
basically, he turns round, and they turned round, then they phoned me, and they
said has the ceiling dried out yet as they had to disconnect the whole light.
823,
Copy of the Minutes of February.pdf
Simon: My
bathroom light is disconnected right now.
Mother: And.
Louise Brown: Yes.
Mother: And
then I contacted them back the next day and I said to them the ceiling is still
to wet to actually re connect that back up it would
be dangerous.
Katie: So is there still no electric in the
bathroom.
Mother: And
I said you are going to need to leave to your going to need to let it dry out
before you come and reconnect it back up, then I got a phone call from them say
now they believe the leak is coming from 117 that is the third floor up.
Mother: Because
it is privately leased their going to come down and speak to Simon today, so I
said OK, no problem because they have then got to pay for the damage that was
then done. Louise Brown:
Mother: Err
so the people from 117 come down and they said we have got no leak we have had
someone come in and check and there is no leak.
Katie: Simon.
Doctor: See
you.
END of Conversion of Audio
Transcripts:
A copy of the footage is
available at request.
824,
Report - Reply.pdf
RESPONSE TO MENTAL HEALH REPORTS
Dated: 12/09/2016
Name: Mr Simon Cordell
Home Address: 109
Burncroft Avenue Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Email Address: Re_wired@ymail.com
Date of Birth: 26
Jan 1981
Hospital: St
Ann’s Hospital, St Ann’s Road London N15 3TH MHA
Status: Mr
Cordell had been on a Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 since the 15th
August 2016 that was then changed at Tribunal on the 26/08/2016 to a voluntary
patient as the Tribunal panel did not feel a section 2 was needed. As of the
27th August 2016 I was discharged to my home from St Ann’s Hospital and I am
being treated as a voluntary home patient, to date of this letter.
Responsible Clinician: Dr
Julia Cranitch
Date admitted: 16th
August 2016 is on the records and reports, but in the report of Dr Rosemary
mills it clearly state on page number 5 Chapter 13 Progress on the Ward, that I
was being detained from the 15th/8/2016.
On the 14/08/2016 the police attended
my home address I was arrested around 20:00 hours and taken to Wood Green
Police station for allegations that I had threaten someone, which is not true.
In the time I was in police custardy I
did not see an FME doctor. I also did not see my solicitors who I had asked to
see.
On the 15/08/2016 two Mental Health
doctors and an amp worker did come to my cell door and told me I was being
sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health act this was around 16:30 hours.
I was upset at this due to knowing I had not been legally assessed as no person
had come in or out of my cell to do such an assessment as can be proved by the
police Cell’s CCTV, I was not even served any paper work other than my bail
form and therefore held illegally after I was bailed.
No official person would say what was
going on throughout my detention and for what reasons they continued to hold me
after being granted bail,
Throughout my whole stay all I wanted
was to see my solicitor and be interviewed and then released as I had done
nothing wrong. Just after this the police handed me a bail form at around 16:46
through my cell flap, I was bailed with no interviewed and I still did not
still get to see my solicitor,
When given the bail form there was two
doctor and a Mental health worker also standing outside the closed cell door,
who said to myself that I was being held under section 2 of the Mental health
act.
I said to the Doctor I know who you are
I have you on CD from February coming into my home and I also have a complaint
in against you and continued to state that I had done nothing wrong in my whole
detention. I explained my rights and feelings and explained to them that they
should not do this to me and every person outside the cell door walked away for
a while, to come back five minutes later and say to myself through the cell
flap once again you are being sectioned. Which a copy of the audio cd minutes
is contained at the bottom of this document
1
825,
Report - Reply.pdf
I did not have an assessment with a
doctor for my Mental Health at the police station which can be proved by CCTV
and know I was then being held illegally, in the police cell under a section 2
without being served any official paper work to them doctors statements or
being assessed.
On the 16/08/2016 an Amp worker visited
me at the police station around 03:30 hours took me on his own and then said
that I was then to be moved to St Ann’s hospital at around 04:00 hours, as he
was going by what the two pervious doctors had reported.
When I was transferred to St Ann’s
Hospital, I spoke to know one other than a single duty SHO with a nurse
present.
I personally understand I had my first
true assessment 72 hours later on the 17/08/2016 when I saw some doctors, my mother
and uncle was also present at this meeting.
In response to an Inpatient psychiatric
report, that was for a mental health assessment, inclusive of a related
Tribunal, that was compiled on the 26/08/16 for Dr. Julia Cranitch.
· Preamble:
- 1.2 of Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
Dr Rosemary Mills a ST4 Doctor started
to prepare her report for a Dr Julia Cranitch seven days after Mr S. Cordell
was admitted to St Ann’s hospital, in regard to a Mental Health Tribunal as
noted in chapter 1.2 on the date of the 22nd of August 2016.
If you then turn to the last page
chapter 27 the date of completion was the 24th August 2016, and once again turn
back to the first page of the report and take note to the top of the headed
letter and read the 25th August 2016 as to be able to tell the correct times,
of Dr Rosemary Mills processing her report.
Also on the 23/08/2016 my mother had
made many calls to the ward to speak to a doctor to which none called back, so
she travelled up to the hospital to speak to a doctor. When a doctor who is
named Dr Rosemary Mills, effectually attended and
spoke with my mother.
When she came on to the ward she
explained to mother, that it was her 1st day working on the ward and
for St Ann’s Hospital and that she had just taken over from Dr Humphreys and
apologised due to this for not knowing a great deal about Mr Simon Cordell, she
continued to explain that she would help my mother as much as she could.
So I question the truth of the date and
accuracy of Dr Rosemary Mills report as she had not been working for St Ann’s
Hospital as dated the start of her report and had never talked to me?
On the date of the 23/08/206, Dr
Rosemary Mills was with another doctor that my mother had seen before.
The 1st time I Mr Simon
Cordell had a meeting with Dr Rosemary Mills was on the 24/08/2016.
I Mr Simon Cordell was not served a
copy of Dr Rosemary Mills report in the legal time limit required, so to be
able to legally prepare myself for my tribunal, as I had previously requested.
I requested this information so to have
been able to question the true facts of the statements of evidence, that are
now contained within the context of Dr Rosemary Mills Inpatient Psychiatric
Report and Goodies Adama Social circumstances report. I was only given the
report a little while before my tribunal
2
826,
Report - Reply.pdf
was due to start so did not have time
to read it before the tribunal started, I did say this to the tribunal panel.
I would also like to draw reference to
amending Dr Rosemary Mills report and Goodies Adama report:
This is in high light towards my own
personal records that are being held upon RIO system and any other form of
electronic and paper format that any medical teams may use, so for them
official people to be able to compile their reports, as referred to as any
reports that may relate to the Doctor and clients personal & conferential
information otherwise known as intelligence.
Dr Rosemary Mills clearly states in the
short time of the two brief meetings held at St Ann’s hospital between herself
and I that she used such personal information gained and studied from them
meetings, this was also inclusive of information contained in or on RIO and any
other sources that she may have used, that do relate towards myself so that she
and he could conclude their reports, such information is largely incorrect to
is evidence and I therefore request that information to be rectified as to
being amended. Under the data protection act 1998 all information held about a
person has to be 100% correct this is not the case in my records and so far, I
only have limited information that was put in the report for the tribunal.
· History of Presenting Circumstances 2.1
- 2.2 of Dr Rosemary Mills report:
Dr Rosemary Mills report has been
concluded in receipt for Dr Julia Cranitch.
I question the statement of facts that
the Intel contained in the report regarding past history, not to be conclusive,
as towards not being true to their facts.
On the 14/8/2016 I Mr Simon Cordell was
arrested by police at my home address at around 20:00 hours and taken to Wood
Green Police station, it was not the 15/08/2016 as stated in Dr Rosemary Mills
report.
The reason for my arrest was
allegations I had made threats to harm my neighbour, these are fake allegations
and when I return to the police station for bail this will be proved as the
police are already aware my home is covered by CCTV and this will prove I never
left my home on this day so could not have made any threats to harm my
neighbour.
In Goodies Report it is claimed that it
was my mother who put the report into the police about these allegations; this
is also not correct my mother never contracted the police and reported anything
about me. It was me that called my mother at 18:41 and told her the police was
at my home trying to get in, she rushed down to my home with my uncle where
there was around 15 police officer at this point and they stated recording what
was going on, as I told my mother through the door the police had ripped the
wires out of my CCTV system to the front of my home.
I Mr Simon Cordell have yet to be
interviewed, so to be able to find out who stated such false allegations about my
mother and myself I am yet to find out, but I do NOT believe it to be my
mother.
My mother was also asked if she had
called the police at the Tribunal by the panel and she did not know what they
were talking about and replied no she had not called the police. She has now
had time to read the report and is very upset towards a lot of things that have
been said and are contained in the report.
There is also the issue of concern in
chapter 2.1 - 2.2 of Rosemary Mills report in regards to the wrongful truth in
the statement being used relating to a police FME seeing myself, while I was
being detained at the Wood Green Police Station, this is not true I never saw
an FME doctor while at Wood green Police Station the cell camera evidence will
clearly prove this once served by Wood green Police station, There has been a
request put in for this information to the police, inclusive of all other notes
legally made while being detained in cell number 3 and if granted which I could
not understand why it would not be, this will prove what I have said.
3
827,
Report - Reply.pdf
Chapter 2.2 of Dr Rosemary Mills
Report:
States that I was assessed by the
Mental Health Teams AMP worker and Doctors at Wood Green Police Station, this
is not true, I know to be assessed I would have needed to be spoken to by the
doctors and AMP worker this was never done, I was never was taken out of the
police cell and spoken to by two doctors or even asked if I would speak to the
doctors or AMP worker.
I had been in detention for over 20
hours in a police cell waiting for my solicitor so I could have my interview. I
never saw my solicitor in all the time I was held I only spoke to them once on
the phone, and after over 20 hours two doctors and an AMP worker came to my cell
door and told me throw the cell flap that I was being sectioned under the
Mental Health act under section 2, I was never served any official paperwork to
say I was being sectioned under the Mental Health act.
Chapter 2.2 of Dr Rosemary Mills
Report:
The assessing doctors felt that Mr S.
Cordell presented features suggestive of Mental illness, in particular paranoid
precautionary some ideas about the police and his mother.
This is far from the true facts of
events that took place on this date, I was left in my cell sleeping on camera
with no problems of concern thought the whole of my detention, and this was
while being recorded on police cell number 3 by camera, at the Wood Green
Police Station.
I did also requested food to eat at
three different times and the food was served with additional drinks. I asked
for a blanket as I was cold, and I was also left with my shoelaces and belt on.
I even remember I had to ask for toilet roll to which that was then given to
myself, in my whole stay I never caused any concerns in regard to my Mental
stability.
· Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
There is the matter of the wrongful
information that is contained in the collateral history of Mr S.
Cordell records and those claims are
more fictional as to their statements in weight in any sense.
· Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
Dr Rosemary Mills is wrong with her
information as towards the truth of events at no point of time have I ever
stated to anyone that I believe the Television is talking about me, I have been
asked this a few times and also in the 72 hour assessment at St Ann’s hospital,
my reply was “at no point of time do I believe the TV talks to myself or the
radio and neither do I hear voices.” I have no symptoms of the kind they
mention or asked me.
Of the report also states:
I have paranoid beliefs about my
mother.
This statement could not be any further
from the truth as throughout my whole life I have been raised with high
standards of good statue and have a very close mother to son relationship, My
mother and myself have always been close along with the rest of my family, we
are always there for each other as a family should be, even at the age of 35 as
I am on today’s date, as of headed at the top of this letter.
To my understanding my mother and I are
both in disbelief of the blunt fabricated statements contained in the reports,
that we do not trust one and other and the prospect of there being any truth in
such unjustifiable personal Intel, making claims of my own self being and
claims of my mother's statements proclaimed to be the evidence contained and
supported by the reports.
In Goodies first statement of his
report that is regarding, Social Circumstances that was for the Mental Health
Act Tribunal that is dated 25th August 2016, I ask any reader to please take
note on page 2 and of the 1st paragraph of that report, under the heading of
circumstances leading to admission, it clearly states that I Mr Cordell was
arrested at my home address after my mother raised concerns about my Mental
4
828,
Report - Reply.pdf
state- I know this not to be true as
does she. the report goes on to say he was allegedly verbally threatening to
his neighbours and (?) neighbours children and continues to state, Simon’s
mother then called the police who arrested him, I have talked with my mother
and asked her if she made up such statements or if she has even spoken to the
police on the date of the 14/08/2016 and her reply was and still is no and I
trust her.
As for the threats to kill and harm
children this is not true at all. I did not leave my home address all day and
would not harm or threaten a child, it is just not who I am. It continues to
make wrongful claims such as I was seen by a police officer FME, which is not
true at all.
There is a clear issue’s with misinformed
intelligence, as to the claims of myself being verbal aggressive towards
members of my neighbours, as the claims are not true, I have proof of a freedom
of information request of myself, asking my local council if there was ever any
issues relating to noise or any other complaints, in regards to my residence
at, 109 Burncroft avenue for reference of the past 10 years that I have lived
there and received the reply of no there has been no complaints so I exhibit
proof of this as SC5, neither have I had any person knock at my front door with
a negative view.
I once again question the accuracy of
the intelligence report that does state:
That I use laughing gas recreationally,
I Mr .Simon Cordell raises an issue with the date of such information, as for
fact around the years of 2013 to 2014, I did experiment with some legal high’s
and never touched them since, neither have I thought about them.
As for the statements of myself having
ideas, about the police and being paranoid towards them, I would like to make
note of my true feelings, I do not feel paranoid about police officers, I just
feel an injustice has been served upon myself, this has been achieved in
relations towards pervious cases, I have now proven my innocents towards.
I also still have one up and coming
court appeal, that I await, so to be able to prove my innocents towards, I was
not found guilty under the applicant's case at the magistrates court and have
the court transcripts as evidence of this and the truth being, of many other
facts that are yet still to be presented at court and because of this I have
recently been preparing my defence for this appeal, so I may talk about this a
bit at present, as this case is within the next up and coming four weeks. I do
not feel that this is abnormal for any person to feel the way I do, especially
about their freedom being taken away, when they are
clearly in the right.
My mother has also confirmed in the
meeting with the doctors that when I talk about the police it is not paranoid
it is the truth. There is a long history with myself and the police they do not
leave me alone, this has been going on for over 20 years, yes
I agree some of it was justify by my actions at the time, but most was not
justify. I am under no delusion that the police have a job to do, but I also
know how I have been treated by the police and that is fact. In the report it
is written I am paranoid but have the doctors ever asked me what I have gone
through with the police to find out if it is paranoid or fact? I have not been
asked once by any doctor.
· Mental State Examination on Admission:
Reference to Chapter 3.1:
In general I can agree with a vast
amount of the information that was drafted and served; I am however concerned
about the issues of: -
· Being
classed as dishevelled, as for a general appearance, I do obtain my dress code
so to be of the nature of clean and well-dressed person, but due to being
arrested at my home address, without no prior warning, I was wearing casual
everyday indoor clothing and please explain to me what does having 4
5
829,
Report - Reply.pdf
teeth missing has to do with anything I
was in an accident and lost my upper two front teeth I had a bridge fitted so
they had to file down my teeth beside the 2 front ones, the bridge came out and
I lost it, Does this mean I have Mental Health issues?
· I do admit I have become irritable, but
this was as I knew I had not been legally assessed and I had been detained in a
police station, from the date of the 14th of august 2016, this was also with no
interview or charge taking place while being detained. I was of no problem to
any person; this does include myself.
· Speech I Mr Simon Cordell would be the
first person to admit that I do speak fast, If asked why I speak fast I would
explain as a child I was classed as being tongue tied having a malformation
restricting the movement of the tongue, this had an effect on my speech as a
child I was under north Middlesex hospital they did not do the operation and
was placed under speech therapy throughout school, I have always had to speak
fast to get my words out so people could understand me this is who I am and the
way I learned to deal with being tongue tied and the majority of people that I
do meet tend to get along with myself and do not have an issue with it and
other people do understand me, as did the nurses and patients who were at St
Ann’s Hospital during my stay, as noted in their reports, the assessments do
state that I am a very polite person, I believe this to be as for my parents
upbringing and life’s toils, as one may say throughout a person's life.
· I am usually in a good mood as I still
do re-quote and may be found by some persons as being slightly elevated, but
this is part of my personality and constitutes to a positive impact, rather
than a negative impact.
· When I denied not having thought about
harming myself or others inclusive of having any perceptions or hallucinations
this was and still is true.
· I do listen and take advice from
medical professionals and judge what is best for me, this must also be said to
be inclusive of other close friends and persons and together we do not come to
the wrong conclusions, together we clearly do not believe I suffer with any
Mental illness as the reports claim I may.
1. Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
I agree that I have been setting up a
company and this has taken me some time to complete due to raising money that
is needed, while studying and getting the help or support to achieve my goals.
This may be classed by some people, to be acting in a manner that is slightly
grandiose, but I believe every person should set their goals high and achieve
them set goals, to which I intend to one day complete.
1. Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
I do not agree with the DR Rosemary
Mills statement, as when describing my company the truth seems to be slightly
in tangled, as I do not recall saying that I intended on managing part of the
Mental Health care’s facilities, I do in fact clearly remember explaining that
I intend for my company to be able to support people as deprived as some of the
NHS and Mental Health teams patients, that they have to manage on a day to day
basis and that I would in Co Host like for my company to have a steady upkeep
of its regime as the NHS does.
As for me stating that I intended to
buy speakers for 50,000 pounds, I did not state this and this statement is
therefore not true, what I did explain was that when introduced to a young
gentleman a few years back, whom had half of his arm decapitated, whom did
visit me on more than one occasion; we both seemed to have very similar
ambitions, both towards the love of music and good sound systems not to forget
good people.
6
830,
Report - Reply.pdf
One day my friend, explained that he
had a sound system and asked me to visit him at his home address, as he
explained where he lived, I noticed the distance of his travels, for whenever
he had to visit me.
I found myself at this young
gentlemen’s, tower blocks, he lived on the 18th floor. On being asked to follow
my friend into his bedroom I see the problem he was having with space; this was
due to the size of his speakers and his disabilities.
He explained that he had the same
dreams as I do this was before he had been in an accident. We both talked and
what was explained for a while and took the understanding together that he
needed the space in his room, so that he could be able to sort his life out. I
worked a price out with him and paid him the price of each speaker.
When they were new their price was
Ł50,000 pounds each and they are now much cheaper, to buy.
We are both still very good friends to
date; I still see him he still has the same dreams and knows when I sort
everything out with my company, he can be part of it.
· Physical Examination on Admission:
I agree with this section of the
report.
· Psychiatric History Regarding Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
I am not happy with the Dr Rosemary
Mills report due to the reasons being: Myself Mr Simon Cordell’s and family
representatives, inclusive of civil partner and close net friends, who do
support me and disagree with the negative statements used in the medical
reports. We all therefore agree together, that a wide amount of information
contained in RIO’S data base is widely inaccurate, such wrongful intelligence
is amongst the statement that does quote; that I Mr Simon Cordell have
previously been diagnosed as to be suffering from nonorganic psychosis f29, as
dated with reference towards 2015, as for fact, any person who is truly
suffering from Schizophrenia and Delusion F20-F29 Schizophrenia, schizotypal
and delusional, and other non-mood psychotic disorders, do in fact suffer with
different symptoms to what I have clearly shown, while being closely monitored by
health professionals, in St Ann’s Care centre by their teams.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
Relating to a diagnosis of an
Adjustment Disorder F35.2 in 2014, I Mr Simon Cordell also question, this.
· On
the 25/06/2013 the police came to my home they arrested me for burglary which I
knew I did not do.
· The
police charged me, why I do not know. I was remanded to prison due to incorrect
records that are contained on my PNC, which I can prove to be wrong, this is
getting addressed.
· My
mother and myself had to appeal the decision made by the judge who had remanded
myself to prison at the crown court, which I was then granted bail under 6
conditions.
1.
Surety Ł1000 from Ms Lorraine Cordell,
this is (To be surrendered to the nearest Police Station) - prior to release
from Custody.
2.
Residence @ 109 Burncroft Road,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ.
3.
Not to enter the London Borough of
Southwark.
4.
Surrender Passport to nearest Police
Station.
5.
Report daily to Edmonton Police between
1400 - 1600 hours.
6.
Curfew 8pm - 6am (doorstep condition -
the Defendant should show himself too any officer upon requests.)
7
831,
Report - Reply.pdf
· Due to how much the police had kept tarnishing
my life when I had clearly not done anything wrong, this caused stress in my
long time relationship till we had to depart from one and other, as she could
not take know more with the police harassment.
· The case took over a year to deal with
as the CPS would not give the discloser that my solicitors was asking for and
the judge ordered them to give.
· After a year and on the day the trial
was due to start the Judge discharged the changes and found me not guilty in
July 2014 this was before the trial started.
· In this time my brother had a life
changing accident.
· My Nan was diagnosed terminal and passed away 30/08/2014
· A close friend of the family passed away in Dec 2013
· A close friend of the family passed away May 2014
· A close friend of the family was
diagnosed terminal and passed away on the 29/08/2014
the day before my Nan.
Ř Adjustment
Disorder order means there is an event in your life one that you are not coping
with. I admit that I had multiple things going on in my life but none that I
was not coping with and I would not call this Adjustment Disorder.
Ř The
facts are that the police knew that I could not have done what they were saying
is, the errors on the police PNC database caused me to go to prison, and I feel
victim to the way in which I was being treated
Ř by
the courts, because of what was being told to the judge by the police and CPS,
this is also inclusive
Ř of
the period of time leading to how long the case was taking due to myself not
getting discloser from the police after the judge ordered it, we did not get
disclosed until the trial date,
Ř The
reason why the prosecution would not give discloser was it because they knew
that by giving me it they would have got the case dismissed much earlier and
this is what did happen in the end, for reasons such as the information I and
my family had obtained.
Ř I
could not do anything with my company and lost loads of contracts due to the
bail conditions that I was under knowing and I knew that I had done nothing
wrong so to be put under these conditions,
Ř I
lost my long-time partner due to this due to the wrongful facts that the police
claimed.
Ř Relating
to a diagnosis of an Adjustment Disorder F35.2 in 2014, I Mr Simon Cordell also
question the truth of this statement and understand it not to be true, as to
the events that took place on the date did not relate to such a diagnosis.
Ř I
am again very concerned and unhappy with the following information being in
breach of my rights that on the 11th /3/2014, it has been said that I Mr Simon
Cordell was assessed by the DR Jarvis of the Enfield Triage Team this is said
to be after a referral by my GP and while in that meeting I strongly disagree
with the following:-
·
I was not suffering from any symptoms,
anxiety for nine months as stated due to being Mentally ill, as for the truth
being that I was feeling that the duration of time, leading towards the on
goings of the court case, up and till the conclusion of the ongoing, was having
an effect on my way of life, until I was found not guilty.
·
My Doctor did not refer me to Dr
Jarvis, as to in reality, I personally arranged the meeting and went there of
my own free will and told my doctor what I had planned to do.
·
I clearly was not suffering from a
diagnosis of an Adjustment order, due to being correct and not been found
guilty in regard to the issues I was having at the time.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
8
832,
Report - Reply.pdf
On the 19/11/2016, it is said that I was
referring to the home treatment team; this was due to concerns, that I Mr Simon
Cordell had become paranoid about my mother. I question the following: -
I question who referred me to the home
treatment team and the pacific’s too the reason why?
I question who stated that I had become
paranoid about my mother as me and my mother have always been very close. I
have spoken with, my mother and she has explained to myself that she was at her
home address when she received a phone call from the Mental Health team staying
that the police were at my flat, this call was made while I did not know.
My mother told the Mental Health team
that she did not know why the police was at my home. She told the Mental Health
team that the police keep going to my home for no reason.
The Mental Health team spoke to the
police but kept my mother on hold on the phone and she could hear what was
being said.
The Mental Health team asked the police
why they were at my home.
And the police replied that they have
been called to my flat, the Mental Health team asked by whom, which the police
did not seem to know as they gave the Mental Health team 3 door numbers which
do not even belong to my block. The police stated to the Mental Health team
since they got there I had started shouting.
The Mental Health team asked the police
to leave my flat, the phone call cut of at this point with the Mental Health
team and my mother, so she does not know if anything else what was said.
I was not upset and was watching some
TV before the police came to my home again for no reason, I had not done
anything wrong. I do not always open the door to police, due to how they are
with me and sometimes shout through my door to them. Until one of my family,
can get to my address so they can see what is going on.
When the Mental Health did try to talk
to me this night I was upset due to what the police was doing they kept coming
to my home for no reason I did not feel like speaking with anyone I just wanted
to go back to watching some TV and having a rest and for the police to leave me
alone,
I was not shouting and distressed so do
not believe the police got a call from anyone on this day to be at my home.
The Mental Health team called back my
mother and told her they would leave me alone that night and come see me again
in a few days to see how I was feeling the Mental Health team did not say
anything to my mother about it being unsafe to see me or feeling unsafe.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
25/11/2014 I do not dispute, the facts
being that on the date in question, that I was calm and happy and my behaviour
pattern, was one of a people whom is of good mind,
body and soul.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
08/12/2015 I challenge the statements
contained in the context of such report:
9
833,
Report - Reply.pdf
I do not feel on the 08/12/2015 I
presented myself as unwell, I feel it is only human for any person to have a
bad day.
As you can see above, I have a great
deal of problems due to the police and I do not feel that this makes me
paranoid or delusional. Some people may find it hard to believe that I have so
many problems with the police, but I do it is the truth and my family and
friends can also confirm this as well as many other people. I now feel I am
being pushed in to not talking about the truth and what the police have done to
me. Due to people stating and taking it as I am Mentality ill, I should not
feel this way I should be able to talk about what is going on in my life as it
is the truth. I have never been a danger to myself or towards any other person.
Rapid speech I do find that I tend to
speak fast and this is the way I have always been, it does not have a negative
effect in regards to my family and friends and peers or relating to any
business partner & clients I meet; I however do take note to the comment
and will think about and try to speak slower from now on. But with this still
in mind as said above I am still tongue tied and this is how I learned to speak
I feel I should not have to change this due to people thinking I have a Mental
Health illness, all it should take is for someone to ask me why I speaking so
fast then I could explain. But people have not done this they have just said
that I have a Mental Health problem due to this.
Thought disorder: I do not understand,
why this has been noted down, as I do manage to maintain a positive form of
thinking and my thoughts are constructive thoughts that are not over calculated
or overwhelming to their facts.
I spoke mostly about misdiagnosis and
mistreatment by police, as I have explained before, I have had years of on
goings with the police, I know for sure that I can prove my statements, as from
a young age my cases have been mostly NFA’s regarding the police. I am in the
process of an Appeal Court Case at the moment and that date is very near, I do
not feel paranoid about the truth and I feel that I am looking forward to
proving my innocents at court.
Paranoid persecutory delusions
regarding conspiracies to damage my reputation and to kill me that have been
organised by a global agency called Storm.
It seems there is a lot of information
that has not been taken down correctly and then inputted on my Mental Health
records and this is incorrect some people might say my Mental health records
information is entangled, as for it is misleading to the true facts and the
true understanding that should have been taken is yes, I do have issues with
the police and as said before these issues are real. As also said, I have an
upcoming Appeal in Sep 2016. Where the information that has been given directly
from the police CAD system and them Cads I have been given seem to be
misleading to the true facts due to the time stamps and other inaccurate
information, which should never be able to happen in any database system. The
Police CAD system is a software database, when people call the police via 999
or 101 there call goes to the police control centre, a member of the control
centre takes the call and inputs the data into their CAD system and it is then
time stamped so if the person needs a police office to their home there system
can do this ETC. This police system is called Storm in Scotland and met CC in
London which is our Emergency 999 call centres, I attach a copy of the on
goings at court and any reader can make their own assumption, as contained in Regards
towards opinion & Recommendations Chapter 17 pages 7 of this Report.
I also dispute the fact that I have
ever said or referred to subliminal messages through my TV or any other way.
I have been asked this by the Mental
Health team on a number of occasions and by the doctors and I explain to them
the same thing every time. My TV including anything else, such as a radio has
never spoken to me before.
My TV is something I watch to relax maybe
I will watch a film or a program to cut of from work
things I am doing for my company or before I go to sleep, so I dispute that I
Mr Simon Cordell, referred to
10
834,
Report - Reply.pdf
subliminal messages through my TV: I once
again question the stability and accuracy of this statement, as for fact I did
not quote this neither do I suffer from any dilutions or psychoses.
Mr Cordell is said to have believed
that upstairs neighbour was stalking him, the neighbour has since moved, and Mr
Cordell felt she was still harassing him and had CCTV of this.
I have not said that my ex neighbour
Debbie who once lived above me is still stalking me as I have not seen her
since she moved.
I also believe what the Mental Health
has on their system about this is incorrect.
My ex neighbours name was Debbie and
yes, I did have some problems with her. When Debbie moved in I got along and
looked after her for around 5 years, at this point of time in my life I was
still in a long relationship with my Ex Partner and Debbie use to come to our
front door and ask to borrow money from us, which if we could help we would and
did as I am that sort of person and so was my Ex partner, like if I saw her
trying to carry shopping up to her flat I would help her curry it to the door
of her flat as I think this is the right thing to do but I never went into her
flat.
After me and my partner ended in July
2013 Debbie started to come down to my flat more and more and trying to bring
me drinks and also still asking for money, I never let Debbie inside my flat. I
would not take the drinks of her, for one thing, I don’t drink and for a next
reason I knew Debbie had a problem with drink so tried to say to her stop
buying it and to stop drinking it.
Debbie started to send me letters and
started banging on the floor in every room any were I went in my flat she was
above me; our flats do not have any sound proofing so you can hear most things.
The banging got worse and worse and she
started banging on the tapes and pipes also I could not sleep I could not even
go to the toilet without Debbie being above me.
I asked my mother if she could call
Enfield Council as it was getting too much, which my mother did and also sent
emails to them, I even called them myself. Nothing was being done by the
council I told them I had CCTV of what was going on but they never asked to see
it, in the one and only meeting I had with them they did not even ask to see
all the evidence I have, I did offer more than once in the meeting to show
them, the lady did not even write anything down.
I said to her that Debbie even attacked
me outside the flat all of this was told to the council.
Debbie was then moved out and I have
not seen her since she moved.
I do state that I have many recordings
of such past activates of me being victim to 113 Debbie and 117 Markandu’s
actions.
I attach a copy of transcripts relating
to a video that I acclaim in relation to the Mathiyalagan Markandu, family as
dated 00/00/2016 who live at 117 Burncroft Avenue, in response to the
allegations of threats to kill which I now have to attend the police station
for bail on the 10/10/2016.
This is a copy of the transcripts of
the video footage of when I went upstairs to 117 on the top floor from my own
flat, due to my members of my neighbours banging on the walls and floors to
intentionally make my self-victim to their actions, at around 19:42:43 on the
05th September 2016, 20:42:43 a few days after leaving the hospital.
The
Start of transcripts when
Knocking
on door of 117 Burncroft avenue Enfield En3 7jq
Knocking on the door: 0:35
Woman: Who
is that? 0:37
Simon: Its
Simon let me speak to your husband. 0:38
Woman: Sorry.
0:41
11
835,
Report - Reply.pdf
Simon:
Its Simon let me speak to your husband.0:42
Woman: My
husband is not home. 0:44
Simon:
See the over day when I spoke to you yes. 0:47
Simon: are
you listening to me, can you here me.0:51
Simon:
see the over day when I spoke to you yes 0:55
Woman:
What did you say? 0:59
Simon: I
was just talking to you yes. 1:00
Woman:
see the over day when I spoke to you yes. 1:01
Woman: Sorry.1:03
Simon:
See the over day when I spoke to you. 1:05 Woman: yes. 1:06
Simon: You
said that on the 14th August 2016. 1:08
Woman:
Sorry. 1:10
Simon: On the 14th August 2016. 1:11
Woman:
Sorry. 1:14
Simon: Can
I open your letter box and talk to you yes. 1:15 Woman: Yes. 1:17 Simon: Yes
ok. 1:18 Woman: Sorry.
Simon: On
the 14th August 2016. 1:20 Woman: Yes. 1:18
Simon:
You said that you never called the police yes.
Woman:
Yes, yes.
Woman: Yes,
yes, I ring police Sunday I am lonely I am not living here I called the phone
calls not here Sunday night I just come here at 9 o'clock.
12
836,
Report - Reply.pdf
Simon: You
did that on the 14th August 2016.
Woman: Yes
someone told you, you called the called the police station I do not no.
Simon: Yes,
the police said to me yes that on the 14th August 2016.
Woman: I
am not Saturday morning I called I called my friend’s house Sunday night come
in, morning Sunday or Saturday I was not here.
Simon: So
you weren’t here I believe you I believe you if you tell me this, I believe you
yes.
Woman: Yes.
Simon: If
you tell me that I believe you what else can I say yes.
Woman: Yes.
Simon: But
on the 14th August 2016 I know I never left this building.
Woman: Yes.
Simon: And
I never looked up at no window and threatened you or your children.
Woman: Yes,
yes, I am not here truth.
Simon: Because
you are the only one with a child in this block and I would be I would not
threaten child and wore I might say I might have an argument a dispute with
you.
Woman: why
are you please why are you please why your argument for I did not call the
police.
Simon: I
am not arguing with you I am not arguing with you.
Woman: I
am after council I want to move the house; I push council that is why, I do not
like you.
Simon: Yes
you pushed to get a new flat of the council your two bedrooms so you can look
after your kids.
Woman: Yes.
Simon: which
is of course I have been telling your husband to do that for a long time to get
his two beds to right a letter and I would give him some letters as well but on
the 14th you agree I never left this building and never threatened you.
Woman: Yes.
Simon: yes
that is perfect that all I needed.
Woman: I
am not here Saturday and Sunday I am not here.
13
837,
Report - Reply.pdf
Simon: you
were not even here you were not even here.
Woman: yes,
yes, yes.
Simon: ok
that is perfect all right thank you.
END of Conversion of Mobile
Phone Video Transcripts:
A copy of the video footage is
available at request.
My personal CCTV that I have installed
is for my own safety, it is not there to invading other people’s personal life’s
or privacies, it is installed for my personal use and it fixture is mounted and
contained within the internal hallway and is not a breach of the Data
Protection Act 1998 “DPA”.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
19/01/2016 I challenge the statements
contained in the context of such report in regard to:
On the 19/01/2016 I was due to have a
meeting with Goodie from the early Intervention team Goodie came to my flat
with a lady I believe her name to be Diana. We all said hello to each other and
seat down to talk. At this point Diana phone ring and she took the call and
went into my hallway to speak.
I and Goodie carried on speaking in my
front room and a little while later the lady returned into the front room and
said to Goodie sorry, but they would have to leave. Goodie got up to leave but
did tell me he was going on leave for 4 weeks and would see me when he came
back but if I needed any help, I could call the main team.
This chapter states that I am paranoid
about people especially the police, as I have explained and supported evidence
towards already, I am not wrongfully paranoid about a few members of the
police, as I have overwhelming evidence of police corruption which they have
caused.
And those matters are in the high
courts and IPPC hands inclusive of my solicitor and self being.
I would like to strengthen the truth about
myself not being paranoid about over people I have no worries about paranoia
and never put myself in harm’s way to upset others, so I therefore feel no
reason to be paranoid about other people inclusive of my mother and family.
But It seems due to talking about the
police this makes me a paranoid person, maybe if someone seat down and heard
what I was saying and read some of the reports I have, maybe they could see for
themselves what I am saying is the truth.
But it seems when people are faced with
something they do not want to or cannot understand, like something what I am
face with in my life such as corruption in police cases can go on, this is
wrong in today’s modern world.
When any person gets accused of being a
paranoid person and said to and have a Mental Health issues. Who can show the
documented articles of corruption to any person on request in turn stating the
truth about what there being accused of being paranoid about.
Why because people see the police as
people that do no wrong. So when a person says anything bad towards the police,
they are the ones that have got to be in the wrong. It seems I can have all the
paperwork in the world to prove what I am saying, yet in the eyes of the Mental
Health team I have a Mental Health illness why because they will not open there eyes to the truth.
As for me not eating I eat very well I
always have and my dog is also fed very well, I also look after my home and it
is clean and tidy maybe there is lots of paperwork around as I am doing a lot
for my
14
838,
Report - Reply.pdf
company and also my appeal case, but I
know where everything is and most of my paperwork is in binders.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
On the 22/01/2016 I was at my flat
doing my paperwork waiting for some people to attend for a meeting about an up
and coming event that was due to take place.
I heard my door and was thinking the
people had turned up a little early, when going to the door and opening it I
see doctors and other people wanting to come in my home. I told them I did not
know anyone was coming and I had a meeting arranged. I was told that they did
not have to tell me they were coming and could just come.
I told them the meeting I was due to
have was a business meeting and it would not look good if the people I had the
meeting with showed up and saw doctors and Mental Health workers so could they
do this a next day. I did not say they could not have access to my property I
just said it could not be on that day.
I dispute the fact that anyone could
have made a diagnosis I was paranoid, suspicious, and grandiose with flights of
ideas in such a little time that they were at my door. As all we spoke about
was my meeting and that it was not convenient that day and could it be done on
a next day due to the meeting I had already arranged.
I dispute any negative thoughts and
feel that achieving to be a young entrepreneur in today’s modern society may
seem grandiose to some, but I know it to be a reality for many achievers.
I was shocked when I opened the door to
see all these people.
I do not know why there was a need to
apply for a 135 warrant as I had never not said they could not have access I
just asked if this could be done on a next day due to my meeting which I do not
think was to much to ask.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
On the 25/01/2016 the Mental Health
team applied to the court for a 135 warrant to enter my home the warrant was
valid for 3 months from the date of issue by the court.
The grounds that was used for the
warrant was as below.
A person believed to be suffering from
Mental disorder [has been] [is being] [ill~treated] [Neglected] [Kept otherwise than under
proper control] [Being unable to take care of him/herself,
is living alone] at My home address
How on earth could they say I was being
[Neglected]?
How on Earth could they say I was [Kept
otherwise than under proper control]?
How on Earth could they say I was
[Being unable to take care of him/herself, is living alone] at My Home address?
In all the reports that have been made
in regards to myself from Medical all intelligence data, prior to the teams
requesting the section 135 warrant seem to say I had been Neglected, which I am
sure if was true would be drafted in the reports.
In none of the reports, has it ever
said I was out of control nor does it say while I have been living in my home
there has been an incident relating to Mental health problems.
Also in none of the reports did it say
I could not take care of myself due to living alone, in no reports did it say I
was not eating, in no reports did it say I did not have food in my home and
they did check this when they come to my home and always saw I had food, I was
always clean and my dog was always feed and was in good condition.
It goes beyond words how they were able
to get a section 135 warrant issued by the court.
15
839,
Report - Reply.pdf
On the 02/02/2016 is when they used the
section 135 warrant to come to my home with police. On this date I was at home
and had no visit of the medical team, as for this was the date when the section
135 of the Mental Health Act was applied for a court, as I have the true paper
work served and the minutes for the meeting on CD.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
I was contacted by the Mental health
team and explained to them in a phone conversation that I had spoken to my
civil partner and we both that together after the on goings in the meeting that
we will both monitor any issues of concern about my Mental health, alongside the
rest of my family and friends and if ever any problems arise we will contact
the Mental health team as of date.
There have been no true problems other
than the false allegation of threats to kill to date which I have proof of not
leaving my home on the date in question on CD.
Past Medical History
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
6.2. While at the police station being
held as a detainee on the 14/08/2016 until the 16/08/2016, I had no health
issues this does include the 16/08/2016, while being detained at St Ann’s
Hospital.
In St Ann’s Hospital I was in full good
Health right up and till the 17/08/2016, when I went to use the hospital toilet
as I walked in to use the toilet I slipped on the wet floor and fell forward
causing both of my small index fingers to snap forward, this caused me a large
amount of pain.
The toilet was left in a foul manner
before I had arrived and had clearly not been maintained all day, as for there
was large amounts of human waste otherwise known as urine around the floor and
on the toilet seat, I clearly remember there being no safety signs up as I
walked into the room and once I was inside so for any person to have been prior
warned of such faults.
On noticing the damage caused to both my
fingers on both separate hands I worried with concern as for the need I have
for them. I care for my hands as they provide my abilities to earn a living.
I then got up and went straight to the
staff room and reported the incident, I asked for it to be drafted into the
Hospitals accident and report book and to have the Emergency medical provisions
that I required, it was explained to myself that I will have to get the staff
doctors to deal with the issue the next day.
On the 18/08/2016, I again asked for the
incident report book to be updated, so as for any person to be able to explain
the damage caused to my fingers, while I was under section 2 of the Mental
health act 1983 while I was being detained at St Ann’s hospital.
When at around 11:00am I showed a
doctor, the reason I was given the opportunity to show a doctor was because of
he had asked me to take part in routine checks, such as checking my heart rate,
I showed the doctor the damage to both my fingers, I also expanded to the
doctor the pain I was in and therefore suffering and that I required emergency
assistance such as an x ray.
It was then explained to me that even
low my left finger looked snapped they believed it to be swollen, I knew this
not to be fluid in my left finger but for it to be part of my bone snapped, it
was also explained by the doctor to me, that my right finger will heal and gain
movement over time, I challenged this to the maximum extent I could at the
time.
When Comparing the snap to both of my
small index fingers, I class my right finger to be a lot worse as for the
reason being that I have lost full control of it and can no longer use it, not
having any use of my right small finger has a large effect on my daily life for
incidence I can no longer write with a pen as I once could and I have issues
with picking anything up as I once could before.
16
840,
Report - Reply.pdf
I continued to report my concerns of my
well-being in regard to my fingers with no true aid in emergency medical
assistance apart from being prescribed ibuprofen an anti flamer tries and
having my fingers taped together. I know that any person can clearly see the
break in my left finger to date.
I am still in continuing pain due to
the way it has repaired incorrectly, this lack of duty to care I believe has
caused life time injuries to my abilities of my hand, in turn causing the
absinth of any use from my left small finger, this really upsets me as I now
feel disabled due to this accident and I know if I had my own liberty at the
time I would have gone and received the medical help I needed, relating towards
my Health.
· Medications Prior to Admission Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
I agree to the fact that I have never
had any medication prescribed to myself in regards to Mental health issues as
there has never been a need, however since I have been getting assessed by the
Mental health team I have now been prescribed tablets by the Teams
Professionals.
· Family Histories:
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
My Nan did suffer from Mental Health
problems from 1989 she suffered from manic depression, this surfaced when my
Nan started to have her Menopause at the age of 52 and was put on treatment for
this which was HRT.
She started to take HRT and the family
noticed changes in her she was on HRT for around 6 months and due to how it
affected her Mental Health she was taken off it, my Nan was never the same
after this and did have admissions to hospital. My Nan last stay in hospital
was longer then needed to be and she took it to Tribunal where the Judge
ordered that she be released from the section 3 she had been on until this
stage my Nan had always been diagnosed with manic depression and she had never
showed any signs of a person with schizophrenia should have shown. After what
the judge said my Nan’s diagnosed was changed to schizophrenia, I believe this
was only done so she could be placed on the drug Clozapine as at this time only
patients diagnosed with schizophrenia could be placed on this drug. My Nan stayed
on Clozapine until her death on the 30/08/2014.
· Personal Histories:
9. Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
I only draw an issue with this
statement in regards to my Father, my father has never wanted bad for any of
his children just for us all to act responsible and with dignity and pride, for
he himself just had a strict up bringing, he has all ways been a working man
and provided for his family and as a family we all love him very much.
· Forensic Histories:
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
·
I agree with the fact in this section
of the report.
·
This Is a List of my full bail
conditions and a short summary relating to some issues of concern, section
section.63 of the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994 is for outdoor
events all incidents I am are being accused of are all indoors and I did not
commit.
The Defendant is prohibited from:
17
841,
Report - Reply.pdf
· Attending a rave as defined by s.63 of
the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994.
· Being concerned in the organization of
a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994.
· Knowingly using or supplying property,
personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63 of the criminal
Justice and Public order Act 1994.
· Entering or remaining in any disused or
abandoned building.
· Entering or remaining on
non-residential private property on an industrial estate between the hours of
10pm and 7am without written permission from the owner and / or leaseholder of
the property; and
· Engaging in any licensable activity in
an unlicensed premise.
·
These conditions are for the whole of
the UK, and I believe are a breach to my human rights under ASBO Legalisation.
·
It was asked in court by my Barrister
if I needed to go to a petrol station as well as other places like to do shopping
between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours such as a 24 hour Mac Donald’s
what will happen and it was explained that he would in fact be in breach of
this ASBO the judge explained and said well he will be arrested and have to
prove in court I was going to get petrol.
·
If I made a wrong turn when driving and
turned into a non-residential private property on an industrial estate, I would
be in breach of this ASBO.
·
My mother also tried to ask things
about the conditions what if he needed to go and get milk from Tesco's or a
shop and the judge said well he will be arrested I can’t even go to a shop
between the hours of 22:00 hours and 07:00 hours without being in breach of
this ASBO.
·
If I was to go out for a night out I
would have to ask the owner to see if there licensed to make sure I am not in
breach of my ASBO as I was told it is down to me to make sure they are
licensed.
·
No one wanted to define the conditions
the applicant which is the Met Police wanted to make this a life time ASBO and
made sure the conditions were correct so that after the 5 years they can apply
to put a next 5 years in place because the judge would only allow the 5 years
and not the life time ASBO.
·
If illegal raves have not been proven
which they were not, then why do my conditions for the ASBO still define
illegal raves?
Part of my Barrister submissions that
represented me, had been that the allegations were that I was involved in organizing
illegal raves, but the applicant hadn’t adduced evidence of trespass which is a
requirement for proving that an indoor rave was illegal.
The Deputy District Judge ruled that
the applicant did not need to prove illegality - all the needed to prove was I
had acted in an anti-social manner, to which I had not acted in any anti-social
manner within the whole case file.
In the view of my barrister this is a
very questionable decision: firstly, the applicant based their case on the
illegality of the raves rather than the fact of the raves themselves and
secondly, without proof of
18
842,
Report - Reply.pdf
illegality the presumption of innocence
leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and thus I being prohibited
from engaging in an ostensibly lawful activity requires more careful
consideration on issues of proportionality.
I have to agree with my barrister as
when dealing with this case I was addressing the applicant case to prove that I
had not been involved in organizing illegal raves, as this is what the
application against me was.
The case was proven that I acted in an
in an anti-social manner, but I don’t understand by doing what. As the case
against me was that I had organized illegal raves, and this part was not proven
so what did I do that cause harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more
persons not of the same household as myself?
· Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
The report states that; Mr Simon
Cordell has stated that he is currently on bail for making threats to harm his
neighbours he has a court date relating to this on the 8th October
2016.
This is clearly misinformed information
as the true facts are, I was arrested on the 14/08/2016 and not allowed to be
interviewed as they said I was not fit for interview and placed on a section 2
of the Mental Health act. The police bailed me until the 04/10/2016 for alleged
threats to kill to what person or persons I still am not quite sure, as I am
still yet to be interviewed. I am on bail to the police station on the
04/10/2016 and this is not a court date, as I have not been charged and will
not as I do have a video that provides the evidence that I never committed such
crimes as I never left my home.
Drugs and Alcohol History:
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
I dispute and there for challenge the
statement that is contained in the reports and in RIO that is in regards to my
use cannabis on a daily basis, as at the time of the incident I clearly remember
explaining when questioned, my reply to be no I do not.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
It is said that when I was admitted
into hospital in 2012 for assessment after allegedly using LSD and drinking a
bottle of rum at a festival.
This is not true as on the date in
question the truth being, I was passed by another person a drink of rum and it
contained LSD to my surprise.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
I was asked if I would do a drugs test
and I agreed to do one. This never happened I asked about this more then once to be done which it was not.
Social History:
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
I do live in a one bedroom flat and
deny ever saying that I or another person had paid to own it as I know this not
to be true as of yet. I did however say that I would like to buy my flat from
the council.
19
843,
Report - Reply.pdf
Diary of Events in Mr Simon Cordell’s
Life Since 2012 till Date 2016
844,
845,
846,
847,
848,
849,
850,
851,
852,
853,
854,
855,
Report - Reply.pdf
not mean that is the case. Judging a
person on their looks or what they seem to be is not always a good idea, what
seems to have happened a great deal in the report.
Mr Cordell described owning a “City”
and that it is his job to understand the various roles people have in society
so that he can look after people.
When describing the true meaning of any
conversations I may of had regarding the word city I would have been explaining
about my life’s work and studies that I am building, a mini festival to which
can be classed as its own city, regulated by HSE standards, legalisation and
other needed professions to protect traders and public.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
16/08/2016 Mr Cordell refused routine
blood tests,
At this stage of being detained in St
Ann’s hospital I was not offered an ECG I was in fact only offered a blood
sugar level test which showed 65 and was also weighed. I do also remember
having a temperature test put into my ear then having a blood pressure
check-up, which was an appliance put around my arm.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
17/08/2016 On this date I was in a lot
of pain with the injuries to my fingers that I had received while being
detained at St Ann’s hospital and could not receive the standard of medical
care I would have normal received if I could have attended on my own accord to
an emergency hospital that would have also had available surgeons with an x ray
machine that I would have visited.
I now can’t use my right finger
anymore, because of this neglect by professionals. I will agree I was upset at
what was going on I think I had a right to be. I wanted the medical assistance
I needed and wanted to know why I had been sectioned and under what grounds as
I was not a risk to myself or any other person and I believe under section 2
you need to be a risk to yourself or others. I kept asking this and explained I
was not a risk to myself or others which they replied that section 2 does not
rely on this factor or have to be part of it even low I was mental stable.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
On the 18/8/2016, I had asked staff if
I could get my partner and mother to bring me hair cutters and a shaver with
additional cloths in her attendance on the following day, to which they did
agree that this could be done.
I was still in pain with my finger and
asking staff to take me to the hospital for an x ray my left finger was just
taped together and I was told that my right finger should just repair its self,
to which it still has not.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
19/08/2016 I woke up about an hour
before my solicitor arrived unexpectedly; I was calm and happy all day, as my
solicitor had arrived at the hospital to help me prepare for the tribunal. I
was latter upset after she had left by being prescribed another new medication
without no leaflet or assessment even low the medication had been prescribed
wrong already the day before, I was still in pain with my finger, I still took
the Lorazepam but was shocked to be put onto other medication again.
When my mum and partner came up, they
had my haircutters and shaver. My partner cut my hair.
13.7 Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
21/08/2016 I do not dispute the statement
of facts contained within the report.
32
856,
Report - Reply.pdf
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
22/08/2016 I have explained so many
times in this document about why I speak fast. I was still upset as to how I
had been sectioned and believed it to be incorrect. I agree I was settled and
chatting with people on the ward. I agree I refused to take Olanzapine and I
agree I did take Lorazepam.
Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
23/09/2016 I have explained so many
times in this document about why I speak fast. And it was not over inclusive
and tangential fashion.
I was not largely preoccupied with
injustices of the past particularly the past by the police, this is ongoing and
I had an Appeal case within a few weeks I did speak about this as this is a big
factor in my life right now to make sure my case is ready for my Appeal case.
So how can this be the past this is the present so how the doctors can say this
is beyond me.
Again it has been said that I am
grandiose in regard to my business plans but this to be the case.
I have worked for many years on what I
want for my company as I believe many other people do the same, are they
grandiose?
I agree I do not have any thoughts
about harming anyone else or myself as this is the truth and I did also say I
did not feel I had a Mental Health illness and did not feel unwell as I did not
and still do not.
I also agreed I would try a trial of a
small doses of Olanzapine as I felt this is all they wanted to give me tablets
and I felt very pressured to take them as I felt if I didn’t I would not be
allowed home.
· Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
24/08/2016 I do not dispute the
statement of facts contained within this chapter of the report.
Current Medications:
14.1 And 14.2 Rosemary Mills Report:
I do not dispute the statement of facts
contained within this chapter of the report.
·
Most Recent Mental State Examination
(24/08/2016)
Rosemary Mills Report:
Appearance and Behaviour: I
agree to this section in the report.
Speech: As
stated many times in this report I do speak fast and the reason why I speak
fast. Mood: I agree to this section in report.
Through: I
do not agree with this section of the report. please read this document as this
has been covered many times.
Perception: I
agree with this section of the report.
Cognition: I
agree with this section of the report.
Insight: I
agree with this section of the report.
·
Factors affecting the Hearing:
16.1 Rosemary Mills Report:
I Mr Simon Cordell do not dispute the
statement contained within the report but would like to high light the manner
to which it is prevailed. At any professional meeting I obtain my right to take
minutes of the meeting and under supreme courts previously trailed and tested
cases it states I have the right to achieve
33
857,
Report - Reply.pdf
this in a digital format, I did not go
around the ward recording at any time as I know this to be a breach of the
hospitals policy.
Why would there be a need to make an
attempt to make a recording of the Tribunal Proceedings any type of Court or
Tribunal Proceedings I can obtained a copy of the report by asking, sometimes
there is a fee to pay which is not a problem.
I also feel if any professional has not
got anything to hide, they should not fear being recorded.
Please also see read below:
A patient does not require your
permission to record a consultation. The content of the recording is
confidential to the patient, not the doctor so the patient can do what they
wish with it. This could include disclosing it to third parties, or even
posting the recording on the internet. So what does this mean for doctors?
But you should read the full document
from the link above as it shows a lot more information.
· Opinion Recommendations Rosemary Mills
Report:
I question the accuracy of the
intelligence report in relation towards:
1. Mr Simon Cordell presents himself
with persisting psychotic symptoms of paranoid persecutory delusions involving
police and Mental health services.
When a professional medical clinician
is assessing any person so to be able to diagnose a Mental disorder, it is
within the right and legalisation towards doctor and client that the correct
judgments are made and I Mr Simon Cordell do not feel that this is the case in
this report. I also feel that once I get my full medical records from the
Mental Health teams, I will find a lot more errors within them.
As can be told by the diary of events
date 2012 to 2016 I have had many NFA and no convections this does lead me to
the right understanding that I have been pursued by members of the police for
crimes and offences I have not committed, it has led to myself being detained
on mutable bail conditions for numerous cases throughout a fast proportion of
my life, having a continues negative effect on my life to which I should not
have to undergo while establishing my own company. There is also the fact that
my diary only covers 2012 to 2016 so in fact there is a lot more history I have
not included due to the time this would take and also how long it would make
this document.
As previously explained, I do have an
up and coming appeal date to which I know the evidence to be incorrect which
was put forward by the police in this case.
I educe a snip lit of such court on
goings to which I have suffered an interim order and conditions imposed upon
myself, in total I was detained for this case and another case on conditions
since September 2013 with a 3 week release in 2015 till date 2016.
This has breached my human rights as I
never committed the offences in the first place, as I can and will prove.
34
858,
Report - Reply.pdf
Some clear inaccuracies contained in my
ongoing case lead to incorrect time stamps relating towards Emergency 999 calls
contained within the Met Polices and applicants bundle as follows.
CAD |
NUM |
DATE |
TIME |
PAGE |
CAD
999 call |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page 191 to 195 |
CAD
999 call |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page 196 to 198 |
CAD
999 call |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page 203 to 205 |
CAD
999 call |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page 179 to 183 |
CAD
999 call |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page 233 to 237 |
CAD
999 call |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page 238 to 241 |
Please note every day the met police
call centre starts at CAD 01 and goes up to the average of 10,742 to 15,000
callers per day the clock is reset to 01 each day at 00:00 hours.
(We can tell this by the number of CAD
incident numbers supplied, within the applicants ASBO bundle supporting the
evidence supplied, for a standalone ASBO order to be gained against Mr. Simon
Cordell.
On the average the Met police call
centre will receive on the average of 300 callers per hour as marked and time
stamped below.
Every half hour 150 calls are made to
the emergency 999 call centre on the average Every 15 minutes is 75 callers on
average- Every 7 half minutes is 33 callers on average- And 3 half minutes 17
callers on average.
Please take note to (CAD number /
Incident Number 10481 7th June 14) this is the 10,481
Met police call of the 7th June 2014 time stamped 22:47 hours.
So it is incorrect for (CAD 10506 7th
June 14) externally inputted 25 calls later, to have an earlier time stamp of
the 7th June 2014 at 22:44 hours.
· Dr Rosemary Mills Report:
The report states in the past these
persecutory ideas have also focused on family members and neighbours this
information is also not correct.
2. Dr
Rosemary Mills Report:
The report states: Mr Simon Cordell’s
mental order is currently of a nature or degree to justify ongoing detention in
hospital.
I Mr Simon Cordell disputes this not to
be correct, since I have been realised after the tribunal and spending time in
hospital as a voluntary patient before the doctors discharged me the day after
the tribunal, I have settled in at home quite well and my family and friends
are happy with me as well.
In Regards towards Opinions & Recommendations
Chapter 17.2.1, Pages 8 of Rosemary Mills Report:
I disagree that I have shown any signs
of psychotic disorder symptoms and believe I should not be diagnosed with such
claims. Over the past two years I have been assessed as to be well and I have
never been talk to in regards to such problems by any doctor until my
assessment at St Ann’s hospital, to have been able to accept any treatment, to
which I have now complied with and take the tablets which do make me suffer
from bad side effects.
In Regards towards Opinions &
Recommendations Chapter 17.2.2, Pages 8 of Rosemary Mills Report:
35
859,
Since being assessed on benzodiazepine I
have continuously complained and explained that I know the medications I am
taking does not having a positive impact but rather a much larger negative
impact. I yet wait to talk to a doctor about this once again.
In Regards towards the Patient ought to
be Detained in the interest of his health Chapter 18.1 Pages 8 of Rosemary
Mills Report:
Since being released from the hospital
I have continued to keep my word in my letter and work alongside the Mental
health team I have allowed access to my home address every day and taken the
medication that I have been prescribed, even low I understand that any person
whom has been sectioned under the Mental health act, after an assessment or
clinical care, does not need to comply with section 117.
I still however do take the medication
but strongly agree with my own assessment of myself and do not feel the
medication is having a positive impact.
In Regards Towards in the Interest of
Safety of Others Chapter 18.2 Pages 8 of Rosemary Mills Report:
I have never been a danger to any other
person(s) intentionally or otherwise. I am very concerned with the Electronic
records as Doctor Rosemary Mills’s reports states she
used and gained other wrongful contained information from and I would like them
amended, such records state the following:
The electronic records document
anti-social and verbally aggressive behaviour by Mr Cordell towards his
neighbours, this is not true.
I do own a CCTV system this property
doe’s gets used for my own personal reasons. I am very upset that I have been
accused of using my CCTV so to be able to interpreting other people’s behaviour
in a persecutory fashion.
My CCTV system is used in the
accordance of the United Kingdom Laws.
In Regards towards Care Plan Chapter 20
Pages 8 and 9 of Rosemary Mills Report:
In reference to chapter 20.1 and 22, I
did agree to stay on the ward informally and did do so this was for the
duration of an extra two days, when I asked a member of staff if I can take
section 17 leave of ward, I was told that I would need to speak to a doctor and
when asked what my intentions were, I asked if I can stay at home the night as
I missed my family and dog inclusive of my own bed so that I could if agreed
come back to the hospital in the morning on explaining this to the Doctor, she
explained to me that she was happy for me to work with the early prevention
team from home after our conversation, to which I have been comply with.
In Regards towards Care Plan Chapter
22.1 Pages 9 of Rosemary Mills Report:
This plan has now been implemented and
I have been noticing negative side effect from the medication prescribed, while
being at home.
END OF REPORTS
Signed:
Dated:
31st August 2016
36
105.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
105.
1. 2
Too
Smooth 12-09- 2016 04- 05
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 860
105.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
105. 1. 2
Too Smooth 12-09- 2016 04- 05
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 860
--
860,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 04:05:01 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Hi
Pleas read and reply.
Yes I agree it takes you away at
some point which I understand to be the payment of a business card transfers to
woohoo but I believe the advantage is after buying the plugin you get the app
which is the part I want in the demo mode it has a down load to com widget and
a payment widget I just want to delete or deactivate the add to cart button in
the downloaded plugin then all else should be ok as the download button does
not direct you to woohoo payment services. Cn you help me try to do this
please.
On Saturday, 10 September 2016,
16:40, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
This is what I want to pay for
but first I want to be sure that I can make the payment feature not charge the
clients’ money for the service.
WooCommerce Business Card & Flyer Design
WooCommerce Business Card & Flyer
Design
If this plugin is useful, could
you please help us to rate it? it will be a big encouragement to improve for
us....
I would like to make the menu
bar in the business directory the same as the word press menu so that it shows
a link to the festival pages
Once this has been achieved then
I believe I can sort the rest please can you help me.
106.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
106.
1. 2
Too
Smooth 12-09-2016 04-05
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 861
106.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
106. 1. 2
Too Smooth 12-09-2016 04-05
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 861
--
861,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 04:05:01 AM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Hi
Pleas read and reply.
Yes I agree it takes you away at
some point which I understand to be the payment of a business card transfers to
woohoo but I believe the advantage is after buying the plugin you get the app
which is the part I want in the demo mode it has a down load to com widget and
a payment widget I just want to delete or deactivate the add to cart button in
the downloaded plugin then all else should be ok as the download button does
not direct you to woohoo payment services. Cn you help me try to do this
please.
On Saturday, 10 September 2016,
16:40, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
This is what I want to pay for
but first I want to be sure that I can make the payment feature not charge the
clients’ money for the service.
WooCommerce Business Card & Flyer Design
WooCommerce Business Card & Flyer
Design
If this plugin is useful, could
you please help us to rate it? it will be a big encouragement to improve for
us....
I would like to make the menu
bar in the business directory the same as the word press menu so that it shows
a link to the festival pages
Once this has been achieved then
I believe I can sort the rest please can you help me.
107.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
107.
1. 2
Too
Smooth 12-09-2016 04-09
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 862
107.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
107. 1. 2
Too Smooth 12-09-2016 04-09
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 862
--
862,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 04:09:12 AM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Ink
Yes and Ł30 for food I got
electric and gas till next sat
On Friday, 9 September 2016,
13:34, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Is there money to get the ink
please
108.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
108.
1. 2
Too Smooth
12-09-2016 04-10
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 863
108.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
108. 1. 2
Too Smooth 12-09-2016 04-10
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 863
--
863,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 04:09:55 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
problems
Thank you can I have my files back
now please love Si xx
On Saturday, 10 September 2016,
19:29, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
WooCommerce Product Designer:
Your PHP setting max_ file_
uploads is currently set to 20. We recommend to set this value at least to 100
to avoid any issue with our plugin.
Your PHP setting max_ input_
vars is currently set to 1000. We recommend to set this value at least to 5000
to avoid any issue with our plugin.
Your PHP setting post_ max_ size
is currently set to 64M. We recommend to set this value at least to 128M to
avoid any issue with our plugin.
Your PHP setting upload_ max_
file size is currently set to 64M. We recommend to set this value at least to
128M to avoid any issue with our plugin.
109.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
109.
1. 2
Too
Smooth Ink - 12-09-2016 04-09
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 864
109.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
109. 1. 2
Too Smooth Ink - 12-09-2016
04-09
12/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 864
--
864,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/09/2016 04:09:12 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Ink
Yes and Ł30 for food I got electric
and gas till next sat
On Friday, 9 September 2016,
13:34, Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
Is there money to get the ink
please
110.
·
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
110. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate - 14-09-2016
11-05
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 865
110.
Additional Email
Attachments & Emails / Issue:
110. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate - 14-09-2016 11-05
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 865
--
865,
111.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
111.
1. 2
NHS
Complaint Advocate -14-09-2016 10-32
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 866
111.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
111. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate
-14-09-2016 10-32
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 866
--
866,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time: 14/09/2016 11:05:34 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
Documents I said I would send.
Simon,
Yes, I have received the
documents. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paiae.christie@voiceabilitv.ora
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630
Company No. 3798884 (England and
Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 14
September 2016 11:04
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
Documents I said I would send.
Dear Paige
I am writing this email as I am not
sure that you got my email the other day with the documents, I sent to you as
attachments. Could you please let me know that you have got this email please.
Regards Simon Cordell
112.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
112.
1. 2
NHS Complaint
Advocate -14-09-2016 11-07
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 867
112.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
112. 1. 2
NHS Complaint Advocate
-14-09-2016 11-07
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 867
--
867,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time: 14/09/2016 03:10:32 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Documents
I said I would send.
Simon,
I have looked through your
documents - what next step do you want to take? It is always best if you take
the lead as it is your complaint so let me know what you want to happen next.
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
t: 07918
561 868
e: paiae.christie@voiceabilitv.ora
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 14
September 2016 11:04
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
Documents I said I would send.
Dear Paige
I am writing this email as I am
not sure that you got my email the other day with the documents, I sent to you
as attachments.
Could you please let me know
that you have got this email please.
Regards Simon Cordell
113.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
113.
1. 2
NHS
Complaints Advocate 14-09-2016 11-34
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 868
113.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
113. 1. 2
NHS Complaints Advocate
14-09-2016 11-34
14/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 868
--
868,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 14/09/2016 11:33:45 AM
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
Documents I said I would send.
Dear Paige
Thank you for your reply.
In that meeting in Feb 2016 when
they acted on the 135 warrant, it was recorded onto dual CD I have written the
minutes from the CD.
Regards
Simon
On Wednesday, 14 September 2016,
11:07, Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org> wrote:
Simon,
Can I also ask, who took down
those minutes?
Regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London
a:
United House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP t: 07918 561 868
e: paige.christie@voiceabilitv.org
Voice Ability Winner
Charity No. 1076630 I Company
No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
From: Rewired
mailto: re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 14 September 2016 11:04
To: Paige
Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Subject: Re:
Documents I said I would send.
Dear Paige
I am writing this email as I am
not sure that you got my email the other day with the documents, I sent to you
as attachments.
Could you please let me know
that you have got this email please.
Regards Simon Cordell
114.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
114.
1. 2
Asbo
from Sally Gilchrist 16-09-2016 01-40
16/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 869,870
871,872,873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883
114.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
114. 1. 2
Asbo from Sally Gilchrist
16-09-2016 01-40
16/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 869,870
871,872,873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883
--
869,
From: Josephine
Ward <josie@michaelcarroUandco.com>
Sent time: 16/09/2016 01:40:59 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
SIMON CORDELL
Attachments: c100781-130920164473_001.pdf.pdf
Lorraine / Simon
This is the disclosure that the
Respondent states they sent to Michael Carroll & Co in August 2016. I made
enquiries with staff at Michael Carroll & Co and I was told that this had
not been received. This was sent to my email on Tuesday, but I do not have access
to that email on my phone but have to be near a desk top computer. I am
forwarding this to you now.
I am waiting for Andrew Locke's
court note from today's hearing and I will revert to you in writing re the
solicitor / barrister / client relationship and whether either Andrew Locke or
I can continue to represent you in this matter.
Josephine
Original Message
From: Sally.Gilchrist@met.pnnpolice.uk
To: josie@michaelcarrollandco.com
Date: 13 September 2016 at 14:56
Subject: SIMON
CORDELL
Dear Sirs,
Please see attached
correspondence sent to you by DX on 17th August 2016.
Yours faithfully Sally Gilchrist
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The
MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other
employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software
infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over
the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS).
Find us at:
Facebook: Facebook/metpolice.uk
870,
Twitter: @metpoliceuk
871,
872,
873,
874,
875,
876,
877,
878,
879,
880,
881,
882,
883,
115.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
115.
1. 2
Asbo
Me to Josie 19-09-2016 13-23
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 884
115.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
115. 1. 2
Asbo Me to Josie 19-09-2016
13-23
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 884
--
884,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:19/09/2016 01:22:54 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: letter
Dear Josey / Michael
I am writing this email due to
an email that was received today in receipt from Josey.
Today when I spoke on the phone
to Josie as she called my phone I explained to her that I do not have any
internet at home, so I could not login to my emails and therefore could not
read what she had sent, Josey then asked me to contact my mother to tell me
what was in the email.
Since this has happened, I have
asked my mother to write this email to you confirming the below.
Josey has asked me to agree to
have an assessment by a Psychiatrist; I do not see the need as I am not mental
ill. I know this as I was just recently assessed on the 15/08/2016 under
section 2 of the mental health act 1983 and then released due to a decision
being made at a Tribunal that I had on the 26/08/2016, the Tribunal did not
found me mentally ill to carry on holding me under a section 2.
When I was assessed under
section two, I had been arrested for wrongful claims. Michael Carroll should
already be aware as his company is my acting solicitor. I still have not been
interviewed by the police as of yet and will prove I never did anything wrong –
due - to CCTV I have when I return to the police station on the 04/10/2016.
In the time I had in a Hospital
was an assessment and the conclusion where I am of well mind body and soul.
I agreed after the assessment to
be mentored on release which is at its end of period, This was obtained Under
section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, Under section two I understand that
I did not have to approve to carry on with the care facilities but I did agree
to this. No one has had any concerns with me since as I am not a concern never
is my mental stability.
I have had other assessments prior
to this, and the same conclusion was found I have never been un-well with
mental health issues of concern.
I feel at this late stage of my
Appeal due to lack of disclosure that there is not any time left to prepare my
defence, I have not had a meeting with my barrister for the appeal as of yet
and there is less than a week till the appeal to start, I feel it is common
sense that asking for an assessment is only going to put my Appeal off and I
feel this is unfair as the start of the ongoing was 2014. I have only ever
asked for things to be done for my Appeal and case with no disrespect for any
other person, which I know should have been completed in good time. I have not
been rude or disrespectful to my solicitor I have only ever asked for things to
be done fair and right so to be achieved in good time for the Appeal.
I can send you the copy of the
tribunal release from the section 2 if needed.
116.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
116.
1. 2
Asbo
Mother - Re Plea and Michael 19-09-2016 12-10
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 885
116.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
116. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - Re Plea and
Michael 19-09-2016 12-10
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 885
--
885,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 19/09/2016 12:09:54 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re: Please
read email to Josey and Michael.
Please confirm I can send you do not need
to go into great detail the less the better this is why I wrote the email this
way.
Dear Josey / Michael
I am writing this email due to
an email I got from Josey today.
As I said to Josey when she
called me I do not have any internet to login to my email so have not read the
emails she sent, But Josey asked my mother to tell me what was in the email
which she has done. And I asked her to write this email to you confirming the below.
Josey has asked me to agree to
have an assessment by a Psychiatrist I do not see the need as I was put under a
section 2 on the 15/08/2016 and released due to a Tribunal I had on the
26/08/2016.
Since being released I have the
early intervention team coming to my home to check on my welfare.
I can send you the copy of the
tribunal release from the section 2. And I can also ask a letter to be written
from the early intervention team when they attend my home today, which can be
forwarded to you. I believe this will tell you all that would be needed.
Regards
Simon / Lorraine
117.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
117.
1. 2
Asbo
Mother - RE d Michael new 19-09-2016 12-47
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 886,887
117.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
117. 1. 2
Asbo Mother - RE d Michael new
19-09-2016 12-47
19/09/2016
/ Page Numbers: 886,887
--
886,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
19/09/2016 12:46:43 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
Re: Please read email to Josey and Michael new
Dear Josey / Michael
I am
writing this email due to an email I got from Josey today.
As I said to Josey when she
called me, I do not have any internet to login to my email so have not read the
emails she sent, But Josey asked my mother to tell me what was in the email.
And I asked her to write this email to you confirming the below.
Josey has asked me to agree to
have an assessment by a Psychiatrist I do not see the need as I was assessed
under section 2 on the 15/08/2016 and released due to a Tribunal I had on the
26/08/2016 which the Tribunal did not found me Mentally ill to carry on holding
me under a section 2.
When I was put on a section 2 I
had been arrested which Michael Carroll will already be aware as they was my
acting solicitor, I still have not been interviewed
by the police as of yet and will prove I never did anything wrong due to CCTV I
have when I return to the police station on the 04/10/2016.
In the time I was in Hospital I did
have an assessment and still released under the Tribunal.
I agreed when released to be mentored
on release which has been ongoing. Under section 117 I did not need to approve
to carry on having home treatment, but I did agree to this. No one has had any
concerns with me since I have been released.
I have had other assessments prior to
this, and the same conclusion was found I was well.
I feel at this late stage of my Appeal
there is not any time left, I have not had a meeting with my barrister yet and
there is less than a week till the appeal is due to start, asking for an assessment
is only going to put my Appeal off and I feel this is unfair. I have only ever
asked for things to be done for my Appeal which should have been and in good
time. I have not been disrespectful to my solicitor I have only ever asked for
things to be done in good time for the Appeal.
I can send you the copy of the tribunal
release from the section 2 if needed.
Regards Simon / Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 19
September 2016 12:10
To: 'Rewired
Subject: Re:
Please read email to Josey and Michael.
Please confirm I can send you do not need
to go into great detail the less the better this is why I wrote the email this
way.
Dear Josey / Michael
I am writing this email due to an email
I got from Josey today.
As I said to Josey when she called me I
do not have any internet to login to my email so have not read the emails she
sent, But Josey asked my mother to tell me what was in the email which she has
done. And I asked her to write this email to you confirming the below.
Josey has asked me to agree to have an
assessment by a Psychiatrist I do not see the need as I was put under a section
2 on the 15/08/2016 and released due to a Tribunal I had on the 26/08/2016.
Since being released I have the early
intervention team coming to my home to check on my welfare.
887,
I can send you the copy of the tribunal
release from the section 2. And I can also ask a letter to be written from the
early intervention team when they attend my home today, which can be forwarded
to you. I believe this will tell you all that would be
needed.
Regards
Simon / Lorraine
118.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
118.
1. 2
Too
Smooth C Panel 29-11-2016 09-58
29/11/2016
118.
Additional Email
Attachments & Emails / Issue:
118.
1. 2
Too Smooth
C Panel 29-11-2016 09-58
29/11/2016
/ Page Numbers: 888
--
888,
From: cPanel
for too smooth on toosmooth.co.uk <cpanel@toosmooth.co.uk>
Sent
time: 29/11/2016 09:16:58 AM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
Subject:
[toosmooth.co.uk]
The account “too smooth” with primary domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is about to
exceed its bandwidth limit (6.17 GB/6.84 GB)
The
account “too smooth” with primary domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached 90% of
its bandwidth limit (6.17 GB/6.84 GB).
Average
bandwidth used per day: 217.85 MB Projected monthly bandwidth usage: 6.38 GB
At the
current rate of usage:
• The
account “too smooth” with primary domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is not expected to
exceed their bandwidth limit.
The
system generated this notice on Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 9:16:57 AM UTC.
You
can disable the “Bandwidth Limits” type of notification through the cPanel
interface: https://fiorano.websitewelcome.com:2083/frontend/x3/contact/index.html
Do not
reply to this automated message.
CP
Copyright©
2016 cPanel, Inc.
Headers
2017
1.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
697.
Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ RE_ PTI URN_ 01YE0355816
04/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1,2
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
697. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ RE_
PTI URN_ 01YE0355816
04/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1,2
--
1,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 04
January 2017 15:14
To: 'London.magistrates@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
RE: PTI URN: 01YE0355816
Attachments: Letter-to-CPS-01-12-2016.pdf
Dear A Parmar
I wrote and email to you on the 12/010/2016
with the attached letter asking for some information and I have not had a reply
back from you about the missing paperwork I or my solicitors was never given
would it please be possible for you to get back to me with the missing
paperwork that has never been seen, I have attached the document sent to you in
November 2016 please see attached I have also spoken to someone yesterday who
said they would deal with obtaining the missing information that I have asked
for.
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 01
December 2016 16:10
To: 'London.magistrates@cps.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
PTI URN: 01YE0355816
Dear A. PARMAR
Please see attached letter is regards
to the above case number.
Regards
2,
FW: RE: PTI URN: 01YE0355816->Letter-to-CPS-01-12-2016.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ 01/12/2016
OPERATIONAL REFERENCE NO./PTI URN:
01YE0355816 DEFENDANT: Simon CORDELL (D.O.B. 26/01/1981)
Dear A. PARMAR
I am writing this letter due to
the letter of discontinuance you sent to my solicitors dated the 15/11/2016.
I asked my solicitors to obtain
my custody records for when I was arrested on the 14/08/2016 for Threats to
kill, where I was taken to Wood Green Police station as Edmonton police station
was closed due to ongoing work being carried out, which has never been supplied
by the CPS or police to myself or my acting solicitors before this case was
discontinued, for this case I was bailed until the 04/10/2016 as they classed
me as unfit for interview.
I was charged on the 05/10/2016
for Section 4 POA for this case. The Office in charge of this case was PC
Campbell PC 205732 he was the person that interviewed me for both the case of
the 14/08/2016 and the 04/10/2016.
On the 04/10/2016 I was again
arrested just before I was due to go to Edmonton Police station for the bail to
return for the above case this time for Criminal damage, I was interviewed for
both cases by the above named police officer and charged on the 05/10/2016 for
both dates the charges where Section 4 POA and Criminal damage I have also
asked for the my custody records for the 04/10/2016 and this has also not been
supplied to myself or my acting solicitors.
I would still like a copy of the
custody records so they can be filed with my paper work and was wondering if
you could send me a copy of the custody records for the whole of my detention
for the 14/08/2016 and the 04/10/2016 I would be most grateful if this could be
done.
I believe custody record no for
the 14/08/2016 is 01YD 6024 16 but I am not sure of the custody record no for
the 04/10/2016.
I have also never had any
paperwork for the Criminal damage charge and again would like copies of these
and the statement from the person who said I done what I did. As my solicitors
was only ever served the paperwork for the case for the 14/08/2016.
I like to keep all my paper work
on file so without the missing papers work I cannot do this, I believe due to
being charged I do have a right to the paper work and would be grateful if this
could be sent via this email address I hope you can help in this matter.
If you cannot help in this
matter could you please let me know via this email address lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Regards
Mr Simon Cordell
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Mother
FW SAR
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 3,4,5,6
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Mother FW SAR
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 3,4,5,6
--
3,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
January 2017 12:02
To: 'Dionne.grant@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Attachments: Si-DWP-Assessment-New.pdf;
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Dear Dionne Grant
Please see the below emails and
the attached documents.
I do get an auto reply which
says
Thank you for your email. I will
be back in the office on Monday
My emails are not being
monitored during my absence. I will respond as soon as possible following my return
to work. For any urgent matters which cannot wait until then, please contact
Dionne.grant@enfield.gov.uk.
I work Mondays, Tuesday mornings
and Wednesday.
Could you please address this as
I did not get a reply back from my email, I sent on 22/12/2016 as of yet also
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
January 2017 11:54
To: 'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Concetta Nobile
As I have not heard back from
you regarding the below email can you please see attached documents and confirm
they are ok please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 22
December 2016 17:00
To: 'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Concetta Nobile
Thank you, for the update and
information you will need I have my driving licence but since 08 June 2015 the
paper part is no longer needed so I do not have this so do not have both parts
only the card.
I have bills to show my address
dated within the last 3 months so that should not be a problem.
As for the information I have
asked for it is all the information that is held by Enfield Council within all
departments.
This would not be limited to
just things that I have put in this would also include any data that the police
have passed to Enfield Council about me. Any meetings that were held with
police and any other body and Enfield Council about me. and any other government
body
4,
that has passed information to
Enfield Council about myself.
The minutes from the meeting
that was held about me by Enfield council on the 15/12/2016 with regard to the formal
complaints that was put in. I did request minutes were taken when I was told I
could not attend.
Any phone calls made by myself
or my mother on my behalf to Enfield Council
All that were put in for Enfield
Council to address this would include all comments made on any such report such
as I have removed all my piping for my heating system.
All my housing benefit and
anything to do with my rent account and council Tax.
Any complaints that have been
put in about me this would include any neighbours or police or any other body
that Enfield Council has received about me, I do understand that some sections
names would need to have redaction added for names and addresses but the date
and body of the complaint should be kept. and if it a governing body such as
the police names or IDs should not need redaction.
If Enfield Council has any data,
I want this subject access request to cover this data and if any data is going
to be withheld, I would like to know this and the reason why it is being
withheld.
As for dates this request would
go back as far as possible with any data Enfield Council holds within all
departments being released.
If you could get back to me
about the ID, I would be grateful and get this emailed across to you so that
this can be dealt with.
Regards Simon Cordell Lorraine
Cordell
From: Concetta
Nobile [mailto:Concetta.Nobile@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 21
December 2016 13:03
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SAR
251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your request
dated. As it relates to personal information, we are treating it as a Subject
Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
We have registered the request
under reference number SAR 251, and you may quote this should you need to get
back in touch with us.
Unfortunately we are unable to
answer your request based on the details you have provided. To assist us in
proceeding with your request, please could you provide us with further
information to clarify the context in which information about you may have been
processed and about the likely dates when processing occurred.
Under the Act, we are legally
required to verify the identity of the data subject / requestor before we
compile the data you have requested. In order to proceed with your request,
please would you send us the following two forms of evidence of identity for
the requestor:
·
One photographic - such as a passport
or driving licence (both parts)
·
One address based - showing proof of
name and current address (dated within the past 3 months), such as a utility
bill or bank statement
5,
Do let us know if you need
information about alternative forms of documentation which are acceptable as
confirmation of identity.
Yours sincerely,
Concetta Nobile
Complaints and Access to
Information - Gateway Services
Finance, Resources and Customer
Services
Enfield Council
Thomas Hardy House
39 London Road
EN26DS
0208 379 3035
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole Borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
6,
Extra Page!
Driving Licence!
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
702. Lorraine
Cordell _Re_ SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL_PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE] _
(2)
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 7,8,9,10,11
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
702. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ SAR 251
[SEC=OFFICIAL_PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE] _ (2)
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 7,8,9,10,11
--
7,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
January 2017 14:00
To:
'Dionne Grant'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Dionne Grant
Thank you for the reply, as this
request was put in on the 24/11/2016 you are 10 days overdue and I do need this
data as soon as possible so if this can be done, I would be most grateful.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Dionne
Grant mailto: Dionne.Grant@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 13
January 2017 13:55
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Ms Cordell
Many thanks for your email
below. I am sorry to hear you did not receive a reply back to your email of
22nd December.
I confirm that the documents you
have provided are satisfactory and your subject access request should be
progressed. Concetta will be back in the office on Monday so I will ensure to
follow up matters with her then and will also ask her to make contact with you
directly.
Kind regards
Dionne Grant
Statutory Complaints Manager -
Gateway Services
Finance, Resources and Customer
Services
Enfield Council
Thomas Hardy House
39 London Road
EN26DS
Tel: 0208 379 2806
Email: Dionne.grant@enfield.gov.uk www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole Borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
*THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT*
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
January 2017 12:02 To: Dionne Grant
Subject: FW:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Dionne Grant
8,
Please see the below emails and
the attached documents.
I do get an auto reply which
says
Thank you for your email. I will
be back in the office on Monday
My emails are not being
monitored during my absence. I will respond as soon as possible following my
return to work. For any urgent matters which cannot wait until then, please
contact
Dionne.grant@enfield.gov.uk.
I work Mondays, Tuesday mornings
and Wednesday.
Could you please address this as
I did not get a reply back from my email, I sent on 22/12/2016 as of yet also
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 13
January 2017 11:54
To:
'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Concetta Nobile
As I have not heard back from
you regarding the below email can you please see attached documents and confirm
they are ok please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
December 2016 17:00
To:
'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Concetta Nobile
Thank you, for the update and
information you will need I have my driving licence but since 08 June 2015 the
paper part is no longer needed so I do not have this so do not have both parts
only the card.
I have bills to show my address
dated within the last 3 months so that should not be a problem.
As for the information I have
asked for it is all the information that is held by Enfield Council within all
departments.
This would not be limited to
just things that I have put in this would also include any data that the police
have passed to Enfield Council about me. Any meetings that were held with
police and any other body and Enfield Council about me. and any other
government body that has passed information to Enfield Council about myself.
The minutes from the meeting
that was held about me by Enfield council on the 15/12/2016 with regard to the
formal complaints that was put in. I did request minutes were taken when I was
told I could not attend.
Any phone calls made by myself
or my mother on my behalf to Enfield Council
All that were put in for Enfield
Council to address this would include all comments made on any such report such
as I have removed all
9,
my piping for my heating system.
All my housing benefit and
anything to do with my rent account and council Tax.
Any complaints that have been put
in about me this would include any neighbours or police or any other body that
Enfield Council has received about me, I do understand that some sections names
would need to have redaction added for names and addresses but the date and
body of the complaint should be kept. and if it a governing body such as the
police names or IDs should not need redaction.
If Enfield Council has any data,
I want this subject access request to cover this data and if any data is going
to be withheld, I would like to know this and the reason why it is being
withheld.
As for dates this request would
go back as far as possible with any data Enfield Council holds within all
departments being released.
If you could get back to me
about the ID, I would be grateful and get this emailed across to you so that
this can be dealt with.
Regards Simon Cordell Lorraine
Cordell
From: Concetta Nobile
mailto: Concetta.Nobile@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 21 December 2016 13:03
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SAR
251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your request dated.
As it relates to personal information, we are treating it as a Subject Access
Request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
We have registered the request
under reference number SAR 251, and you may quote this should you need to get
back in touch with us.
Unfortunately we are unable to
answer your request based on the details you have provided. To assist us in
proceeding with your request, please could you provide us with further
information to clarify the context in which information about you may have been
processed and about the likely dates when processing occurred.
Under the Act, we are legally
required to verify the identity of the data subject / requestor before we
compile the data you have requested. In order to proceed with your request,
please would you send us the following two forms of evidence of identity for
the requestor:
·
One photographic - such as a passport
or driving licence (both parts)
·
One address based - showing proof of name
and current address (dated within the past 3 months), such as a utility bill or
bank statement
Do let us know if you need
information about alternative forms of documentation which are acceptable as
confirmation of identity.
Yours sincerely,
Concetta Nobile
10,
Complaints and Access to
Information - Gateway Services
Finance, Resources and Customer
Services
Enfield Council
Thomas Hardy House
39 London Road
EN26DS
0208 379 3035
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole Borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
ENFIELD
Connected
IMPORTANT
Every
Enfield resident should register for an online Enfield Connected account.
Enfield Connected puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your
payments and saves you time. Click here to get connected.
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
11,
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
699.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL_PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
CORRESPONDENCE] _ (3)
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 12,13,14,15
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
699. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ SAR
251 [SEC=OFFICIAL_PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE] _ (3)
13/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 12,13,14,15
--
12,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
January 2017 11:54
To: 'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Attachments: Si-DWP-Assessment-New.pdf
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Dear Concetta Nobile
As I have not heard back from
you regarding the below email can you please see attached documents and confirm
they are ok please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 22
December 2016 17:00
To: 'Concetta Nobile'
Subject: RE:
SAR 251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Dear Concetta Nobile
Thank you, for the update and
information you will need I have my driving licence but since 08 June 2015 the
paper part is no longer needed so I do not have this so do not have both parts
only the card.
I have bills to show my address
dated within the last 3 months so that should not be a problem.
As for the information I have
asked for it is all the information that is held by Enfield Council within all
departments.
This would not be limited to
just things that I have put in this would also include any data that the police
have passed to Enfield Council about me. Any meetings that were held with
police and any other body and Enfield Council about me. and any other
government body that has passed information to Enfield Council about myself.
The minutes from the meeting
that was held about me by Enfield council on the 15/12/2016 with regard to the
formal complaints that was put in. I did request minutes were taken when I was
told I could not attend.
Any phone calls made by myself
or my mother on my behalf to Enfield Council
All that were put in for Enfield
Council to address this would include all comments made on any such report such
as I have removed all my piping for my heating system.
All my housing benefit and
anything to do with my rent account and council Tax.
Any complaints that have been
put in about me this would include any neighbours or police or any other body
that Enfield Council has received about me, I do understand that some sections
names would need to have redaction added for names and addresses but the date
and body of the complaint should be kept. and if it a governing body such as
the police names or IDs should not need redaction.
If Enfield Council has any data,
I want this subject access request to cover this data and if any data is going
to be withheld, I would like to know this and the reason why it is being withheld.
As for dates this request would
go back as far as possible with any data Enfield Council holds within all
departments being released.
If you could get back to me
about the ID, I would be grateful and get this emailed across to you so that
this can be dealt with.
Regards Simon Cordell
Lorraine Cordell
13,
From: Concetta
Nobile [mailto:Concetta.Nobile@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 21
December 2016 13:03
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SAR
251 [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your request dated.
As it relates to personal information, we are treating it as a Subject Access
Request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
We have registered the request
under reference number SAR 251, and you may quote this should you need to get
back in touch with us.
Unfortunately we are unable to
answer your request based on the details you have provided. To assist us in
proceeding with your request, please could you provide us with further
information to clarify the context in which information about you may have been
processed and about the likely dates when processing occurred.
Under the Act, we are legally
required to verify the identity of the data subject / requestor before we
compile the data you have requested. In order to proceed with your request,
please would you send us the following two forms of evidence of identity for
the requestor:
·
One photographic - such as a passport
or driving licence (both parts)
·
One address based - showing proof of
name and current address (dated within the past 3 months), such as a utility
bill or bank statement
Do let us know if you need
information about alternative forms of documentation which are acceptable as
confirmation of identity.
Yours sincerely,
Concetta Nobile
Complaints and Access to
Information - Gateway Services
Finance, Resources and Customer
Services
Enfield Council
Thomas Hardy House
39 London Road
EN26DS
0208 379 3035
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole Borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
14,
RE: SAR 251
HEALTH ASSESSMENT ADVISORY
SERVICE
Your appointment for an
assessment with a healthcare professional
Dear Mr Cordell,
We have been asked by the Department
for Work and Pensions (DWP) to carry out an assessment in relation to your
benefit claim. We have arranged an appointment for you at:
1:00 pm on Friday 27th January
2017
at:
Highgate Assessment Centre
·
Centre for Health and Disability Assessments,
1st Floor, 1 Elthorne Road, j Upper Holloway, London, N19 4AL
·
It is important that you attend this
assessment. If you don't attend, your benefit may be affected. If you are unable
to attend, or if you will need any help whilst you are at the assessment
centre, please inform the appointments help desk on 0800 2888777 as soon as
possible.
·
Please only contact the appointments
helpdesk in connection with your appointment. If you want to discuss your
benefit claim, or if you would like more information about why you need an
assessment, please contact the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) office
that deals with your claim.
·
Please arrive 10 minutes before your
appointment time. You should bring this letter and proof of your identity with
you. If you have any medical reports that you wish us to see, please also bring
them with you. For example, this could be a medical report from your doctor,
consultant, or support worker.
·
We have enclosed a leaflet containing
important information about what to bring to the assessment and how to claim
expenses. We have also enclosed a map and directions explaining how to get to
the assessment centre.
Yours sincerely,
Centre for Health and Disability
Assessments
Centre for Health and Disability
Assessments
AL1 02/15
Office address: WEMBLEY CENTRE
FOR HEALTH AND DISABILITY
ASSESSMENTS
WEMBLEY ASC
1 OLYMPIC WAY
WEMBLEY
HA9ONP
Appointments 0800 2888777
help desk: If
you have a textphone you can dial 18001 followed by the number shown above.
Reference: JH653811D
Date: 28th
December 2016
Mr SIMON P CORDELL
109 BURNCROFTAV
ENFIELD 35800/50
MIDDSEX EN3 7JQ
15,
Driving Licence!
5.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1.
2.
Mother
18-01-2017 -08-24
18/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27
5.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2.
Mother 18-01-2017 -08-24
18/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27
--
16,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 18/01/2017
08:24:52 AM
Subject: RE:
here you go
Att
simon-police-complaint-13-09-2014.doc
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
Property-Receipt-and-cad-information-for-handing-back-
documents.pdf
see attached
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
Your Horner
I am written this letter after yesterday
17/01/2017 being in court and felt as did 3 other people there is no point
carrying on with this Appeal as you have already made you mind up before even
hearing the Appeal.
This is not the only time you have
brought up the conditions the lower court set Mr Cordell when they granted the
ASBO order on the 04/08/2015 after the full hearing.
We felt you was only worried about the
conditions so in fact had made your mind up there was only issues with the
conditions when in fact you have not even heard the Appeal. So why are you even
talking about the conditions and what you believed where problems with the
conditions that where set by the lower court, before even hearing the Appeal.
There was more worrying issue such as
my son having a solicitor and an acting barrister for the Appeal hearing and
legal Aid in place for the acting solicitors.
Your Horner knew after the last
solicitor was removed from record by yourself on the 21/09/2016 when we had
notified the court we were going to be late to court by 5 or 10 minutes due to
traffic, by the time we got to court you had already removed the solicitors
while we were not there from record.
We were told this by the acting
barrister the solicitor had sent who waited at court till we got there to
inform us you had granted their application they could be removed from record.
We were told by the barrister to wait
at court that you would call us into court to talk to us which we did and was
called into court around 16:00 hours as you were dealing with other trial.
On being called into court you were
told by the Respondent Barrister this was not the only time the solicitors had
put an application to be removed from record this had been done on the
19/02/2016 again just before the trial was due to start on the 22/02/2016 and
had been dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison sitting that day and notes put
by His Honour Judge Morrison, If any attempt is made to repeat this application
the Court will require it to be made in person by the Senior Partner of Michael
Carroll & Co. You said you could not force a solicitor to act against their
will, but no acting Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co was in court.
We at this point we asked for an
adjournment of the 3 day Appeal hearing that was due to start on the 26/09/2016
to get a new solicitor put in place which you refused to do and stated my son
could do this himself, there was great concern with this due to my son’s
learning problems not being able to read and write and health problems which
you was aware of.
In fact my son could not even attend
court due to this on the 26/09/2016 due to what this had done to him and made
him so ill I had to write a letter to yourself which on the 26/09/2016 had to
be addressed by you.
22,
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
At that hearing I told you I had spent
days calling solicitors trying to get one put in place and no one would take
the case on due to this being at appeal stage and how much legal Aid paid for
appeal hearings and I was being told we would have to pay private to get a
solicitor so my son could have a barrister put in place for the appeal hearing
to act for him, you said due to the letter I had written you had 3 option open
to you and believed this would go to judicial review.
1. Carry
on with the Appeal hearing in the hope my son would turn up the next day
27/09/2016.
2. Dismiss
the Appeal.
3. Adjourn
the Appeal to a later date.
You choose to adjourn the Appeal to a
later date to start on the 16/01/2017
Issues were also raised about the bundles
we were working from which were old Respondent bundles and files being missing.
We had worked that out when waiting to be called into court with the Respondent
barrister. You order that the solicitor hand the bundles over to us that day.
And set a date for us to come back to court to check we were all working from
the same bundles. I believe this date was the 14/10/2016.
Upon getting the bundles from the
solicitors it was noted that my own son’s bundle had not been updated since Dec
2015. I tried to add the documents that were missing myself and make new
indexes up but knew there were still missing documents. It was also noticed
that the Respondent bundles we were working from there was around 13 missing
statements we had never seen before all dated before the full hearing on the
03/08/2015 and 04/08/2015 at the lower court that we had never seen before.
On the 14/10/2016 you were informed of
this and ordered the solicitors to attend court I believe this date was for the
19/10/2016 the Appeal hearing date was also changed to start on the 17/01/2017
for 3 days.
I tried again to contact the solicitors
to work out what was missing so I could add it and they did not get back to me.
On the 19/10/2016 the solicitors did
not turn up at court which you were not please about I had tried to add and
index as much documents as I could but could not be sure 100% if I had all the
missing documents.
A new date was set when again you
ordered the solicitors to attend and had also contacted the new company Miss
Ward worked for. Later that day Miss ward contacted me, and we meet to go over
my son’s bundle to check the documents and see if there were
23,
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
any missing documents left that
needed to be added. Miss ward believed I had covered all the documents.
Each time this was in court
after the 26/09/2016 I informed you I was having a great deal of trouble
finding a new solicitor to take this case on due to it being at appeal stage.
On the 19/12/2016 I wrote a letter to you saying I had tried everything and
could not get a new solicitor and asking if the court could help. I got a reply
from you from the court on the 21/12/2016 stating.
Good afternoon
Your emailed was placed before
HHJ Pawlak who replies:
'We cannot help
1. The
Appellants solicitor came off the record at your request not at the direction
of the Court
2. This
is the Appellants appeal and it first came before the Court in January 2016
3. The
Appellant has had long enough to find a solicitor and/or counsel
4. The
Court cannot force a solicitor to act against his will for a client.'
Regards
Susan Sloan Support Services Wood Green
Crown Court Woodall House London N22 5LF 0208-826-4121
Point 1: is incorrect my son did not
ask for his solicitors to be taken of record.
Point 2: I believe is also incorrect as
this was listed before the court on 26/10/2015.
Point 3: I was doing all I could to
find a solicitor and/or counsel. I also cannot force a solicitor and/or counsel
to take an appeal case on and I could not afford to pay for one if I could have
paid for one, I would have done so long ago.
On the 12/01/2017 late in the day as I
did not give up trying to get a new solicitor to take this case on I was given
a number for a company called MK-Law I broke down on the phone to them as they
were the 1st solicitors who even wanted to hear about the case after
I said it was at appeal stage.
They were willing to act as long as
legal aid was put in place. I got an email sent to them on the 13/01/2017 re
transferring legal aid as I believed it was still in place with the old
24,
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
solicitors from what I had been told
by the court. They were also going to need time to get all the bundles and go
over them and meet with my son. I do not have an office or an office printer to
copy all the bundles and I was only sent one copy from the Respondent due to
all the issues with the bundles.
On the 16/01/2017 I know that
MK-Law contacted the court about legal aid.
On the 17/01/2017 the appeal
hearing was due to start and MK-law sent a Barrister to the court to address
the matters of legal aid and ask for an court adjournment so they had time to
get the bundles in order have time to go over them and meet with my son and
deal with the appeal in the correct way how it should be done.
There were issues with legal
aid, and it was said it was granted but the old solicitors were saying it was
revoked Legal aid was of little help as they could only say if it had been
revoked or not.
You refused the court
adjournment and said you would give MK-Law the 17/01/2017 to get updated with
the case and meet my son and get the bundles in order and could not see a
problem with legal aid. And the Appeal would start with them or not on the
18/01/2017. seeing as we did not get out of court until around 13:00 hours
yesterday this was down to half a day to be ready for this appeal hearing on
the 18/01/2017.
How is a new solicitor want to
get involved in a case when they have not even had time to go over it in the
correct way so once again my son has been left with no acting solicitors and is
meant to deal with this on his own? My son has learning problems and health
problems how is he meant to cope with this?
·
Issues from the start of this case from
when it started in 2014
We have never been given any
discloser which has been asked for many times.
The whole case relies on
hearsay.
We know the Met police hold
information on their systems that prove my son never done this and this has
been said many times. This is being covered up.
PNC has information on it that
is incorrect which has been said in the lower court and appeal court many
times.
Statements of police have
information in them that can be proven to be incorrect.
Witness statements being written
and signed for by police.
CAD timelines being incorrect
and so much redaction with them and covering up they have nothing to do with
this case.
The list above is only a few of
the issues yet this was meant to be a fair trial in the lower court and this
appeal.
There are beaches of my son’s
ECHR which both the court and the police have to follow, and this has not been
done in this case.
25,
Letter-to-Judge-18-01-2017.doc
You know my son has health
problems and the stress that is being put on him is not making these health
problems any better he should not be subjected to what has been going on in
this case.
I feel I only have one option
left and that is to take this to judicial review due to what has gone on from
the start of this case to date.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell
26,
simon-police-complaint-13-09-2014.doc
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this down for Simon
Cordell to an incident that happen 12/09/2014 around the Time off around
12:00pm Of concern to all of many factors such as British Standards relevant to
good business practice.
Human Rights, Laws protecting
our community governed by the United Kingdom well as many other relevant
factors. as of date prior explained in this chapter what happened leading up to
events today at address. 109 Burncroft Avenue EN3 7JQ on the 12/09/2014
Mr Simon Cordell was at home making
plans for positive future development in regard to his company and future
proposals as well as relevant documents and data,
To the surprise of a knock on
his front door, this was a surprise because he has no intercom and was
expecting no visitors.
So with this all explained he
was couscous to open the door, as he approached the door with caution of
unexpected visitors he looked into the keyhole on his front door,
He could see it was the police
through his keyhole. He asked them without opening the door what was wanted of
him, they said they needed to talk to him. At this point Mr Simon Cordell
opened his door a little to see what the police wanted to talk to him about,
once the door was opened a little they then said to him that they wanted to
serve some documents on him at which point Mr Simon Cordell replied he was not
willing to accept anything and closed the door.
Upon closing his close he told
the police he was not being rude but he was not willing to accept receipt of
any documents due to him having learning difficulties as noted on the police
national police system and other governing services, which he then heard the
lady police officer say through the closed door I was again looking through the
keyhole watching what the police officers was doing I heard the “ Lady police
office say what should we do to the man police officer said just put it on the
floor in front of the door and he took some letters from the lady police
officer and posted them into my letter box”
The Man police officer posted 4 pages
of papers in Mr Simon Cordell letter box and the lady police officer put a
large blue file on Mr Simon Cordell front doorstep outside.
My son then called me and told
me what had happened but due to a death in the family I was unable to attend
his address until today the 13/09/2014 when I got to Mr Simon Cordell address I
saw the blue folder that the police had left at his front door which was in
plain view of anyone. It had been opened and left opened so anyone could have
looked into it.
I was shocked to see that inside
the document there was full details of Mr Simon Cordell and also other people
names under the data protection act the police should have never left this
folder outside Mr Simon Cordell address which would give anyone access to it.
I am going to the police station
to hand this back to them as it was never served on Mr Simon Cordell and he
will not accept it from the police. I am not sure if any papers are missing
from the folder as I said it was opened on the floor when I got there.
I believe that the police when
Mr Simon Cordell did not accept the documents they should have took them back
with them and arranged for signed delivery or tried to again serve them on Mr
Simon Cordell as the file is far too big to put into a letter box.
This is also a complaint due to
the data protection issues that the police could have avoided by not leaving
the folder on a doorstep that anyone had access to. The folder would have never
fitted in a letter box and I do not feel that the police putting 4 bits of paper
in a letter box is serving
27,
anyone the full paperwork which
should have been done and not just left it on the doorstep for anyone to see
and read and take data out of it if they so wished, this is a beach of the data
protection act.
I have taken pictures of the
folder and I am disgusted that the police could just leave a folder with such
data on a doorstep.
Mr Simon Cordell will not accept
the file or paperwork that was put in his letter box and there for have not be
rightly served.
I would like this issue looked
into and to be informed if there is any paperwork missing from the folder which
have full details and information to Mr Simon Cordell and other people.
Regards
Miss L Cordell
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1.
2.
Mother
18-01-2017 -09-24
18/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1. 2.
Mother 18-01-2017 -09-24
18/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38
--
28,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 18/01/2017 09:24:18
AM
Subject: Re: Updated letter Letter-to-HHJ PAWLAK-18-01-2017.pdf
Property-Receipt-and-cad-information-for-handing-back-documents.pdf
Simon-police-complaint-
Attachments: 13-09-2014.pdf
here is what has been sent as I
missed a few things out.
29,
Letter-to-HHJ PAWLAK-18-01-2017.pdf
18/01/2016
Your Horner HHJ PAWLAK
I am written this letter after
yesterday 17/01/2017 being in court and felt as did 3 other people there is no point
carrying on with this Appeal as you have already made you mind up before even
hearing the Appeal.
This is not the only time you
have brought up the conditions the lower court set Mr Cordell when they granted
the ASBO order on the 04/08/2015 after the full hearing.
We felt you was only worried
about the conditions so in fact had made your mind up there was only issues
with the conditions when in fact you have not even heard the Appeal. So why are
you even talking about the conditions and what you believed where problems with
the conditions that where set by the lower court, before even hearing the
Appeal.
There was more worrying issue
such as my son having a solicitor and an acting barrister for the Appeal
hearing and legal Aid in place for the acting solicitors.
Your Horner knew after the last
solicitor was removed from record by yourself on the 21/09/2016 when we had
notified the court we were going to be late to court by 5 or 10 minutes due to
traffic, by the time we got to court you had already removed the solicitors
while we were not there from record.
We were told this by the acting
barrister the solicitor had sent who waited at court till we got there to
inform us you had granted their application they could be removed from record.
We were told by the barrister to
wait at court that you would call us into court to talk to us which we did and
was called into court around 16:00 hours as you were dealing with other trial.
On being called into court you
were told by the Respondent Barrister this was not the only time the solicitors
had put an application to be removed from record this had been done on the
19/02/2016 again just before the trial was due to start on the 22/02/2016 and
had been dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison sitting that day and notes put
by His Honour Judge Morrison, If any attempt is made to repeat this application
the Court will require it to be made in person by the Senior Partner of Michael
Carroll & Co. You said you could not force a solicitor to act against their
will, but no acting Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co was in court.
We at this point we asked for an
adjournment of the 3 day Appeal hearing that was due to start on the 26/09/2016
to get a new solicitor put in place which you refused to do and stated my son
could do this himself, there was great concern with this due to my son’s
learning problems not being able to read and write and health problems which
you was aware of.
In fact my son could not even
attend court due to this on the 26/09/2016 due to what this had done to him and
made him so ill I had to write a letter to yourself which on the 26/09/2016 had
to be addressed by you.
1
30,
Letter-to-HHJ
PAWLAK-18-01-2017.pdf
At that hearing I told you I had
spent days calling solicitors trying to get one put in place and no one would
take the case on due to this being at appeal stage and how much legal Aid paid
for appeal hearings and I was being told we would have to pay private to get a
solicitor so my son could have a barrister put in place for the appeal hearing
to act for him, you said due to the letter I had written you had 3 option open
to you and believed this would go to judicial review.
1. Carry
on with the Appeal hearing in the hope my son would turn up the next day
27/09/2016.
2. Dismiss
the Appeal.
3. Adjourn
the Appeal to a later date.
You choose to adjourn the Appeal
to a later date to start on the 16/01/2017 and said for us to get a solicitor
which you said you would help with and make sure legal aid was in place.
Issues were also raised about
the bundles we were working from which were old Respondent bundles and files
being missing. (It was not wonder the solicitors wanted to dismiss themselves)
We had worked that out when waiting to be called into court with the Respondent
barrister. You order that the solicitor hand the bundles over to us that day.
And set a date for us to come back to court to check we were all working from
the same bundles. I believe this date was the 14/10/2016.
Upon getting the bundles from
the solicitors it was noted that my own son’s bundle had not been updated since
Dec 2015. I tried to add the documents that were missing myself and make new
indexes up but knew there were still missing documents. It was also noticed
that the Respondent bundles we were working from there was around 13 missing
statements we had never seen before all dated before the full hearing on the
03/08/2015 and 04/08/2015 at the lower court that we had never seen before.
On the 14/10/2016 you were
informed of this and ordered the solicitors to attend court I believe this date
was for the 19/10/2016 the Appeal hearing date was also changed to start on the
17/01/2017 for 3 days.
Again you were told the problems
I was having trying to get a new solicitor to take this case on.
I tried again to contact the
solicitors to work out what was missing so I could add it and they did not get
back to me.
On the 19/10/2016 the solicitors
did not turn up at court which you were not please about I had tried to add and
index as much documents as I could but could not be sure 100% if I had all the
missing documents.
2
31,
Letter-to-HHJ
PAWLAK-18-01-2017.pdf
A new date was set when again you
ordered the solicitors to attend and had also contacted the new company Miss
Ward worked for. Later that day Miss ward contacted me, and we meet to go over
my son’s bundle to check the documents and see if there were any missing
documents left that needed to be added. Miss ward believed I had covered all
the documents.
Each time this was in court
after the 26/09/2016 I informed you I was having a great deal of trouble
finding a new solicitor to take this case on due to it being at appeal stage.
On the 19/12/2016 I wrote a letter to you saying I had tried everything and
could not get a new solicitor and asking if the court could help. I got a reply
from you from the court on the 21/12/2016 stating.
Good afternoon
Your emailed was placed before
HHJ Pawlak who replies:
'We cannot help
1. The
Appellants solicitor came off the record at your request not at the direction
of the Court
2. This
is the Appellants appeal and it first came before the Court in January 2016
3. The
Appellant has had long enough to find a solicitor and/or counsel
4. The
Court cannot force a solicitor to act against his will for a client.'
Regards
Susan Sloan Support Services
Wood Green Crown Court Woodall House London N22 5LF 0208-826-4121
Point 1: is incorrect my son did
not ask for his solicitors to be taken of record.
Point 2: I believe is also
incorrect as this was listed before the court on 26/10/2015.
Point 3: I was doing all I could
to find a solicitor and/or counsel. I also cannot force a solicitor and/or
counsel to take an appeal case on and I could not afford to pay for one if I
could have paid for one, I would have done so long ago.
On the 12/01/2017 late in the
day as I did not give up trying to get a new solicitor to take this case on I
was given a number for a company called MK-Law I broke down on the phone to
them as they were the 1st solicitors who even wanted to hear about the case
after I said it was at appeal stage.
They were willing to act as long
as legal aid was put in place. I got an email sent to them on the 13/01/2017 re
transferring legal aid as I believed it was still in place with
3
32,
Letter-to-HHJ
PAWLAK-18-01-2017.pdf
the old solicitors from what I
had been told by the court. They were also going to need time to get all the
bundles and go over them and meet with my son. I do not have an office or an
office printer to copy all the bundles and I was only sent one copy from the
Respondent due to all the issues with the bundles.
On the 16/01/2017 I know that
MK-Law contacted the court about legal aid.
On the 17/01/2017 the appeal
hearing was due to start and MK-law sent a Barrister to the court to address
the matters of legal aid and ask for an court adjournment so they had time to
get the bundles in order have time to go over them and meet with my son and
deal with the appeal in the correct way how it should be done.
There were issues with legal
aid, and it was said it was granted but the old solicitors were saying it was
revoked Legal aid was of little help as they could not say if it had been
revoked or not.
You refused the court
adjournment and said you would give MK-Law the 17/01/2017 to get updated with
the case and meet my son and get the bundles in order and could not see a
problem with legal aid. And the Appeal would start with them or not on the
18/01/2017. Seeing as we did not get out of court until around 13:00 hours
yesterday this was down to half a day to be ready for this appeal hearing on
the 18/01/2017.
How is a new solicitor want to
get involved in a case when they have not even had time to go over it in the
correct way so once again my son has been left with no acting solicitors and is
meant to deal with this on his own? My son has learning problems and health problems
how is he meant to cope with this?
• Issues from the start of this
case from when it started in 2014
We have never been given any
discloser which has been asked for many times.
The whole case relies on
hearsay.
We know the Met police hold
information on their systems that prove my son never done this and this has
been said many times. This is being covered up.
PNC has information on it that
is incorrect which has been said in the lower court and appeal court many
times.
Statements of police have
information in them that can be proven to be incorrect. Witness statements
being written and signed for by police.
CAD timelines being incorrect
and so much redaction with them and covering up they have nothing to do with this
case.
The list above is only a few of
the issues yet this was meant to be a fair trial in the lower court and this
appeal.
There are beaches of my son’s
ECHR which both the court and the police have to follow, and this has not been
done in this case.
You know my son has health
problems and the stress that is being put on him is not making these health
problems any better he should not be subjected to what has been going on in
this case.
4
33,
I feel I only have one option left and
that is to take this to judicial review due to what has gone on from the start
of this case to date. And therefore ask for a stay until this has been
addressed.
At application will be put in under
public funding for all court hearing transcripts for this case which I hope
will be granted by the judges who have heard parts of this case and the issues
in this case.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell
5
34,
35,
36,
99]
37,
simon-police-complaint-13-09-2014.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this down for Simon
Cordell to an incident that happen 12/09/2014 around the Time off around
12:00pm Of concern to all of many factors such as British Standards relevant to
good business practice.
Human Rights, Laws protecting
our community governed by the United Kingdom well as many other relevant
factors. as of date prior explained in this chapter what happened leading up to
events today at address. 109 Burncroft Avenue EN3 7JQ on the 12/09/2014
Mr Simon Cordell was at home
making plans for positive future development in regard to his company and
future proposals as well as relevant documents and data,
To the surprise of a knock on
his front door, this was a surprise because he has no intercom and was
expecting no visitors.
So with this all explained he
was couscous to open the door, as he approached the door with caution of
unexpected visitors he looked into the keyhole on his front door,
He could see it was the police
through his keyhole. He asked them without opening the door what was wanted of
him, they said they needed to talk to him. At this point Mr Simon Cordell
opened his door a little to see what the police wanted to talk to him about,
once the door was opened a little they then said to him that they wanted to
serve some documents on him at which point Mr Simon Cordell replied he was not
willing to accept anything and closed the door.
Upon closing his close he told
the police he was not being rude but he was not willing to accept receipt of
any documents due to him having learning difficulties as noted on the police
national police system and other governing services, which he then heard the
lady police officer say through the closed door I was again looking through the
keyhole watching what the police officers was doing I heard the “ Lady police
office say what should we do to the man police officer said just put it on the
floor in front of the door and he took some letters from the lady police
officer and posted them into my letter box”
The Man police officer posted 4
pages of papers in Mr Simon Cordell letter box and the lady police officer put
a large blue file on Mr Simon Cordell front doorstep outside.
My son then called me and told
me what had happened but due to a death in the family I was unable to attend
his address until today the 13/09/2014 when I got to Mr Simon Cordell address I
saw the blue folder that the police had left at his front door which was in plain
view of anyone. It had been opened and left opened so anyone could have looked
into it.
I was shocked to see that inside
the document there was full details of Mr Simon Cordell and also other people
names under the data protection act the police should have never left this
folder outside Mr Simon Cordell address which would give anyone access to it.
I am going to the police station
to hand this back to them as it was never served on Mr Simon Cordell and he
will not accept it from the police. I am not sure if any papers are missing
from the folder as I said it was opened on the floor when I got there.
I believe that the police when
Mr Simon Cordell did not accept the documents they should have took them back
with them and arranged for signed delivery or tried to again serve them on Mr
Simon Cordell as the file is far too big to put into a letter box.
This is also a complaint due to
the data protection issues that the police could have avoided by not leaving
the folder on a doorstep that anyone had access to. The folder would have never
fitted in a letter box and I do not feel that the police putting 4 bits of
paper in a letter box is serving anyone the full paper work which should have
been done and not just left it on the door step for anyone to see and read and
take data out of it if they so wished, this is a beach of the data protection
act.
38,
I have taken pictures of the
folder and I am disgusted that the police could just leave a folder with such
data on a doorstep.
Mr Simon Cordell will not accept
the file or paperwork that was put in his letter box and there for have not be
rightly served.
I would like this issue looked
into and to be informed if there is any paperwork missing from the folder which
have full details and information to Mr Simon Cordell and other people.
Regards
Miss L Cordell
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth the laminator -1-4014 21-01-2017 11-08
04/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 39
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
Too Smooth the laminator -1-4014
21-01-2017 11-08
04/01/2017
/ Page Numbers: 39
--
39,
This message has been sent
through Gumtree mail, which keeps your email address private. We recommend that
you always reply this way and be wary of anyone asking you to use their private
email addresses. If there is anything about the message that you think is
suspicious, do not reply and report it to the Gumtree team. We will get back to
you asap.
From: Gray
via Gumtree Mail <Seller.2w7o2y8l2p20s@reply.gumtree.com>
Sent time:
21/01/2017 11:08:09 AM
Subject: Re:
Simon replied to your ad: Easy mount 720mm cold roll laminator with stand
Hi Simon,
Thanks for getting in touch.
The laminator sold on eBay
yesterday for Ł395 (pending payment)
If that falls through, I will
email you if you'd like to purchase it.
Regards
Gray
This message will self-destruct
in T-minus 3.14r seconds
On 21 Jan 2017, at 00:34, Simon
via Gumtree Mail <Buyer. 1 sgplqhoxms68@reply. gumtree.com>
wrote:
Dear Gray,
You have received a reply to
your ad: Easy mount 720mm cold roll laminator with stand" posted
in Other Office Equipment for Sale in "Bordon" .
From: Simon
Hello, I was just wondering if
you still have the cold roll laminator with stand for sale and if you would be
so kind to email such information.
Many Regards Simon
This message has been sent
through Gumtree mail, which keeps your email address private. We recommend that
you always reply via Gumtree messenger instead of private email addresses. If
there is anything about the message that you think is suspicious, do not reply
and make sure to report it to us. We want to look out for you, so we look into
all reports and get back to you asap.
To make sure you have the best
experience with us, here are a few top safety tips when buying and selling on
Gumtree:
·
Try to meet face to face to have a look
at the item you are buying and check the payment you are receiving
·
If you can't meet face to face use the
PayPal 'Pay for goods and services' option to transfer money. This is covered
by PayPal's Buyer Protection scheme.
·
Never click on links sent in an email
or to login to Gumtree. These could be fraudulent so we always recommend to
avoid - you should always access your account via the Gumtree homepage
·
Always check out our Stay Safe pages
for more tips and latest safety info
From
The Gumtree Team
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
- 01-02-2017 04-16
01/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 40
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1. 2.
Too Smooth - 01-02-2017 04-16
01/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 40
--
40,
From: C Panel for too smooth on toosmooth.co.uk <cpanel@toosmooth.co.uk>
Sent time: 01/02/2017 04:16:16
AM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: [toosmooth.co.uk]
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is about to exceed its bandwidth limit (6.16 GB/6.84
GB)
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached 90% of its bandwidth limit (6.16 GB/6.84 GB).
·
Average bandwidth used per day: 203.41
MB
·
Projected monthly bandwidth usage: 6.16
GB
At the current rate of usage:
• The account “too smooth” with
primary domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is not expected to exceed their bandwidth
limit.
The system generated this notice
on Wednesday, February 1,2017 at 4:16:15 AM UTC.
You can disable the “Bandwidth
Limits” type of notification through the cPanel interface: https://fiorano.websitewelcome.com:2083/frontend/x3/contact/index.html
Do not reply to this automated
message.
CP
Copyright© 2017 cPanel, Inc.
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Re Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell02/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 41,42,43,44,45,46,47
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi Re Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell02/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 41,42,43,44,45,46,47
--
41,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: 2nd
Letter to Simon Cordell, 31.1.17.pdf
Letter to Mr Simon Cordell, 28.11.16.docx
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to
Mr Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of
my letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations of
anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020
8379 5354
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual
and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
42,
43,
44,
45,
46,
47,
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Sarah
Fletcher Copy of letter sent to Mr Simon Cordell
02/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 48,49,50
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Sarah Fletcher Copy of letter
sent to Mr Simon Cordell
02/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 48,49,50
--
48,
From: Sarah Fletcher <Sarah.Fletcher@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
February 2017 13:08
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Subject:
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Copy of letter sent to Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL:
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE]
Attachments: Access
letter for 109 Burncroft Avenue.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of a
letter hand delivered to Mr Simon Cordell at 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield,
Middlesex EN3 7JQ yesterday regarding access to investigate low water pressure
issue in the block.
Kind regards,
Sarah Fletcher
Neighbourhood Officer
Neighbourhood Team 2 Edmonton Centre 36-44 South Mall
Telephone: 0800
40 80 160
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering services and building strong
communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
- PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential
and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
49,
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL Copy of
letter sent to Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL: PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
CORRESPONDENCE]
Access letter for 109 Burncroft
Avenue
ENFIELD
Council
Council Housing the Edmonton
Centre 35-44 South Mall Edmonton Green N9 OTN 0800 ,40 80 160
Date: 1st
February 2017
Dear Mr Cordell
Re: Loss of water pressure/supply to
neighbouring property Letter Hand Delivered
I called today in response to a
report of loss of water pressure/supply into a flat and/or area above your
property.
We urgently need to gain access
into your property within the next 24
hours. We need to establish the source of the loss of water pressure/supply to
the flat/area above, and which we believe may be emanating from your property.
What you must do:
Please contact the Repairs team
in Customer Services on 0800 40 80 160 or 020 8379 1000 by 5.00pm Thursday 2nd
February 2017 to make an appointment for our Contractor/Surveyor to inspect
your property. Please quote reference no. 1772024/1.
Please be aware that in
accordance with your tenancy agreement you will be liable for any damage caused
by you or from your property to other properties, personal property or to the
fabric of the building.
You will also be liable for our
reasonable costs in dealing with this matter. EMERGENCY ACCESS
If we are unable to agree an
appointment with you within the timescales we set and to prevent any further
damage to neighbouring properties, to the block or to personal property* we
reserve the right to gain emergency access to your property,
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver Street
Phone: 0800
40 80 160
Enfield EN1 3XY
Website: www.enfield.aov.uk
If you need this document in
another language or format call Customer Services on 0800 40 80 160, or email
Simon Cordellcouncil.housing@enfield.gov.uk
109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield
Middlesex
EN37JQ
50,
ENFIELD
Council
which may involve a locksmith.
You will be responsible for all of our reasonable costs if this action is
required.
Please take immediate steps now
to avoid further action and charges being incurred and to resolve the water
pressure/supply issues as speedily as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Sarah Fletcher Neighbourhood
Officer
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
Phone: 0800
40 80 160
Website: www.enfield.Gov.uk
If you need this document in
another language or format call Customer Services on 0800 40 80 160, or email
council.housing@enfield.gov.uk
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
731.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] (2) 1. 7 Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov Behaviour
Allegations against Mr
06/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 51,52
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
731. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
(2) 1. 7 Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov Behaviour Allegations against Mr
06/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 51,52
--
51,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:56
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] (10.0 KB)
[Campaign]
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
52,
Read: Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]->
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
From: Lemmy Nwabuisi [Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:55:40
Subject: Read: Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr
Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Your message
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Daniel Ellis
Sally Mc Ternan
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Sent:
06/02/2017 13:32
was read on
06/02/2017 13:55
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy
Nwabuisi FW Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
08/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi FW Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
08/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61
--
53,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 08
February 2017 16:56
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Incident
Diary.doc
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thank you for your email.
We have made enquiries with the Repairs
Team and our contractors and they have advised that they did not send a
contractor to 109 Burncroft Avenue this morning. We do not know who knocked on
Mr Cordell's door and I can confirm that no Council official went to his flat
at 8am this morning. Could you please provide the vehicle registration number
to enable us to take up the matter with the police to try and identify who this
person is.
I have also attached an anti-social
behaviour incident diary for Mr Cordell to log any further incidences of noise
disturbances and anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He should please
return completed logs to me by 23 February 2017. You also mentioned that you
are keeping a full history of what has been going on, could you please forward
a copy to me so that I can investigate accordingly.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 08
February 2017 10:38
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Sarah Fletcher
Sally Mc Ternan
Daniel Ellis
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
Just an update email that I
wanted to put to you today as it is very worrying, this morning at around 08:00
my son Mr Cordell's door knocked he was not expecting anyone, but went and
shouted who was it without opening his door. the male replied I am from the
council about the water, my son was not expecting anyone from the council and
something did not feel right to my son and he asked the person to wait, he then
made a call to the council to be told no one had been sent to his address by
them, after the call to the council the male was not at his door, but my son
heard people talking, one was his neighbour, just after this the male who came
to my son's door went out of the block and got into a car which my son has got
the registration for.
He does know which neighbour the
person was talking to as I do. But at this time he feels too unsafe to give the
person's door number.
Why should my son be made to
feel so unsafe in his own home, please tell me why someone would come to my
son's door and say they were the council?
This is getting way too much
now, and Enfield Council needs to do something about it before my son gets
hurt.
54,
My son is lucky he does not open
the door to people and calls before opening his door to see who it is and does
not go outside his flat as I feel something would have already happened to him.
And yes, we are keeping full
history of what has been ongoing.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07
February 2017 17:02
To: 'Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
Thank you for the reply to my email and
I look forward to getting the information by the 10/02/2017, I know that Dionne
Grant is now dealing with the subject access request as Concetta who was
dealing with it has had to take some leave.
Mr Cordell has not been up to his
neighbours at 117 in fact he has only tried to help in the last few weeks by
allowing people into his home due to the low water pressure. (Which I will
state has nothing to do with my son flat)
The other day also another neighbour
got around 7 of his friends to come and intimidate and harass my son for no
apparent reason.
We will be asking for evidence which
substantiates your allegations as to what the neighbours are stating in their
complaints.
As clearly it seems from your below
email as if you in fact believe what 117 is saying before even having addressed
the issues. Does this mean you have seen evidence which substantiates 117
complaints?
Due to the complaints and how they have
been set out this should be a matter for the police and my son should have been
arrested.
Mr Cordell has been arrested and
dismissed for some of accusation that you have wrote in your letters, So I hope
there is evidence which substantiates these allegations.
We just need to see if any of the other
complaint has been addressed by the police.
In fact my son has put a lot of
complaints about his neighbours into the police himself, which also seem to
never get addressed by police just like they never get addressed by Enfield
Council, yet the neighbours’ complaints always get followed up instantly, I
wonder why?
You have not again said what you will
be doing about no flooring on the 2 flats above my son. Is anything ever going
to be done or does he need to live being tormented, intimidate, and harassed by
the neighbours with nothing being done by Enfield Council every day he lives
there?
It is not Mr Cordell harassing his
neighbours it is the neighbours tormenting, intimidate and harassing him and
Enfield Council is doing nothing about, it is starting to seem like a witch
hunt until they and Enfield Council get him out of his flat.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 07
February 2017 14:09
To: Lorraine Cordell
55,
Cc: Sarah Fletcher
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thank you for your email.
I will put the complaints in the format
you have requested and emailed same to you by Friday 10 February 2017 and a
copy will be sent to Mr Cordell's address. I will also schedule another
appointment as we need to discuss these allegations with Mr Cordell.
In the meant time, we are continuing to
receive reports from the residents of 117 Burncroft Avenue that Mr Cordell is
coming up to their front door to shout abuse and threaten them. Could you
please ask Mr Cordell to refrain from doing this. He should contact his
neighbourhood officer, the Anti-Social Behaviour Team, or the Enfield Council
noise team if he has any complaints about noise disturbances or any other type
of anti-social behaviour against his neighbours instead of confronting them. If
the behaviour persists then the council will have no option but to take out an
injunction against him to stop him from harassing his neighbours.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Sally Mc Ternan
Subject:
RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email to say
you have stated in your last letter the subject access request has been dealt
with, but we are still waiting for the data.
I have asked for the dates these
complaints were put in and yet have had nothing about the dates and times.
Could you please forward me a
list of dates and times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order
like this so we know if more complaints have been put in by one person.
·
Complaint from A on date and Time: Body
of complaint from A.
·
Complaint from B on date and Time: Body
of complaint from B.
·
Complaint from C on date and time: Body
of complaint from C
And it can carry on like this
until all complaints are listed. As at this time you have just listed
complaints, and failed to supply
56,
any other information.
If I can get this back today, I
would be most grateful, as it has been asked for before.
Also we have said this before
more than once on calls and emails, the person's living at 113 and 117 I
believe which is the 2 people living on top of my son, 113 has since he moved
in no carpet put down and also his floor broads needs fixing, 117 which is the
top floor has laid wooden flooring, due to the way these flats have no sound
proofing in between floors and only wooden flooring due to how they were built,
we were thinking this would have already been addressed and has not and the
neighbours have been allowed to
keep the flooring the way it is, my son can hear everything and only feels
nothing has been done as Enfield Council wants my son health to get worse and
also to make him suffer.
As for the date of the
09/02/2017 as stated before until we have had all dates and times and body of
complaints and the subject access request, I still do not feel it is justified
my son has a meeting as he will be walking into a meeting only with very
limited information, and due to his health which is being caused by his
neighbours and Enfield Council doing nothing I feel my son is only being setup
due to issues and the colour of my son's skin. And this is why no one from
Enfield council has ever taken a report from him about what has been ongoing
form a long time ago.
We want to clear this up as much
as you do, but it seems Enfield Council is not fulfilling what we have asked
for in order to be able to do this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to
Mr Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of
my letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations of
anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379
5354
57,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
58,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
59,
60,
61,
12856 12.7.12
SE NOTE -UNSIGNED/ INCOMPLETE
LOGS WILL BE RETURNED FOR COMPLETION
13.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
745.
x2 Lemmy Nwabuisi _Re_ Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (3)
08/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
745. x2 Lemmy Nwabuisi _Re_
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
_ (3)
08/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70
--
62,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 08
February 2017 16:56
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Incident
Diary.doc
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thank you for your email.
We have made enquiries with the Repairs
Team and our contractors and they have advised that they did not send a
contractor to 109 Burncroft Avenue this morning. We do not know who knocked on
Mr Cordell's door and I can confirm that no Council official went to his flat
at 8am this morning. Could you please provide the vehicle registration number
to enable us to take up the matter with the police to try and identify who this
person is.
I have also attached an anti-social
behaviour incident diary for Mr Cordell to log any further incidences of noise
disturbances and anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He should please
return completed logs to me by 23 February 2017. You also mentioned that you
are keeping a full history of what has been going on, could you please forward
a copy to me so that I can investigate accordingly.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 08
February 2017 10:38
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Sarah Fletcher
Sally Mc Ternan
Daniel Ellis
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
Just an update email that I
wanted to put to you today as it is very worrying, this morning at around 08:00
my son Mr Cordell's door knocked he was not expecting anyone, but went and
shouted who was it without opening his door. the male replied I am from the council
about the water, my son was not expecting anyone from the council and something
did not feel right to my son and he asked the person to wait, he then made a
call to the council to be told no one had been sent to his address by them,
after the call to the council the male was not at his door, but my son heard
people talking, one was his neighbour, just after this the male who came to my
son's door went out of the block and got into a car which my son has got the
registration for.
He does know which neighbour the
person was talking to as I do. But at this time he feels too unsafe to give the
person's door number.
Why should my son be made to feel
so unsafe in his own home, please tell me why someone would come to my son's
door and say they were the council?
63,
Same as Above!
64,
Same as Above!
65,66,67,68,69,70,
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1.
2.
Mother
Bit Coins 09-02-2017 --03-17
09/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 71,72
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1. 2.
Mother Bit Coins 09-02-2017
--03-17
09/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 71,72
--
71,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 09/02/2017
03:17:53 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
see docs not sure let me know
Attachments:
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Passport-Police.pdf
Here see attached licence and
passport
I am not sure what to do here
maybe you just have to attach your ID Simon I no good with bit coins mum
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 09
February 2017 12:06
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Can
u please take a look
I need to sign up to this for bitcoins
and need to send my id can you please help as you have the only copy
Password is:
A
Account details are:
re_wired@ymail.com
web site URL is: https://spectrocoin.com
Get free bitcoin wallet
Bitcoin exchange, bitcoin wallet
and bitcoin debit card. Buy and sell bitcoins anywhere
Instructions once logged in : https://spectrocoin.com/en/how-to-buy-bitcoin.html
I would be grateful if you can help me thanks Si
72,
Driving Licence!
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1.
1
Lemmy
NWABUISI @enfielviour Allegations against Mr S
16/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 73,74,75,76,77,78
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1. 1
Lemmy NWABUISI @enfielviour
Allegations against Mr S
16/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 73,74,75,76,77,78
--
73,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 16
February 2017 14:13
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: 3rd Letter to Mr Cordell, 16.2.17.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of a letter
inviting Mr Simon Cordell to meet with me at 2.30pm on Wednesday 22nd
February 2017 to discuss the allegations made against him by some of his
neighbours.
The original copy of the letter will be
hand delivered to his home address today.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
Sent: 10
February 2017 16:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see below as requested the
details of recent allegations made against Mr Simon Cordell. I have listed the
complainants as Complainant A, B and C.
1. On 6th
August 2016 Complainant A reported that Simon Cordell, his neighbour at flat
109 is threatening him and his wife and aggressively demanding money from him.
He alleged that Mr Cordell called his wife 'a bitch' and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat. He also alleged that in July 2016, someone
used a knife to puncture his tyres, all 4 of them, that he believes that the
tyres were slashed by Simon, that although he did not see Simon do it but he
was quite certain that it was him. He also alleged that Mr Cordell damaged the
lock to his electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no
electricity.
2. On 5th
October 2016 Complainant B reported that Mr Cordell has been harassing him for
a while in relation to alleged noise disturbances from his flat. He alleged
that the previous day on 4/10/16, Simon was banging on his ceiling and later
came upstairs and started kicking his door and shouting aggressively. He
alleged that Simon then went downstairs dragged his motorbike from where he
parked it and started smashing it up. He then called the police. He also stated
that Mr Cordell had previously slashed his motorbike tyres with a knife, that
he did not report it as he did not see him do it.
3. On
31st October 2016 telephone call received from another resident on behalf of
Complainant C. He alleged that
74,
Complainant C's neighbour, Simon was using
threatening, abusive, and insulting words towards Complainant C. He stated that
he witnessed an incident that happened in September 2016 outside the block when
Simon shouted abuse at Complainant C and made threats towards him.
4. On 4th
November 2016 met with Complainant C to discuss his concerns following the
report from another resident. He stated the first incident happened sometime in
July 2016, that he cannot remember the exact date. He alleged that he was
approached by Mr Cordell as he came out of his front door and he started
shouting abuse at him and threatened to burn down his flat. He alleged that the
second incident happened in September 2016. He stated that he was on his way to
meet a friend when Mr Cordell came at him 'ranting and raving' and said to him
'I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk'. He stated that two
other neighbours witnessed the incident and that one of them told Mr Cordell to
leave him alone. Complainant C also complained that Mr Cordell have installed a
CCTV on the internal communal door and that he believes that he is monitoring
his every move. He asked that the camera be removed as it is making him to feel
very nervous, vulnerable, and uncomfortable and is an invasion of his privacy.
5. On
11th November 2016 the Neighbourhood Officer met with Complainant A to discuss
his allegations against Mr Cordell. He stated that some of the recent incidents
happened on 6/8/16 at 6pm, 27/9/16 at 11.45pm and 28/9/16 at 5.30pm. He stated
that the incidents include, threatening behaviour, intimidation, and
aggressively demanding money. He alleged that Mr Cordell has physically
threatened him in the past with a piece of wood. He also alleged that Mr
Cordell has a big dog that always barks when someone comes into the block. He complained
that Mr Cordell has a camera in the internal communal door facing the main
entrance door to the block. He stated that he believes that Mr Cordell is using
the camera to monitor when people come in or out of the block and that it makes
him very uncomfortable and requested for the camera to be removed.
6. On
8/12/16 Complainant A reported that Mr Cordell came and banged on his front
door, shouted abuse, and threats at him and accused him of making noise.
7. On 12/1/16
Complainant B reported that on 11/12/16, Mr Cordell came and banged on his
front door on three different occasions and accused him of banging on the
pipes. He alleged that he also shouted abuse and threats at him.
8. On
14/12/16 Complainant C reported that one of his neighbours visited him and as
she rang his doorbell Mr Cordell came out of his flat and started shouting
abuse at her. He also alleged that Mr Cordell shouted that he would take some
action when his ASBO expires.
9. On
23/12/16 Complainant A reported that his wife was at home alone with their
child between 3.45pm when Mr Cordell came and knocked on his front door,
started to shout abuse and asked his wife to go in the bathroom and turn off
the tap. He also alleged that Mr Cordell later removed his electricity fuse
thereby cutting their power supply.
10. On
10/1/17 Complainant A telephoned to report that on 26/12/16 at about 12 to 1pm
he was going out with his family when Mr Cordell ran up the stairs with a towel
round his waist and started shouting abuse and threats at him and his wife. He
alleged that Mr Cordell accused him of tampering with his water supply and
tried to stop them from leaving the block. He also stated that on 3/1/17 at
10.47pm, he was coming back from a family outing and as soon as they entered
the block, Mr Cordell came out of his flat and started shouting abuse and
threats at him.
11. On
23/1/17 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 6.24pm on 21/1/17.
He alleged that his wife was at home with their child when Mr Cordell come and
started banging on his front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused them
of making noise.
12. On 1st
February 2017 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 5.10pm on
31/1/17. He alleged that his wife was alone with his child at home when Mr
Cordell came and banged on his door and started shouting abuse and threats and
accused them of banging on the floor.
13. I will
write to Mr Cordell next week to arrange for him to meet with me and another
colleague at the Civic Centre to discuss the allegations made against him.
75,
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Sally Mc Ternan
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email to say you have
stated in your last letter the subject access request has been dealt with, but
we are still waiting for the data.
I have asked for the dates these
complaints were put in and yet have had nothing about the dates and times.
Could you please forward me a list of
dates and times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order like
this so we know if more complaints have been put in by one person.
·
Complaint from A on date and Time: Body
of complaint from A.
·
Complaint from B on date and Time: Body
of complaint from B.
·
Complaint from C on date and time: Body
of complaint from C
And it can carry on like this until all
complaints are listed. As at this time you have just listed complaints and
failed to supply any other information.
If I can get this back today, I would
be most grateful, as it has been asked for before.
Also we have said this before more than
once on calls and emails, the person's living at 113 and 117 I believe which is
the 2 people living on top of my son, 113 has since he moved in no carpet put
down and also his floor broads needs fixing, 117 which is the top floor has
laid wooden flooring, due to the way these flats have no sound proofing in
between floors and only wooden flooring due to how they were built, we were
thinking this would have already been addressed and has not and the
neighbours have been allowed to keep
the flooring the way it is, my son can hear everything and only feels nothing
has been done as Enfield Council wants my son health to get worse and also to
make him suffer.
As for the date of the 09/02/2017 as
stated before until we have had all dates and times and body of complaints and
the subject access request, I still do not feel it is justified my son has a
meeting as he will be walking into a meeting only with very limited
information, and due to his health which is being caused by his neighbours and
Enfield Council doing nothing I feel my son is only being setup due to issues
and the colour of my son's skin. And this is why no one from Enfield council
has ever taken a report from him about what has been ongoing form a long time
ago.
We want to clear this up as much as you
do, but it seems Enfield Council is not fulfilling what we have asked for in
order to be able to do this.
Regards
76,
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr
Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of
my letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations of
anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020
8379 5354
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
77,
privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
78,
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
Color GATE -1-20719 22-02-2017 14-34
22/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 79,80
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-20719
22-02-2017 14-34
22/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 79,80
--
79,
From: customerservice@colorgate.com
Sent time:
22/02/2017 02:34:28 PM
To: Simon
Cordell <re_wired@ymail.com>
Cc: stephanie.brown@colorgate.com
Subject: [RE:]
Contact – Color GATE
Dear Simon,
thanks for your email and your
interest in our RIP-Software.
My colleague, Stephanie Brown,
takes care about your request.
Kind regards
Jennifer Wecke Customer Service
Flexibility, performance and
Color Management - All highlights of Version 10 https://www.colorgate.com/version-10-highlights/
10th GENERATION
Rapid Spectro Cube - an
extremely fast Color measurement and profiling system https://www.colorgate.com/rapid-spectro-cube-rsc/
Color GATE Digital Output
Solutions
Ph: +49
511 942 93 0
Fax: +49
511 942 93 40
Email: jennifer.wecke@colorgate.com
Thank you for visiting: www.ColorGate.com
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ColorGATE
Hannover - HRB 56616 VAT-No.: DE
190 902156 /Managing Director:
Thomas Kirschner
80,
Simon Cordell re wired@ymail.com
am: 20.02.2017 15:20:29
Contact: Color GATE
Color GATE GmbH contactform-processors@colorgate.com
Company TS Enterprise Salutation
Mr.
First name Simon
Name Cordell
Department Print Service
Provider (PSP)
Country UK Email re_wired@ymail.com
RIP Software PS
17.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-26350 23-02-2017 14-29
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 81
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-26350
23-02-2017 14-29
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 81
--
81,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/02/2017
02:28:49 PM
To:
Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Subject: Re: Re
software
OK thank you, but I feel as if
you have yet to answer my questions, is there a trial version available to the
general public so that any person can test the software before purchasing it
and is there a discount for the use of ps10 for educational purposes.
Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
On Thursday, 23 February 2017,
14:20, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
I will put you in touch with a
reseller of our software. Jan Edgecombe sells P10 and can provide you with a
quote for a product best suited to your needs.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:57
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re
software
Dear Stephanie
I am grateful for your offer in
relation towards the courses that Colgate supply I am however reluctant and
have to decline. I have however spent much time in studying the management and
development of icc profiles and the nesting of images and no I have learnt a
fair understanding so to understand what I need to no "to get around"
and therefore believe with the support available that is online that I will be
able to achieve the basics I need within in using Colgate software's, so to
manage my goals set, this is to say that one day I may take one of the courses
available if I find any hardship. please if possible, can you answer my last
questions emailed to yourself s in the past email.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-4816 23-02-2017 13-39
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 82,83
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-4816
23-02-2017 13-39
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 82,83
--
82,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/02/2017
01:39:21 PM
To:
Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Subject: Re:
Color GATE - Contact request - TS Enterprise
On Thursday, 23 February 2017,
13:23, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
It might be an idea for you to
attend this course - follow link. There are only three remaining places. This
will give you an excellent overview of what our products offer.
workshop
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:13
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re:
Color GATE - Contact request - TS Enterprise
Hello I hope all is well for
you, I am interested in a trial version of your software ps10 as I would like
to be able to test it, so to be able to provide the best of quality prints on
media such as canvas and high quality paper this is to be inclusive of adhesive
vinyl, this is for car warping and such activity's.
I am soon to be a starting
company but am not yet, in the printing industry that is to say. I have
obtained two printers fully re serviced there makes and models are canon w8400
d and a canon w8400 PGI am also questioning whether you provide a discount with
the ps10 software when purchased for educational purposes and if so, what would
the price be.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017,
15:51, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@coloraate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
Thank you for your interest in
our Color GATE products. How can I be of assistance?
Best regards Stephanie
Flexibility, performance and
Color Management - All highlights of Version 10 https://www.coloraate.com/version-10-hiahliahts/
10th GENERATION
Rapid Spectro Cube - an
extremely fast Color measurement and profiling system https://www.colorgate.com/rapid-spectro-cube-rsc/
83,
RAPID “SPECTRO CUBE
Color GATE
Stephanie Brown Strategic
Account Manager
Mobile: +44
(0) 7778 146387
Landline: +44
(0)1732 674729
E-Mail: stephanie.brown@colorgate.com
Thank you for visiting www.ColorGATE.com
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ColorGATE
Head office
Color GATE Digital Output
Solutions
phone: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 0 –
Fax: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 40
Thank you for visiting www.colorgate.com
Hannover - HRB
56616
VAT-No: DE 190
902 156
Managing Director: Thomas
Kirschner
19.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-20721 23-02-2017 13-24
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 84,85
19.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-20721
23-02-2017 13-24
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 84,85
--
84,
From:
Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Sent time: 23/02/2017
01:23:45 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
Color GATE - Contact request - TS Enterprise
Dear Simon
It might be an idea for you to
attend this course - follow link. There are only three remaining places. This
will give you an excellent overview of what our products offer.
workshop
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:13
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re:
Color GATE - Contact request - TS Enterprise
Hello I hope all is well for
you, I am interested in a trial version of your software ps10 as I would like
to be able to test it, so to be able to provide the best of quality prints on
media such as canvas and high quality paper this is to be inclusive of adhesive
vinyl, this is for car warping and such activity's.
I am soon to be a starting
company but am not yet, in the printing industry that is to say. I have
obtained two printers fully re serviced there makes and models are canon w8400
d and a canon w8400 PGI am also questioning whether you provide a discount with
the ps10 software when purchased for educational purposes and if so, what would
the price be.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017,
15:51, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@coloraate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
Thank you for your interest in
our Color GATE products. How can I be of assistance?
Best regards Stephanie
Flexibility, performance and
Color Management - All highlights of Version 10 https://www.coloraate.com/version-10-hiahliahts/
10th GENERATION
Rapid Spectro Cube - an
extremely fast Color measurement and profiling system https://www.colorgate.com/rapid-spectro-cube-rsc/
85,
RAPID “SPECTRO CUBE
Color GATE
Stephanie Brown Strategic
Account Manager
Mobile: +44
(0) 7778 146387
Landline: +44
(0)1732 674729
E-Mail: stephanie.brown@colorgate.com
Thank you for visiting www.ColorGATE.com
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ColorGATE
Head office
Color GATE Digital Output
Solutions
phone: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 0 –
Fax: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 40
Thank you for visiting www.colorgate.com
Hannover - HRB
56616
VAT-No: DE 190
902 156
Managing Director: Thomas
Kirschner
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
Color GATE -1-20722 23-02-2017 14-21
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 86
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-20722
23-02-2017 14-21
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 86
--
86,
From: Stephanie
Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Sent time:
23/02/2017 02:20:52 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Cc: Jan
Edgecombe <sales@revolutiontransfers.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Re software
Dear Simon
I will put you in touch with a
reseller of our software. Jan Edgecombe sells P10 and can provide you with a quote
for a product best suited to your needs.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:57
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re
software
Dear Stephanie
I am grateful for your offer in
relation towards the courses that Colgate supply I am however reluctant and
have to decline. I have however spent much time in studying the management and
development of icc profiles and the nesting of images and no I have learnt a
fair understanding so to understand what I need to no "to get around"
and therefore believe with the support available that is online that I will be
able to achieve the basics I need within in using Colgate software's, so to
manage my goals set, this is to say that one day I may take one of the courses
available if I find any hardship. please if possible, can you answer my last
questions emailed to yourself s in the past email.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-20723 23-02-2017 14-46
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 87
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-20723
23-02-2017 14-46
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 87
--
87,
From: Stephanie
Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Sent time:
23/02/2017 02:45:59 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Cc: Jan
Edgecombe <sales@revolutiontransfers.co.uk>; customer
service customerservice@colorgate.com
Subject: RE: Re software
Dear Mr Cordell
We have offers for established
educational organisations that we partner with. We have test licenses of our
software.
Jan would be able to establish
your requirements and produce a quote. If you feel that the product
specification is appropriate and the quote is affordable, we will offer a
30-day trial of the software. Our strategy is designed to be cost and time
efficient for all parties.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 14:29
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re:
Re software
OK thank you, but I feel as if you have
yet to answer my questions, is there a trial version available to the general
public so that any person can test the software before purchasing it and is
there a discount for the use of ps10 for educational purposes.
Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
On Thursday, 23 February 2017, 14:20,
Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
I will put you in touch with a reseller
of our software. Jan Edgecombe sells P10 and can provide you with a quote for a
product best suited to your needs.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto:re
wired@vmail.com
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:57
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re
software
Dear Stephanie
I am grateful for your offer in
relation towards the courses that Colgate supply I am however reluctant and
have to decline. I have however spent much time in studying the management and
development of icc profiles and the nesting of images and no I have learnt a
fair understanding so to understand what I need to no "to get around"
and therefore believe with the support available that is online that I will be
able to achieve the basics I need within in using Colgate software's, so to
manage my goals set, this is to say that one day I may take one of the courses
available if I find any hardship. please if possible, can you answer my last
questions emailed to yourself s in the past email.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
22.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-20724 23-02-2017 17-06
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 88,89
22.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-20724
23-02-2017 17-06
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 88,89
--
88,
From: Jan
Edgecombe <sales@revolutiontransfers.co.uk>
Sent time:
23/02/2017 05:05:35 PM
To: Stephanie
Brown <stephanie.brown@colorgate.com>
Cc: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com
customer service customerservice@colorgate.com
Subject: Re: Re
software
Dear Mr Cordell
Please call me if you need to
discuss the trial and how I can help you.
Kind regards Jan
Jan Edgecombe - Managing
Director
Mob. 07973
131 665
Ph. 01530
510080
Free. 0800
298 5086
Email. sales@revolutiontransfers.co.uk
Web. revolutiontransfers.co.uk
Transfers
• Heat Press • Garment
Supply
The Factory, 43 North Avenue, Coalville, Leics, LE67 3QX
Transfers
On 23 Feb 2017, at 14:45,
Stephanie Brown <stephanie.brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
We have offers for established
educational organisations that we partner with. We have test licenses of our
software.
Jan would be able to establish
your requirements and produce a quote. If you feel that the product
specification is appropriate and the quote is affordable, we will offer a
30-day trial of the software. Our strategy is designed to be cost and time
efficient for all parties.
Best regards Stephanie
From:
Rewired mailto: re wired@vmail.com
Sent: 23
February 2017 14:29
To: Stephanie
Brown
Subject: Re: Re
software
OK thank you, but I feel as if you
have yet to answer my questions, is there a trial version available to the
general public so that any person can test the software before purchasing it
and is there a discount for the use of ps10 for educational purposes.
Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
On Thursday, 23 February 2017,
14:20, Stephanie Brown
Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
wrote:
Dear Simon
89,
I will put you in touch with a reseller
of our software. Jan Edgecombe sells P10 and can provide you with a quote for a
product best suited to your needs.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired mailto: re
wired@ymail.com
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:57
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re
software
Dear Stephanie
I am grateful for your offer in
relation towards the courses that Colgate supply I am however reluctant and
have to decline. I have however spent much time in studying the management and
development of icc profiles and the nesting of images and no I have learnt a
fair understanding so to understand what I need to no "to get around"
and therefore believe with the support available that is online that I will be
able to achieve the basics I need within in using Colgate software's, so to
manage my goals set, this is to say that one day I may take one of the courses
available if I find any hardship. please if possible, can you answer my last
questions emailed to yourself s in the past email.
Kind regards
Mr Simon Cordell
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-26347 23-02-2017 13-13
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 90
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-26347
23-02-2017 13-13
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 90
--
90,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 23/02/2017
01:13:01 PM
To:
Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Subject: Re:
Color GATE - Contact request - TS Enterprise
Hello I hope all is well for
you, I am interested in a trial version of your software ps10 as I would like
to be able to test it, so to be able to provide the best of quality prints on
media such as canvas and high quality paper this is to be inclusive of adhesive
vinyl, this is for car warping and such activity's.
I am soon to be a starting
company but am not yet, in the printing industry that is to say. I have
obtained two printers fully re serviced there makes and models are canon w8400
d and a canon w8400 pg. I am also questioning whether you provide a discount
with the ps10 software when purchased for educational purposes and if so, what
would the price be.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
On Wednesday, 22 February 2017,
15:51, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
Thank you for your interest in
our Color GATE products. How can I be of assistance?
Best regards Stephanie
Flexibility, performance and
Color Management - All highlights of Version 10 https://www.colorgate.com/version-10-highlights/
10th GENERATION
Rapid Spectro Cube - an
extremely fast Color measurement and profiling system https://www.colorgate.com/rapid-spectro-cube-rsc/
Color GATE
Stephanie Brown Strategic
Account Manager
Mobile: +44 (0) 7778 146387
Landline: +44 (0)1732 674729
E-Mail: stephanie.brown@colorgate.com
Thank you for visiting www.ColorGATE.com
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ColorGATE
Head office
Color GATE Digital Output
Solutions
Phone: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 0 –
Fax: +49/
(0) 511 942 93 40
Thank you for visiting www.colorgate.com
Hannover - HRB 56616
VAT-No.: DE
190 902 156
Managing Director:
Thomas Kirschner
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Color GATE -1-26351 23-02-2017 14-54
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 91
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Color GATE -1-26351
23-02-2017 14-54
23/02/2017
/ Page Numbers: 91
--
91,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
23/02/2017 02:54:17 PM
To: Stephanie
Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com>
Subject: Re: Re
software
Thank you, I now understand what
I need to know and I now ask can you please forwarded me Jan's contact details
as I would like to place my order with yourself if all goes well.
Kind regards
Mr Simon Cordell
On Thursday, 23 February 2017,
14:46, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
We have offers for established
educational organisations that we partner with. We have test licenses of our
software.
Jan would be able to establish
your requirements and produce a quote. If you feel that the product
specification is appropriate and the quote is affordable, we will offer a
30-day trial of the software. Our strategy is designed to be cost and time
efficient for all parties.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
February 2017 14:29
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re:
Re software
OK thank you, but I feel as if
you have yet to answer my questions, is there a trial version available to the
general public so that any person can test the software before purchasing it
and is there a discount for the use of ps10 for educational purposes.
Thanks
Mr Simon Cordell
On Thursday, 23 February 2017,
14:20, Stephanie Brown <Stephanie.Brown@colorgate.com> wrote:
Dear Simon
I will put you in touch with a
reseller of our software. Jan Edgecombe sells P10 and can provide you with a
quote for a product best suited to your needs.
Best regards Stephanie
From: Rewired
[mailto:re
wired@vmail.com
Sent: 23
February 2017 13:57
To: Stephanie Brown
Subject: Re
software
Dear Stephanie
I am grateful for your offer in
relation towards the courses that Colgate supply I am however reluctant and
have to decline. I have however spent much time in studying the management and
development of icc profiles and the nesting of images and no I have learnt a
fair understanding so to understand what I need to no "to get around"
and therefore believe with the support available that is online that I will be
able to achieve the basics I need within in using Colgate software's, so to
manage my goals set, this is to say that one day I may take one of the courses
available if I find any hardship. please if possible, can you answer my last
questions emailed to yourself s in the past email.
Kind regards Mr Simon Cordell
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1.
2.
Shiraz
Software 08-03-2017 -07-40
08/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 92
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1. 2.
Shiraz Software 08-03-2017
-07-40
08/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 92
--
92,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
08/03/2017 07:40:19 PM
Subject: FW:
[ORDERS #49122]: RE: Student Discount Shiraz Focus
Here is the information for
download and activate
From: Shiraz
Software [mailto: orders@shiraz-software.com]
Sent: 08
March 2017 11:43
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: [ORDERS
#49122]: RE: Student Discount Shiraz Focus Thank you for your recent order.
You can download the required software
from the links below:
Win:
http://storage.shiraz-software.com/Focus/Focus-V4.1.17010-windows-installer.zip
Mac:
http://storage.shiraz-software.com/Focus/Focus-V4.1.17010-osx-installer.zip To
activate the new software please use the following License ID code:
343600
Should you have any questions or
concerns please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind Regards
Shiraz Software
Ticket Details
Ticket ID: 49122
Department: Orders
Type: Task
Status: Open
Priority:
High
Helpdesk: http://shiraz.helpserve.com/Default
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth -1-3987 12-03-2017 04-19
12/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 93
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1. 2.
Too Smooth -1-3987 12-03-2017
04-19
12/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 93
--
93,
From: cPanel
for too smooth on toosmooth.co.uk <cpanel@toosmooth.co.uk>
Sent time: 12/03/2017
04:18:58 AM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
Subject:
[toosmooth.co.uk]
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is about to exceed its bandwidth limit (6.38 GB/6.84
GB)
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached 90% of its bandwidth limit (6.38 GB/6.84
GB).
Average bandwidth used per day: 593.69
MB Projected monthly bandwidth usage: 17.97 GB
At the current rate of usage:
· The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is expected to reach its bandwidth limit on 3/11/17.
· The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is expected to exceed its bandwidth limit by 11.14 GB.
The system generated this notice
on Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 4:18:57 AM UTC.
You can disable the “Bandwidth Limits”
type of notification through the cPanel interface: https://fiorano.websitewelcome.com:2083/frontend/x3/contact/index.html
Do not reply to this automated
message.
Copyright© 2017 cPanel, Inc.
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
-1-3988 13-03-2017 03-17
13/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 94
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1. 2.
Too Smooth -1-3988 13-03-2017
03-17
13/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 94
--
94,
From: cPanel
for too smooth on toosmooth.co.uk <cpanel@toosmooth.co.uk>
Sent time:
13/03/2017 03:16:42 AM
To:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk;
re_wired@ymail.com
Subject:
[toosmooth.co.uk]
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached its bandwidth limit (7.34 GB/6.84 GB)
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached its bandwidth limit (7.34 GB/6.84 GB).
·
Contact your system administrator as
soon as possible.
The system generated this notice
on Monday, March 13, 2017 at 3:16:41 AM UTC.
You can disable the “Bandwidth Limits”
type of notification through the cPanel interface: https://fiorano.websitewelcome.com:2083/frontend/x3/contact/index.html
Do not reply to this automated
message.
CP
Copyright© 2017 cPanel, Inc.
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy
Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
16/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
16/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104
--
95,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 16
March 2017 14:12
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: 4th Letter to Mr Cordell, 16.3.17.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr Simon
Cordell inviting him to a meeting with me and my line manager to discuss the
allegations made against him by his neighbours. The original copy will be sent
to Mr Cordell.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354 Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:51
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi, I will get
back to you with a date.
But I am very upset at what is on
file within the subject access request it seems as if you put everything onto
Mr Cordell and large amounts of data is missing.
Like the information about
Deborah Andrews this is incorrect, and the only reason we have found out about
this is due to the subject access request.
But there are lots of emails
that are missing that I sent about Deborah Andrews and what the neighbours were
doing, that are dated before any complaints went in from Deborah Andrews and
the neighbours. yet nothing was done for Mr Cordell about this.
Also there is missing dates and
times of complaints, as to when things were meant to have happened and what
time they were meant to have happened why?
I do have many issues, with the
report and why no emails are in the subject access request that was put in by
me that are dated well before the neighbours put complaints in yet Enfield
Council done nothing about this, There is also no phone calls I made or my son
made, but as soon as the neighbours put complaints in these were taken up right
away by Enfield Council.
I will get back to you with a
date I am due to see someone on the 09/03/2017 when I will be showing them all
the information. So it will need to be after this date. Dionne Grant has also
got until the 02/03/2017 to deal with the subject access request and if I have
not heard anything by this date, I will pass this on to the ICO.
Regards
96,
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
[mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:18
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thanks for your email.
Could you please confirm when you and
Mr Cordell are able to meet with me within the next 14 days. As stated in my
previous letters, the allegations are serious breach of tenancy conditions and
we need to give Mr Cordell the opportunity to respond to them before a decision
is made on how to proceed.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell
[mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 10:06
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am sorry for the late
information, but we will not be able to attend today at 2.30pm on Wednesday
22nd February 2017 due to private family reasons.
I am also very upset to see how
the subject access request has been handled, as I said to you last week, I have
not had use of my main computer due to work being carried out on my home. I
have sent Dionne Grant giving 14 days or I will take it to the ICO and have not
had a reply yet to the email I sent.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 16
February 2017 14:13
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
97,
Please find attached a copy of a letter
inviting Mr Simon Cordell to meet with me at 2.30pm on Wednesday 22nd
February 2017 to discuss the allegations made against him by some of his
neighbours.
The original copy of the letter will be
hand delivered to his home address today.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
Sent: 10
February 2017 16:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see below as requested the
details of recent allegations made against Mr Simon Cordell. I have listed the
complainants as Complainant A, B and C.
· On 6th August 2016
Complainant A reported that Simon Cordell, his neighbour at flat 109 is
threatening him and his wife and aggressively demanding money from him. He
alleged that Mr Cordell called his wife 'a bitch' and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat. He also alleged that in July 2016, someone
used a knife to puncture his tyres, all 4 of them, that he believes that the
tyres were slashed by Simon, that although he did not see Simon do it but he
was quite certain that it was him. He also alleged that Mr Cordell damaged the
lock to his electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no
electricity.
· On 5th October 2016
Complainant B reported that Mr Cordell has been harassing him for a while in
relation to alleged noise disturbances from his flat. He alleged that the
previous day on 4/10/16, Simon was banging on his ceiling and later came
upstairs and started kicking his door and shouting aggressively. He alleged
that Simon then went downstairs dragged his motorbike from where he parked it
and started smashing it up. He then called the police. He also stated that Mr
Cordell had previously slashed his motorbike tyres with a knife, that he did
not report it as he did not see him do it.
· On 31st October 2016
telephone call received from another resident on behalf of Complainant C. He
alleged that Complainant C's neighbour, Simon was using threatening, abusive,
and insulting words towards Complainant C. He stated that he witnessed an
incident that happened in September 2016 outside the block when Simon shouted
abuse at Complainant C and made threats towards him.
· On 4th November 2016 met
with Complainant C to discuss his concerns following the report from another
resident. He stated the first incident happened sometime in July 2016, that he
cannot remember the exact date. He alleged that he was approached by Mr Cordell
as he came out of his front door and he started shouting abuse at him and
threatened to burn down his flat. He alleged that the second incident happened
in September 2016. He stated that he was on his way to meet a friend when Mr
Cordell came at him 'ranting and raving' and said to him 'I can get you over at
the park, I know you go for a walk'. He stated that two other neighbours
witnessed the incident and that one of them told Mr Cordell to
98,
leave him alone. Complainant C also complained
that Mr Cordell have installed a CCTV on the internal communal door and that he
believes that he is monitoring his every move. He asked that the camera be
removed as it is making him to feel very nervous, vulnerable, and uncomfortable
and is an invasion of his privacy.
· On 11th November 2016 the
Neighbourhood Officer met with Complainant A to discuss his allegations against
Mr Cordell. He stated that some of the recent incidents happened on 6/8/16 at
6pm, 27/9/16 at 11.45pm and 28/9/16 at 5.30pm. He stated that the incidents
include, threatening behaviour, intimidation, and aggressively demanding money.
He alleged that Mr Cordell has physically threatened him in the past with a
piece of wood. He also alleged that Mr Cordell has a big dog that always barks
when someone comes into the block. He complained that Mr Cordell has a camera
in the internal communal door facing the main entrance door to the block. He
stated that he believes that Mr Cordell is using the camera to monitor when
people come in or out of the block and that it makes him very uncomfortable and
requested for the camera to be removed.
· On 8/12/16 Complainant A reported that
Mr Cordell came and banged on his front door, shouted abuse, and threats at him
and accused him of making noise.
· On 12/1/16 Complainant B reported that
on 11/12/16, Mr Cordell came and banged on his front door on three different
occasions and accused him of banging on the pipes. He alleged that he also
shouted abuse and threats at him.
· On 14/12/16 Complainant C reported that
one of his neighbours visited him and as she rang his doorbell Mr Cordell came
out of his flat and started shouting abuse at her. He also alleged that Mr
Cordell shouted that he would take some action when his ASBO expires.
· On 23/12/16 Complainant A reported that
his wife was at home alone with their child between 3.45pm when Mr Cordell came
and knocked on his front door, started to shout abuse and asked his wife to go
in the bathroom and turn off the tap. He also alleged that Mr Cordell later
removed his electricity fuse thereby cutting their power supply.
· On 10/1/17 Complainant A telephoned to
report that on 26/12/16 at about 12 to 1pm he was going out with his family
when Mr Cordell ran up the stairs with a towel round his waist and started
shouting abuse and threats at him and his wife. He alleged that Mr Cordell
accused him of tampering with his water supply and tried to stop them from
leaving the block. He also stated that on 3/1/17 at 10.47pm, he was coming back
from a family outing and as soon as they entered the block, Mr Cordell came out
of his flat and started shouting abuse and threats at him.
· On 23/1/17 Complainant A reported an
incident that occurred at 6.24pm on 21/1/17. He alleged that his wife was at
home with their child when Mr Cordell come and started banging on his front
door, shouted abuse and threats and accused them of making noise.
· On 1st February 2017
Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 5.10pm on 31/1/17. He
alleged that his wife was alone with his child at home when Mr Cordell came and
banged on his door and started shouting abuse and threats and accused them of
banging on the floor.
I will write to Mr Cordell next week to
arrange for him to meet with me and another colleague at the Civic Centre to
discuss the allegations made against him.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
99,
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell
[mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:33
To: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Sally McTernan
Subject:
RE: Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr
Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email to say
you have stated in your last letter the subject access request has been dealt
with, but we are still waiting for the data.
I have asked for the dates these
complaints were put in and vet have had nothing about the dates and times.
Could you please forward me a
list of dates and times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order
like this so we know if more complaints have been put in by one person.
·
Complaint from A on date and Time: Body
of complaint from A.
·
Complaint from B on date and Time: Body
of complaint from B.
·
Complaint from C on date and time: Body
of complaint from C
And it can carry on like this
until all complaints are listed. As at this time you have just listed
complaints and failed to supply any other information.
If I can get this back today, I
would be most grateful, as it has been asked for before.
Also we have said this before
more than once on calls and emails, the person's living at 113 and 117 I
believe which is the 2 people living on top of mv son, 113 has since he moved
in no carpet put down and also his floor broads needs fixing, 117 which is the
top floor has laid wooden flooring, due to the wav these flats have no sound
proofing in between floors and only wooden flooring due to how they were built,
we were thinking this would have already been addressed and has not and the
neighbours have been allowed to
keep the flooring the way it is, mv son can hear everything and on^ feels
nothing has been done as Enfield Council wants mv son health to get worse and
also to make him suffer.
As for the date of the
09/02/2017 as stated before until we have had all dates and times and body of
complaints and the subject access request, I still do not feel it is justified
mv son has a meeting as he will be walking into a meeting only with very
limited information, and due to his health which is being caused by his
neighbours and Enfield Council doing nothing I feel mv son is on^ being setup
due to issues and the colour of mv son's skin. And this is why no one from
Enfield council has ever taken a report from him about what has been ongoing
form a long time ago.
We want to clear this up as much
as you do, but it seems Enfield Council is not fulfilling what we have asked for in
order to be able to do this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
100,
To:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr
Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of my
letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations
of anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should
perform their own virus checks.
101,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield
Council is committed to serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent
services and building strong communities. Opinions expressed
in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily those of the
London Borough of Enfield. This email and any attachments or files transmitted
with it are strictly confidential and intended solely for the named addressee.
It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the
intended recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or
use the communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government
Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should
perform their own virus checks.
102,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual
and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
103,
104,
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy
Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
Double1
21/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
Double1
21/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114
--
105,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 21
March 2017 16:26
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thanks for your email.
I sorry to hear learn that you
have been unwell, I wish you speedy recovery.
The first letter I wrote to Mr
Cordell was dated 29 November 2016 and not 29 December so apologies for the
mistake and the first meeting was 6 December 2016 and not 6 January 2017 as you
stated in your email below.
I am not aware that Mr Cordell
is unable to leave his flat due to health reasons as he has not provided us
with a letter from his Doctor to support this claim. Also when Mr Cordell
telephoned me on 17 February 2017 following my letter to him dated 16 February
2017, he informed me that he will not come to the Civic Centre or the council
offices in Edmonton Green because there are gang members looking for him in
these areas. I cannot recall him saying anything about him not being able to
leave his flat due to health reasons. Also Mr Cordell chased my car down the
road when I went to deliver my last letter to his flat on 17 March 2017, this
is not the attitude of someone who cannot leave his flat for health reasons.
I am inviting Mr Cordell to a
formal meeting to discuss the allegations made against him and due to the
serious nature of the allegations, the meeting will have been held in the
council offices with a minute taker present. However if Mr Cordell presents a
letter from his doctor stating that he is unable to leave his flat for health
reason, then we can discuss an alternative venue. I am happy for Mr Cordell to
bring someone with him to the meeting.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354 Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
March 2017 14:08
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
18/03/2017
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I'd like to apologise for the
late reply to this email, I've just come out of hospital after undergoing two
operations and only got released from hospital late on the 17 March 2017.
You stated in your letter to Mr
Cordell, that the first letter you wrote was dated 29 December 2016, and that
you set a meeting for 6 December 2016 this is incorrect, as the date for the
meeting was set for 6 January 2017, yes this meeting was cancelled, you've then
106,
stated you wrote a letter on 31
January 2017 to arrange a meeting for 9 February 2017, this meeting was also
cancelled, the reason these two meetings were cancelled was due to the ongoing
complaint that was being addressed by Enfield council that still needs
addressing but due to the data that came back from the subject access request
and it not being completed properly this letter still needs to be reply to,
there was also a subject access request that was put in to Enfield Council that
we was waiting to be addressed and to receive the data back which as you are
aware did take a considerable amount of time, and also the complaint also was
delayed in a reply. As stated to you via email we felt it was unjustified to
hold a meeting when there was an ongoing complaint, and a subject access
request that we was waiting for, as you are aware there are still issues
regarding the subject access request, which does need to be addressed.
You then stated that she wrote
again on 16 February 2017 and arranged a meeting for 22 February 2017 which was
also cancelled, but you was also notified there was still issues with the
subject access request, and that I had a meeting regarding the issues which was
set for the 9 March 2017, I stated to you that I would get back to you with a
convenient date for the meeting to take place, but due to illness things have
got delayed.
You have also stated that it is
very unfortunate that there have been repeated refusals to meet in regards to
the issues with the neighbours, I feel that this is very misleading we have not
refused once to have a meeting with you, but due to ongoing issues meetings
have had to be cancelled with a justified reason, so how you can take this as a
refusal is beyond me, we have kept you informed at every stage of every letter
that you send out giving you reasons as to why the meetings could not take
place. Therefore I do not understand how you can interpret this as a refusal.
You will also be aware that my
son does have health problems and that he does not leave his flat, not once
have you thought in all the letters that you sent out how someone that does not
leave his flat is going to be able to attend a meeting at the Civic Centre,
therefore I am asking for the meeting to take place at Mr Cordell's home
address, due to Mr Cordell's health, arrangements will need to be made that
someone is at the meeting with Mr Cordell, and under no circumstances will Mr
Cordell be addressing the issues while he is on his own.
You have also stated that if Mr
Cordell does not attend or set a new date that you will be putting an
application seeking possession of his home, it seems that Enfield Council have
already made their mind up that Mr Cordell is guilty of what has been alleged
in the complaints, you also state that if any further allegations are made
against Mr Cordell that you can take legal action, since your last update with
the dates has there been any more allegations against Mr Cordell?
Next week I have a number of
hospital appointments so it will really be hard to do the 22 March 2017, if you
could get back to me with some dates that the meeting can take place at Mr
Cordell's home address I would be most grateful. or if there is any problem
with this please let me know.
Regards
Miss L Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 16
March 2017 14:12
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr Simon
Cordell inviting him to a meeting with me and my line manager to discuss the
allegations made against him by his neighbours. The original copy will be sent
to Mr Cordell.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti-Social Behaviour
Team Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety
107,
B Block North Civic Centre Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:51
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmv.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi, I will get
back to you with a date.
But I am very upset at what is
on file within the subject access request it seems as if you put everything
onto Mr Cordell and large amounts of data is missing.
Like the information about
Deborah Andrews this is incorrect, and the only reason we have found out about
this is due to the subject access request.
But there are lots of emails
that are missing that I sent about Deborah Andrews and what the neighbours were
doing, that are dated before any complaints went in from Deborah Andrews and
the neighbours. yet nothing was done for Mr Cordell about this.
Also there is missing dates and
times of complaints, as to when things were meant to have happened and what
time they were meant to have happened why?
I do have many issues, with the
report and why no emails are in the subject access request that was put in by
me that are dated well before the neighbours put complaints in yet Enfield
Council done nothing about this, There is also no phone calls I made or my son
made, but as soon as the neighbours put complaints in these were taken up right
away by Enfield Council.
I will get back to you with a
date I am due to see someone on the 09/03/2017 when I will be showing them all
the information. So it will need to be after this date. Dionne Grant has also
got until the 02/03/2017 to deal with the subject access request and if I have
not heard anything by this date, I will pass this on to the ICO.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:18
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thanks for your email.
Could you please confirm when you and
Mr Cordell are able to meet with me within the next 14 days. As stated in my
previous letters, the allegations are serious breach of tenancy conditions and
we need to give Mr Cordell the opportunity to respond to them before a decision
is made on how to proceed.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
108,
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 10:06
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am sorry for the late
information, but we will not be able to attend today at 2.30pm on Wednesday
22nd February 2017 due to private family reasons.
I am also very upset to see how
the subject access request has been handled, as I said to you last week, I have
not had use of my main computer due to work being carried out on my home. I
have sent Dionne Grant giving 14 days or I will take it to the ICO and have not
had a reply yet to the email I sent.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 16
February 2017 14:13
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of a
letter inviting Mr Simon Cordell to meet with me at 2.30pm on Wednesday 22nd February
2017 to discuss the allegations made against him by some of his neighbours.
The original copy of the letter
will be hand delivered to his home address today.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN1 3XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
Sent: 10
February 2017 16:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
109,
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see below as requested the
details of recent allegations made against Mr Simon Cordell. I have listed the
complainants as Complainant A, B and C.
1. On 6th
August 2016 Complainant A reported that Simon Cordell, his neighbour at flat
109 is threatening him and his wife and aggressively demanding money from him.
He alleged that Mr Cordell called his wife 'a bitch' and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat. He also alleged that in July 2016, someone
used a knife to puncture his tyres, all 4 of them, that he believes that the
tyres were slashed by Simon, that although he did not see Simon do it but he
was quite certain that it was him. He also alleged that Mr Cordell damaged the
lock to his electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no
electricity.
2. On 5th
October 2016 Complainant B reported that Mr Cordell has been harassing him for
a while in relation to alleged noise disturbances from his flat. He alleged
that the previous day on 4/10/16, Simon was banging on his ceiling and later
came upstairs and started kicking his door and shouting aggressively. He
alleged that Simon then went downstairs dragged his motorbike from where he
parked it and started smashing it up. He then called the police. He also stated
that Mr Cordell had previously slashed his motorbike tyres with a knife, that
he did not report it as he did not see him do it.
3. On
31st October 2016 telephone call received from another resident on behalf of
Complainant C. He alleged that Complainant C's neighbour, Simon was using
threatening, abusive, and insulting words towards Complainant C. He stated that
he witnessed an incident that happened in September 2016 outside the block when
Simon shouted abuse at Complainant C and made threats towards him.
4. On 4th
November 2016 met with Complainant C to discuss his concerns following the
report from another resident. He stated the first incident happened sometime in
July 2016, that he cannot remember the exact date. He alleged that he was
approached by Mr Cordell as he came out of his front door and he started
shouting abuse at him and threatened to burn down his flat. He alleged that the
second incident happened in September 2016. He stated that he was on his way to
meet a friend when Mr Cordell came at him 'ranting and raving' and said to him
'I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk'. He stated that two
other neighbours witnessed the incident and that one of them told Mr Cordell to
leave him alone. Complainant C also complained that Mr Cordell have installed a
CCTV on the internal communal door and that he believes that he is monitoring
his every move. He asked that the camera be removed as it is making him to feel
very nervous, vulnerable, and uncomfortable and is an invasion of his privacy.
5. On
11th November 2016 the Neighbourhood Officer met with Complainant A to discuss
his allegations against Mr Cordell. He stated that some of the recent incidents
happened on 6/8/16 at 6pm, 27/9/16 at 11.45pm and 28/9/16 at 5.30pm. He stated
that the incidents include, threatening behaviour, intimidation, and
aggressively demanding money. He alleged that Mr Cordell has physically
threatened him in the past with a piece of wood. He also alleged that Mr
Cordell has a big dog that always barks when someone comes into the block. He
complained that Mr Cordell has a camera in the internal communal door facing
the main entrance door to the block. He stated that he believes that Mr Cordell
is using the camera to monitor when people come in or out of the block and that
it makes him very uncomfortable and requested for the camera to be removed.
6. On
8/12/16 Complainant A reported that Mr Cordell came and banged on his front
door, shouted abuse, and threats at him and accused him of making noise.
7. On
12/1/16 Complainant B reported that on 11/12/16, Mr Cordell came and banged on
his front door on three different occasions and accused him of banging on the
pipes. He alleged that he also shouted abuse and threats at him.
8. On
14/12/16 Complainant C reported that one of his neighbours visited him and as
she rang his doorbell Mr Cordell came
110,
out of his flat and started shouting abuse at her. He
also alleged that Mr Cordell shouted that he would take some action when his
ASBO expires.
9. On
23/12/16 Complainant A reported that his wife was at home alone with their
child between 3.45pm when Mr Cordell came and knocked on his front door,
started to shout abuse and asked his wife to go in the bathroom and turn off
the tap. He also alleged that Mr Cordell later removed his electricity fuse
thereby cutting their power supply.
10. On
10/1/17 Complainant A telephoned to report that on 26/12/16 at about 12 to 1pm
he was going out with his family when Mr Cordell ran up the stairs with a towel
round his waist and started shouting abuse and threats at him and his wife. He
alleged that Mr Cordell accused him of tampering with his water supply and
tried to stop them from leaving the block. He also stated that on 3/1/17 at
10.47pm, he was coming back from a family outing and as soon as they entered
the block, Mr Cordell came out of his flat and started shouting abuse and
threats at him.
11. On
23/1/17 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 6.24pm on 21/1/17.
He alleged that his wife was at home with their child when Mr Cordell come and
started banging on his front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused them
of making noise.
12. On 1st
February 2017 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 5.10pm on
31/1/17. He alleged that his wife was alone with his child at home when Mr
Cordell came and banged on his door and started shouting abuse and threats and
accused them of banging on the floor.
I will write to Mr Cordell next week to
arrange for him to meet with me and another colleague at the Civic Centre to
discuss the allegations made against him.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Sally Mc Ternan
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email to say you have
stated in your last letter the subject access request has been dealt with, but
we are still waiting for the data.
I have asked for the dates these
complaints were put in and yet have had nothing about the dates and times.
Could you please forward me a list of
dates and times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order like
this so we know if more complaints have been put in by one person.
1.
Complaint from A on date and Time: Body
of complaint from A.
111,
2.
Complaint from B on date and Time: Body
of complaint from B.
3.
Complaint from C on date and time: Body
of complaint from C
And it can carry on like this until all
complaints are listed. As at this time you have just listed complaints and
failed to supply any other information.
If I can get this back today, I would
be most grateful, as it has been asked for before.
Also we have said this before more than
once on calls and emails, the person's living at 113 and 117 I believe which is
the 2 people living on top of my son, 113 has since he moved in no carpet put
down and also his floor broads needs fixing, 117 which is the top floor has
laid wooden flooring, due to the way these flats have no sound proofing in
between floors and only wooden flooring due to how they were built, we were
thinking this would have already been addressed and has not and the
neighbours have been allowed to keep
the flooring the way it is, my son can hear everything and only feels nothing
has been done as Enfield Council wants my son health to get worse and also to
make him suffer.
As for the date of the 09/02/2017 as
stated before until we have had all dates and times and body of complaints and
the subject access request, I still do not feel it is justified my son has a
meeting as he will be walking into a meeting only with very limited
information, and due to his health which is being caused by his neighbours and
Enfield Council doing nothing I feel my son is only being setup due to issues
and the colour of my son's skin. And this is why no one from Enfield council
has ever taken a report from him about what has been ongoing form a long time
ago.
We want to clear this up as much as you
do, but it seems Enfield Council is not fulfilling what we have asked for in
order to be able to do this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
[mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr
Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of my
letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations
of anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti-Social Behaviour
Team Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety B Block North
112,
Civic Centre Enfield EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute
113,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute
114,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This
email has been scanned for viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be
free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy
Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
Double2
21/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi RE Anti-Social
Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell
Double2
21/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124
--
115,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 21
March 2017 16:26
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thanks for your email.
I sorry to hear learn that you
have been unwell, I wish you speedy recovery.
The first letter I wrote to Mr
Cordell was dated 29 November 2016 and not 29 December so apologies for the
mistake and the first meeting was 6 December 2016 and not 6 January 2017 as you
stated in your email below.
I am not aware that Mr Cordell
is unable to leave his flat due to health reasons as he has not provided us
with a letter from his Doctor to support this claim. Also when Mr Cordell
telephoned me on 17 February 2017 following my letter to him dated 16 February
2017, he informed me that he will not come to the Civic Centre or the council
offices in Edmonton Green because there are gang members looking for him in
these areas. I cannot recall him saying anything about him not being able to
leave his flat due to health reasons. Also Mr Cordell chased my car down the
road when I went to deliver my last letter to his flat on 17 March 2017, this
is not the attitude of someone who cannot leave his flat for health reasons.
I am inviting Mr Cordell to a
formal meeting to discuss the allegations made against him and due to the
serious nature of the allegations, the meeting will have been held in the
council offices with a minute taker present. However if Mr Cordell presents a
letter from his doctor stating that he is unable to leave his flat for health
reason, then we can discuss an alternative venue. I am happy for Mr Cordell to
bring someone with him to the meeting.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354 Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
March 2017 14:08
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
18/03/2017
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I'd like to apologise for the
late reply to this email, I've just come out of hospital after undergoing two
operations and only got released from hospital late on the 17 March 2017.
You stated in your letter to Mr
Cordell, that the first letter you wrote was dated 29 December 2016, and that
you set a meeting for 6 December 2016 this is incorrect, as the date for the
meeting was set for 6 January 2017, yes this meeting was cancelled, you've then
116,
stated you wrote a letter on 31
January 2017 to arrange a meeting for 9 February 2017, this meeting was also
cancelled, the reason these two meetings were cancelled was due to the ongoing
complaint that was being addressed by Enfield council that still needs
addressing but due to the data that came back from the subject access request
and it not being completed properly this letter still needs to be reply to,
there was also a subject access request that was put in to Enfield Council that
we was waiting to be addressed and to receive the data back which as you are
aware did take a considerable amount of time, and also the complaint also was
delayed in a reply. As stated to you via email we felt it was unjustified to
hold a meeting when there was an ongoing complaint, and a subject access
request that we was waiting for, as you are aware there are still issues
regarding the subject access request, which does need to be addressed.
You then stated that she wrote
again on 16 February 2017 and arranged a meeting for 22 February 2017 which was
also cancelled, but you was also notified there was still issues with the
subject access request, and that I had a meeting regarding the issues which was
set for the 9 March 2017, I stated to you that I would get back to you with a
convenient date for the meeting to take place, but due to illness things have
got delayed.
You have also stated that it is
very unfortunate that there have been repeated refusals to meet in regards to
the issues with the neighbours, I feel that this is very misleading we have not
refused once to have a meeting with you, but due to ongoing issues meetings
have had to be cancelled with a justified reason, so how you can take this as a
refusal is beyond me, we have kept you informed at every stage of every letter
that you send out giving you reasons as to why the meetings could not take
place. Therefore I do not understand how you can interpret this as a refusal.
You will also be aware that my
son does have health problems and that he does not leave his flat, not once
have you thought in all the letters that you sent out how someone that does not
leave his flat is going to be able to attend a meeting at the Civic Centre,
therefore I am asking for the meeting to take place at Mr Cordell's home
address, due to Mr Cordell's health, arrangements will need to be made that
someone is at the meeting with Mr Cordell, and under no circumstances will Mr
Cordell be addressing the issues while he is on his own.
You have also stated that if Mr
Cordell does not attend or set a new date that you will be putting an
application seeking possession of his home, it seems that Enfield Council have
already made their mind up that Mr Cordell is guilty of what has been alleged
in the complaints, you also state that if any further allegations are made
against Mr Cordell that you can take legal action, since your last update with
the dates has there been any more allegations against Mr Cordell?
Next week I have a number of
hospital appointments so it will really be hard to do the 22 March 2017, if you
could get back to me with some dates that the meeting can take place at Mr
Cordell's home address I would be most grateful. or if there is any problem
with this please let me know.
Regards
Miss L Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 16
March 2017 14:12
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr Simon
Cordell inviting him to a meeting with me and my line manager to discuss the
allegations made against him by his neighbours. The original copy will be sent
to Mr Cordell.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety
117,
B Block North Civic Centre Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:51
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmv.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi, I will get
back to you with a date.
But I am very upset at what is
on file within the subject access request it seems as if you put everything
onto Mr Cordell and large amounts of data is missing.
Like the information about
Deborah Andrews this is incorrect, and the only reason we have found out about
this is due to the subject access request.
But there are lots of emails
that are missing that I sent about Deborah Andrews and what the neighbours were
doing, that are dated before any complaints went in from Deborah Andrews and
the neighbours. yet nothing was done for Mr Cordell about this.
Also there is missing dates and
times of complaints, as to when things were meant to have happened and what
time they were meant to have happened why?
I do have many issues, with the
report and why no emails are in the subject access request that was put in by
me that are dated well before the neighbours put complaints in yet Enfield
Council done nothing about this, There is also no phone calls I made or my son
made, but as soon as the neighbours put complaints in these were taken up right
away by Enfield Council.
I will get back to you with a
date I am due to see someone on the 09/03/2017 when I will be showing them all
the information. So it will need to be after this date. Dionne Grant has also
got until the 02/03/2017 to deal with the subject access request and if I have
not heard anything by this date, I will pass this on to the ICO.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 11:18
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thanks for your email.
Could you please confirm when you and
Mr Cordell are able to meet with me within the next 14 days. As stated in my
previous letters, the allegations are serious breach of tenancy conditions and
we need to give Mr Cordell the opportunity to respond to them before a decision
is made on how to proceed.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
118,
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 22
February 2017 10:06
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am sorry for the late
information, but we will not be able to attend today at 2.30pm on Wednesday
22nd February 2017 due to private family reasons.
I am also very upset to see how
the subject access request has been handled, as I said to you last week, I have
not had use of my main computer due to work being carried out on my home. I
have sent Dionne Grant giving 14 days or I will take it to the ICO and have not
had a reply yet to the email I sent.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 16
February 2017 14:13
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of a
letter inviting Mr Simon Cordell to meet with me at 2.30pm on Wednesday 22nd
February 2017 to discuss the allegations made against him by some of his
neighbours.
The original copy of the letter
will be hand delivered to his home address today.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community
Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN1 3XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
Sent: 10
February 2017 16:01
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
119,
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please see below as requested the
details of recent allegations made against Mr Simon Cordell. I have listed the
complainants as Complainant A, B and C.
13. On 6th
August 2016 Complainant A reported that Simon Cordell, his neighbour at flat
109 is threatening him and his wife and aggressively demanding money from him.
He alleged that Mr Cordell called his wife 'a bitch' and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat. He also alleged that in July 2016, someone
used a knife to puncture his tyres, all 4 of them, that he believes that the tyres
were slashed by Simon, that although he did not see Simon do it but he was
quite certain that it was him. He also alleged that Mr Cordell damaged the lock
to his electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no electricity.
14. On 5th
October 2016 Complainant B reported that Mr Cordell has been harassing him for
a while in relation to alleged noise disturbances from his flat. He alleged
that the previous day on 4/10/16, Simon was banging on his ceiling and later
came upstairs and started kicking his door and shouting aggressively. He
alleged that Simon then went downstairs dragged his motorbike from where he
parked it and started smashing it up. He then called the police. He also stated
that Mr Cordell had previously slashed his motorbike tyres with a knife, that
he did not report it as he did not see him do it.
15. On
31st October 2016 telephone call received from another resident on behalf of
Complainant C. He alleged that Complainant C's neighbour, Simon was using
threatening, abusive, and insulting words towards Complainant C. He stated that
he witnessed an incident that happened in September 2016 outside the block when
Simon shouted abuse at Complainant C and made threats towards him.
16. On 4th
November 2016 met with Complainant C to discuss his concerns following the
report from another resident. He stated the first incident happened sometime in
July 2016, that he cannot remember the exact date. He alleged that he was
approached by Mr Cordell as he came out of his front door and he started
shouting abuse at him and threatened to burn down his flat. He alleged that the
second incident happened in September 2016. He stated that he was on his way to
meet a friend when Mr Cordell came at him 'ranting and raving' and said to him
'I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk'. He stated that two
other neighbours witnessed the incident and that one of them told Mr Cordell to
leave him alone. Complainant C also complained that Mr Cordell have installed a
CCTV on the internal communal door and that he believes that he is monitoring
his every move. He asked that the camera be removed as it is making him to feel
very nervous, vulnerable, and uncomfortable and is an invasion of his privacy.
17. On
11th November 2016 the Neighbourhood Officer met with Complainant A to discuss
his allegations against Mr Cordell. He stated that some of the recent incidents
happened on 6/8/16 at 6pm, 27/9/16 at 11.45pm and 28/9/16 at 5.30pm. He stated
that the incidents include, threatening behaviour, intimidation, and
aggressively demanding money. He alleged that Mr Cordell has physically
threatened him in the past with a piece of wood. He also alleged that Mr
Cordell has a big dog that always barks when someone comes into the block. He
complained that Mr Cordell has a camera in the internal communal door facing
the main entrance door to the block. He stated that he believes that Mr Cordell
is using the camera to monitor when people come in or out of the block and that
it makes him very uncomfortable and requested for the camera to be removed.
18. On
8/12/16 Complainant A reported that Mr Cordell came and banged on his front
door, shouted abuse, and threats at him and accused him of making noise.
19. On
12/1/16 Complainant B reported that on 11/12/16, Mr Cordell came and banged on
his front door on three different occasions and accused him of banging on the
pipes. He alleged that he also shouted abuse and threats at him.
20. On
14/12/16 Complainant C reported that one of his neighbours visited him and as
she rang his doorbell Mr Cordell came
120,
out of his flat and started shouting abuse at her.
He also alleged that Mr Cordell shouted that he would take some action when his
ASBO expires.
21. On
23/12/16 Complainant A reported that his wife was at home alone with their
child between 3.45pm when Mr Cordell came and knocked on his front door,
started to shout abuse and asked his wife to go in the bathroom and turn off
the tap. He also alleged that Mr Cordell later removed his electricity fuse
thereby cutting their power supply.
22. On
10/1/17 Complainant A telephoned to report that on 26/12/16 at about 12 to 1pm
he was going out with his family when Mr Cordell ran up the stairs with a towel
round his waist and started shouting abuse and threats at him and his wife. He
alleged that Mr Cordell accused him of tampering with his water supply and
tried to stop them from leaving the block. He also stated that on 3/1/17 at
10.47pm, he was coming back from a family outing and as soon as they entered
the block, Mr Cordell came out of his flat and started shouting abuse and
threats at him.
23. On
23/1/17 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 6.24pm on 21/1/17.
He alleged that his wife was at home with their child when Mr Cordell come and
started banging on his front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused them
of making noise.
24. On 1st
February 2017 Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 5.10pm on
31/1/17. He alleged that his wife was alone with his child at home when Mr
Cordell came and banged on his door and started shouting abuse and threats and
accused them of banging on the floor.
I will write to Mr Cordell next week to
arrange for him to meet with me and another colleague at the Civic Centre to
discuss the allegations made against him.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 06
February 2017 13:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Daniel Ellis
Sally Mc Ternan
Subject: RE:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email to say you have
stated in your last letter the subject access request has been dealt with, but
we are still waiting for the data.
I have asked for the dates these
complaints were put in and yet have had nothing about the dates and times.
Could you please forward me a list of
dates and times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order like
this so we know if more complaints have been put in by one person.
4.
Complaint from A on date and Time: Body
of complaint from A.
121,
5.
Complaint from B on date and Time: Body
of complaint from B.
6.
Complaint from C on date and time: Body
of complaint from C
And it can carry on like this until all
complaints are listed. As at this time you have just listed complaints and
failed to supply any other information.
If I can get this back today, I would
be most grateful, as it has been asked for before.
Also we have said this before more than
once on calls and emails, the person's living at 113 and 117 I believe which is
the 2 people living on top of my son, 113 has since he moved in no carpet put
down and also his floor broads needs fixing, 117 which is the top floor has
laid wooden flooring, due to the way these flats have no sound proofing in
between floors and only wooden flooring due to how they were built, we were
thinking this would have already been addressed and has not and the
neighbours have been allowed to keep
the flooring the way it is, my son can hear everything and only feels nothing
has been done as Enfield Council wants my son health to get worse and also to
make him suffer.
As for the date of the 09/02/2017 as
stated before until we have had all dates and times and body of complaints and
the subject access request, I still do not feel it is justified my son has a
meeting as he will be walking into a meeting only with very limited
information, and due to his health which is being caused by his neighbours and
Enfield Council doing nothing I feel my son is only being setup due to issues
and the colour of my son's skin. And this is why no one from Enfield council
has ever taken a report from him about what has been ongoing form a long time
ago.
We want to clear this up as much as you
do, but it seems Enfield Council is not fulfilling what we have asked for in
order to be able to do this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi
[mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 02
February 2017 10:45
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Miss Cordell,
Please find attached letter to Mr
Cordell regarding ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse and
threatening behaviour made against him by his neighbours. It is very important
that we meet with Mr Cordell to discuss these allegations and agree on the best
way to resolve them.
I have also attached a copy of my
letter to Mr Cordell dated 29th December 2016 regarding allegations
of anti-social behaviour made against him by his neighbours. Copies of both
letters will be sent to Mr Cordell's address.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti-Social Behaviour
Team Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety B Block North
122,
Civic Centre Enfield EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute
123,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute
124,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This
email has been scanned for viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be
free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1.
2.
NHS
Complaints Advocate - 23-03-2017 15-01
23/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 125,126
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1. 2.
NHS Complaints Advocate -
23-03-2017 15-01
23/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 125,126
--
125,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time:
23/03/2017 03:00:57 PM
Subject:
Transfer
Attachments: Consent for Transfer.DOCX
Mr Cordell,
We are writing to let you know
that, from 1st April 2017 we will no longer be providing the NHS Complaints
Advocacy Service in your borough.
From 1 April 2017, the NHS
Complaints Advocacy Service will be provided by Power. We have included some
contact details for Power below but would request that you do not contact them
regarding your complaint until after the start of the new contract on 1 April
2017.
Power: -
Telephone: 0300
456 2370
Minicom: 0300
456 2364
Email: pohwer@pohwer.net
Skype:
power. advocacy
Fax: 0300
456 2365
Post: PO Box
14043, Birmingham, B6 9BL
If you wish for information
regarding your referral to be transferred to Power, in order for them to
support you with it, we would ask that you complete the attached consent form
and send it back to us in the prepaid envelope by 29 March 2017.
Should you not wish to consent
to the transfer of your information, your referral will be closed with Voice
Ability on 31 March 2017.
Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London My working hours are Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
T: 0300
330 5454
M: 07918
561 868
e: paiae.christie@voiceabilitv.ora
Voice Ability
Voice Ability Advocacy I Charity
No. 1076630 I Company No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Registered Address: Mount
Pleasant House, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0RN Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
126,
Consent for Transfer.DOCX
Consent to Transfer Information
Name of person whose Referral
is to be transferred |
|
Name
of Patient (if different) |
|
·
Yes,
I consent
to information regarding my referral and data held by Voice Ability being
transferred to Power by the 1st of April 2017.
·
No, I do not consent to information
regarding my referral and data held by Voice Ability being transferred to Power
and understand my file with Voice Ability will be closed as a result
Signature: |
|
Date: |
|
strengthening
voice,
championing rights,
changing lives Mount Pleasant House,
Huntingdon Road, Cambridge,
CB3 ORN
Registered Charity 1076630
Limited Company 3798884
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 0.
2.
NHS Complaints
Advocate -1-20730 29-03-2017 11-27
29/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 127,128
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 0. 2.
NHS Complaints Advocate -1-20730
29-03-2017 11-27
29/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 127,128
--
127,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time:
23/03/2017 03:00:57 PM
Subject:
Transfer
Attachments: Consent for Transfer.DOCX
Mr Cordell,
We are writing to let you know
that, from 1st April 2017 we will no longer be providing the NHS Complaints
Advocacy Service in your borough.
From 1 April 2017, the NHS
Complaints Advocacy Service will be provided by Power. We have included some
contact details for Power below but would request that you do not contact them
regarding your complaint until after the start of the new contract on 1 April
2017.
Power: -
Telephone: 0300
456 2370
Minicom: 0300
456 2364
Email: pohwer@pohwer.net
Skype:
power. advocacy
Fax: 0300
456 2365
Post: PO Box
14043, Birmingham, B6 9BL
If you wish for information
regarding your referral to be transferred to Power, in order for them to
support you with it, we would ask that you complete the attached consent form
and send it back to us in the prepaid envelope by 29 March 2017.
Should you not wish to consent
to the transfer of your information, your referral will be closed with Voice
Ability on 31 March 2017.
Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London My working hours are Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
T: 0300
330 5454
M: 07918
561 868
e: paiae.christie@voiceabilitv.ora
Voice Ability
Voice Ability Advocacy I Charity
No. 1076630 I Company No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Registered Address: Mount
Pleasant House, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0RN Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
128,
Consent for Transfer.DOCX
Consent to Transfer Information
Name of person whose Referral
is to be transferred |
|
Name
of Patient (if different) |
|
·
Yes,
I consent
to information regarding my referral and data held by Voice Ability being
transferred to Power by the 1st of April 2017.
·
No, I do not consent to information
regarding my referral and data held by Voice Ability being transferred to Power
and understand my file with Voice Ability will be closed as a result
Signature: |
|
Date: |
|
strengthening
voice,
championing rights,
changing lives Mount Pleasant House,
Huntingdon Road, Cambridge,
CB3 ORN
Registered Charity 1076630
Limited Company 3798884
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 0.
2.
NHS Complaints
Advocate -1-20731 30-03-2017 12-15
30/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 129
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 0. 2.
NHS Complaints Advocate -1-20731
30-03-2017 12-15
30/03/2017
/ Page Numbers: 129
--
129,
From: Paige Christie <paige.christie@voiceability.org>
Sent time:
30/03/2017 12:15:01 PM
Subject: transfer
I have made several attempts to
call you but have not been successful. If you do wish to continue with your
complaint, and therefore wish for your data to be transferred please respond to
this email by copy and pasting the following sentence and inserting your name
in the space:
(YOUR NAME) consent to
information regarding referral and data held by Voice Ability being transferred
to Power by the 1st April 2017
Kind regards,
Paige Christie
NHS Complaints Advocate, East
London My working hours are Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm
a: United
House, 39-41 North Road, London N7 9DP
T: 0300
330 5454
M: 07918
561 868
e: paiae.christie@voiceabilitv.org
Voice Ability
Voice Ability Advocacy I Charity
No. 1076630 I Company No. 3798884 (England and Wales)
Registered Address: Mount
Pleasant House, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0RN Disclaimer: www.voiceability.org/contact
us/#Email
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Get Canva Plus -1-20735 04-04-2017 13-52
04/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 130
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Get Canva Plus
-1-20735 04-04-2017 13-52
04/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 130
--
130,
From: Get Canvas Plus <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time:
04/04/2017 01:51:40 PM
Subject: Get
Canvas Plus - Order 5323
Get Canvas Plus
Get Canvas Plus
Thank you for your interest in Get
Canvas Plus products. Your order has been received and will be processed once
payment has been confirmed.
Order Details
Order ID: 5323
E-mail: re wired@ymail.com
Date Added:
04/04/2017
Telephone: 020824
Order Status: Complete
Payment Address / Shipping
Address
Simon Cordell Simon Cordell
109 Burncroft avenue
London en37jq
Greater London
United Kingdom
Payment Method:
Credit Card / Debit Card (Sage Pay) Shipping Method: UK mainland
Product Price Total
24" Inkjet Polyester Canvas 280gms - Matte
18m Roll Ł24.10
Ł24.10
Model: 191
24" Inkjet Matte
Polyester Canvas
280gms -
Extra-long 30m Roll 2
x Ł40.10 Ł80.20
Model: 302
Sub-Total Ł104.30
UK mainland Ł8.00
VAT (20%) Ł22.46
Total Ł134.76
The comments for your order are:
Hello, I have an entry code to
my front door what is c1230 thanks Simon Please reply to this e-mail if you
have any questions.
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth 25-04-2017 10-03
25/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 131
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1. 2.
Too Smooth 25-04-2017 10-03
25/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 131
--
131,
From: cPanel for too smooth on toosmooth.co.uk
Sent time: 25/04/2017
10:02:37 AM
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
[toosmooth.co.uk]
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is about to exceed its bandwidth limit (6.16 GB/6.84
GB)
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” has reached 90% of its bandwidth limit (6.16 GB/6.84
GB).
·
Average bandwidth used per day: 252.23
MB Projected monthly bandwidth usage: 7.39 GB
At the current rate of usage:
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is expected to reach its bandwidth limit on 4/27/17.
·
The account “too smooth” with primary
domain “toosmooth.co.uk” is expected to exceed its bandwidth limit by 566.89
MB.
The system generated this notice
on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 9:02:36 AM UTC.
You can disable the “Bandwidth
Limits” type of notification through the cPanel interface: https://fiorano.websitewelcome.com:2083/frontend/x3/contact/index.html
Do not reply to this automated
message.
Copyright© 2017 cPanel, Inc.
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana -1-26354 25-04-2017 11-38
25/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 132,133
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana -1-26354
25-04-2017 11-38
25/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 132,133
--
132,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/04/2017
11:37:54 AM
Subject: To Mat
in regards towards a Pur 150
Dear Mike and Mat
Hello how are you doing, I hope
all is well I spoke to a gentleman on the 24/04/2017 on the phone called mike
in regards to a Morgana Pur 150 that I am interested in purchasing from another
person, mike then passed the phone to a man called Mat, who then asked me to
send this reply. The machine I am able to buy seems to come with its own
problems and I request your help in solving the issues.
Diagnostic; when the machine is
first turned on it allows any user to go to the first stage which is; “Are you
trained to operate this machine” once ticked in agreement the power to the
machine will flip the main distribution power supply but does not blow the
machines internal fuses.
On a diagnostic of the problem
you have to take the two covers of the back of the machine and bypass the
safety mechanism for the hatch door being closed.
Connected to the bottom of the
glue station, to which you put the glue into is a thermostat, this thermostat
has two additional wires connected into it.
The marks on the thermostat
states that it is a; Mfr. Part No.2455RC Thermostat, Solder Tag Termination,
0°C +260°C
When disconnected and the
machine is rebooted with power it will bypass to the second stage; “Main menu”
Once into the main menu the
machine goes into alarm mode in turn disabling its features.
The features that seem to be
disabled are the following:
1.
milling station: -
2.
Press carriage.
On a further inspection towards the
resolution of the error codes; they are labelled as follows:
1. 007
Error movement of press: -
2. 009
Cleaner not present: -
3. 010
Temperature not ok: -
4. 011
Execute present: -
5. 019
Critical Temperature.
My main concern at present other than
getting the machine to work:] is the error showing 007 error movement of press,
as I hope that changing the thermostat will clear error 010, 019 and then once
009 has been addressed then 011 will no longer exist as a problem if 007 is
fixed, thus repairing the machine.
After speaking to another gentlemen a Morgana
it was explained to me that I can attach a external power supply to the mill
and after to the carriage to check the motors to them mechanism are functioning
correctly, on an attempt to do this the mill motor had no issue of concern and
is a straight forward motor to supply the power to, the mill has neutral and
live inclusive of ground. When rerouting the mill I disconnected N1- L1 from
Km21.01 within the fuse board to add the external power supply, with the mill
motor activating.
I then attempted to make the press
carriage active and took the chain of the motor so the spindle can move freely,
on revealing the wires behind the power plate cover to the motor, for the power
cables to be connected I noticed four wires;
3. One
grey in colour: -
4. One
brown in colour: -
5. One
black in colour: - And: -
6. A
green ground wires.
I understood the brown cable to be L1
live and grey to be forward while black would be reverse to the motor, so I
connected the external power supply with the ground connected, then: -
133,
7. I
connected L1 also from an external power supply to L1 in the motor and the
8. N1
to the grey cable and after to the black cable, when this was achieved you
could hear the carriage motor slightly hum with power but no movement of the
motors Spindale.
9. When the machine is as standard as at
present, if any user is to go through stage one and “Tick yes you are trained
to use this machine,” once at stage two if u press the two green buttons at the
front of the machine simultaneously, that person will hear a breaker click in
the back of the machines fuse box, this shows code: E21.01 and has three
lights, the top light is always active named supply and in consequence to the
two green buttons being push together R2 will become active, with no response
from the press carriage motor.
My questions are:
1. Does
Morgana sell used parts at a discount from new priced parts?
2. How
much would a press carriage motor cost in any of them instances?
3. If
I continue to do a further diagnostics of the press carriage motor I will split
the differential gearing from the motor and attempt to run the motor from an
external power supply, once again in the hope of keeping cost down in aiding to
fix the machine.
4. How
much will Morgana supply the required thermostat for after vat?
5. How
much will Morgana supply a press carriage motor without gearing attached?
6. How
much will Morgana supply gearing for the press motor without the motor
attached?
7. How
much will Morgana sell the carriage motor and gearing together for?
While I was in the fuse box at the back
of the machine I notice two more fuse controllers that are not active with
present Semiconductor High Voltage Glass Passivated Junction Rectifiers the
fuse board numbers are as follows; Km20.01 Km23.01 on further research of them
empty fuse slots, after reading the wiring schematics it states that the usage
for them slots are as follows:
1. KM20.01
= Main Enabling
2. 2Km23.01
= Heating Enable
Another question I have to ask for your
response in is should those two slots be without fuses as they are at present?
I also would like to question whether u
supply the glue and blue beans needed to operate the machine and pricing if so,
if not please can you help provide a supplier for such products?
If I resolve the issues the machine is
faced with at present I would like to order the flat end screws needed to
service the glue station so for the glue to get extruded through it correct
path at its optimal performance and therefore request the following price of
them parts from your self s.
I would appreciate any help or advice that
you or your team members may have in helping to get the Morgana Pur 150 recommissioned.
Many thanks and kind regards Mr S.
Cordell
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 0.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana -1-20741 26-04-2017 09-46
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 134,135,136,137
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 0. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana -1-20741
26-04-2017 09-46
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 134,135,136,137
--
134,
Subject:
Undeliverable: In regard to a pur 150
Delivery has failed to these
recipients or groups:
spairs@rnQraa~iacQ.uk
fspairs@mciraana.cci.uk)
The e-mail address you entered
couldn't be found. Please check the recipient's e-mail address and try to
resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.
Diagnostic information for
administrators:
Generating server: plockmatic.se
135,
Same as Above!
136,137,
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 0.
2.
Morgana
-1-26356 26-04-2017 09-46
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 138,139
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 0. 2.
Morgana -1-26356 26-04-2017
09-46
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 138,139
--
138,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 26/04/2017
09:45:47 AM
Subject: In
regard to a Pur 150
Dear Mike and Mat
Hello how are you doing, I hope
all is well I spoke to a gentleman on the 24/04/2017 on the phone called mike
in regards to a Morgana Pur 150 that I am interested in purchasing from another
person, mike then passed the phone to a man called Mat, who then asked me to
send this reply. The machine I am able to buy seems to come with its own
problems and I request your help in solving the issues.
Diagnostic; when the machine is
first turned on it allows any user to go to the first stage which is; “Are you
trained to operate this machine” once ticked in agreement the power to the
machine will flip the main distribution power supply but does not blow the
machines internal fuses.
On a diagnostic of the problem
you have to take the two covers of the back of the machine and bypass the
safety mechanism for the hatch door being closed.
Connected to the bottom of the
glue station, to which you put the glue into is a thermostat, this thermostat
has two additional wires connected into it.
The marks on the thermostat
states that it is a; Mfr. Part No.2455RC Thermostat, Solder Tag Termination,
0°C +260°C
When disconnected and the
machine is rebooted with power it will bypass to the second stage; “Main menu”
Once into the main menu the
machine goes into alarm mode in turn disabling its features.
The features that seem to be
disabled are the following:
1.
milling station: -
2.
Press carriage.
On a further inspection towards the
resolution of the error codes; they are labelled as follows:
1. 007
Error movement of press: -
2. 009
Cleaner not present: -
3. 010
Temperature not ok: -
4. 011
Execute present: -
5. 019
Critical Temperature.
My main concern at present other than getting
the machine to work:] is the error showing 007 error movement of press, as I
hope that changing the thermostat will clear error 010, 019 and then once 009
has been addressed then 011 will no longer exist as a problem if 007 is fixed,
thus repairing the machine.
After speaking to another gentlemen a
Morgana it was explained to me that I can attach a external power supply to the
mill and after to the carriage to check the motors to them mechanism are
functioning correctly, on an attempt to do this the mill motor had no issue of
concern and is a straight forward motor to supply the power to, the mill has
neutral and live inclusive of ground. When rerouting the mill I disconnected
N1- L1 from Km21.01 within the fuse board to add the external power supply,
with the mill motor activating.
I then attempted to make the press
carriage active and took the chain of the motor so the spindle can move freely,
on revealing the wires behind the power plate cover to the motor, for the power
cables to be connected I noticed four wires;
1. One
grey in colour: -
2. One
brown in colour: -
3. One
black in colour: - And: -
4. A
green ground wires.
I understood the brown cable to be L1
live and grey to be forward while black would be reverse to the motor, so I
connected the external power supply with the ground connected, then: -
139,
Same as Above!
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1.
2.
Morgana
-1-26355 26-04-2017 09-43
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 140,141
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1. 2.
Morgana -1-26355 26-04-2017
09-43
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 140,141
--
140,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
26/04/2017 09:42:42 AM
Subject: In
regard to a Pur 150
Dear Mike and Mat
Hello how are you doing, I hope
all is well I spoke to a gentleman on the 24/04/2017 on the phone called mike
in regards to a Morgana Pur 150 that I am interested in purchasing from another
person, mike then passed the phone to a man called Mat, who then asked me to
send this reply. The machine I am able to buy seems to come with its own
problems and I request your help in solving the issues.
Diagnostic; when the machine is
first turned on it allows any user to go to the first stage which is; “Are you
trained to operate this machine” once ticked in agreement the power to the
machine will flip the main distribution power supply but does not blow the
machines internal fuses.
On a diagnostic of the problem
you have to take the two covers of the back of the machine and bypass the
safety mechanism for the hatch door being closed.
Connected to the bottom of the
glue station, to which you put the glue into is a thermostat, this thermostat
has two additional wires connected into it.
The marks on the thermostat
states that it is a; Mfr. Part No.2455RC Thermostat, Solder Tag Termination,
0°C +260°C
When disconnected and the
machine is rebooted with power it will bypass to the second stage; “Main menu”
Once into the main menu the
machine goes into alarm mode in turn disabling its features.
The features that seem to be
disabled are the following:
1.
milling station: -
2.
Press carriage.
On a further inspection towards the
resolution of the error codes; they are labelled as follows:
1. 007
Error movement of press: -
2. 009
Cleaner not present: -
3. 010
Temperature not ok: -
4. 011
Execute present: -
5. 019
Critical Temperature.
My main concern at present other than
getting the machine to work:] is the error showing 007 error movement of press,
as I hope that changing the thermostat will clear error 010, 019 and then once
009 has been addressed then 011 will no longer exist as a problem if 007 is
fixed, thus repairing the machine.
After speaking to another gentlemen a
Morgana it was explained to me that I can attach a external power supply to the
mill and after to the carriage to check the motors to them mechanism are
functioning correctly, on an attempt to do this the mill motor had no issue of
concern and is a straight forward motor to supply the power to, the mill has
neutral and live inclusive of ground. When rerouting the mill I disconnected
N1- L1 from Km21.01 within the fuse board to add the external power supply,
with the mill motor activating.
I then attempted to make the press
carriage active and took the chain of the motor so the spindle can move freely,
on revealing the wires behind the power plate cover to the motor, for the power
cables to be connected I noticed four wires;
1. One
grey in colour: -
2. One
brown in colour: -
3. One
black in colour: - And: -
4. A
green ground wires.
I understood the brown cable to be L1
live and grey to be forward while black would be reverse to the motor, so I
connected the external power supply with the ground connected, then: -
I connected L1 also from an external
power supply to L1 in the motor and the
N1 to the grey cable and after to the
black cable, when this was achieved you could hear the carriage motor slightly
hum with
141,
Same as Above!
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana 26-04-2017 -10-43
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 142,143
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana 26-04-2017
-10-43
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 142,143
--
142,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
26/04/2017 10:43:49 AM
Subject: In
regard to a Pur 150
Dear Mike and Mat
Hello how are you doing, I hope
all is well I spoke to a gentleman on the 24/04/2017 on the phone called mike
in regards to a Morgana Pur 150 that I am interested in purchasing from another
person, mike then passed the phone to a man called Mat, who then asked me to
send this reply. The machine I am able to buy seems to come with its own
problems and I request your help in solving the issues.
Diagnostic; when the machine is
first turned on it allows any user to go to the first stage which is; “Are you
trained to operate this machine” once ticked in agreement the power to the
machine will flip the main distribution power supply but does not blow the
machines internal fuses.
On a diagnostic of the problem
you have to take the two covers of the back of the machine and bypass the
safety mechanism for the hatch door being closed.
Connected to the bottom of the
glue station, to which you put the glue into is a thermostat, this thermostat
has two additional wires connected into it.
The marks on the thermostat
states that it is a; Mfr. Part No.2455RC Thermostat, Solder Tag Termination,
0°C +260°C
When disconnected and the
machine is rebooted with power it will bypass to the second stage; “Main menu”
Once into the main menu the
machine goes into alarm mode in turn disabling its features.
The features that seem to be
disabled are the following:
1.
milling station: -
2.
Press carriage.
On a further inspection towards the
resolution of the error codes; they are labelled as follows:
1. 007
Error movement of press: -
2. 009
Cleaner not present: -
3. 010
Temperature not ok: -
4. 011
Execute present: -
5. 019
Critical Temperature.
My main concern at present other than
getting the machine to work:] is the error showing 007 error movement of press,
as I hope that changing the thermostat will clear error 010, 019 and then once
009 has been addressed then 011 will no longer exist as a problem if 007 is
fixed, thus repairing the machine.
After speaking to another gentlemen a
Morgana it was explained to me that I can attach a external power supply to the
mill and after to the carriage to check the motors to them mechanism are
functioning correctly, on an attempt to do this the mill motor had no issue of
concern and is a straight forward motor to supply the power to, the mill has
neutral and live inclusive of ground. When rerouting the mill I disconnected
N1- L1 from Km21.01 within the fuse board to add the external power supply,
with the mill motor activating.
I then attempted to make the press
carriage active and took the chain of the motor so the spindle can move freely,
on revealing the wires behind the power plate cover to the motor, for the power
cables to be connected I noticed four wires;
1. One
grey in colour: -
2. One
brown in colour: -
3. One
black in colour: - And: -
4. A
green ground wires.
I understood the brown cable to be L1
live and grey to be forward while black would be reverse to the motor, so I
connected the external power supply with the ground connected, then: -
I connected L1 also from an external
power supply to L1 in the motor and the
N1 to the grey cable and after to the
black cable, when this was achieved you could hear the carriage motor slightly
hum with
143,
Same as Above!
41.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1.
2.
Asbo
Rewired -1-4819 26-04-2017 12-27
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 2.
Asbo Rewired -1-4819 26-04-2017
12-27
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159
--
144,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
26/04/2017 12:27:04 PM
Subject: eye
support team put into place, the
acting solicitors were made aware of this, and so was the Court in the September
2016, when the Appellant was due to attend.
On 16 September 2016 the case
was listed for a mention hearing for Non-Disclosure, and also a meeting with Mr
Locke the Appellant Barrister as he had not seen any barrister since the
04/08/2015 hearing at the Magistrate’s Court when the Antisocial Behaviour
Order was granted by the Judge with no legality found.
The Appellant was told by his
acting solicitors to be at Court by 09:30 hours, but later this was changed to
09:00 hours, this was so he could have a meeting with his barrister, which he
did agreed to do.
On the agreed court date the
Appellant arrived at Court for 09:00, his barrister did not arrive until around
09:40, disappointingly. On arrival The Appellants barrister and him himself
inclusive of his mother all went together into a side room for a pre talk.
Before any desiccations in relation to the case could be discussed, Mr Locke
said he was sorry he was not feeling very well and that he also had some emails
from Ms Ward, that he had to read first, on trying to open the emails he
realized he could not and subsequently went out of the room to call Ms Ward.
At around 10:00 hours the
Appellant was called into Court, Mr Locke came back into the room from after
making his phone
145,
call to Miss Ward, so for
himself to be able to have collected his things and he then hurried and started
to walk back out of the room we all was supposed to have a meeting but on stead
he hurried in towards the Court room. The Appellant tried to stop him, so to
have explained to him, what his concerns were. (“As we had not yet at this
point in time had a moment to talk”) and the Appellant was also concerned about
the disclosure that was going to be asked for.
The Appellant asked Mr Locke if
he could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five or ten minutes, so that we
all could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the hearing was only
for disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew this was
not correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to speak with him
about.” The Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would ask the Judge to
postpone for ten minutes again” he yet again said “no”, at which point the
Appellant asked “why Mr Locke did not want to speak to him, and should he act
for himself ”?
The Barrister Mr Locke had no
time to talk to The Appellant at the time and spent around four minutes talking
to Ms Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked the Appellant if he
the Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant replied:-
“No”, Mr Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we followed the
barrister into Court and on entering the Court in a raised voice, The Appellant
said to Mr Locke:- (“who was ahead of him”) so am I acting for myself then.? Mr
Locke never replied to the Appellant and just proceeded to talk to the Judge
and then he walked toward the courtroom door and ushered out. At this point the
Appellant
146,
had no idea what was going on
but proceeded to follow him outside the Court room, it was at this point of
time when Mr Locke turned around and said quite curtly “I do not want you to
speak anymore”, as we got closer to him he also informed the Appellant it was
not good to shout out, “in open Court,” to which the Appellant had to agree
with, but the Appellant felt so let down as it seemed his barrister did not
even want to talk to him, since the Appellant had last seen him in 2014 and
this is another part of the reasons that the Appellant wanted to speak with
him, as so much had already gone wrong with this case and the Appellant felt
very nervous as he did not know what was going on, or what would be said as he
had not spoken to his barrister.
The Appellants mother, who had
witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the Appellants barrister, what the
Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the requested Nondisclosure
and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about before we all went
back into court.
The Appellant also asked about
the two article 6’s that had been issued by the court, which had never been
addressed:- “by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants Human Rights and
importantly his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not happened.
The Article 6 the right to a fair and speedy trial had been handed to the Court
at earlier hearings, as The Appellants knew Mr Locke knew nothing about this
and other information that had happened, so he felt it important to explain
this to him at the time. Mr Locke explained that the schedule was what the
Judge had asked for on the 04/04/2016, my mother replied this was not all the
Judge had asked for,
147,
without replying Mr Locke walked
towards the Courtroom and we all followed, it was at this point The Appellant
said to the barrister I feel I should represent myself because he felt he was
not being heard.
All that the Appellant wanted
was to be able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew what had been said at
the earlier hearing of the 04/04/2016 and show him the document that was handed
to the Judge, on that date.
On entering the Court the
Appellant barrister Mr Locke addressed the Judge and said the Appellant did not
want him to act for him, but this was not fully the case the Appellant only
wanted to be able to speak to his barrister.
The Judge informed the
Appellants barrister to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge asked what the case
was listed for and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court, answering the
questions, he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister, they
also said to the Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to the Court
and the prosecution himself,
148,
which stated: - “I Simon Cordell
throughout the document.” This is not the case and the Appellant did not
understand their comment or what document the prosecuting barrister was talking
about. The Judge then addressed the Appellant and asked the Appellant did the
Appellant still want the barrister to act for the Appellant, the Appellant
replied “Yes” to the Judge that he did want the barrister to act for him; the
Appellant stated that he only wanted time to speak to his barrister, as he had
not spoken to a barrister since the Magistrate’s hearing.
The Judge then addressed the
Appellant barrister he said that the Appellant still wanted the barrister to act
for the Appellant, the Appellant barrister agreed to this. The Judge also
stated he felt he was not the best person to be hearing this case and passed it
back over to the Judge that was hearing the Appeal.
On leaving the Courtroom the
Appellant and his mother proceeded to go into a side room to talk with the
Appellant barrister, we explained that a letter had been handed to the Judge on
the 04/04/2016, the barrister said he knew nothing of this letter, so we handed
him a copy for him to read. Once he read this, he said he knew nothing about
this and had only seen one document that kept saying I Simon Cordell, (“The
Appellant has no idea of what this I Simon Cordell letter is.”)
The Appellants mother proceeded
to explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk to Mr Locke before going
into Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being requested.
The barrister explained he only
knew about the schedule, to which the Appellant mother replied, the schedule
had been
149,
asked for by the Judge in
addition to the letter that had been handed in and this was also when the Judge
said it could be used as the Appellants skeleton argument and that this had
happened when Miss Ward was in the Court on the date of the 04/04/2016 when she
was also taking notes, so Miss Ward knew exactly what the Judge had asked for.
The Appellants mother had made a
call to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to what the Judge had asked
for on the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward stated she could
not remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in reply to
her:- “you was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and
continued to explain that only last week from the date in mention, will have
everything that the Judge had asked for in his original disclosure, plus what
was asked for in the Appellants letter, that was handed to the judge and Miss
Ward also explained that the Judge had made other addictions in addition to the
mentioned.
At no point did Ms Ward ever make
the Appellants mother feel she did not know what was due to be disclosed,
before and while still on the phone, if she had ever done this the Appellant
and the Appellant mother would have asked her to relist the case to the Court
and asked for this to be clarified, as the disclosure that we was asking for
was very important to the ongoings of the Appeal.
The Appellant mother then handed
the Appellant the phone the Appellant asked Ms Ward about the letter he was
supposed to have sent to the Court and the prosecuting barrister, the Appellant
was still thinking she was talking about the letter
150,
handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016 when Miss Ward was not.
Also in Court on this date, it
was said the Appellant had written this letter himself, which was not the case.
In truth The Appellant agreed
for a letter that Miss Ward had written in reply to the Judge’s letter for the
Appellant to be amended, he had amended it himself and it was to be handed into
the court, the Appellant solicitor was at Court so she knew the Appellant had
amended the letter, this is to be inclusive of it being sent to her by email,
as she was in the court on this date to.
On this date when Miss Ward was
a court she said to the judge that the Appellant had drafted the letter when
the Appellant had only amended it, Miss Ward continued to say, that she did not
draft the Letter and that the Appellant wrote it, this is not true, at this the
Appellant did call Miss ward a lair as the Appellant knew Miss Ward had drafted
the letter herself at first.
The Appellant later explained to
Miss Ward on the phone that he could prove the truth and said, I have the
emails you sent to me and my mother of the letter we talk about and me amending
it, in return for you. It was also explained to all that we have kept copies of
all other correspondence between our persons and this is to include (Since the
start of the Court proceedings.
The Appellant mother has checked
the dates for when this letter was drafted by The Appellant solicitor and then
returned to her, the date was on the 03/04/2016 please see attached email
151,
and letter (marked 03/04/2016 Ms
Ward).
The Appellant barrister was
listening to the phone call and after the Appellant ended the barrister got up
and said I will need to think about still representing you as you called your
solicitors a lair, the Appellant stated that he can prove that Miss Ward wrote
the letter and she’s denying as to doing so and further expressed himself in
question the line of investigation by saying:- “how would anyone body else’s
feel, if she had lied about them,” the Appellant barrister then replied that if
he was still going to represent the Appellant then there would need to be a
meeting at the Appellant barrister chambers, at this point the meeting
concluded, with nothing else really spoke of about the Appellant Appeal yet
again, this was days before the Appeal hearing was due to start once again.
Up to here for now
A while after the Solicitor
wrote a letter and sent it to the Appellant and the Appellants mother, the date
of this received email is dated 20/09/2016 and a copy had also been sent to the
Court, this application was put in so for the acting solicitor to once again
attempt to be removed from the record this was done to our surprise and was
listed in Court to be heard on the 21/09/2016.
There were large sections of
this letter that were incorrect and did not happen so therefore are not true;
this can also be proven by the Court transcripts from the 16/09/2016.
152,
On the 21/01/2016 we were on our
way to Court and got caught in traffic, we contacted the Court to get a message
to the Judge to say that we were going to be five to ten minutes late, “I know
the Judge got the message.”
When we got to the Court, there
was a barrister that Michael Carroll and Co had sent to the Court to deal with
the application; this was so for them to be removed from the record for the
second attempt.
The Barrister informed us she
did not want to leave the Court before explaining what had happened it seemed
the Judge had called this into Court without us being present and removed the
solicitors from the record.
We question how could this have
happened? Considering, the Appellant was not present at Court? And there was
not a senior Partner from Michael Carroll and Co; “this question is due to what
had been previously said by His Honour Judge Morrison on 19/02/2016 in regard
to this not being allowed to happen.”
The Barrister said the Judge
wanted to see us and we would need to wait in Court until we were called, as
the Judge was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after it.
Around 16:00 hours we were
called into Court, the Respondent did make the Judge aware at this point that
what had been said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19/02/2016 stating that
a Senior Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that he could not
force a solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to and that
the Appellant could represent himself, he continued to state; that the case was
in a much
153,
better order now, but as is
known the Appellant has learning difficulties and health problems which the
Court are also well aware of, there were only a few days until the Appeal
hearing was due to start once again, how could a Judge believe that a person
with learning difficulties and health problems could be ready and cope with
dealing with a three-day Appeal hearing on his own?.
We did try to get the Judge to
adjourn the Appeal hearing so we could try and get representation put in place
due to knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this case on his own,
which was due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three- day hearing, the Judge
said he would not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no
matter what. It seems again that the Appellant was being blamed for what was
ongoing in this case, when the Appellant and the Appellant mother had done all
they could, so for them to have this case ready to be heard.
How can a Judge expect someone
that is known to be ill and have learning difficulties to be able to handle this
case on their own? considering there were only four days until the three- day
Appeal hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the Judge to help
the Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get on with the case
all on his own under the circumstances.
Once again, the solicitors had
done nothing for this case and the Judge had allowed them to walk away when
this was said to not be allowed and it seems as if everything was being blamed
on the Appellant.
154,
It was also noted while we had
been waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had been working from was
the very first set of the application bundles and since that time everything
had been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements from
the police officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents missing
from within the first bundle due to the update, so until he was given the
updated bundles, the Appellant had never seen them additional documents.
It was stated by the respondent
they had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors Michael Carroll and co three
times since the being of January 2016, we had never been given a set of new
bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told about new
bundles been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant that
bundle we had would have had all wrong page numbers and been paginated totally
different from the bundles that were being used by the prosecution barrister
and Courts.
When we were in Court, we did
say this to the Judge about the bundles, the Judge ordered the clerk of the
Court to contact Michael Carroll and Co solicitors and order the solicitors to
bring the bundles to Court. the solicitors informed the clerk that the bundles
were at Nexus Chambers, the Judge was shocked that the solicitors did not have
a copy of the bundles at their office. The Appellant’s uncle who was also at
Court said to the Judge he was willing to go to Nexus Chambers and pick the
bundles up.
155,
The Judge listed this for the
22/09/2016 after 14:00 hours to make sure we were all working from them same
set of bundles.
Upon the Appellant’s uncle
getting home it was seen that the bundle he had collected was not the full set
of bundles and only had part of the applications Skeleton Bundle.
On the 22 September 2016 we
attended Court to inform the Judge we still did not have the updated bundles
and the Judge once again got the clerk of the Court to call Michael Carroll and
co solicitors to find out what was going on within the bundles, the Judge was
very upset that we still did not have the bundles for the case, the Judge asked
for the bundles to be brought to Court before 4 PM, The Appellant’s mother
stated that it would be easier and faster for her to pick the bundles up from
the solicitors on the way home from Court, the Judge asked if she was sure that
he could get them brought to Court she stated that it be faster for her to pick
the bundles up from the solicitors on my way home.
When we left Court due to the
time and the circumstances we had been placed in The Appellant mother called
Michael Carroll’s office to say what time we would be there by, The Appellant
mother was told that the office would be closed by the time we got there so The
Appellant mother agreed to pick the bundles up first thing in the morning on 23
September 2016.
On 23-09-2016 The Appellant
mother left home early in the morning to go to Michael Carroll’s office and
collect the bundles with her brother, Mr A Cordell they went into the office
156,
together to get the bundles,
when the solicitor came down the stairs, he had a piece of paper that The
Appellant mother needed to sign, stating that the bundles had been collected
from the office.
Upon getting home and looking at
the bundles, The Appellant mother noticed there is now at least 13 additional
statements that The Appellant and The Appellant mother had never seen before
from the Respondent bundle, this is a clear error as we knew that in the first
bundle there were only 4 public witness statements and there now seems to be
16, when taking a closer look at the statements we noticed there are no members
of the public's statements of truth and this also applied for the original 4
contained in the folder minus one, this also highlighted that each member of
the public's statements are police officers only and have each put their
signatures on two different statements each, in a pretence of portraying to own
two houses each in Edmonton xxx Gardens and other surrounding roads in an
around Progress way, the police officers are claiming to be victims of this
case while on active duty.
So in understanding this, the
Applicant contacted Edmonton police stations lost property room, so too for him
to arrange collection of the original bundle, that was never served to him in
accordance with the law. To his further upset and disappointment of justice he
was to be told by another police officer deployed at the lost property room as
the manager, that the bundle that the Appellant wanted to claim had been misplaced
or stolen, this file clearly shows that there was only ever four potential
members of the publics witness statements
157,
attached within side of the
original Asbo application.
Some of the statements added are
all dated prior to the Magistrates Court trial. Upon looking at The Appellant’s
bundles it seemed this had not been updated or indexed since 2015, so all the
new documents that had been submitted to be added to The Appellant’s bundle was
not in their as they should have been.
Over the days leading up to
this, The Appellant mother had learned how important it was that all the
bundles were paginated and indexed correctly and that all the bundles were the
same as each other so that each person was working on them files was all in Co
Hurst to each other, as there was always problems at court due to this not
being completed correctly.
Though the case history multiple
documents had been handed to the Court, and them documents did not get
patronised correctly or indexed into The Appellant’s bundles, this includes the
court and the Respondent bundles that they were using also.
A whole weekend was spent trying
to add missing documents to the Appellant’s bundle and making copies so that on
the Court date of the 26-09-2016; any missing files could be added to the
Respondent bundle and the three Judge’s bundles. The Appellant health had
become very unstable due to him knowing that he was going to have to be dealing
with this
158,
himself.
The Appellant mother also spent part
of the weekend also writing a letter to the Judge in regards to what had gone
on with the breaches in The Appellant’s human rights, his article 6 human
rights the Applicants rights to a fair and speedy trial, there were also a list
of other things that had gone on throughout the case since 2014 in regards to
the nondisclosure, and other issues that was always being raised when at Court
and the reason as to why legal aid had been granted:
Due to the complexity of the
case.
Due to The Appellant’s learning
difficulties.
Due to the concerns of The
Appellant health.
This letter was emailed to the
Court and asked to be passed to the Judge.
Please see letter that was
emailed to the judge
The 26 September 2016 the
three-day Appeal hearing was due to start, The Appellant was so unwell that
there was no way he could attend Court, Mr A Cordell and Miss L Cordell
attended Court to speak to the Judge, when the Judge entered the Courtroom he
stated that he had received a letter that had to be addressed, he stated that
he felt this would go to judicial review, he stated he had three options:
Carry on with the Appeal in the
hope that The Appellant would turn up the following day.
159,
To Dismiss the Appeal.
Adjourn the Appeal to a new
date.
The Judge went over the letter
in great detail; he started around five times that he felt that this case was
going to go to judicial review.
The Judge decided to adjourn the
case until the 16/01/2017; this was later changed for the Appeal to start on
the 17/01/2017. The Respondent had tried to object to the Appeal being
adjourned. The Judge stated that we should try to find a new solicitor to take
on the Appeal and that he would help and also make sure that legal aid was in
place.
The Judge asked why The Appellant
was not in Court. The Appellant mother stated The Appellant had become so
unwell due to what was going on in this case and that he was not coping.
Information was passed to the Judge that showed The Appellant was unwell.
Mentioned in court; was also the
missing documents that was missing from The Appellant’s bundle, and that there
were no statements within the bundle, my mother stated to the Judge that she
had spent a lot of the weekend trying to update The Appellant’s bundle and make
sure that it was indexed correctly,
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1.
2.
Asbo
Rewired -1-4820 26-04-2017 18-58
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1. 2.
Asbo Rewired -1-4820 26-04-2017
18-58
26/04/2017
/ Page Numbers: 160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173
--
160,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 26/04/2017 06:58:10 PM
In the High Court of Justice Queen's
Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice Strand,
London,
WC2A 2ll
Date: 17/04/2017
Between:
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
SIMON CORDELL CLAIMANT
- AND -
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE
METROPOLIS
DEFENDANT
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE
METROPOLIS
INTERESTED
PARTY
SKELETON ARGUMENT INTRODUCTION:
1.
This application is to have the following decisions/orders
reviewed and reversed in order to prevail in the right to and in justice.
2.
A decision/order to make an application for an Interim
Antisocial Behaviour Order against the Appellant as named above was agreed in a
conference at the Enfield civic centre on the 00/00/2014 alongside their
employed staff and members of the Metropolis police.
3.
On the 5th November 2014, the Appellant defends in his
defence that a guilty verdict was wrongfully decided at Highbury Magistrates
Court, this was in order for the Commissioner of the Metropolis Police.
4.
The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed
in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the
verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the
decision an error in law.
5.
The Appellant's human rights have now been breached. And.
6.
The Appellant's right to due process has also been breached.
This led to the Appellant's right to a fair trial also being breached.
7.
The ongoing of the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of
justice that has been allowed to happen, even once reported.
8.
The Appellant's rights in the data protection act 1998 have
also been breached in relation towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social
Behaviour order.
9.
The Appellant requests the decision/order that was placed
upon his statue of liberties to make the interim order a full Antisocial
Behaviour order on 4th August 2015 by Highbury Corner Magistrates Court, in
order for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be revoked.
10.
The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed
in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the
verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the
decision an error in law.
11.
The Appellant's human rights have now been breached. And.
12.
The Appellant's right to due process has also been breached.
This led to the Appellant's right to a fair trial also being breached.
13.
The ongoing of the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of
justice that has been allowed to happen, even once reported.
14.
The Appellant's rights in the data protection act 1998 have
also been breached in relation towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social
Behaviour order.
15.
The Appellant requests for the decision/order made at Wood
Green Crown Court on 19th January 2017 in relation to the Appeal against
conviction, of the Antisocial Behaviour Order to be dismissed also.
16.
The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed
in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the
verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the
decision an error in law.
17.
The Appellant's human rights have now been breached. And.
18.
The Appellant's right to due process has also been breached.
This led to the Appellant's right to a fair trial also being breached.
19.
The ongoing of the Asbo case are a clear miscarriage of
justice that has been allowed to happen, even once reported.
20.
The Appellant's rights in the data protection act 1998 have
also been breached in relation towards the ongoings of the Anti-Social
Behaviour order.
21.
It is said that on the on the 12th September 2014 the police
attended The Appellant home address of 109 Burncroft, Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ,
they knocked on the door, the Appellant was not expecting anyone, the Appellant
approached his front door and looked through his spy hole he could see people
who appeared to be police officers, and asked them through the door what they
wanted, the police stated they needed to speak to him, the Appellant opened his
front door very slightly then the police officers started to try a force an
object into the front door, he soon came to the understanding he was being
tricked so for the officers to be able to serve some
161,
documents on him as they would never have been able to fit
into any standard letterbox, due to the Appellant's learning difficulties he
stated he would not accept anything and closed his door and then continued to
state that he was not being rude in doing so.
22.
It is a well-known fact on the police's system of government
bodies that the Appellant does have learning difficulties and health problems.
23.
The Appellant could hear the police talking outside his
front door and the lady police officer then questioned her colleges and said
what shall we do now, a male police officer stated put it on the floor in front
of the door referring to the application.
24.
They then put some other pages into the Appellant's
letterbox this totalled to four pages. The lady police officer then placed an
A4 size folder on the floor outside the Appellant's front door as the male
officer had instructed her to do.
25.
The Appellant then made a phone call to his mother, who
could not attend at the time this was until the following day when she attended
the Appellant's home address. On her attendance, she found the folder was left
opened on the floor where the police had left it. The Appellant’s mother was very
shocked when she looked inside the folder and saw the data that was within it.
26.
The data that was within side the A4 size folder was
personal information and a breach of the data protection act 1998 by leaving
such data in a commune area of the block of flats.
27.
A letter of complaint was put to the police in the way in
which they had left personal information on a doorstep in view of everyone that
lived or who came into the block of flats, this was achieved on the 13th
September 2014 and was hand delivered to Edmonton Green police station and a
receipt was issued from them, at the same time as of when the complaint letter
was handed in there was also that of the A4 bundle being referred to as the
Asbo application and court summons which was also handed into the front desk of
the police station.
28.
The complaint has never been addressed and neither has there
been that of a professional response concluding any outcome to them issues
raised of concern, a total failure of a response from the police, providing any
professionalism when dealing with complaints.
29.
Please see a letter of the compliant and photos and receipt
that was handed to Edmonton police station on 13th September 2014.
30.
On 06th October 2014, the Appellant was due to appear in
Court on this day, The Appellant had arranged for Michael Carroll and Co
Solicitors, to act on his behalf, this included to have legal aid in place.
31.
On the day of court legal aid had been applied for, but the
legal aid had been refused, the Judge sitting overturned this and granted legal
aid in the Applicants favour.
32.
The reason for the Judge overturning and granting legal aid
was due to the Appellant having known learning difficulties, health problems
and due to the complexity of the case.
33.
The disclosure was asked for so that the Appellant could
stand a fair and speedy trial, but the requested disclosure never ever did
come. The case was relisted for the 22/10/2014, for an interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order hearing, all police officers were due to attend for the interim
hearing.
34.
On the 22nd October 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for
the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order to be heard, due to the Appellant
barrister having a burst water pipe and his home being flooded he could not
attend, the applicant still wanted the case to be heard which the Judge would
not allow.
35.
The Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing was then set
for the 05/11/2014.
36.
On the 22nd October 2014, all police officers did attend
Court for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing. The disclosure was
asked for on this date.
37.
37.On 05th November 2014, the Appellant was due in Court for
the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing; all police were due to attend
but did not. The Appellant's barrister could not attend on this date due to the
flooding that taken place at his home address, another barrister turned up to
represent the Appellant but had no paperwork for the case only a skeleton
argument to strike-out the Antisocial Behaviour Order application.
38.
The skeleton argument, submitted on behalf of the Appellant,
to strike out the application for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order.
Arguments advanced in this respect, and those which rely upon the civil
procedure rules, are not applicable to these proceedings. The civil procedure
rules only apply to proceedings in the county Court, the high Court, and the
civil division of the Court of Appeal. As a result, the Magistrate's Court has
no jurisdiction to consider an application to strike-out application.
39.
The Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing went ahead,
The Appellant's barrister did not have the correct paperwork for the hearing,
and knew very little about the case, no police officers turned up to Court on
this day.
40.
In the days prior to this hearing, The Appellant was rushed
to the hospital due to kidney problems while he was still in hospital he was
informed by his solicitor on the 04/11/2014 that if he did not attend Court on
the 05/11/2014 the case would go ahead without his presence. The Appellant then
discharged himself from the hospital because he had no choice. (He was
extremely unwell)
41.
On this date, the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order was
granted by the District Judge Newham.
42.
Upon delivering her judgment, District Judge Newham ruled
that it is just to impose an Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order, and that
regard had been taken of The Appellant's Article 6 and 8 rights, as well as The
Appellants business. District Judge Newham ruled that there are no provisions
contained within the (amended) proposed Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order
which would prevent The Appellant from conducting legitimate business.
43.
On this date, all police officers were due to attend. (They
did not attend their reason was they were not told to attend; this was untrue
as the application from 22/10/14 should still stand as the case had only been
adjourned until this date for the Interim Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing)
44.
The applicant's case also relied solely on hearsay,
Magistrate's Courts (hearsay evidence in civil proceeding) rules 1999.
45.
These are the conditions The Appellant was placed under and
are for the whole of the UK:
46.
The defendant is prohibited from:
47.
Attending a rave as defined by s.63 (1) of the criminal justice
and public order act 1994.
48.
Being concerned in the organisation of a rave as defined by
s.63(1) of the criminal justice and public order act 1994.
49.
Knowingly using or supplying property, personal or
otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63(1) of the criminal justice and
public order act 1994.
50.
Entering or remaining in any disused or abandoned building
unless invited to do so in writing by a registered charitable organisation.
51.
Entering or remaining on non-residential private property on
an industrial estate between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without written
permission from the owner and/or leaseholder of the property; and: -
52.
Engaging in any licensable activity in any unlicensed
premises.
53.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in this order prevents the
defendant from assisting, preparing for, or engaging in licensed licensable
activities.
54.
This is untrue as we have since contacted council and police
and told he would not be granted a licence to hold any events as long as the
Antisocial Behaviour Order was in place other than when applying with Enfield
Council. So the Appellant's entertainment business is seriously affected by the
Antisocial Behaviour Order that was put in place.
55.
Points to address regarding the conditions the Appellant is
prohibited from doing.
162,
Clearly, the conditions the Appellant was put under are a
breach of the Appellant's human rights, and disproportionate due to the fact it
would breach:
56. Article
3 freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment: -
57. Article
5 right to liberty and security: -
58. Article
8 respect for your private and family life, home, and correspondence: -
59. Article
23.1 of the universal declaration of human rights states: (1) everyone has the
right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions
of work and to protection against unemployment.
60. Condition
E states entering or remaining on a non-residential private property on an
industrial estate between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am without the written
permission from the owner of that land and/or leaseholder of the property.
61. With
this condition in place, it makes it so that the Appellants life is left in
term while as for it leaves him in a state of confusion as to what he can and
cannot do as he has been left not equal to others.
62. Any
non-residential property the Appellant would like to attend such as where house
night club or any friends or family’s private parties he is not able to attend:
63. This
also includes Hospitals, Police Stations, 24-hour Supermarkets, Petrol
Stations, Cinemas, Restaurants, Bars, Nightclubs, and any other public place
open to the public between these times that is non-residential. The Appellant
cannot go to without written permission which would be degrading for the
Appellant to have to ask each time he wanted to go somewhere and explain why he
needed it to be confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the
property, how this condition could be applied by any Judge and state it is not a
beach of someone human rights should not be justified.
64. Conditions
C states knowingly using or supplying property personal or otherwise for the
use of a rave as defined under section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public
order act, the Appellants has spent the last 10 years building his business
saving every penny with help from his family.
65. The
company he has built is regulated within the entertainment industry and is
represented by the licensing Act 2003, he intends to hire equipment out, the
Appellants business is seriously affected by the conditions, partly because if
he hired his equipment to any person and it ended up in an indoor private party
or an outdoor illegal rave then the Appellant would be in breach of the
conditions he has been imposed to be incompliance with another issue of concern
is all events sighted within the Applicants bundle are indoor events and are
therefore not illegal. When hiring out equipment the appellant does ask what it
is going to be used for and also makes sure that he and his clients have that
of a professional contract in place, so for him to be sure he is hiring the
equipment in good faith.
66. Sometimes
when a person tells you their reason for hiring the equipment out you may find
out at a later date that what was explained when hiring the equipment out is
not always correct and that it was not used for the purpose the person told
you. The Appellant should not be liable for other people's actions when
following the correct protocols of business and should never be in breach of
the Asbo conditions in them circumstances.
67. Also
if the Appellant loaned someone any personal belongings and that person ended
up at an illegal rave then the Appellant would again be in breach of his
conditions, even if the item was something that did not even constitute as
being for an illegal rave.
68. These
are just two more of the concerns within the conditions that the Appellant is
under.
69. Some
of our other concerns within the conditions set by the Courts are that the
Appellant's Human rights are even further breached, this includes: -
70. Article
6 right to a fair trial: -
71. The
Appellant had to go ahead at the hearing without the barrister having any other
paperwork other than the application to strike out, which was not allowed.
72. Also
on this date, the police officers did not attend when they knew they should.
73. The
Appellant was so unwell at this hearing, he was not coping he should never have
had to discharge himself from hospital to try to defend himself.
74. The
police have it on the police systems who done what they say the Appellant has
done and have not disclosed that information when requested.
75. The
following directions were made:
76. The
parties to exchange any additional evidence on which they seek to rely by 20th
January 2015, this is to include any witness statements from any witness,
including the defendant himself; and: -
77. The
parties are prohibited from relying on any evidence not already served or
served in accordance with paragraph 1 of these directions, without the
permission of the Court.
78. Although
not a formal direction, should any witnesses no longer be required, the Judge
requested written confirmation of this to be given to all parties speedily.
79. At present,
the following witnesses are required to attend the full hearing:
(i) Inspector Douglas Skinner; -
(ii) Police
constable Miles; -
(iii) Acting
police sergeant Edgoose; -
(iv) Police
constable Elsmore: -
(v) Sergeant King: -
(vi) Police
constable Ames; and: -
(vii) Inspector
Hamill.
80. The
interim order was set to continue until 10th March 2015 when the
full hearing was heard this was listed for two full days.
81. The
disclosure was asked for this was meant to be given by 20/01/2015 this never
happened, and no disclosure was given.
82. No
disclosure was served on us by the20/01/2015 that was asked for; this has
happened throughout this case. The disclosure we ask for would prove the
Appellant did not do what the police are saying within the application.
83. Before
the first hearing was due to take place the Appellant and his mother was
constantly requesting by methods such as via phone and emails for the acting
solicitors Michael Carrol and co.’s to obtain the relevant information so for
them to have the Applicants best interests at heart regarding a fair trial,
thought our requests we understood that things were not being addressed to the
correct level of services needed, this included a lack of communication,
submission of forms and applications and relevant procedures for a solicitor
firm to have the correct correspondents ready for trial, in laymen terms a
complete disregard for their clients, things just was simply not being
completed.
84. Since
the start of the case meetings was constantly being put off by them self's, we
had also asked a number of times could the solicitors please go over the CADs,
and intelligence reports that were in the Asbo application as we understood
there to be serious errors contained within its context, our request was never
accomplished, this included the questioning of laws representing the case
stating it was an illegal offence to which the Applicant had never been
arrested for.
85. Also
noticed within the applicant's bundles were other serious breaches of data
protection, regulations, and codes of conduct, this includes some of the
following: - in police officers’ statements.
163,
Should start at number 76 document index
1. In
what is referred to as a “CFS call” in a short abbreviation a member of the
public requesting assistance by way of a phone call for services that in turn has
led an investigating officer(s) into using a mg11 form otherwise known as a
witness statement, to take a version of events of a person.
2. The
issue of relevance being highlighted is in witness statements that were
contained within the Asbo applications bundle. Serious errors once again seem
to have occurred, that leave serious concerns towards any guilty verdict, as
for sure when any official person is filling out such a form as a mg 11 there
should be statements of truth that have been complied with as well as many
other measurements that should be met that seem to be under serious scrutiny as
for they were written by police officers and not the witnesses themselves, to
even further the rights to justice the Appellant was not allowed to call any
witnesses or any other police officers whose information was within the
application's bundle he was only allowed to have the police officers that the
application wanted us to have, he simply was denied his rights to have any
other witnesses being called.
3. The
members of the public's statements that could be proved to be no other than
information reports that should be classified as non-disclosed intelligence
were allowed to remain within the application’s bundle as witness statements
without being questioned by the acting solicitors, although it was constantly
being brought up.
4. On the
10th March 2015, this date was due to be the full Antisocial Behaviour Order
hearing, but the Court had made a mistake and only listed it for a one-day
hearing.
5. District
Judge Williams sitting, apologised for the error, and said that a part hearing
could take place, or the full hearing is adjourned to a later date so that the
full hearing could be dealt with over two days.
6. The
Appellant was upset as he wanted this to be dealt with and only agreed that the
case is adjourned until the 03/08/2014 and the 04/08/2014 if district Judge
Williams heard the case, she cleared her diary and promised that she would be
the Judge that would preside over the case.
7. District
Judge Williams also stated that this was the 1st time she had ever seen a case
in which the commissioner of the metropolitan police had brought an Antisocial
Behaviour Order in front of her in this way in a civil capacity.
8. The
disclosure was asked for and this was once again never given.
9. On the
2nd August 2015 The Appellant's mother received a phone call from Miss Ward
acting solicitors, regarding a statement she had just found in the emails relating
to Antisocial Behaviour Order, The Appellant's mother asked if this could be
sent over via email to her, in knowing it was too late to do anything about it
because the full hearing started the next day. Similar things were continuously
happening throughout the case; the solicitors seemed to only do anything on the
case the day before the hearings, or a few days before it was due to take
place. Many emails were sent including many phone calls that were made to get
the right things done, most of the emails went not replied to for months, phone
calls was not picked up, or if they were we were told that things would be
addressed when they never were.
10. The
Appellant attended Court on the 03rd August 2015 and the 04th August 2015 for
the full hearing of the Antisocial Behaviour Order, only to find the
stipulation and reasons he had allowed the case to be adjourned to these dates
had not been adhered to, the presiding Judge was not District Judge Williams,
it fact it was District Judge D Pigot who would be residing over the full
hearing.
11. Non-disclosure
was again spoken about, but nothing came of this and the case went forward.
12. We
understand this is only our opinion, but we believe this Judge had already
found that she was going to prove the case before it even started for the full
Antisocial Behaviour Order in favour of the applicants.
13. Before
the hearing started The Appellant’s, mother informed the Judge the Appellant
was very ill and she did not think he would cope due to health problems. She
continued with the case none the less and did not ask the Appellant's mother to
elaborate further. Later within the hearing the judge would notice that there
should have been medical records adduced for the Applicants response within his
bundle and this was missing along with a lot of other documents that had been
requested for his defence, the Appellants bundle was only around 82 pages when
it should have been around 300 pages.
14. Continually
through cross-examination by the Appellants barrister toward the police
officers, District Judge D Pigot kept interrupting and telling the barrister he
could not ask the questions he was asking even though what he was asking
corresponded with what the police had put in their own statements. The
Appellant's barrister even commented to the Judge Pigot “I am only asking
questions pertaining to what the police have put in their statements” also he
said to the Judge “I hope you are not going to have as much due- diligence with
my client on cross-examination as you have with me” to which the Judge replied
she would.
15. This
was certainly not the case and in fact, the Judge allowed the Appellant to be
cross-examined extremely harshly even knowing the Appellant had health
problems.
16. On the
date of trial the Appellants solicitor had not even prepared a copy of the
bundle so for the Appellant to have his own bundle, he was never told by the
acting solicitors that he should of had his own copy and there was also the
issue of there being a lot of documents missing from the Appellant's bundle.
17. On the
day of trial when the Appellant took the stand, the Judge did ask where the
Appellants bundle was, he stated he had never been given one, and did not know
he needed one, the Judge did ask if there was a spare bundle that the Appellant
could use which there was not. the Judge carried on by allowing the Appellant
to be cross-examined clearly anyone could see the Appellant was unwell, from
time to time the Judge passed the Appellant her own bundle.
18. Thought
the trial the Appellant because the appellant did not understand what he was
being asked, the problem with this is how is someone with learning difficulties
is meant to be able to read what is contained within the bundle.
19. The
Appellant feels that if he had had been solicited correctly then for sure he
would have been better prepared, as for this would have left him with access to
his own bundle so for him and his barrister to have been able to defend the
Applicant correctly, therefore efficiently. Prior to the hearing this would
have been the right point of time of opportunity for any of the support network
the Applicant has or may need in place to have complied with what would have
been in the Applicants best interest, so for that group of people working
together as a collective of people, to have been able to off overseen this
case, we all now feel this was totally inappropriate for Mr Simon Cordell to
have been opposed to such behaviour and therefore challenge the rightfulness of
what was allowed by the Judge to have happened.
20. To the
best of the Appellants barrister abilities he questioned the legitimacy of many
issues of our concern that we have raised in many of the correspondents to the
relevant persons of interest, relating towards this case, one of them concerns
that we continually have raised is in relation towards the CAD's that are being
used in the Asbo application, such problems referring to the cads are in
reference towards the case that is linked to Progress Way on 6th 7th 8th June
2014, this line of interrogation, such as what has been taken on by members of
the police lead to a line of questioning such as:- if there was an illegal rave
taking place at the sometime on Crown Road.
21. The
Appellants barrister was asked to make this line of questioning, the reason
being, after reading the local newspapers and making other inquires, we knew
for sure this was a true fact, that there was another party at Crown road on
the same dates.
22. It was
latter revelled that the acting solicitors had not gone over the CADs before
the trial, although they were asked too many times, and this should have been a
standard fair practice for them.
23. If
asked by any official person involved in the on goings of the Anti-Social
Behaviour Order, the defendant can and is happy to provide a list of
correspondents that have been requested by way of mobile texts and electronic
emails by him and his per network. In them
164,
24. messages
he had asked his acting solicitor firm at the time to make sure of any
reductions of wrongful accusations that has now been proven not to be correct,
part of the reason why is because there is still CADs within the bundle that
had nothing to do with the Appellant, what has already been clearly proven and
should not stand as any part of a case against his person.
25. As can
be seen in a copy of the Magistrates transcripts of the trial a police officer
gave wrongful information while under oath, he stated that every CAD contained
in the Asbo application on the dates of the 6th 7th 8th June 2014 is in fact
related to Progress Way and there was not an illegal rave taking place on Crown
Road on them same dates, he done this to help himself in aid of gaining a
guilty verdict against the Appellant, what he stated to the district judge
under cross-examination is not the truth as can be proven by a copy of a
freedom of information request that was sent in receipt's to Enfield Council
and ourselves, to further this the Judge then asked the same question was every
CAD linked to the case of the application, and was given the exact same answer
yes.
26. Attached
is a copy of the freedom of information act which was obtained from Enfield
Council.
27. In
point of the facts there are multiple inconsistencies pertained within the CADs
within the application, timestamps also do not match up within the CADs, there
is also all the missing CADs. Some of the intelligence reports also have been
updated with no reason as to why. There are also the breaches of data
protection within the Appellants PNC record which are incorrect which also can
be proven and should have never been contained without the right application
granted by a judge, also contained within the police officer statements there
are errors which can be proven as untrue and are therefore a breach of the data
protection act.
28. We
know the police knew about the illegal rave at Crown Road because police were
deployed there. This can clearly be seen within the CADs which are within the
application's bundle, but there is so much reduction within the CADs we believe
there is a lot more that pertain to Crown Road, and we cannot see due to the
reductions.
29. Part
of the Appellant's barrister submission had been that the allegations were that
the Appellant was involved in the organising of illegal raves, but the
applicant hadn't adduced evidence of trespass which is a requirement for
proving that an indoor rave was illegal.
30. The
district Judge ruled that the applicant did not need to prove illegality - all
that needed to prove was the Appellant had acted in an Antisocial Manner.
31. In the
Appellants barrister view this is a very questionable decision: firstly, the
applicant based their case on the illegality of the raves rather than the fact
of the rave's themselves and secondly, without proof of illegality the
presumption of innocence leads to the conclusion that the raves were legal, and
thus the applicant being prohibited from engaging in an ostensibly lawful
activity requires more careful consideration on issues of proportionality.
32. The
barrister continued to state that the Applicant could go to judicial review in
regards to the case, but gave his legal advice that he did not think this
decision was in the Appellants best interest as he believed there is little
merit in doing so, the reason he gave was because the Appellant would then lose
his right to Appeal to the Crown Court and even if he succeeded in the high/div
Court, they would merely remit it back to the Lower Court, who would then
probably go through the motions of considering proportionality before coming to
the same conclusion.
33. To
summarise the Judge stated she did not need to prove illegality, but she proved
the Appellant had acted in an Antisocial Manner, how the district Judge came to
this conclusion we do not understand, not one police officer had stated the
Appellant had acted in an Antisocial Manner towards them, is also a fact that
any application for an Antisocial Behaviour Order has to be bought within six
months of the dates, there were cases going back prior to the six months which
should have only been used for reference, but the District Judge also included
these cases to be proven.
34. Since
this case started, we knew the police and the public order investigation unit
held information on the police systems that proved the Appellant was not the
organiser of these illegal raves. In fact, the police knowingly went around to
the known organiser's homes and also spoke with them on the telephone. This
proves they have the information we were asking for in disclosure. (This was
found out via social media and Google by the Appellant's mother) the
Appellant's mother even called the public order investigation unit and spoke to
DS Chapman, and Val Turner.
35. The
Appellant had not been coping throughout this case and walked out of the Court,
the Appellant's mother said to the District Judge you can clearly see he is not
well and is not coping, which the district Judge confirmed she could clearly
see that the Appellant was not well. But continued to ask the clerk to get the
Appellant back in Court and she also informed that if appellant re-entered the
Courtroom and was disruptive, she would hold him in contempt of Court. The
Appellants mother would not let the Appellant re-entered the Courtroom, as she
knew the Appellant was so unwell and not coming and did not want him to be held
in contempt of Court due to his health.
36. Because
of this, the Appellant was not there to have the Antisocial Behaviour Order
served on him, and the Antisocial Behaviour Order was served to the Appellant's
mother on his behalf.
37. Upon
proving the case District Judge Pigot granted all the applicants’ conditions.
The applicants wanted to make this a lifetime Antisocial Behaviour Order, which
district Judge Pigot did not allow and granted it for five years within the
whole of the UK. With the stipulation that it could be reapplied for when the
five years were concluded. She started the five years from the 04/08/2015; she
did not count the time the Appellant had been on the Interim Antisocial
Behaviour Order.
38. The
Appellant's mother and the Appellant's barrister then asked the Judge if the
conditions of the Antisocial Behaviour Order could be defined as there were
many points of concern. the Judge was asked if the Appellant went to a Tesco or
Tesco petrol station between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am would he be in breach
of the conditions and subsequently arrested, the response from District Judge
Pigot was dumbfounding she said” yes he would be arrested, taken to Court and
would then have to prove he was going to get whatever petrol he required”. I am
guessing the same could be said for food and any other non-residential
buildings, this would include hospitals, police stations, restaurants, cinemas
etc. on hearing the Appellant's mother and barrister questioned this and said
“so you think this is in accordance with the law,?” she replied to this “the
conditions are precise and plain.
39. District
Judge Pigot then left the Courtroom with her clerk to get the memorandum of an
entry, so for them to be made up as soon as possible, this was due to the
lateness of the day and the department who dealt with this kind of request would
be closed, on her return the District Judge asked why the Appellants barrister
was not in Court, the Appellants mother said that he had left because he was
not told that he needed to stay, she handed the memorandum of an entry to the
Appellants mother and a copy was then sent to the applicants barrister, on
reviewing this the applicants barrister said there were multiple spelling
mistakes and that the dates from 2013 should not be entered and needed to be
removed. She said this would be amended and a new copy would be sent in the
post, and until this day this has never happened even though the Appellants
mother contacted the Court via emails in regards to them issues, the spelling
mistakes were corrected but not the dates.
40. We
have since found out that we also should have been handed a map showing all
areas which the Antisocial Behaviour Order conditions encompassed, which we
have also never been given, but this map would have just shown the whole of the
UK, even low the extent of the problems only excised in Enfield and under Asbo
guidance should never have been granted on such a geological wide scale without
proof of contempt.
41. The
Appellant's mother asked the Court for the transcripts, but was told at the
Magistrate's Court does not record hearings, that the only notes that were kept
were the clerks Court notes, the clerks Court notes were requested and the fee
paid to obtain these. Upon looking at the clerk's notes there is a substantial
amount is not included within them for the full two-day hearing for the
Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing.
165,
42. Please
see Clerk Notes: -
43. I know
that a judicial review in regards to the Magistrates hearing is being submitted
to the Court out of time, but when the Appellants mother contacted the high
Court to make enquiries in regards to a judicial review and explained the
situation that had occurred throughout this case she was told to submit the
application for judicial review for the Magistrates hearing's and that under
exceptional circumstances the time limit could be overturned, the reason that
this has been submitted to the Court out of time is due to the Appellant taking
his barristers opinion that he would be better to go for the Appeal at the
Crown Court and this is what the Appellant did. The Appeal hearing was not
concluded until 19 January 2017.
44. On the
13 August 2015, the Metropolitan Police Service posted on their website, this
led to all the local newspapers printing the story about the Appellant.
45. Please
see attached: -
46. But
how could the police have printed this as illegality had not been proven?
47. This
lead to the Appellant having stones thrown at his windows, and a gun being
pulled out on him, which it then took the police six days to come out to take a
report, we know the reason why it took the police so long to come and take the
report it's how much the police dislike the Appellant, and his family this has
been ongoing for over 23 years.
48. The
Appellant's mother contacted many solicitors to try and get a new solicitor to
take over the case, each time she was told that solicitors will not take a case
on at Appeal stage due to how much legal aid paid for Appeal hearing, legal aid
believed the solicitors that acted for the hearing would be dealing with the
Appeal hearing so there was a set amount that would be paid for Appeal hearings
which would not cover a new solicitor going over the complete case. The
Appellant's mother believed it was best to keep the old solicitors on record as
it was better to have a solicitor then having non due to the Appellant's health
which had deteriorated throughout this case.
49. The
Appeal was listed for the 26 October 2015 but only listed for 1-hour hearing
the case was put off, due to the case needed to be set for three days as to the
Appeal hearing.
50. The
acting solicitors had seemed to have lost the Appellant's bundle it had been
removed from the office due to the office being audited in the October 2015, no
one seemed to be able to find the Appellant's bundle, and all the missing
documents that was meant to have been within the bundle which was for the case
and full hearing.
51. On the
9th November 2015 the case was listed for a mention hearing, all bundles were
due to be at the Crown Court by the 23December 2015. The case was listed for a
three-day Appeal to start on 22 February 2016. Discloser had been requested
again.
52. In the
December 2015 arrangements was made for the acting solicitors to attend the
Appellants mother's home to go over the case bundles, at this point the
Appellants mother made sure that all the CADs and intelligence reports was gone
over by the solicitor, upon seeing all the errors the solicitor was shocked,
maps were made up to be included in the Appellant's bundle and the Appellant's
bundle was remade as it was due to be handed into Wood Green Crown Court on the
23 December 2015. Emails were also sent by the solicitor to the police.
53. The
Appellants mother agreed to print of multiple documents including all maps
needed to be done in colour, just prior to the Christmas holiday all printing
was done and contact was made with the solicitors in order to get the
Appellant's bundle Paginated and indexed, on 22 December 2015 multiple texts
and calls was made to the solicitor due to the fact the bundle needed to be to
the Court by the 23 December 2015.
54. The
acting solicitor firm's replies were not being made in efficient time. On one
occasion out of many the acting solicitor did not reply until much later, when
she finally did reply she stated, that she could hand in the bundle when she
got back from the Christmas and her New Year holidays, this was clearly not
adequate as there should have been a case handler in her position to handle the
Applicants case load.
55. Effectually
a text was sent to the solicitor stating that this was going to have an effect
on families Christmas and New Year due to the Appellant knowing that the Court
had ordered the bundle to be submitted to the Court by a certain date and this
time limit given by a judge not being merited, a text was received back from
the solicitors, this stated the following:- “to be at the office by 18:00 PM”
The Appellants mother attended and two bundles was Paginated and indexed which
took until around01:30 AM. Miss Ward was not happy due to the time that had to
be spent dealing with this as she was due to fly out in the early hours to Ireland.
The bundles were left with the Appellants mother, this was achieved so that one
mastered copy could behand-delivered to the Court in the morning on the 23
December 2015 and the other bundle was recorded delivered via the Post Office
to the police.
56. Miss Ward
stated after the Christmas and New Year holidays she would get the Appellant's
bundle ready so it could be given to him. The Appellant had not seen the new
bundle as the solicitor did not want to meet him, and due to the lateness in
which the bundle was made to get into the court and the police, there was not
the time for the Appellant to see the new bundle.
57. One of
the texts that were sent to the Appellants mother please see below. Stated:
that on the 22/12/2015, “This is a legal aid case Lorraine and Simon need to
recognise that he is not paying privately so needs to work within the
constraints of the legal aid system.” Upon receiving the text the Appellants
mother was upset, it was the Court who had set the day for the bundle to be
within the Court, not the Appellant.
58. The
solicitors should have dealt with the case in a timely manner and made sure
that things were not left to the last minute.
59. All
that the Appellant ever wanted was for the solicitors to do what was right and
needed for the Applicant their client, to which never happened.
60. When
overseeing the past activities of: “the case handlers”, it is a sure fact that
things was always left or not achieved at all, this would always lead the
Appellants to his disappointment, in turn, causing wrongful suffering and loss,
this seems to continue to leave the Appellant being in receipt of getting the
blame, when he should not.
61. It was
also upsetting because it seemed as if: - the Appellant paid for the
solicitor's services then things would have been addressed a lot differently. I
feel it should make no difference between paying privately or having legal aid
put in place, a solicitor's job is to represent their client to the best of
their ability seek justice for their client the best they possibly can, this was
not the case throughout this case. After the Christmas and the New Year's
holidays, we had to keep asking for the Appellant's bundle, we managed to get
this in the beginning of February 2016, not long before the trial was due to
start, it would also seem the solicitors was having problems getting a
barrister for the Appellant still had not seen a barrister, this was at the
time of the full hearing at the Magistrate's Court, the original barrister that
represented the Appellant at the Magistrate's hearings, was on sabbatical
leave. It is also noted that the acting solicitors, did not want a meeting with
the Appellant and was mostly dealing with the Appellants mother.
62. On the
19th February 2016 the acting Solicitors put into the Court for a mention
hearing, the Appellant believed this was due to nondisclosure, but the
solicitors had also put an application into Break Fixture this was dismissed by
His Honour Judge Morrison, this was three days before the three-day Appeal
hearing was due to start.
63. “The Court
will not and does not accede to any application for The Appellants.”
64. Solicitor's
to come off the record or to cease acting for the Appellant, such an
application was dismissed by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19th February
2016. It was also said that if any attempt is made to repeat this application
the Court will require it to be made in person, by the Senior Partner of
Michael Carroll & Co.”
65. This
information is very important due to what occurred on the 21/09/2016 when
HHJ-PAWLAK removed the solicitors from the record, as this was done without the
Appellant or a Senior Partner of Michael Carroll & Co being present in
Court. (“See date 21/09/2016 as more
166,
notes”)
66. His
Honour Judge Morrison listed for the case to be heard on the 22/02/2016 in front
of HHJ-PAWLAK, this was due to issues that were raised once again regarding
nondisclosure and he felt he was not the best Judge to answer these issues.
67. The
reason the solicitors gave to come off the record so close to the Appeal
hearing was a breakdown in communication and they also could not get a
barrister to deal with this case, this is in part misleading, the actual reason
for them wanting to come off the record was due to the lack of work done by
solicitors acting for the Appellant, in point of fact the case was not ready
for the Appeal hearing, They could also not get a Barrister, and did not want
to meet with their client.
68. His
Honour Judge Morrison had never heard off solicitors that could not get a
barrister and ordered that a Public Defender took over the case to act for the
Appellant.
69. A
three-day Appeal hearing was listed for 22/02/2016, 23/02/2016 and 24/02/2016.
70. Mr
Morris acting Public Defender attended Court on this day to act for the
Appellant; the Appellant had not met Mr Morris before this date. Mr Morris had
only had the case since the 19/02/2016 and was not ready for the three-day
Appeal hearing. He wanted time to be able to go over all the large case bundles
and be able to sit down and talk to the Appellant, so asked for an adjournment.
71. HHJ-PAWLAK
was very unsympathetic and said he had the weekend to get ready for this case
and that the Appeal would go ahead. Considering this was the Public Defender
that His Honour Judge Morrison had allocated to the case only three days
beforehand it seemed that the Appellant was the one being penalised for the
incompetence of his acting solicitors Michael Carroll & Co.
72. The
Appellant's health had deteriorated considerably due to all of what was
happening within this case and other issues, the mental health team had
obtained a section 135 warrant under the mental health act and it was only
because of the disdain towards the Appellant from the ASBO proceedings, the
Appellants Mother felt that she had to hand this information to his acting
barrister, so for them to give a copy of the letter handed to them to the
Judge, knowing this would cause a huge rift between the Appellant and his
mother. But she had no option as the Judge was going to force the Appeal
hearing to go ahead when the Appellant mother knew the Appellant would not
cope.
73. This
information was also posted to the judge, in knowing that the barrister had
only just got the case handed to him and he himself was not ready to take the
case on, as he had not even met with the Appellant at this point in time.
74. Upon
Mr Morris handing the documents to the Judge the Judge then unwilling adjourned
the Appeal hearing until the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing.
75. The
Judge listed the case for a mention hearing also on the 04/04/2016.
76. After
this Court hearing, HHJ-PAWLAK wrote a letter to the acting solicitors Michael
Carroll and co that had to be replied to by the 04/04/2016.
77. See
Attached letter from Judge: -
78. See
attached response from Solicitors dated 03/04/2016: -
79. ln the
letter that the Judge wrote to The Appellant's solicitors on the 22/02/2016, he
asked Miss Ward who was dealing with this case for the Appellant at Michael
Carroll & Co, if she knew that the response had to be completed by the
04/04/2016 for when the case was next listed in Court.
80. Miss
Ward did not start working on the response to the Judge's letter until the
03/04/2016 and an email was sent to the Appellant with what Miss Ward wanted to
reply in response to the Judge's letter also stating any amendments that needed
to be complied with, as soon as practically possible.
81. Because
the Appellant knew that Miss Ward had sat on the letter from the Judge, in
turn, she and the company that she represented, had done nothing about what the
judge had requested, this was since the date of February 2016 and then Miss
Ward had rushed a response to be ready on the 03/04/2016, when she had been
asked repeatedly to address the letter in a timely manner from the Judge and
ourselves. In doing this she had not given the Appellant any time to go over
the response she had written.
82. The
Appellant amended Miss Wards Letter to include multiple points that had been
missed out and sent it back to Miss Ward via email within a few hours of
getting it. The Appellant was upset that he had to rushed into things, this was
due to the learning problems he has and the delay in getting the letter from
the solicitors meant the Appellant had hardly any time.
83. Please
see attached: -
84. Upon
attending Court on the 04/04/2016 it was seen that Mr Morris had also drafted a
response to the Judge letter this response was almost identical to Miss Ward's
Letter except that it included one crucial section regarding the hearsay rule
that had not been included in Miss Ward's letter.
85. The
Appellant agreed on the point about the hearsay rule as he had been explaining
this to Miss ward since the start of the ongoings of the case, which he felt
did need to be included. But the Applicant was adamant it was going to be his
letter that was going to be handed to the Judge with the oral addition of the
hearsay. (This was the oral addition)
86. “The
Magistrates Court hearsay rules 1999 do not apply to the Crown Court.
87. The
defence does not accept that the Respondent has relied on the correct
legislation to apply under the hearsay rules. In any event, the Appellant
requests that the Respondent calls the witnesses who made CAD entries for
cross-examination.
88. It is
neither professionally appropriate nor suitable for the Appellant to call
police officers and question their Credibility, as proposed by the Respondent
through their application under the Magistrates Court Hearsay Rules.
89. The
Appellant submits that questioning the credibility of one's own witnesses would
not be permitted by the Court.
90. The
Respondent has put forward no good reason for why these witnesses cannot be
called. As to say it is not in the interests of justice to do so.”
91. HHJ-PAWLAK
granted the hearsay application could be submitted, although opposed orally by
Mr Morris. HHJ-PAWLAK informed that Mr Morris opposition to hearsay was
contained in Mr Morris legal document, for which the Appellant did not allow Mr
Morris to hand up. HHJ-PAWLAK was informed that client wished to hand up his
own document to HHJ-PAWLAK against Mr Morris advice. Document read by all
sides.
92. Please
see The Appellant document: -
93. Considering
point five of the Judge's letter to the Appellants Acting solicitors, it raises
the question of how was this allowed, the Judge allowed Mr Morris to make an
oral submission in regards to hearsay in the Court, yet then said they were not
allowed and then granted the hearsay application as allowed.
94. Michael
Carroll and Co had also not done or prepared a skeleton argument for the
Appellant's bundle, the Judge stated that the letter that had then been handed
in could be used as the Appellant's skeleton argument.
95. Miss
Ward was sitting in the back of the Court taking notes of what was being asked
by the Judge and what was being said.
96. A
meeting was meant to be arranged with the Appellant and the Public defender Mr
Morris; this was not done.
97. On the
12/07/2016: Informed by solicitor via email: -
98. “Please
note that Mr Andrew Locke has returned from a career sabbatical and he has
agreed to deal with the Appeal against the imposition of an ASBO. I am in the
process of confirming a conference date with Mr Locke, hopefully within the
next two weeks. I have notified Mr Morris from the Public Defender Service that
Mr Locke is your preferred choice and I have requested the written submissions
that he had prepared for the mention hearing in April 2016 that you did not
consent to or permit us to serve upon the prosecution,
167,
instead your own document was served at your insistence and
contrary to the advice given by both Mr Andrew Morris and myself.
99. Please
confirm any dates that you are not available so that this conference can be
arranged.
100.
The meeting was never arranged with Mr
Locke, the Appellant's agreed barrister, until just before the Appeal date
hearing, even though we kept asking for this to be arranged.
101.
I would like to say that no option was
given to us about a preferred barrister and if any person was to notice the
date of the email then they would also notice that in a period of time it was
once upon a time three whole months that had escalated since the said:-
“mention hearing” referring to the date of the 04/04/2016, this is even through
multiple emails were continually being sent to Miss Ward, asking for things to
be addressed and dealt with in this case.
102.
Emails were going unanswered for months
by the acting solicitor firm, in fact since the start of time in this case,
which started in 2014. As for the list of police officer the Appellant wanted
to call Miss Ward had been told over and over the officer's names required to
be listed in the Asbo application case, this list of names contained officers
from the Public Order Investigation unit at Scotland Yard and maybe another
officer such as Superintendent Specialist Operations Adrian Coombs.
103.
On the 14th August 2016 the Appellant
was sectioned under section 2 of the mental health act, he was then released
later in August 2016, after a tribunal hearing and this was also due to
agreeing that he would work with the mental health doctors and teams, that was
put in place, he stated he would be willing to stay in hospital voluntarily,
but due to bed shortages, he was discharged home a day later, with a support
team put into place, the acting solicitors were made aware of this, and so was
the Court in the September 2016, when the Appellant was due to attend.
104.
On 16 September 2016 the case was
listed for a mention hearing for Non-Disclosure, and also a meeting with Mr
Locke the Appellant Barrister as he had not seen any barrister since the
04/08/2015 hearing at the Magistrate's Court when the Antisocial Behaviour
Order was granted by the Judge with no legality found.
105.
The Appellant was told by his acting
solicitors to be at Court by 09:30 hours, but later this was changed to 09:00
hours, this was so he could have a meeting with his barrister, which he did agreed
to do.
106.
On the agreed court date the Appellant
arrived at Court for 09:00, his barrister did not arrive until around 09:40,
disappointingly.
107.
On arrival The Appellants barrister and
him himself inclusive of his mother all went together into a side room for a
pre talk. Before any desiccations in relation to the case could be discussed,
Mr Locke said he was sorry he was not feeling very well and that he also had
some emails from Ms Ward, that he had to read first, on trying to open the
emails he realized he could not and subsequently went out of the room to call
Ms Ward.
108.
At around 10:00 hours the Appellant was
called into Court, Mr Locke came back into the room from after making his phone
call to Miss Ward, so for himself to be able to have collected his things and
he then hurried and started to walk back out of the room we all was supposed to
have a meeting but on stead he hurried in towards the Court room. The Appellant
tried to stop him, so to have explained to him, what his concerns were. (“As we
had not yet at this point in time had a moment to talk”) and the Appellant was
also concerned about the disclosure that was going to be asked for.
109.
The Appellant asked Mr Locke if he
could ask the Judge to adjourn the case for five or ten minutes, so that we all
could speak with each other, which he replied “no that the hearing was only for
disclosure about the schedule”, The Appellant said that:- “He knew this was not
correct and this was one of the reasons that he wanted to speak with him
about.” The Appellant again asked: - “if the barrister would ask the Judge to
postpone for ten minutes again” he yet again said “no”, at which point the
Appellant asked “why Mr Locke did not want to speak to him, and should he act
for himself ”?
110.
The Barrister Mr Locke had no time to
talk to The Appellant at the time and spent around four minutes talking to Ms
Ward on the phone, before ending his call, he asked the Appellant if he the
Appellant was dismissing his solicitors, to which the Appellant replied:- “No”,
Mr Locke then started to walk towards the Courtroom, we followed the barrister
into Court and on entering the Court in a raised voice, The Appellant said to
Mr Locke:- (“who was ahead of him”) so am I acting for myself then.? Mr Locke
never replied to the Appellant and just proceeded to talk to the Judge and then
he walked toward the courtroom door and ushered out. At this point the
Appellant had no idea what was going on but proceeded to follow him outside the
Court room, it was at this point of time when Mr Locke turned around and said
quite curtly “I do not want you to speak anymore”, as we got closer to him he
also informed the Appellant it was not good to shout out, “in open Court,” to
which the Appellant had to agree with, but the Appellant felt so let down as it
seemed his barrister did not even want to talk to him, since the Appellant had
last seen him in 2014 and this is another part of the reasons that the
Appellant wanted to speak with him, as so much had already gone wrong with this
case and the Appellant felt very nervous as he did not know what was going on,
or what would be said as he had not spoken to his barrister.
111.
The Appellants mother, who had
witnessed all of this, did try to explain to the Appellants barrister, what the
Appellant wanted to say, in reference to the receipt of the requested
Non-disclosure and asked Mr Locke to explain what the schedule is about before
we all went back into court.
112.
The Appellant also asked about the two
article 6's that had been issued by the court, which had never been addressed:-
“by the Court,” which pertains to The Appellants Human Rights and importantly
his rights to a fair and speedy trial, to what had not happened. The Article 6
the right to a fair and speedy trial had been handed to the Court at earlier
hearings, as The Appellants knew Mr Locke knew nothing about this and other
information that had happened, so he felt it important to explain this to him
at the time. Mr Locke explained that the schedule was what the Judge had asked
for on the 04/04/2016, my mother replied this was not all the Judge had asked
for, without replying Mr Locke walked towards the Courtroom and we all
followed, it was at this point The Appellant said to the barrister I feel I
should represent myself because he felt he was not being heard.
113.
All that the Appellant wanted was to be
able to speak to his barrister, so that he knew what had been said at the
earlier hearing of the04/04/2016, and show him the document that was handed to
the Judge, on that date.
114.
On entering the Court the Appellant barrister
Mr Locke addressed the Judge and said the Appellant did not want him to act for
him, but this was not fully the case the Appellant only wanted to be able to
speak to his barrister.
115.
The Judge informed the Appellants
barrister to remain in the Courtroom, the Judge asked what the case was listed
for and the prosecuting barrister addressed the Court, answering the questions,
he then also handed the schedule to the Applicants barrister, they also said to
the Judge that the Appellant had been sending letters to the Court and the
prosecution himself, which stated: - “I Simon Cordell throughout the document.”
This is not the case and the Appellant did not understand their comment or what
document the prosecuting barrister was talking about. The Judge then addressed
the Appellant and asked the Appellant did the Appellant still want the
barrister to act for the Appellant, the Appellant replied “Yes” to the Judge
that he did want the barrister to act for him; the Appellant stated that he
only wanted time to speak to his barrister, as he had not spoken to a barrister
since the Magistrate's hearing.
116.
The Judge then addressed the Appellant
barrister he said that the Appellant still wanted the barrister to act for the
Appellant, the Appellant barrister agreed to this. The Judge also stated he
felt he was not the best person to be hearing this case and passed it back over
to the Judge that was hearing the Appeal.
117.
On leaving the Courtroom the Appellant
and his mother proceeded to go into a side room to talk with the Appellant
barrister, we explained that a letter had been handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016, the barrister said he knew nothing of this letter, so we handed him
a copy for him to read. Once he read this, he said he knew nothing about this
and had only seen one document that kept saying I Simon Cordell, (“The
Appellant has no idea of what this I Simon Cordell letter is.”)
168,
118.
The Appellants mother proceeded to
explain this is why the Appellant wanted to talk to Mr Locke before going into
Court, as this is part of the Non-disclosure being requested.
119.
The barrister explained he only knew
about the schedule, to which the Appellant mother replied, the schedule had
been asked for by the Judge in addition to the letter that had been handed in
and this was also when the Judge said it could be used as the Appellants
skeleton argument and that this had happened when Miss Ward was in the Court on
the date of the 04/04/2016 when she was also taking notes, so Miss Ward knew
exactly what the Judge had asked for.
120.
The Appellants mother had made a call
to the Appellants solicitor and enquired as to what the Judge had asked for on
the 04/04/2016 in regards to the disclosure, Ms Ward stated she could not
remember, the Appellant mother being dumbfounded by this said in reply to her:-
“you was sitting in the back of the Courtroom taking notes,” and continued to
explain that only last week from the date in mention, will have everything that
the Judge had asked for in his original disclosure, plus what was asked for in
the Appellants letter, that was handed to the judge and Miss Ward also
explained that the Judge had made other addictions in addition to the
mentioned.
121.
At no point did Ms Ward ever make the
Appellants mother feel she did not know what was due to be disclosed, before
and while still on the phone, if she had ever done this the Appellant and the
Appellant mother would have asked her to relist the case to the Court and asked
for this to be clarified, as the disclosure that we was asking for was very
important to the ongoings of the Appeal.
122.
The Appellant mother then handed the
Appellant the phone the Appellant asked Ms Ward about the letter he was
supposed to have sent to the Court and the prosecuting barrister, the Appellant
was still thinking she was talking about the letter handed to the Judge on the
04/04/2016 when Miss Ward was not.
123.
Also in Court on this date, it was said
the Appellant had written this letter himself, which was not the case.
124.
In truth The Appellant agreed for a
letter that Miss Ward had written in reply to the Judge's letter for the
Appellant to be amended, he had amended it himself and it was to be handed into
the court, the Appellant solicitor was at Court so she knew the Appellant had
amended the letter, this is to be inclusive of it being sent to her by email,
as she was in the court on this date to.
125.
On this date when Miss Ward was a court
she said to the judge that the Appellant had drafted the letter when the
Appellant had only amended it, Miss Ward continued to say, that she did not
draft the Letter and that the Appellant wrote it, this is not true, at this the
Appellant did call Miss ward a lair as the Appellant knew Miss Ward had drafted
the letter herself at first.
126.
The Appellant later explained to Miss
Ward on the phone that he could prove the truth and said I have the emails you
sent to me and my mother of the letter we talk about and me amending it, in
return for you. It was also explained to all that we have kept copies of all
other correspondence between our persons and this is to include (Since the
start of the Court proceedings.
127.
The Appellant mother has checked the
dates for when this letter was drafted by The Appellant solicitor and then
returned to her, the date was on the 03/04/2016 please see attached email and
letter (marked 03/04/2016 Ms Ward).
128.
The Appellant barrister was listening
to the phone call and after the Appellant ended the barrister got up and said I
will need to think about still representing you as you called your solicitors a
lair, the Appellant stated that he can prove that Miss Ward wrote the letter
and she's denying as to doing so and further expressed himself in question the
line of investigation by saying:- “how would anyone body else's feel, if she
had lied about them,” the Appellant barrister then replied that if he was still
going to represent the Appellant then there would need to be a meeting at the
Appellant barrister chambers, at this point the meeting concluded, with nothing
else really spoke of about the Appellant Appeal yet again, this was days before
the Appeal hearing was due to start once again.
129.
Up to here for now: -
130.
A while after the Solicitor wrote a
letter and sent it to the Appellant and the Appellants mother, the date of this
received email is dated 20/09/2016 and a copy had also been sent to the Court,
this application was put in so for the acting solicitor to once again attempt
to be removed from the record this was done to our surprise and was listed in
Court to be heard on the 21/09/2016.
131.
There were large sections of this
letter that were incorrect and did not happen so therefore are not true; this
can also be proven by the Court transcripts from the 16/09/2016.
132.
On the 21/01/2016 we were on our way to
Court and got caught in traffic, we contacted the Court to get a message to the
Judge to say that we were going to be five to ten minutes late, “I know the
Judge got the message.”
133.
When we got to the Court, there was a
barrister that Michael Carroll and Co had sent to the Court to deal with the
application; this was so for them to be removed from the record for the second
attempt.
134.
The Barrister informed us she did not
want to leave the Court before explaining what had happened it seemed the Judge
had called this into Court without us being present and removed the solicitors
from the record.
135.
We question how could this have
happened? Considering, the Appellant was not present at Court? And there was
not a senior Partner from Michael Carroll and Co? “this question is due to what
had been previously said by His Honour Judge Morrison on 19/02/2016 in regard
to this not being allowed to happen.”
136.
The Barrister said the Judge wanted to
see us and we would need to wait in Court until we were called, as the Judge
was dealing with a trial and we would be called in after it.
137.
Around 16:00 hours we were called into
Court, the Respondent did make the Judge aware at this point that what had been
said by His Honour Judge Morrison on the 19/02/2016 stating that a Senior
Partner was not present at Court, the Judge replied that he could not force a
solicitor to carry on with a case they clearly did not want to and that the
Appellant could represent himself, he continued to state; that the case was in
a much better order now, but as is known the Appellant has learning
difficulties and health problems which the Court are also well aware of, there
were only a few days until the Appeal hearing was due to start once again, how
could a Judge believe that a person with learning difficulties and health
problems could be ready and cope with dealing with a three-day Appeal hearing
on his own?.
138.
We did try to get the Judge to adjourn
the Appeal hearing so we could try and get representation put in place due to
knowing the Appellant could not cope or handle this case on his own, which was
due to start on the 26/09/2016 for a three-day hearing, the Judge said he would
not allow this and that the Appeal hearing would go ahead no matter what. It
seems again that the Appellant was being blamed for what was ongoing in this
case, when the Appellant and the Appellant mother had done all they could, so
for them to have this case ready to be heard.
139.
How can a Judge expect someone that is
known to be ill and have learning difficulties to be able to handle this case
on their own? considering there were only four days until the three-day Appeal
hearing was due to start. Nothing was put in place by the Judge to help the
Appellant in any way. The Appellant was just meant to get on with the case all
on his own under the circumstances.
140.
Once again, the solicitors had done nothing
for this case and the Judge had allowed them to walk away when this was said to
not be allowed and it seems as if everything was being blamed on the Appellant.
141.
It was also noted while we had been
waiting outside the Court that the bundles we had been working from was the
very first set of the application bundles and since that time everything had
been updated, without us being informed, this included more statements from the
police officer in charge of the case, there were lots of documents missing from
within the first bundle due to the update, so until he was given the updated
bundles, the Appellant had never seen them additional documents.
142.
It was stated by the respondent they
had sent new bundles to the acting solicitors Michael Carroll and co three
times since the being of January 2016, we had never been given a set of new
bundles since this case had started in 2014, we had never been told about new
bundles been sent and never given a new copy of any bundle. This meant that
bundle we had would have had all wrong page numbers
169,
and been paginated totally different from the
bundles that were being used by the prosecution barrister and Courts.
143.
When we were in Court, we did say this
to the Judge about the bundles, the Judge ordered the clerk of the Court to
contact Michael Carroll and Co solicitors and order the solicitors to bring the
bundles to Court. The solicitors informed the clerk that the bundles were at
Nexus Chambers, the Judge was shocked that the solicitors did not have a copy
of the bundles at their office. The Appellant's uncle who was also at Court
said to the Judge he was willing to go to Nexus Chambers and pick the bundles
up.
144.
The Judge listed this for the
22/09/2016 after 14:00 hours to make sure we were all working from them same
set of bundles.
145.
Upon the Appellant's uncle getting home
it was seen that the bundle he had collected was not the full set of bundles
and only had part of the applications Skeleton Bundle.
146.
On the 22 September 2016 we attended Court
to inform the Judge we still did not have the updated bundles and the Judge
once again got the clerk of the Court to call Michael Carroll and co solicitors
to find out what was going on within the bundles, the Judge was very upset that
we still did not have the bundles for the case, the Judge asked for the bundles
to be brought to Court before 4 PM, The Appellant's mother stated that it would
be easier and faster for her to pick the bundles up from the solicitors on the
way home from Court, the Judge asked if she was sure that he could get them
brought to Court she stated that it be faster for her to pick the bundles up
from the solicitors on my way home.
147.
When we left Court due to the time and
the circumstances we had been placed in The Appellant mother called Michael
Carroll's office to say what time we would be there by, The Appellant mother
was told that the office would be closed by the time we got there so The
Appellant mother agreed to pick the bundles up first thing in the morning on 23
September 2016.
148.
On 23-09-2016 The Appellant mother left
home early in the morning to go to Michael Carroll's office and collect the
bundles with her brother, Mr A Cordell they went into the office together to
get the bundles, when the solicitor came down the stairs he had a piece of
paper that The Appellant mother needed to sign, stating that the bundles had
been collected from the office.
149.
Upon getting home and looking at the
bundles, The Appellant mother noticed there is now at least 13 additional
statements that The Appellant and The Appellant mother had never seen before
from the Respondent bundle, this is a clear error as we knew that in the first
bundle there were only 4 public witness statements and there now seems to be
16, when taking a closer look at the statements we noticed there are no members
of the public's statements of truth and this also applied for the original 4
contained in the folder minus one, this also highlighted that each member of
the public's statements are police officers only and have each put their
signatures on two different statements each, in a pretence of portraying to own
two houses each in Edmonton xxx Gardens and other surrounding roads in an
around Progress way, the police officers are claiming to be victims of this
case while on active duty.
150.
So in understanding this, the Applicant
contacted Edmonton police stations lost property room, so too for him to
arrange collection of the original bundle, that was never served to him in
accordance with the law. To his further upset and disappointment of justice he
was to be told by another police officer deployed at the lost property room as
the manager, that the bundle that the Appellant wanted to claim had been
misplaced or stolen, this file clearly shows that there was only ever four potential
members of the publics witness statements attached within side of the original
Asbo application.
151.
Some of the statements added are all
dated prior to the Magistrates Court trial. Upon looking at The Appellant's
bundles it seemed this had not been updated or indexed since 2015, so all the
new documents that had been submitted to be added to The Appellant's bundle was
not in their as they should have been.
152.
Over the days leading up to this, The
Appellant mother had learned how important it was that all the bundles were
paginated and indexed correctly and that all the bundles were the same as each
other so that each person was working on them files was all in Co Hurst to each
other, as there was always problems at court due to this not being completed
correctly.
153.
Though the case history multiple
documents had been handed to the Court and those documents did not get
patronised correctly or indexed into The Appellant's bundles, this includes the
court and the Respondent bundles that they were using also.
154.
A whole weekend was spent trying to add
missing documents to the Appellant's bundle and making copies so that on the
Court date of the 26-09-2016; any missing files could be added to the
Respondent bundle and the three Judge's bundles. The Appellant health had become
very unstable due to him knowing that he was going to have to be dealing with
this himself.
155.
The Appellant mother also spent part of
the weekend also writing a letter to the Judge in regards to what had gone on
with the breaches in The Appellant's human rights, his article 6 human rights
the Applicants rights to a fair and speedy trial, there were also a list of
other things that had gone on throughout the case since 2014 in regards to the
nondisclosure, and other issues that was always being raised when at Court and
the reason as to why legal aid had been granted:-
· Due to the complexity of the case: -
· Due to The Appellant's learning
difficulties: -
· Due to the concerns of The Appellant
health.
This letter was emailed to the Court
and asked to be passed to the Judge.
Please see letter that was emailed to
the judge: -
The 26 September 2016 the three-day
Appeal hearing was due to start, The Appellant was so unwell that there was no
way he could attend Court, Mr A Cordell and Miss L Cordell attended Court to speak
to the Judge, when the Judge entered the Courtroom he stated that he had
received a letter that had to be addressed, he stated that he felt this would
go to judicial review, he stated he had three options:
Carry on with the Appeal in the hope
that The Appellant would turn up the following day.
· To Dismiss the Appeal: -
· Adjourn the Appeal to a new date.
156.
The Judge went over the letter in great
detail; he started around five times that he felt that this case was going to
go to judicial review. The Judge decided to adjourn the case until the
16/01/2017; this was later changed for the Appeal to start on the 17/01/2017.
The Respondent had tried to object to the Appeal being adjourned. The Judge
stated that we should try to find a new solicitor to take on the Appeal and
that he would help and also make sure that legal aid was in place.
157.
The Judge asked why The Appellant was
not in Court. The Appellant mother stated The Appellant had become so unwell
due to what was going on in this case and that he was not coping. Information
was passed to the Judge that showed The Appellant was unwell. Mentioned in
court; was also the missing documents that was missing from The Appellant's
bundle, and that there were no statements within the bundle, my mother stated
to the Judge that she had spent a lot of the weekend trying to update The
Appellant's bundle and make sure that it was indexed correctly. The Appellant
handed the documents in to the court that The Appellant mother was able to get
ready with the new indexing, the Appellant mother also stated that she knew
there was still documents missing from The Appellant's bundle, which she was
not sure about neither had she been given time in which to add them. The
Appellant mother also stated that there were around thirteen statements that
had never been seen and that were now contained within the Respondent bundle
that was dated prior to the Magistrate's trial.
158.
The Judge was very unhappy and passed
the Applicants mother his own bundle for her to check by seeing if the Courts
bundles had been updated, upon looking into the Judge's bundle, she noticed
that his bundle had also not been updated since 2015, the Appellant mother
passed the Judge's bundle back up the judge while explaining to him that his
folder had not been updated. At this the Respondent stated they would make new
copies of the bundles and have copies sent to us and the Judge.
170,
159.
The Judge was very unhappy and said he
was not going to allow this to be dropped and again made the clerk of the Court
make a phone call to Michael Carroll and co, to order them to attend Court on
the 14/10/2016, in regards to the missing documents.
160.
I stated I would try and add as many
missing documents as I could but was unsure of what documents were missing, the
reason being as so much had been handed to the court and solicitors.
161.
The Appellant mother asked the Judge if
the Appellant would need to attend Court on the 14/10/2016, as the hearing was
due to only be regards to the missing documents, The Appellant mother felt The
Appellant did not need to be there the Judge agreed to this.
162.
On the 14 October 2016 Mr A Cordell and
the Appellant's mother attended Court on this date, the solicitors did not turn
up, The Appellant mother had a list of documents that she had made up and
indexed that needed to be added to The Appellant's bundle's, which she passed
to the Judge. She stated to the Judge that she could not be sure if there were
still documents missing. She also stated that she had tried to call Miss Ward
and had no reply. The Judge was very upset that the solicitors had not turned
up; the Judge again got the clerk of the Court to email Michael Carroll and co
to tell them that they had to be in Court on the 19/10/2016.
163.
The Appellant mother also stated to the
Judge that she had made many phone calls to other solicitors and due to the
case being at the Appeal stage no one was willing to take the Appeal on due to
the cost they would get under legal aid, in more detail it was explained that
legal aid is a set amount and continued to explain that the solicitors dealing
with the Appeal should be the same solicitors that dealt with the original
trial, Appeals are set at a standard rate, so any solicitor taking on a case
would not get paid to go over the complete bundles and to take updated
instructions from the client.
164.
Again the Appellant mother asked the
Judge if The Appellant needed to attend Court on the next date, to which the
Judge replied no.
165.
On the 19/10/2016 again Mr A Cordell
and the Appellants mother attended Court, to find out that once again the
solicitors was not in attendance, the Judge had received a letter from Michael
Carroll constating that Miss Ward no longer worked for the company, the Judge
was very upset and said he was not going to allow the issue of: the “Missing
documents, legal aid certificate “to be dropped, the Judge asked the clerk of
the Court to email Michael Carroll and co, so for them to attend Court on the
25/10/2016.
166.
The Appellants mother again stated to
the Judge that she had made many phone calls to other solicitors to try and get
them to take over the Appeal, and due to the case being Appeal stage no one was
willing to take the Appeal on due to the cost they would not get under legal
aid and that it was a set amount agreed for all cases, as legal aid believed
that the solicitors dealing with the Appeal would be the same solicitors that
dealt with the original trial, so should not incur this additional cost as Appeals
are set at a standard rate, so any solicitor taking on a case would not get
paid to go over the complete bundles because this had already been paid to the
past solicitor firm beforehand and this would include to take updated
instructions from any client.
167.
When the Appellant mother got home, she
again tried to call Miss Ward, this was with no reply she done this by texting
her with no receipt of reply.
168.
On the 25/10/2016 again Mr A Cordell
and I attended Court, once again the solicitors was not in attendance, the
Judge was very upset and done an Internet search under Miss Ward's name to find
out if she was working under a new solicitor, he found the new solicitors and
sent an email demanding that Miss Ward attended Court on the 11/11/2016.
169.
Again The Appellant mother stated to
the Judge that she had made many phone calls to other solicitors and due to the
case being Appeal stage no one was willing to take the Appeal on and this was
due to the cost they would get under legal aid.
170.
When The Appellants mother got home
from Court at 15:48 she received a phone call from Miss Ward, she stated that
she knew nothing about, what had happened meaning that she did not know the
Judge had asked her to attend Court further to the explained that Michael
Carroll and Co had not informed her in regards to any emails sent from the
Court.
171.
The Appellant mother said to Miss Ward
while on the telephone that she herself had previously tried to call her, this
was to include the sent text messages that she had spent inclusively but Miss Ward
had not replied or picked the phone up.
172.
Miss Ward stated while still on the
phone that Michael Carroll had previously told her while she was leaving his
company as employed staff that she must not contact any of the client she had
gained this was to include the Appellants and his family members.
173.
The Appellant mother and Miss Ward
arranged to a meeting on the 27/10/2016, to go over The Appellant's bundle
“case load” to check for any missing documents.
174.
On the 27/10/2016 The Appellant mother
meet with Miss Ward to go over The Appellant's bundle, upon looking at the
bundle and the documents that The Appellant mother had added and indexed Miss
Ward stated she believed there were no missing files, as time has gone on I
have found other documents that should have been in The Appellant's bundle that
were missing. These have never been added as The Appellant mother did not want
to have to go back to the Judge and say there were more documents that were
missing.
175.
Miss Ward stated she had to attend
Court but gave a different date that the Judge had ordered her to be there, The
Appellant mother stated to her that the Judge had given the date of the
11/11/2016 when we was in Court, Miss Ward stated that this was not what was
put into the email that was sent to the company Miss Ward now worked for. The
Appellant mother stated she would send an email over to the Court to tell the
Court that they had met up and checked the Appellant's bundle and they believed
there were no more documents missing at that point.
176.
On the 01/11/2016 The Appellant mother
wrote an email to the Judge to state that there had been a meeting with Miss
Ward, and they had gone over The Appellant's bundle and believed there were no
documents missing now. The Appellant mother asked in the email to the Judge if
the Applicant still needed to attend Court on the 11/11/2016 and if so, could
this be confirmed via email.
177.
On the 02/11/2016 The Appellant mother
received a reply from Wood Green Crown Court from the Judge stating that we did
not need to attend on the 11/11/2016 and the date would be vacated.
178.
On the 19/12/2016 The Appellant mother
sent an email to the Judge this was in regards to still not finding a
solicitor, that was willing to take the Appeal on, The Appellant mother asked
the Judge to help in regards to getting a solicitor to act for The Appellant
regarding the Appeal as time was becoming short for the Appeal hearing.
179.
On the 21/12/2016 The Appellant mother
received a reply in her email from the Judge; this explained that the Judge
could not help with a solicitor. The Appellant mother and Appellant still did
not give up, they both carried on trying to find one that was
willing to take the Appeal on for The Appellant, the Appellant and his mother
was upset the reason being; as the Judge did state he would help with the issue
of the solicitor on the 26/09/2016 and another part of the reason being that
time was short for when the Appeal hearing was to take place, as this was due
to start soon after. The Appellant and his mother did not wait till the last
minute to ask the Judge for help and was then told by the Judge that he could
not help.
180.
On the 12/01/2016 late in the day The
Appellant mother was given a number form a solicitor's of a solicitor's called
MK-Law, that maybe could help and take the Appeal on, The Appellants mother
called them as they were the first solicitor's in the list she was given.
181.
The entire of the solicitor's firms that
had been contacted prior to September 2016 had simply refused to act in the
case; the reason given was because the case was at an Appeal stage. Throughout
our attempts to find a solicitor, No solicitor firm that was called wanted to
hear what we had to explain so to be able to understand what the case was
about, on one occasion the Applicants mother broke down in tears to the company
she was talking to and they agreed to take on the case, this was as long as the
Judge agreed to an adjournment, the Applicants mother, stated to them she did
nothing the Judge will agree to this as in September 2016 the Judge had stated
he would not adjourn it again.
182.
The solicitor stated that they would
not have enough time to be able to get all of the bundles and then be able to
get a barrister to go over them and that this would not leave time for them as
the new acting solicitors to have time to have a meeting with The Appellant and
171,
183.
take instructions due to the weekend.
184.
The new solicitor firm said that they
would send a barrister to Court on the 17/01/2017, to asked for an adjournment,
so that they could act in the best interest of the client, as that is what they
are there to do and so that the legal aid could be addressed
and then passed over to them or a new application would need to be applied for.
185.
The Appellant's health had
deteriorated, when The Appellant's mother told The Appellant she believed she
had found a solicitor to take the Appeal on this did bring his mood up a little
bit, but he felt so much had gone wrong within the Asbo case that there would
be a high chance of more going wrong at that point of time, he agreed that he
would attend Court and meet the barrister that the new solicitors was sending,
the problem was that this person could change at any time.
186.
The Appellant does not leave his home
which he treats as his prison cell due to the Asbo case and prudery the police
have committed and not disciplinarily action, punishment, being brought into
motion for their wrongful actions.
187.
On the 17 January 2016, the Appellant
and his mother attended the Court, the new barrister was there also for The
Appellant, so was the Appellants uncle, we all went into a side room and the
barrister spoke to The Appellant, this was in regards to what the plans were
for the case in turn what the new barrister was going to ask the Judge for,
which was an adjournment, the reason being they needed an adjournment so that
they could act in the best interest of their client, so that they could go over
the complete case bundles, take instructions, make sure legal aid was in place
correctly, and instruct a barrister who would be dealing with the Appeal for
The Appellant, The Appellant agreed that an adjournment could be asked for,
again it was stated to the barrister that we did not feel the Judge would grant
an adjournment, the barrister stated that the Judge should understand that an
adjournment would be needed for the new solicitors to act in a professional
manner for their client and be able to get everything ready and have time to understand
fully what the case was about, that an Appeal should be fair for all sides.
188.
We were called
into Court and the barrister spoke to the Judge, explained the situation and
that he was asking for an adjournment, he spoke to the Judge in regards to the
legal aid, and having the appeal ready for their new client and having time to
be able to deal with it in a professional manner for their client. The Judge
stated that he believed legal aid was still in place and it could just be
transferred, the barrister stated if legal aid had been revoked then it would
take at least two weeks for it to be put back in place, the Judge adjourned the
hearing so that the barrister could contact the legal aid department to check
the status of the legal aid, the barrister made calls to the legal aid
department, but the legal aid department could not confirm whether legal aid
had been revoked. Calls was also made to Michael Carroll and Co who stated that
when they were removed from the record that the legal aid that was in place at
the time had been revoked.
189.
The case was called back into Court and
the barrister explained that the legal aid department could not say whether or
not the legal aid had been revoked, but when a call was placed to the old
solicitors Michael Carroll and co they had said that the legal aid that was in
place had been revoked. The Judge handed the barrister a certificate of legal
aid, the barrister stated that the certificate was not proof that the legal aid
had not been revoked.
190.
The Judge stated I'm sure that you can
be ready for the Appeal to go ahead by tomorrow, the barrister stated that they
have a professional obligation to act in the best interest of the client and
that they would not have enough time in order to go over all the bundles take
instructions from the client, and instruct a barrister within half a day, and
also to check fully whether a new legal aid application would have been need to
be applied for.
191.
At this the Judge stated, well if you
cannot be ready by tomorrow, then The Appellant will have to act for himself,
we will not adjourn the Appeal again.
192.
It seems again The Appellant was being
put at blame for the delay in the Appeal, but it was not due to The Appellant,
The Appellant only wanted a fair hearing and Appeal from when this started in
2014 and from what was going on this clearly had not been.
193.
The barrister tried his hardest to get
an adjournment of the Appeal but the Judge would not allow an adjournment, the
Judge started talking about the conditions that was imposed by the Magistrates
Court, he stated that he felt that parts was disproportionate, but he could see
nothing wrong with the timescale of the Antisocial Behaviour Order of 5 years.
This was not the first time the Judge had mentioned the conditions that The
Appellant was under, but this time the Judge went further to include what
sections he thought were disproportional, to the people in the Court The
Appellant, Mr A Cordell, Miss L Cordell, and The Appellants barrister, the only
way of looking at what the Judge was stating he had already made his mind up
that he thought the conditions was the only problem. But this was before the
Appeal had even been heard, why a Judge would state this without even hearing
the Appeal.
194.
The Judge would not allow an
adjournment and stated The Appellant could represent himself if the barrister
could not be ready by 10 0'clock the next morning, the Judge raised and
left the Courtroom.
195.
The Appellant was in such a state when
we left the Courtroom he stated he knew the Judge would not allow the adjournment and felt the Judge did not want
him to have representation and this is why the Judge removed his old solicitors, he felt very let down
and just wanted to go home.
196.
The barrister called
us into a side room and had to ask The Appellant due to what the Judge has
said, if they were to change the conditions to something appropriate would The
Appellant accept it. This put further stress on The Appellant, The Appellant
knew he had done nothing wrong and had not done what the police was saying he
had done and The Appellant knew that if the disclosure had been given it would
have proven this. The police have been unwilling to give any disclosure since
this case started.
197.
The Appellant was not willing to accept
having the conditions changed and accepting the Antisocial Behaviour Order as
this would have said he was guilty; The Appellant was not willing to accept
something he knew he was not guilty of.
198.
The Appellant was so distressed all the
way home, he felt he would never get justice.
199.
Later that day The Appellant's mother
contacted
the solicitors to see if anything could be done, but due to the Judge not
allowing the adjournment the solicitors stated they could not take the case on
and could not attend Court the next day, the reason given was because they
would be putting their company reputation at risk by not having enough time in
order to prepare for the Appeal to be able to act in a professional and correct
way for their client. The Appellant's and his mother could totally understand
this.
200.
A vulnerable person should not be
forced into a position where they have to act on their own behalf, in the
opinion of many practitioners, detrimental to the administration of justice.
But this is exactly what had happened, The Appellant and The Appellant mothers
and others cannot understand or see any reason why the Judge did not allow for
a short adjournment so that The Appellant had proper representation in place,
especially when there was a solicitors company willing to take on the Appeal
hearing, in turn to allow a fair Appeal hearing.
201.
The Appellant's and his mother had
not stopped since the removal of the old solicitors in September 2016, they
continued to try and find a solicitors firm company, to take the Appeal hearing
on, many calls were made to solicitors companies, advice lines, citizens
advice, even in the search of a pro bono solicitors, the reason why the pro
bono unit would not take the case on, is because The Appellant was entitled to
legal aid, if The Appellant or his family could have afforded to pay privately
for a solicitors company to act for The Appellant this would have been done a
long time ago. Justice is meant to be fair but in the case of The Appellant
Asbo this is not the case.
202.
On 18th January 2017 The
Appellant was so unwell he did not attend Court on this day, nor did Mr A Cordell,
or Miss L Cordell, Miss L Cordell did however write a letter to the Judge and
in that letter it asked for a stay on proceedings for the Appeal until it was
taken to judicial review in regards to what had gone on.
172,
203.
The Judge decided to go ahead in the
absence of The Appellant with the Appeal; he heard the witness statements from
police on this date.
204.
On 19 January 2017 again The Appellant
and his family did not attend Court this case has made The Appellant so unwell,
at the end of this day the Judge dismissed the Appeal against conviction, but
he changed a few of the conditions that The Appellant was under, the conditions
are still a breach of The Appellant's human rights. Schedule of prohibitions
are listed below.
205.
Schedule of prohibitions: - You must
not: -
· Be concerned in the organisation of a
rave as defined by s.63 (1) or s63 (1A) of the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994.
· Knowingly use or supply property,
personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by s.63 (1) of the Criminal
justice and Public Order Act 1994.
· Enter or remain in any disused or
abandoned building unless invited to do so in writing by a registered
charitable organisation or local authority or owner of the premises.
· Enter any non-residential private
property (by which words buildings and an open enclosed and are intended to be
individual) or an industrial estate between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00
without written permissions from the owner and a leaseholder of such property.
If you can demonstrate that the purpose
of your entry of such property is to purchase goods or services from any shop
or garage or fuel supplier which is open to the public at such times. Then in
such event, you may enter but you must not remain on such property for longer
than 30 minutes and you may do so on only one occasion during each separate
nine-hour period between 22:00 and 07:00 daily.
· Provide any service in respect of any
licensable activity in any unlicensed premises.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in
this order prevents the defendant from assisting, preparing for, engaging in
licensed licensable activities,
206.
This order expires on the 3 August
2020: -
207.
This order and its requirements amends'
a previous order imposed by Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.
208.
Condition 4 states: -
209.
Enter any non-residential private
property (by which words buildings and an open enclosed and are intended to be
individual) or an industrial estate between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00
without written permissions from the owner and a leaseholder of such property.
210.
If you can demonstrate that the purpose
of your entry of such property is to purchase goods or services from any shop
or garage or fuel supplier which is open to the public at such times. Then in
such event, you may enter but you must not remain on such property for longer
than 30 minutes and you may do so on only one occasion during each separate
nine-hour period between 22:00 and 07:00 daily. With this condition in place,
it would mean that any non-residential property The Appellant would not be able
to attend unless it was for no less than 30 minutes on any one occasion, during
a separate nine-hour period:
211.
This would include hospitals, police
stations, 24-hour supermarkets, petrol stations, cinemas, restaurants, bars,
night clubs and any other public place open to the public between these times,
that is non-residential, The Appellant would only have a 30 minute window to be
able to enter any non-residential building, however is not feasible within that
30minutes to:-
·
The Appellant could not be seen in a
hospital within 30 minutes,
·
How would it be feasible if The
Appellant went to dinner at a restaurant, they would be completed within 30
minutes?
·
How would it be feasible if The Appellant
wanted to go to a nightclub or late-night bar as it would only have 30 minutes?
·
Places that are open to the public
should not be restricted to The Appellant how is The Appellant meant to have a normal
family life?
·
The Appellant cannot go to without
written permission which would be degrading for The Appellant to have to ask
each time he wanted to go somewhere and explain why he needed it to be
confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the property, how his
condition could be applied by any Judge and state it is not a beach of someone
human rights must be wrong.
·
jiojiojioj
·
Conditions 2 states knowingly using or
supplying property personal or otherwise for the use of a rave as defined under
section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public order act,
212.
The Appellants has spent the last 10
years building his business saving every penny and help from family it is
within the entertainment industry, he will hires equipment out and his
services, The Appellants business would seriously be affected, because if he
hired his equipment and it ended up in an illegal rave The Appellant would be
in breach of the conditions. When hiring out equipment you do asked what is
going to be used for, and you do have a contract that is in place, but what the
person tells you their reason for hiring the equipment out is not always the
correct reason and is not used for the purpose the person told you The
Appellant would be in breach of these conditions. Also if The Appellant loaned
someone any personal belongings and that person ended up at an illegal rave
then The Appellant would again be in breach of his conditions, even if the item
was something that did not even constitute as being for an illegal rave.
213.
Conditions 5 states provide any service
in respect of any licensable activity in an unlicensed premise.
214.
How is The Appellant meant to run his
business, The Appellant would not be able to obtain a licence that has already
been clarified by the police and councils due to the Antisocial Behaviour Order
that is in place, The Appellant would not be able to offer his services also
due to the restriction that he has only 30 minutes within a non-residential
building, most events go to the late hours in the morning so even if there was
a licensed premises and someone wanted to hire the services of The Appellant
The Appellant would not be able to do this. The Appellant was also offered
contracts within two nightclubs to be the manager if The Appellant was again
offered contracts within nightclubs or late-night bars The Appellant would not
be able to accept these contracts. I cannot even say why condition 5 has been
imposed because condition 4 conflicts with condition 5 in certain parts. And
who would want to hire or take on The Appellant if he had to ask for written
permission which would be degrading for The Appellant to have to ask each time
he wanted to go somewhere or had a contact and had to explain why he needed it
to be confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the property,
215.
These are just a few concerns with the
conditions that The Appellant is under, there is other concerns with other
conditions set at by the Courts that are of concern.
216.
When the Appeal hearing was over the
conditions was not served on The Appellant, they were posted to him in the
post.
217.
The Appellant mother has put an
application into the Crown Court on forms EX-105 and EX-107 requesting the
Tape/Disc Transcription for all hearings, and is waiting to hear back from the
court, to see if it will be granted.
218.
The Appellant mother has also put an
application into the police under a subject access request to get all The
Appellant history with the police which will show the data protection errors
and more data that has been inputted incorrectly by the police, it will also
show a history of how much the police does not leave The Appellant alone.
219.
Also how many complaints has had to be
put into the police regarding how the police have treated
220.
The Appellant over many years which
when asked in this ASBO application case by the judge was any of this the truth
they replied no to. The Judge also asked if anyone else had had an ASBO
application against them for an ASBO on the dates held within the ASBO
application, the Judge did not get a reply and it was not asked again.
221.
The police have not only done this to
The Appellant but The Appellant whole family so each family member have
requested their records. So far, the police have refused The Appellant
application and his brothers, they have allowed The Appellant mother and The
Appellant sister but only part of the information has been supplied. This has
been passed to the ICO to address, but due to the backlog
173,
222.
the ICO has we have not been told a
timeframe this will take.
223.
At this time there is also complaint
still ongoing with The Appellant and the police and The Appellant brother with
the police. It is also noticed that some of the police in this application who
have done statements in this ASBO have complaint still standing against them,
with The Appellant brother complaint.
224.
But until we get all the data, we have
requested there could be more police officers in this ASBO application who have
had complaints put in about them.
225.
There will also be a complaint
regarding the DPS who investigated The Appellant complaint due to the fact they
did not follow their own codes, when this complaint was passed the IPCC they
upheld The Appellant Appeal to the IPCC and the complaint has had to be
reinvestigated, due to what the DPS allowed to happen, and allowed the police
officer to resign. Before allowing The Appellant rights to take his complaint
to the IPCC for Appeal before seeing the report and allowing a misconduct
hearing to happen, before The Appellant had his right to appeal and the IPCC
and they left a large section out in the investigation which pointed to
discourtesy by the police.
226.
Still not completed I still got
sections to add about ASBO application and no discloser and some other
sections. And some laws.
227.
This is how a JR has to be written up.
They will have all the ASBO application bundles sent to the high court also so
will be able to see the whole case as I need to also point out that we cannot
add everything in this due to allowing the police to have the full extent as to
what is wrong within the application for the ASBO that should have been able to
use at the appeal hearing. As we don't want the police to be able to try and
correct the things that are wrong.
228.
If you want to edit any of this then
please do so really carefully and in a next colour and you have to keep this
format don't change it as it has to be sent to the high court in this
formation, I know you are not going to like some of what I have written but if
you want to win this case at JR you have to put things you don't like to hear
or feel you don't have a problem. The judges have to see your human rights have
been fully funked over from start to end of these court cases. And showing
things you don't like will help that. you can at your own write up as well
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana -1-4128 10-05-2017 14-00
10/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 174,175
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana -1-4128
10-05-2017 14-00
10/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 174,175
--
174,
175,
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana -1-26360 11-05-2017 11-31
11/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 176,177
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana -1-26360
11-05-2017 11-31
11/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 176,177
--
176,
177,
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1.
2.
JOEL -1-20743
13-05-2017 22-34
13/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 178,179
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1. 2.
JOEL -1-20743 13-05-2017 22-34
13/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 178,179
--
178,
From: JOEL
TIBS <change2008@live.co.uk>
Sent time: 13/05/2017
10:33:38 PM
Subject:
Fwd.: The dpi might be low as well
Attachments: Copy of kids day3.jpg
From: JOEL
TIBS <change2008@live.co.uk>
Sent: 13
May 2017 22:23:17
Subject: The
dpi might be low as well
179,
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Printers -14-05-2017 14-46
14/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 180
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Printers -14-05-2017
14-46
14/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 180
--
180,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
14/05/2017 02:46:14 PM
To: JOEL
TIBS <change2008@live.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The
dpi might be low as well
flyer
On Saturday, 13 May 2017, 22:38,
JOEL TIBS <change2008@live.co.uk>
wrote:
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Morgana -1-4124 15-05-2017 11-25
15/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 181
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Morgana -1-4124
15-05-2017 11-25
15/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 181
--
181,
From: Spares
<Spares@morgana.co.uk>
Sent time:
15/05/2017 11:25:16 AM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject:
RE: Parts
Hi Simon
Price for part number.
C40400010 Thermostat @Ł10.93 each plus
vat & carriage (carriage Ł9.95 )
We have 1 available from stock.
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 03
May 2017 16:32
To: Spares <Spares@morgana.co.uk>
Subject: Parts
Contact Name, Mr Simon Cordell
23 Byron Terrace
Edmonton
London
N9 7DG
Hello, hope all is well I have been
asked to forward this email to your self’s in regard to parts for a Morgana 150
Pur machine that I have recently been trying to fix.
The parts and prices that I request are
as follows: -
1.
Thermostat Solder Tag the markers on the original part are
Termination, 0°C +460°C - 2455rc - 9082 - N47 - 12 L200c.
2.
The different prices of the blue beans needed to clean the
machine.
3.
The different prices of the glue need to fill the machine.
I also ask if there should be a
Semiconductor contained in the machine within the distribution board at the
back: code numbers
1. KM20.01
2. KM23.01
If so, what is the part number and how much
does Morgana supply them for?
Many thanks and kind regards Mr Simon
Cordell
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 0.
2.
Mother
24-05-2017 -10-49
24/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 0. 2.
Mother 24-05-2017 -10-49
24/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200
--
182,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
24/05/2017 10:49:53 AM
Subject: FW: Mr
Simon Paul Cordell -v- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Attachments: c100781_240520171324_001.pdf.pdf
Simon please see attached
Original Message
From: Sally.Gilchrist@met.pnn.police.uk [mailto: Sally.Gilchrist@met.pnn.police.uk]
Sent: 24 May
2017 10:26
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Mr
Simon Paul Cordell -v- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Dear Ms Cordell,
I attach my client's
acknowledgement of service, together with summary grounds.
I confirm a hard copy has been
sent to you in the post.
Yours sincerely Sally Gilchrist
Chartered Legal Executive Directorate of Legal Services Metropolitan Police
Service
Total Policing is the Met's
commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders,
prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to
make our capital safer.
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or
legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not
distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender.
MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The
MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other
employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software
infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over
the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS).
183,
184,
185,
186,
187,
188,
189,
190,
191,
192,
193,
194,
195,
196,
197,
198,
199,
200,
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
Canon Busentre -1-4107 24-05-2017 11-03
24/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 201,202
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Canon Busentre
-1-4107 24-05-2017 11-03
24/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 201,202
--
201,
From: Stacey Elliott <stacey.elliott@cuk.canon.co.uk>
Sent time:
24/05/2017 11:02:50 AM
Subject: Fwd.:
Finishing Samples for your quote
Stacey Elliott
Account Manager
BIG Direct Channel - Canon
Business Centre Tel: 01737 229100 1468321349875_canon.png Canon (UK) Ltd.
5th Floor, 130 Wood Street,
London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom www.canon.co.uk
Canon (UK) Ltd is registered in
England & Wales under no. 1264300 1468321396945_come
From: Stacey
Elliott
Sent: 24
May 2017 10:59
Subject: Finishing
Samples for your quote
Good Morning Simon,
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me today, I want to make sure I get this right for you so if you can
just fill out the missing three fields in the below form marked with a *and
attach any examples of what you would like to print, We will then get some
samples of the finishing options available so that we can quote on the right
thing for you.
· Print Sample Request
Requested by Stacey
Elliott
Delivery Name (FAO) Simon
Cordell
Company Name: Jesus
House
Delivery Address
112, BRENT TERRACE LONDON, NW2
1LT
SFDC Opportunity Number OPP- 1018475
· Printing Requirements
Hardware Required C5550
Print Driver Required Fiery
Media Size A4 + A3
Media Weight *
Finishing Requirements
Generic or Personalised samples?
Please send showing different
print finishers for
Further instructions?
catalogue like prints - Thank
you Please allow a five-day turnaround for all print samples.
If applicable, please ensure
that you have attached the files that you wish to be printed.
If you have any questions, then
please let me know.
Regards,
Stacey Elliott
Account Manager
BIG Direct Channel - Canon
Business Centre Tel: 01737 229100 1468321349875_canon.png Canon (UK) Ltd.
5th Floor, 130 Wood Street,
London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom www.canon.co.uk
202,
Canon (UK) Ltd is registered in
England & Wales under no. 1264300 1468321396945 come
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
Canon Busentre -1-4114 25-05-2017 12-27
25/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 203,204
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Canon Busentre
-1-4114 25-05-2017 12-27
25/05/2017
/ Page Numbers: 203,204
--
203,
From: Stacey Elliott <stacey.elliott@cuk.canon.co.uk>
Sent time: 25/05/2017
12:26:41 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
Finishing Samples for your quote
Stacey Elliott
Account Manager
BIG Direct Channel - Canon
Business Centre Tel: 01737 229100 1468321349875_canon.png Canon (UK) Ltd.
5th Floor, 130 Wood Street,
London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom www.canon.co.uk
Canon (UK) Ltd is registered in
England & Wales under no. 1264300 1468321396945_come
From: Stacey
Elliott
Sent: 24
May 2017 10:59
Subject: Finishing
Samples for your quote
Good Morning Simon,
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me today, I want to make sure I get this right for you so if you can
just fill out the missing three fields in the below form marked with a *and
attach any examples of what you would like to print, We will then get some
samples of the finishing options available so that we can quote on the right
thing for you.
· Print Sample Request
Requested by Stacey
Elliott
Delivery Name (FAO) Simon
Cordell
Company Name: Jesus
House
Delivery Address
112, BRENT TERRACE LONDON, NW2
1LT
SFDC Opportunity Number OPP- 1018475
· Printing Requirements
Hardware Required C5550
Print Driver Required Fiery
Media Size A4 + A3
Media Weight *
Finishing Requirements
Generic or Personalised samples?
Please send showing different print
finishers for
Further instructions?
catalogue like prints - Thank
you Please allow a five-day turnaround for all print samples.
If applicable, please ensure
that you have attached the files that you wish to be printed.
If you have any questions, then
please let me know.
Regards,
Stacey Elliott
Account Manager
BIG Direct Channel - Canon
Business Centre Tel: 01737 229100 1468321349875_canon.png Canon (UK) Ltd.
5th Floor, 130 Wood Street,
London, EC2V 6DL, United Kingdom www.canon.co.uk
204,
Canon (UK) Ltd is registered in
England & Wales under no. 1264300 1468321396945 come
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1.
2.
Mother
03-07-2017 -04-34
03/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1. 2.
Mother 03-07-2017 -04-34
03/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225
--
205,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
03/07/2017 04:34:44 PM
Subject: read
this
Attachments: Letter
to high court C0 2171 2017.pdf
here
206,
In the High Court of Justice Queen’s
Bench Division
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, Lord
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
on,
WC2A 2ll
Date:
28/06/2017
Ref: C0/2171/2017
To Whom It May Concern:
I Miss Lorraine Cordell am writing this
letter to say that I do object to pay the sum of Ł785.70 for preparing the
Acknowledgment of Service to be paid by the claimant to the defendant. I
confirm that I was also the person who filed the application for the claimant
in order to get justice within this case. The judge who stated that there was
no merit within the case I believe is wrong. I do understand that when the
judge made his decision there was little evidence supplied by us. I am not a
lawyer and upon receiving the Metropolitan police response to the application I
realised my mistake when filing the application. I did make calls to the High
Court to explain the error in the hope that they would be able to help me as
they had done before, I stated that I would need more time to submit the
evidence to the court that I would have to try and get legal help. The lady I
spoke to stated that I could take my time in submitting the evidence, so I did
not know I was on a time limit until we’d received the letter from the court.
1
Between:
THE
QUEEN
ON
THE APPLICATION OF
SIMON
CORDELL
CLAIMANT
-
AND-
THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
DEFENDANT
THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
INTERESTED
PARTY
207,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
At this time the skeleton argument
I was writing comprises of over 90 pages with regard to the errors that have
occurred within this whole case since it started in 2014. This would be many
more pages once completed.
The claimant and his family only
ever wanted justice and the truth, the UK justice system is supposed to be one
of the best within the world but in this case it has failed to see the truth,
the police hold information on their systems which proves my son's innocence
and when asked to provide this evidence they withheld it though we asked many
times since 2014, not one judge has ordered the police to hand over this
information, then the appeal judge removing my sons legal representation and
stating he can do the case himself, How was a person with mental health
problems, learning difficulties, health problems meant to have coped with
dealing with the appeal himself, nothing was put in place by the judge to
address this, a few days prior to the appeal hearing I managed to find a
solicitor willing to take the case on for the appeal, on 17 January 2017 the
judge refused to allow the new solicitors a short adjournment which would have
enabled the new solicitors to go over all the bundles, speak to the client
which they had not done, the judge just dismissed it told them they had to be
ready by the next morning if they could not be ready then my son would have to
deal with the case himself, how is this justice, there is many other factors in
this case that was incorrect and breached human rights.
The claimant as the courts was
aware has mental health issues, he also has learning difficulties, and other
health issues. The claimant receives benefits every two weeks of the sum of
Ł201.30, which is Ł100.65 per week; this money has to cover all of his bills,
water rates, 19.5% council tax shortfall, electric, gas, Ł5 a week for him to
have a phone for emergencies, his food, hygiene items, and any other items to
support living. I do not understand how he is meant to pay Ł785.70, just
because a mistake was made in my endeavour to get justice for my son.
Below I will list dates that is
within the application, and outline information I have recovered, which will
show the police have information which proves my son is innocence. How could
this miscarriage of justice been allowed to have happened.
12/01/2013 Canary Wharf:
On this date the claimant is
accused of the organisation / or supply of equipment for an illegal rave.
The claimant has always disputed
the account that the police stated in their application, he did not organise or
was involved in any part of setting this party up or supply, hire or loan any
equipment for this party.
The claimant did attend the
party on this evening with his ex-girlfriend, they were there for a few hours
before a person attacked the claimant at the party, the claimant was rushed to
hospital, and the claimant does not know anything from this point in regards to
this date as he was at the hospital.
2
208,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
When the hospital released him
he returned with his girlfriend and the person that had driven him to the
hospital to pick his car up, which had been left at the location, at this time
the party had already ended it was around 07:00 hours.
Again this case is outside the
six months’ time limit when the application was submitted to the court, so how
has this case been proven by the Judge; any date outside the six months’ time
limit should only be used as reference to show prior history.
On the 12th January 2013 the
claimant did not cause any anti-social behaviour to any person.
07/04/2013 No Insurance and
Section 5 of the Public Order Act:
Within Steve Elsmore statement
dated 11/08/2014 public order matter. Although this date is outside of the six
months’ time limit from when the application was submitted to the court, Steve
Elsmore still included this within his statement.
The claimant was arrested on
this date due to an issue with his insurance not showing up on the MID
database, the police stated in the intelligence report the claimant became
abusive, hence why he was arrested for a public order matter and no insurance.
The claimant was charged and
given a court date to attend court and, on this date, he attended court to
prove his innocence.
The claimant had witnesses that
would prove he did not become abusive; there was no need for him to become
abusive he had done nothing wrong; the case for the public order offence was
withdrawn by the CPS at court and the claimant was found not guilty.
The insurance matter was
addressed and proven the claimant did in fact have insurance so his vehicle in
fact should never have been seized at a cost to take it out of the police
compound of about Ł190.00 by the claimant that has never been recovered so was
a loss to the claimant for no good reason.
There was information on the
police’s systems due to the claimant being stopped a number of times due to the
error on the MID database showing he did not have insurance, which the claimant
had tried to get addressed and so did I as to the reason why it was not showing
on the MID database when in fact he did have insurance no one could understand
why he was showing as not insured.
Why then in fact did Steve
Elsmore include this within the ASBO application and make it look as if the
claimant had been found guilty of it by the court? I though false information
on an application was illegal. Why has this case and the intelligence report
been allowed to be used within this case?
So how has this been allowed to
stay within this case for the judges to read and the statements are read out in
court when the fact it should never have been entered into this case.
3
209,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
All Steve Elsmore statements
only act to show bad character towards the claimant within them and multiple
errors and facts that are untrue and can be proven to be untrue. But it would
be too long within this letter to list them all.
Please see below information
regarding these two issues that is on the police’s system.
The claimant did not cause any
Anti-Social Behaviour on the 07th April 2013.
Disposal (Court)
Adjudication Date:
23/07/13
Court Name: EAST LONDON MAGISTRATES
Name: CORDELL, SIMON PAUL
Offence Count: 2
Taken into Consideration: 0
Owner: 02 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Last Updated: 25/07/13
Offence
Arrest/Summons Ref: 13/01HT/01/1537C
Crime Reference:
01HT/1537/13
Offence Number: 1
Court/Caution/Force 13/2574/60295A
Reference:
Court Offence Number: 1
Adjudication: NOT GUILTY
Plea Description: NOT
KNOWN
Originator: 01
(METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Offence Description: USE DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR OR
THREATENING / ABUSIVE/INSULTING
WORDS LIKELY TO CAUSE HARASSMENT ALARM OR DISTRESS
Offence Date(s):
07/04/13
Location:
ELLESMERE STREET, LONDON E14 (01HT)
Disposal: 23/07/13
AT EAST LONDON MAGISTRATES
COURT REF:
13/2574/60295A
1 WITHDRAWN FINAL Offence
Arrest/Summons Ref:
13/01HT/01/1537C
Crime Reference:
01HT/1537/13
Offence Number: 2
Court/Caution/Force 13/2574/60295A
Reference:
Court Offence Number: 2
Adjudication: NOT GUILTY
Plea Description: NOT
KNOWN
4
210,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
Originator: 01
(METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Offence Description: USING VEHICLE WHILE UNINSURED
Offence Date(s):
07/04/13
Location:
ELLESMERE STREET, LONDON E14 (01HT)
Disposal:
23/07/13 AT EAST LONDON MAGISTRATES
COURT REF:
13/2574/60295A
1 WITHDRAWN FINAL
24/05/2013 Old Police Station
Ponders End:
On this date it is alleged by
the police the claimant was looking for venues in which illegal raves could be
held.
This is far from the truth on
this date, I was contacted via phone by a person called Joshua, Joshua was
homeless and at that time was staying at 204 High Street, Ponders End EN3 4EZ,
this building is also known as the old police station, Joshua had contacted me
due to being hungry and in need of food, he told him he would come and meet him
in order to take him out and get some food as he had no money.
As the claimant approached 204
high Road the police stopped him, the claimant consented to being searched and
having his car searched due to the police stating there was a strong smell of
cannabis, the police did their search and found nothing. The police asked where
he was going which he told them, he was going to meet a friend to get some food.
The claimant disputes stating to
police that he could attract people to illegal raves and three day events, the
claimant does not know what Joshua said to the police so cannot comment on this
as he was not with Joshua when the police were questioning Joshua.
This date is also outside of the
six months’ time limit from when the application was submitted to the court,
again the judge has proved this case when this case is only meant to be used as
reference, and the claimant did not cause any anti-social behaviour on the 24th
May 2013. Why are these cases being proven/
20/04/2014 Cannabis 420 day:
Within Steve Elsmore statement dated
11/08/2014, it is made to seem that the claimant attended on this date without
the knowledge of the organisers of this event and was not hired to be there by
the event organiser’s norm-co.uk. In fact he was hired by norm-co.uk to attend
the event that they had organised the claimant believes this event is legal and
happens every year. The claimant was hired on a dry hire basis; the claimant
was doing the job on a no profit basis. When norm-co.uk contacted the claimant
he was told that the person that they had hired had let them down at the last
minute.
The claimant arrived at the
location in Hyde Park he was approached by the police, the claimant explained
why he was there that he had been hired by the organisers, the police stated to
him he had not been hired by the organisers of the event, and that he was not
supposed to be there, when the claimant was hired by the organisers norm- co.uk
they told him that this was a licensed event. The claimant did not use his
5
211,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
equipment he did try to contact
the organisers of the event but was unable to, the claimant left the location
as the police had asked him to do and returned home.
Within the claimant’s bundle
there are emails to prove the above account of what the claimant has stated
these emails are from norm-co.uk. The claimant did not cause any anti-social
behaviour on the 20th April 2014.
·
25/05/2014 Unit 5 St Georges Ind Est
White hart Lane, N17:
In respect to this date the
claimant did attend premises where homeless people was treating it as their
home, the claimant had attended bringing food for the homeless people living in
the premises, when the claimant got to the premises the homeless people was
already in the premises living there, there was no music being played while he
was present.
The claimant does admit he
attended the premises in his van, when the police attended the premises he
allowed the police to search his vehicle, in his vehicle there were two speaker
boxes with no drivers within them so they were unable to play music, he
explained to the police that he used his van as storage, he did ask the police
to note this, he did not have any other sound equipment in the vehicle.
Once the police had searched his
vehicle which he allowed them to do, he was allowed to leave, and he made his
way home.
The police did not seize
anything within the claimant’s van, which if the police believed there was
going to be an illegal rave in the premises they would have had the right to do
this, but the police saw the speaker that were in the van could not play music.
And he never had any other sound equipment in the van, this is why the police
allowed him to leave.
At no time while the claimant
was at the premises did anyone attend there dressed up stating there was going
to be a party at the premises.
If the police had CCTV of people
breaking into the premises why was this not submitted as evidence within this
case?
Why was there a need to update
the information report on the 19/06/2014?
The claimant did not cause any
anti-social behaviour on the 25th May 2014.
06/06/2014 to 08/06/2014
Progress way Enfield:
The claimant disputes the facts
that are within the application, on the 06th June 2014 he was at his home
address with a friend, and also attended my home address Lorraine Cordell. His
sister Deon was there, and a friend of the family Jamie Duffy who lived at the
family’s addresses.
On the 07/06/2014 he attended a
leaving party for his cousin Dwayne Edwards who was leaving to go around the
world for 12 months, the claimant was there at the leaving party till the early
hours on the 08/06/2017, it has already been stated in the
6
212,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
magistrates court there was a
mistake in the paperwork and the claimant did not attend until the 08/06/2014
at around 02:00 hours. I also cannot understand why the claimant’s brother name
has been added to this case as an organiser. As stated in the magistrates court
the claimant’s brother had a serious life changing accident in April 2014, his
brother had a number substantial injuries, after this was stated before the
magistrates trial the claimant’s brother was never mentioned again, the reason
for this the police knew of the RTA accident as they was called and the
claimant’s brother had to be airlifted to the Royal London Hospital. The police
know my sons very well by face they do not even have to do a name check on
them. So how this serious mistake could have been made is beyond me.
While the claimant was at the
leaving party he had got a call from someone he knew they had stayed at his
home address a few weeks earlier and left their locker keys there, due to them
being in the area they called the claimant and asked if he could drop the keys
off to them, the claimant told them he was at a family party and that once he
left he would drop the keys off to them. He asked where they was and they gave
the location as progress way, he told them that once he left the family party
he would pick the keys up from his home address and drop them off to them, this
is how the police saw the claimant coming towards them while they were standing
at the gate at progress way on the 08/06/2017 at around 02:00 hours, the
claimant had never been in side progress way, but due to the police knowing the
claimant they went straight up to him and started to talk to him, the police
was with people that worked for Enfield Council, they wanted to serve paperwork
on the claimant, the claimant would not accept any paperwork and walked back
towards the A10.
The claimant was not involved in
organising or supplying any equipment at progress way. The claimant did not act
in any anti-social behaviour manner on the 06/06/2014, 07/06/2014 and the
08/06/2014.
Within ASBO application most of
the data relates to Progress Way which relates to the dates of the 06/06/2014,
07/06/2014 and the 08/06/2014.
The police stated that the
information contained within their bundle does not relate to another location
and deny that an event was ongoing just down the road from progress way on the
same dates as progress way, this was even stated under oath at court. The
police denied that there was another event ongoing in Crown Road at the same
time that Progress Way was ongoing.
They even confirmed to the judge
when the Judge asked if anything related to another location, it was stated to
the Judge everything that related to 06/06/2014, 07/06/2014 and the 08/06/2014
within their bundle related to progress way that nothing within the bundle for
Progress Way related to another event.
A huge amount of data has been
redacted by the police, I could understand if the redacted data only redacted
the person’s details name and address phone numbers etc that had made the calls
to the police. But the redaction goes a lot further than this where there is
whole pages redacted within one CAD which really makes the CAD useless being in
the bundle, also the grid references why would so many be redacted I can
understand the call location being redacted but why would there be a need to
redact the Att Location and Inc Loc. We asked every time we were in court for
the CADs
7
213,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
to be un-redacted because we
knew a fair amount related to Crown Road, which the police were denying, we
also asked for all of the missing CADs, nothing ever came of our requests, none
of the judges ordered this to be done.
Crown Road has a lot of history
for events they were ongoing in this location from April 2014 till around June
2014, in fact maybe later than June 2014.
I do not really need to bring
the intelligence reports and CADs up as the information I will supply later in
this letter regarding Progress Way will become very relevant as to what the
police are hiding. The reason I’m going to go to some detail here is because I
do not feel it is correct that the police are allowed to get away with what
they have done within this case towards my son due to how much they dislike him
and my family. And I believe it will show how much the police are willing to do
in order to put everything onto my son.
Let me give you some CADs
Numbers I will not go over everyone as there is a great deal of them and some
have got so much redaction we can only wonder why.
CAD 2410:08/06/2014 all grid
references are redacted, most of the second and third pages are redacted, but
what gives this away as being Crown Road is what has been written by the call
handler on page 4.
“illegal rave going on opposite
A&J Cars approx. 200 people1 drugs being openly sold and taken caller
noticed them whilst on his way home, they're all over the Street.”
“Linked to cads 1646 & 1768
08June”
Any police officer would know
that A&J Cars is right by Crown Road, right opposite the Old Mann Building
where the events was ongoing for months, and nowhere near Progress Way.
The CAD numbers 1646 and 1768 08
June are missing we were never allowed to have these.
CAD 3319:08/06/2014,
Grid Reference below,
Att Location: SOUTHBURY
RD/CROWN ROAD
Map: Page
082, Grid Reference 534960,196240
GPA: YP
[Division: YE: JC]
Inc Location:
SOUTHBURY Rd/CROWN ROAD
Map: Page
082, Grid Reference 534960,196240
GPA: YP
[Division: YE: JC]
Call Location: 93,
BROADLANDS AVENUE, ENFIELD
Map: Page
082, Grid Reference 534981,196790
GPA: YF
[Division: YE: SX]
As we can see all the Grid
Reference have been left in this one by mistake, I believe, once again any
police officer would know 93, BROADLANDS AVENUE, ENFIELD is behind Crown Road,
so in fact this CAD cannot belong to Progress Way.
8
214,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
But this CAD tells us even more
as there is a safety risk with it regarding a fragile roof, and subsequently
gives details in regard to door numbers along Southbury Road and Crown Road.
This also links to CAD number 3319. There is no mistaking this CAD links to the
event that was ongoing at Crown Road. The police deny this they state no event
was ongoing, yet it is a known fact the building was along Crown road/Southbury
Road have fragile roofs, the old man building has partly a glass roof.
These are just a few CADs that prove
there was an ongoing event at Crown Road, it is also proven in the FOI request
I put into Enfield Council, there is also a substantial amount of information
within the intelligence reports that do not correspond in the way in which they
should do, there is also errors within the timeline of some of the CADs, I do
not see why the police have mislead the courts, the only reason is most of the
information the police had related to Progress Way.
Also the witness statements that
was taken by police are meant to be written in the words of the witness signed
and dated by the witness, all but one witness statement has been written and
signed by police officers, not one witness statement identifies the claimant or
a description, under the law I witness statement should be completed and signed
and dated by the witness.
Now as said before I have done a
lot of research, and I now put it to the police they knew full well my son had
not done what they said he had done in this case. And that the police were
hiding information.
Progress Way Event was relocated
to Progress Way; the Metropolitan police know this already, but yet blame my
son.
The location that this was meant
to have happened In Essex a very senior police officer was being updated in
regard to this event, due to the Essex police monitoring the event page on
social media for some time, due to the brief location on the event page on
social media, the very senior police officer was concerned due to it being very
close with the border to the Metropolitan police area.
The very senior police officer
due to being concerned contacted the Metropolitan police, information was given
to the Metropolitan police in regards to the concerns with this event and area,
there was information given so that the Metropolitan police could monitor the
event page on social media, the senior officer asked for information of a
senior officer within the Metropolitan police that would be on duty the full
weekend the event was due to take place so that contact could be made regarding
this.
On the 06th June 2014 the Very
senior police officer sent police to look for the location within the border of
Essex, the police found the location this event was going to be taking place.
Once the very senior police officer got the location, he went in a police
helicopter and went to the location and landed in the field.
He had his file with all the
information in it which included pictures of the known organiser, he went up to
the known organiser who was white north European, after speaking to him the very
senior police officer asked him to leave the land and served him a notice under
S63 CJOPOA and a notice not to set up within 24 hours. The very senior police
officer gave the known organiser 3 hours to pack up everything and leave the
land and gave him an explanation of the offence he was liable to commit if he
failed to comply with the direction.
9
215,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
The organiser then relocated to
progress way. Police are well aware organisers relocate if the police close an
event down.
The claimant was nowhere near
Essex on this day; he was not involved in the organisation or supply of
equipment which the police are well aware of.
Yet the police want to blame him
and they was not going to stop until they got the ASBO on him and did not care
what they covered up in the process of the information they had, I believe this
is also why there is nothing really for the 06th June within the bundle for the
ASBO application.
And why when asked over and over
why we were never allowed to see the police officers packet notebooks, for any
of the dates in their application.
20/06/2014 1 Falcon Park Neasden
Lane NW10:
The claimant’s is alleged to
have been involved in the organisation and or supplied equipment for an illegal
rave, the claimant disputes what the police have said, on this date the
claimant had been contacted and asked if he would hire a sound system for a
gentleman’s birthday party. The claimant agreed to do so; the sound system and
van were collected from the claimant’s home. The claimant’s terms and
conditions were agreed, and invoice signed, and a deposit was given to him.
At around 01:00 hours the
claimant received a phone call from the person he had hired the sound system
to; the person stated that the sound system and van was being seized by the
police.
The claimant was very upset and
could not at this stage understand why the police was seizing his equipment and
van.
The claimant asked the location
and took down the address, he had to get up and get dressed and leave his home
it took him around an hour to reach the location, upon approaching the address
he had been given he saw there was a lot of police around, he parked his car up
got out and went up to the police to speak to them to find out what was going
on, he showed the police the terms and conditions of hirer, and the invoice.
The police at this point allowed
the claimant into the building where he continued to speak to the police, the
sound system had not been put away and the police allowed the claimant to start
packing it away into his van, but the police stated they were confiscating it
until they had looked into the matter.
The claimant gave the police all
his contact information, and also took down the police officer information.
About a week later the police contacted the claimant and told him he was
allowed to come and pick his van and equipment up from the police station.
The claimant did not knowingly
supply equipment for an illegal rave; he believed the hire was for a birthday
party and it was all above board.
The claimant did not cause any
antisocial behaviour on the 20th June 2014.
19/07/2014 Carpet right A10
Enfield:
As stated previously by the
claimant he was not involved in the organisation or supplied equipment on this
date. And the claimant totally disagrees in regard to what the police have said
in their application. The claimant on this day was driving down A10 he was
heading towards McDonald’s, as he was passing carpet right he saw the police
outside and he believed he saw a friend who he knew had been homeless, he was
on the wrong side of the road so went down towards Southbury Road where he knew
he could turn his car around. He parked his vehicle and walked
10
216,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
to the location, upon arriving
there he saw there was a lot of police, as soon as he got there he was standing
on the pavement and the police arrested him to stop a believed breach of the
peace, the claimant never entered the building, he was arrested outside.
Within the CADs it clearly
states there was around 20 people males and females all white approximate age
20. The claimant is mixed raced, The CADs start from 20:51 hours, the claimant
was not arrested until 22:50 hours, some two hours after the police arrived at
the premises.
There is a statement from Mr
Moses Howe who states he was hired by Mr Anthony Harvey, he states Mr Anthony
Harvey was arrested by the police inside the premises but later de-arrested,
the police have never disputed this.
As stated, before I have done a
lot of research, I will deal with this research into this date below.
Officer in Charge Steve Elsmore states
in his statement dated 11/08/2014 about a rave that happened in Croydon where a
poor boy lost his life, and in fact has made it seem as if the claimant was
part of this rave.
Officer in Charge Steve Elsmore did an
updated statement dated 26/06/15 in this statement he stated about operation
blue iris which relates to the Croydon rave, the Croydon rave I believe was
called rum and base.
Officer in Charge Steve Elsmore states
in this updated statement that he spoke with A/DS Tanner who works for the
public order investigation unit at Scotland Yard, A/DS Tanner confirmed she had
spoken to Miss Lorraine Cordell to Steven Elsmore. Blue iris was the
operational name that related to the investigation into the Croydon rave.
My investigation has led to the
information regarding Anthony Harvey being listed by Scotland Yard and all TV
media as wanted regarding the Croydon rave his picture was published in the
media along with a lot of others that was also wanted regarding the Croydon
rave, on the 30th June 2014 Anthony Harvey handed himself into
Ilford police station, Scotland Yard attended Ilford police station and took
Anthony Harvey back to Scotland Yard for questioning, Anthony Harvey was
questioned by 4 police officers at Scotland Yard, he was charged with violent
disorder and some other things, he was released on bail with bail conditions.
He spent around six hours in a cell.
The claimant had nothing to do with the
Croydon rave, he was not present, and I believe this is confirmed in the
updated statement of Officer in charge Steve Elsmore. The claimant did not
organise or supply equipment in Croydon rave. Once again why has this been put
in the application and worded as if my son had organised this, when clearly the
police have information that he had nothing to do with this. The only reason I
can see is that this was a high-profile case where someone unfortunately lost
their life. And tainting my son with this event will make any Judge believe my
son is such a bad person, I believe this amount to slander and or defamation of
character.
The claimant did not cause any
anti-social behaviour at Croydon rave as he was not there and had nothing to do
with it.
11
217,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
It seems Anthony Harvey was very
unhappy in regard to how Scotland Yard was treating him they would not leave
him alone, but he was still advertising the events he was putting on. One was
for the 19th July 2014 called The Raving Family That Rave In The
Woods, Anthony Harvey even had special T-shirts made up with the wording The
Raving Family on them, Anthony Harvey even put a request for anyone that had
strong bolties he could
use.
It would seem that Anthony Harvey first
location for the 19th July 2014 was in Barking, Anthony Harvey then
relocated to Enfield carpet right, he states that he begged the police to allow
this to carry on but they would not, and states fuck to Scotland Yard, a person
that knows Anthony Harvey states they was all waiting at Southbury Road.
As stated, before Anthony Harvey was on
bail, I believe one of those bail conditions was not to attend an illegal rave,
as he states he is allowed to attend legal events only.
I believe that when Steve Elsmore spoke
to A/DS Tanner, A/DS Tanner explained a lot more about Anthony Harvey then
Steve Elsmore states in his updated statement. Even about the event at Barking
which was due to me relocated.
“A/DS Tanner states that she had
inputted a Crimit regarding a rave that was due to take place on 19th
July 2014 in Barking. This rave was due to be at one location but was due to be
moved to another location which had not disclosed.”
Why did Steve Elsmore state in the lower
court he had deleted emails to and from A/DS Tanner, why did Steve Elsmore not
ask A/DS Tanner to do a statement, why did he feel it necessary to write what
he says A/DS Tanner said to him. I know the public order investigation unit was
told by Sir Bernard Hogan Howe to monitor all raves keep intelligence on them
and try to put stop to them A/DS Tanner told me this on the phone when I spoke
to her. And when I spoke to DS Chapman from the public order investigation unit
he confirmed they was looking into all raves, he also did a check on the
claimant’s name and stated within all the information they had they only had
the claimant’s name on their systems once, and that was to prevent a breach of
the peace on the 19th July 2014.
The claimant did not organise or supply
equipment; the claimant did not cause any anti-social behaviour on this date.
24/07/2014 Admitted to police he setups
raves:
On this date the claimant was driving
down the Road after just leaving my home, he was on his way home via Alma Road,
as he passed King Edwards Road he saw the police in an unmarked police car the
claimant knew it was the police as the police had stopped him before while on
active duty, they were at this time indicating to do a right-hand turn out of
King Edward Road onto Alma Road. But when they saw the claimant passed King
Edward Road they changed direction and turned left onto Alma Road to follow him
after a short time the police put their blue lights on, and pulled him over to
the side of the road opposite the BMW repair centre along Alma Road, the male
officer who was in the passenger side of the police car got out and started to
approach the claimant’s car, the claimant opened his window a little and asked
why
12
218,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
he had been pulled over. The police
officer said he was not sure why, but his colleague had instructed him to do
this, his colleague was the police officer that the claimant knew. The police
officer walked back to the unmarked police car then re-approached the
claimant’s car with his colleague the driver of the unmarked police car. I
asked again what had been pulled over for, and the driver of the unmarked
police car pulled out his truncheon and said the claimant had to get out of his
car, and that if I declined his windows would be smashed. The claimant got out
of his car as he had done nothing wrong and had nothing to hide, the claimant
had not committed any offence whatsoever, the police stated to the claimant he
had been pulled over because he was driving too close to the car in front of
him, the driver who was in the car in front of the claimant never stopped, and
was not stopped by police. The claimant was then accused of having drugs, the
claimant allowed police to search him and his vehicle nothing was found. The
police then asked the claimant what he was up to, the claimant said that he was
setting up his catalogue that he had been building with a friend, and that the
website that was being built was nearly completed. The claimant said that he
was trying to achieve positive effects within today’s society with his business
that he had been building. Once the police had completed all their checks they
needed, they shook hands and went on our way.
At no time did the claimant act in an anti-social
manner towards the police.
It seems the police stated other things
in their report that are very untrue, please see below
“On Thursday 24th July 2014 at around
1625 hours, plain clothes officers from YE Gangs Unit had cause to stop the
following male on ALMA ROAD EN3. Simon CORDELL. He was driving a silver Ford
Focus vrm MA57LDY on which he is insured but is not the registered keeper. He
was stopped as he was driving about 1" from the bumper of the car in front
of him and his driving was erratic. He claimed to know the other driver; this
male however approached officers saying he had been driving like that behind
him since YR.
CORDELL was obstructive as usual, refusing
to get out of his vehicle etc. He stated that his solicitor has a big case
going where all his criminal records will be wiped as Police have unlawfully
picked on him for years etc. Of interest he stated that he has 4 brand new
speaker systems at home which he is happy to loan people for raves etc and that
he is inundated with requests to run raves. He stated that he has 20,000
followers on one social media network and 70,000 in another. He says that he
could organize a rave and get 20,000 people at it without any problems
whatsoever, and that he gets lots of requests from anarchist type groups etc to
run raves for them. Of note he claims Occupy London, Black Block and other
anarchist groups have been asking him to organize one for Notting Hill Carnival
so that they can "Cause carnage and mayhem".
The claimant is continuously being
pulled up by the police for no reason this has been ongoing for the past at
least 23 years, I believe the above comments within the police report shows
this when it states CORDELL was obstructive as usual refusing to get out of his
vehicle etc.
The claimant did not get out of his
vehicle right away he did not know why he was being pulled again, so waited in
his car to ask the police why he had been stopped. it is not a crime to sit in
your car until the police approach.
13
219,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
The police state in their report he was
driving about 1” from the bumper of the car in front of him and the claimant
driving was erratic.
If the claimant had been driving 1”
from the bumper of the car in front of him, which I believe is impossible, and
his driving was erratic, then surely the police would have arrested him for
dangerous driving, the police always try and find a way to arrest the claimant
for any reason they can, and I am hundred percent sure if the claimant was
driving like this he would have been in the police station under arrest for it.
The driver in the car that was in front of the claimant did not stop and speak
to the police if he had done this why have the police not given the drivers
details.
The claimant did not speak to the
police in regard to loaning out his equipment for raves. The numbers that the
police have stated that the claimant said he had in 2 accounts on social media
is impossible and is unbelievable that the police have stated such information.
The police have also stated that the claimant spoke of links to Occupy London,
Black Block and other anarchist groups, the claimant has never been involved in
any activist groups, and is highly insulted that the police could say the name
Black Block came out of his mouth, Black Block is a known NF group, so please
why would the claimant have said such things when he is mixed race.
There is also concern with the date of
this report, it was filed on the police’s system, it would seem police were
together when the reports was made for 2 dates in the application, when they
must have already knew the police wanted to bring this application against the
claimant. If you look at the below and look at the two URN numbers, you will
see this.
Information
Report |
|
|
Officer
Safety |
URN |
YERT00376229 |
GPMS |
RESTRICTED |
Event
Date 24/07/2014 |
Created 27/07/2014 |
Last
Updated 31/07/2014 |
|
Information
Report |
|
|
Officer
Safety |
URN |
YERT00376227 |
GPMS |
RESTRICTED |
Event
Date 27/07/2014 |
Created 27/07/2014 |
Last
Updated 27/07/2014 |
|
27/07/2014 Millmarsh Lane
Enfield:
On this date the claimant is alleged
to have organised a rave and/or supplied equipment, the claimant disputes this,
there was some homeless people living in premises at Millmarsh Lane, I had been
invited to attend a 20th birthday party the claimant did not know about any
rave only that a homeless person was having their 20th
birthday party, there was only a few people there and they was the homeless
people living there. The claimant did not have any equipment there, did not
load any equipment or hiring the equipment.
The claimant did not act in any
anti-social manner on this date.
14
220,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
Within the police report it states the
police had been given intelligence that a rave was due to take place, why is
this intelligence not within the application.
The police report also states there was
a large stack of speakers being powered by the claimant’s van, I do not
understand how this is possible the voltage for a sound system would be 240 V
the voltage on a van is only 12 V this would make it impossible for a van to
power a sound system.
It would also be of concern that when
police were writing these reports, they were together (please see URN above).
At this point the police would have known the antisocial behaviour order
application was going to be submitted and anything that was being added would
go well with their case (True or untrue).
09/08/2014 to 10/08/2014 Millmarsh Lane
Enfield:
On this date the claimant is being
accused of organising and or supplying equipment at Millmarsh Lane Enfield, the
claimant disputes this, the claimant was not involved in the organisation of
any rave and did not supply equipment, police state this event was run by Every
Decibel Matters, the claimant can confirm that he is not an employee of this
organisation or a shareholder or a director and he has no controlling interest
in the company. Information was supplied within the application by the director
of Every Decibel Matters that confirms this.
On this date I had gone to see the
people that was homeless that was living in Millmarsh Lane Enfield, the police
were well aware that homeless people were living in this location in premises
from weeks earlier.
As stated before I have done a lot of
research, it seems every decibel matters had police turn up at their addresses
stating they would be arrested if they carried on with this event, the event
location was meant to have been in Harrow, every decibel matters state on the
date of the event they were in Harrow and police sent helicopters all day
looking for them, they had no option but to relocate I believe this is when
they relocated to Millmarsh Lane, the claimant had no knowledge of this and was
never in Harrow, and knew nothing regarding this being relocated to Millmarsh
Lane.
The officer in charge of the
application Steve Elsmore has stated in one of his updated statements that the
claimant knew Mr Moses Howe, and that he has been stopped by police with Mr
Moses Howe once in the claimant’s vehicle 2011.
The claimant does not dispute he does
have knowledge of Mr Moses Howe, Mr Moses Howe is a sound engineer, in 2011 the
claimant had been offered the management position at Club Juice in Green Street
Enfield, the claimant would as part of his job role be organising events for
Club Juice this would have included the claimant’s sound system being within
the venue. Due to the claimant in 2011 not having much knowledge of all the
complicated knowledge needed setting up the sound system he asked people he knew
if they knew a sound engineer, Mr Moses Howe name was given, the claimant and
Mr Moses Howe agreed to meet and go to the venue check what would be needed in
regards to equipment, and it was agreed that if it took off Mr Moses Howe would
be the sound engineer for club juice. When the police pulled the claimant and
Mr Moses Howe was in the vehicle, they were on their way to Club Juice, they were
due to set the sound system up in order to allow testing
15
221,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
and make sure everything was in order.
Within the weeks that followed they had set up one event that was due to take
place at club juice, but due to how the police was with the claimant they kept
pulling him up outside of Club Juice strip searching him and would not leave
him alone, the claimant got so distressed and embarrassed that he told the
owner of Club Juice he could no longer carry on, and left the position. Since
this time the claimant has had no knowledge of what Mr Moses Howe has been
doing, Mr Moses Howe is the director with Sean O'Connor of every decibel
matters, as shown within the documents within the claimant’s bundle.
If the claimant had a great deal of
contact with Mr Moses Howe I am sure the police would have a lot more than one
date on the police’s system that the claimant had been with Mr Moses Howe, the
claimant as said above is pulled a great deal by the police and I believe that
this would have been shown on the police’s system. And not just one date in
2011.
CAD 9717 seems to have intelligence
that was received by police on 09th August 2014, this CAD was never included in
the applications bundle, I believe this intelligence would have been very
helpful to the claimant and this is why it was never added to the application bundle.
As we believe it would prove the police had no information on my son.
It seems throughout this case there has
been a lot of CADs and intelligence reports that have not been included in the
applications bundle; I believe the reason for this is that it would show that
what has been stated within the application is very misleading. I believe also
that is why we was never allowed to see them. I believe also that the police
officers’ notebook’s which we were also never allowed to see would also show how
misleading the application was towards the claimant.
There is a lot more information I have
gained due to research I have done, there is also a lot more points within the
application that are misleading and incorrect, there is a list of breaches
under the data protection of information that is totally incorrect which can be
proven. At this time there is a case ongoing with the ICO in regards to
breaches that the police have stated in their application and also incorrect
information on the claimant’s PNC record, all of this information and a lot
more was being bought up each time we attended court at the Magistrate’s Court
and the Crown Court. There have been so many breaches of human rights
throughout this case I cannot understand how it has been allowed to have
happened, there is a total miscarriage of justice and many other issues
regarding his legal representation within this case.
At this time the claimant does not leave
his home he has not done since 2014 due to knowing the police are going to say
he has done something that breaches the conditions and arrest him and put him
in prison,
Steve Elsmore has already done in
updated statements, which in fact implies my son had breached his conditions in
Nov 2014 by being on an industrial estate, which was totally incorrect.
The conditions the claimant is under
breaches his human rights, it seems as though the barrister that was
representing the police in this matter feels that it is acceptable to breach
someone human rights knowingly.
You can see this on page 28 of the
appeal transcript which the administrative court sent, they also only seen to
be concerned in regard to the claimant going to a shop or
16
222,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
petrol station. But the
implications of the conditions go a lot wider and no one has taken this into
consideration. Please see below a list of information which is only a small
list which the claimant cannot do.
Schedule of prohibitions You
must not:
1. Be
concerned in the organisation of a rave as defined by s.63(1) or s63(1A) of the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
2. Knowingly
use or supply property, personal or otherwise, for use in a rave as defined by
s.63 (1) of the Criminal justice and Public Order Act 1994.
3. Enter
or remain in any disused or abandoned building unless invited to do so in
writing by a registered charitable organisation or local authority or owner of
the premises.
4. Enter
any non-residential private property (by which words buildings and an open
enclosed and are intended to be individual) or an industrial estate between the
hours of 22:00 and 07:00 without written permissions from the owner and a
leaseholder of such property. If you can demonstrate that the purpose of your
entry of such property is to purchase goods or services from any shop or garage
or fuel supplier which is open to the public at such times. Then in such event,
you may enter but you must not remain on such property for longer than 30
minutes and you may do so on only one occasion during each separate nine-hour
period between 22:00 and 07:00 daily.
5. 5
Provide any service in respect of any licensable activity in an unlicensed
premise.
For the sake of clarity, nothing in this order prevents the
defendant from assisting, preparing for, engaging in licensed licensable
activities,
This order expires on the 3 August 2020
17
223,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
This order and its requirements
amend a previous order imposed by Highbury Corner Magistrates Court.
Condition 4 states
Enter any non-residential
private property (by which words buildings and an open enclosed and are
intended to be individual) or an industrial estate between the hours of 22:00 and
07:00 without written permissions from the owner and a leaseholder of such
property. If you can demonstrate that the purpose of your entry of such
property is to purchase goods or services from any shop or garage or fuel
supplier which is open to the public at such times. Then in such event, you may
enter but you must not remain on such property for longer than 30 minutes and
you may do so on only one occasion during each separate nine-hour period
between 22:00 and 07:00 daily.
With this condition in place any
non-residential property The Appellant would not be able to attend only for 30
minutes on one occasion during a separate nine-hour period:
This would include hospitals,
police stations, 24-hour supermarkets, petrol stations, cinemas, restaurants, bars,
night clubs and any other public place open to the public between these times
that is non-residential The Appellant would only have a 30 minute window to be
able to enter any non-residential building, however is not feasible that within
30 minutes The Appellant could be seen in a hospital within 30 minutes, how
would it be feasible if The Appellant went to dinner at a restaurant they would
be completed within 30 minutes, how would it be feasible if The Appellant
wanted to go to a nightclub or late-night bar as it would only have 30 minutes,
places that are open to the public should not be restricted to The Appellant
how is The Appellant meant to have a normal family life. The Appellant cannot
go to without written permission which would be degrading for The Appellant to
have to ask each time he wanted to go somewhere and explain why he needed it to
be confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the property, how
18
224,
Letter to high court C0 2171
2017.pdf
this condition could be applied
by any Judge and state it is not a beach of someone human rights is beyond me.
Conditions 2 states knowingly
using or supplying property personal or otherwise for the use of a rave as
defined under section 63.1 of the criminal justice and public order act,
The Appellants has spent the
last 10 years building his business saving every penny and help from family it
is within the entertainment industry, he will hires equipment out and his
services, The Appellants business would seriously be affected, because if he
hired his equipment and it ended up in an illegal rave The Appellant would be
in breach of the conditions. When hiring out equipment you do ask what it is
going to be used for, and you do have a contract that is in place, but what the
person tells you their reason for hiring the equipment out is not always the
correct reason and is not used for the purpose the person told you The
Appellant would be in breach of these conditions. Also if The Appellant loaned
someone any personal belongings and that person ended up at an illegal rave
then The Appellant would again be in breach of his conditions, even if the item
was something that did not even constitute as being for an illegal rave.
Conditions 5 states provide any
service in respect of any licensable activity in an unlicensed premise.
How is The Appellant meant to
run his business, The Appellant would not be able to obtain a licence that has
already been clarified by the police and councils due to the Antisocial
Behaviour Order that is in place, The Appellant would not be able to offer his
services also due to the restriction that he has only 30 minutes within a
non-residential building, most events go to the late hours in the morning so
even if there was a licensed premises and someone wanted to hire the services
of The Appellant The Appellant would not be able to do this. The Appellant was
also offered contracts within two nightclubs to be the manager if The Appellant
was again offered contracts within nightclubs or late-night bars The Appellant
would not be able to accept these contracts. I
19
225,
cannot even say why condition 5
has been imposed because condition 4 conflicts with condition 5 in certain
parts. And who would want to hire or take on The Appellant if he had to ask for
written permission which would be degrading for The Appellant to have to ask
each time he wanted to go somewhere or had a contact and had to explain why he
needed it to be confirmed in writing by the owner and/or leaseholder of the
property,
These are just a few concerns
with the conditions that The Appellant is under, there is other concerns with
other conditions set at by the Courts that are of concern.
How this case could have been
proven is beyond me, I have only done a brief account of information within
this letter. there is a lot of information I have not included due to trying to
keep this letter as short as I could.
I only wanted Justice for my
son, but due to a mistake I done it seems there will be no Justice and the true
facts will never be been known. And my son will suffer for something he did not
do. I did call the High Court then I realised I had made a mistake and told
them I was going to be late submitting documents due to trying to get help from
a legal person. And as for the beaches of my son's human rights do, they do not
matter.
There is so much wrong with this
case, and the way the courts addressed it was not correct since 2014.
Best Regards
Written by Miss Lorraine Cordell
on behalf of Mr Simon Cordell
20
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy
Nwabuisi Re Notice of Seeking Possession
Double1
19/06/2017
/ Page Numbers: 226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi Re Notice of
Seeking Possession
Double1
19/06/2017
/ Page Numbers: 226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238
--
226,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 19
July 2017 16:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Notice of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: NOSP - Simon Cordell.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached copy of a Notice
of Seeking Possession that was posted through Mr Cordell's letterbox this
afternoon at 4.05pm. The notice is served as a result of reports of anti-social
behaviour made against Mr Cordell by some of his neighbours and Enfield Council
members of staff.
We will advise Mr Cordell to seek
independent legal advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau in
respect of this notice.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
227,
228,
229,
230,
231,
232,
233,
234,
235,
236,
237,
238,
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Re Notice of Seeking Possession
Double2
19/06/2017
/ Page Numbers: 239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251
53.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
Lemmy Nwabuisi Re Notice of
Seeking Possession
Double2
19/06/2017
/ Page Numbers: 239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251
--
239,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 19
July 2017 16:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re: Notice of Seeking Possession
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: NOSP
- Simon Cordell.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached copy of a Notice
of Seeking Possession that was posted through Mr Cordell's letterbox this
afternoon at 4.05pm. The notice is served as a result of reports of anti-social
behaviour made against Mr Cordell by some of his neighbours and Enfield Council
members of staff.
We will advise Mr Cordell to seek
independent legal advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau in
respect of this notice.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
240,
Same as Above!
241,
Same as Above!
242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251
54.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Get Canvas Plus -1-4166 25-07-2017 05-05
25/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 252
54.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Get Canvas Plus
-1-4166 25-07-2017 05-05
25/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 252
--
252,
From: Get
Canvas & Sublimation Supplies <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time:
25/07/2017 05:04:42 AM
Subject: 2Day Discount - 5% OFF ALL SUPPLIES at checkout! Pre-orders
not included
Valid 25-26th July 2017 only.
Quantities may be limited. Not to be combined with other offers or applied to
previous purchases
5% OFF all products online at GetCanvasPlus.co.uk
Get 5% off all your printing
supplies for a limited time only. Offer is available on any items on our site www.getcanvasplus.co.uk.
Do you need Inks, Stretcher Bars, Canvas Material or Varnish? Grab a bargain to save your business
money.
You can even get your items
before midday the very next day by selecting pre noon delivery at checkout.
For more information on any of
our items please contact us via our web chat feature on our site, or email us
at info@getcanvasplus.co.uk
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Canvas -1-4167 25-07-2017 13-03
25/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 253
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Canvas -1-4167
25-07-2017 13-03
25/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 253
--
253,
From: Get Canvas Plus <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time:
25/07/2017 01:02:50 PM
Subject: New I
Poly Canvas
INKJET CANVAS
QUICK DRYING
Our I Poly canvas has had great
feedback over the past couple of years, being one of the most versatile and
reliable canvas medias on the market. It is made from 100% Polyester and has
its own specially formulated coating which gives it a bright white finish, and
when printed makes your colour 'pop'. A high-quality vivid canvas with
impeccable quality for price.
Bulk orders available, check out
our bulk order table below for our prices and
discounts.
Order here today for next day
delivery!
Price
Code |
Title |
Size |
Roll |
Price (1-4) |
Price (5-9) |
Price (1-1) |
PPoly13 |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
13" |
18m |
Ł19.20 |
Ł17.70 |
Ł16.20 |
|
||||||
PPoly17 |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
17" |
18m |
Ł20.10 |
Ł18.60 |
Ł17.10 |
PPoly24 |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
24" |
18m |
Ł27.10 |
Ł25.90 |
Ł24.40 |
|
||||||
PPoly24xl |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
24" |
30m |
Ł43.10 |
Ł41.10 |
Ł39.10 |
|
||||||
PPoly36xl |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
36" |
30m |
Ł63.40 |
Ł61.40 |
Ł59.40 |
|
||||||
PPoly36 |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
36" |
18m |
Ł38.90 |
Ł36.90 |
Ł34.90 |
|
||||||
PPoly44 |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
44" |
18m |
Ł46.90 |
Ł44.90 |
Ł42.90 |
PPoly44xl |
Premium
Inkjet Polyester Canvas Roll |
44" |
30m |
Ł73.00 |
Ł70.00 |
Ł67.00 |
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Get Canvas Plus -1-4164 26-07-2017 09-55
26/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 254
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Get Canvas Plus -1-4164
26-07-2017 09-55
26/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 254
--
254
From: Get Canvas Plus <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time: 26/07/2017
09:55:23 AM
Subject:
Printable Inkjet Wallpaper Media
NEW Printable Inkjet Wallpaper
Media - 24" and 36" Rolls
A smooth, Bright white Wallpaper
media that offers outstanding colour and scratch resistance properties,
allowing a water-resistant surface. It is a 260gsm media that is tough enough
to handle without tearing but also pliable enough to be able to apply and trim
like a "normal" wallpaper. Can be hung with standard wallpaper paste.
PVC free and Water resistant for
UV pigment and latex inks
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
804.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr Cordell Notice of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
26/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
804. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr
Cordell Notice of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
26/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262
--
255,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 26
July 2017 00:49
To: 'Lemmy Nwabuisi'
Subject: RE:
Mr Cordell Notice of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Lemmy Nwabuisi 25-07-2017.pdf
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi,
Could you please see attached
letter
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto:Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 24
July 2017 11:18
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Notice
of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
The meeting is at 2pm and not 12:00. It
was Mr Cordell himself that requested for the meeting and he offered to come to
the Civic Centre. The meeting will be held in council offices, however if there
are any health reasons why Mr Cordell is unable to attend council offices then
you will need to provide us with a doctor's letter stating what the health
issues are.
Alternatively, Mr Cordell can respond
to the allegations made against him in writing if he does not wish to meet with
us in council offices to discuss them.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 24
July 2017 10:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Notice
of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi
I am writing this email as I
have just spoken to my son Simon Cordell and I believe a meeting has been set
for the 26/07/2017 at 12:00 at your office. We would still like to have the
meeting, but could the location be changed to my home 23 Byron Terrace N9 7DG.
I think it would be too much for my son to come to the office.
If you could get back to me, I
would be grateful.
256,
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi [mailto: Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 19
July 2017 16:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Notice of Seeking Possession [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached copy of a Notice
of Seeking Possession that was posted through Mr Cordell's letterbox this
afternoon at 4.05pm. The notice is served as a result of reports of anti-social
behaviour made against Mr Cordell by some of his neighbours and Enfield Council
members of staff.
We will advise Mr Cordell to seek
independent legal advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau in
respect of this notice.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
257,
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
258,
RE: Mr Cordell Notice of Seeking Possession
[SEC=OFFICIAL]->Lemmy Nwabuisi 25-07-2017.pdf
25/07/2017
Dear Lemmy Nwabuisi,
I am sorry for the short notice but we will
not be able to attend the council meeting tomorrow 26/07/2017 at 14:00 hours
the reason is we are indexing all the dates in your possession order, this is
taking time due to there being mostly no times and some there is no dates just
a month listed and there is so much to go over there is hours and hours of
information we need to go over. There is also a great deal of emails that have
to be printed off and other information.
I wonder if it will be possible for you
to get some information as to the days that are missing and times. I believe a
person putting in complaints would at least know what sort of time of day this
happened and what day.
I would like to have everything in
order and indexed and easy to go over so, as much detail as possible would be great.
This will save a great deal of time for us and you.
I would like to have everything in
order and easy to go over so, as much detail as possible would be great.
Please see the list of dates below and
the information needed.
Dates of Breaches:
6th July 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
July 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
date and time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to
Enfield council and log of it being entered into the database?
I believe if this really did happen and
the person was left with no electric to their flat, they would have had to call
an electrical contractor to fix this so should have the information regarding
this. I do not think they would leave themselves with no electricity to their
flat so would have tried to sort this right away. So should have the date and
time frame for this and electrical contractor details.
I do not believe it is right to blame
someone when there is no proof that person has done anything wrong which he has
not. The code for the main door has been the same for over 15 years and due to
the time the code being used by the tenants at the block to go in the numbers
have faded so anyone can see the numbers to get the code for the main door,
this has been done many times there have been people smoking in the block and
taking drugs who does not live there in the main section of the communal area
of the block. There have even been items taken from the block even 111 had their
charismas tree taken.
259,
At this point of time I wish to say Mr
Cordell had nothing to do with this and has never damaged any lock to a
cupboard or removed a fuse box.
6th August 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
September 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
date and time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to
Enfield council and log of it being entered into the database?
27th September 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this there seems to be 2 times on this date so if possible time
frames for both please, also on what date and time it was reported to the
Enfield council and log of it being entered into the database?
28th September 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
4th October 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this it seems there is more than one-time frame, also on what
date and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being
entered into the database?
22nd November 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
I believe that Enfield council records
telephone calls, I have asked repeatedly for all data the council hold
including phone calls which I have still not been given, could I therefore have
the recorded telephone call.
8th December 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
11th December 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time
it was reported to the Enfield council
and log of it being entered into the database?
260,
14th December 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
23rd December 201:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
I believe if this really did happen and
the person was left with no electric to their flat, they would have had to call
an electrical contractor to fix this so should have the information regarding
this. I do not think they would leave themselves with no electricity to their
flat so would have tried to sort this right away. So should have the date and
time frame for this and electrical contractor details.
Please also see the comments above July
2016
26th December 2016:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
3rd January 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
21st January 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
31st January 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
7th February 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
24th February 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time
it was reported to the Enfield council
and log of it being entered into the database?
261,
17th March 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
I believe this was also on the 16th
March 2017 and not the 17th March 2017.
5th May 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
14th May 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, this seems to be more than one time frame so could you
please try and get both, also on what date and time it was reported to the
Enfield council and log of it being entered into the database?
14th May 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
9th June 2017:
Would it please be possible to get a
time frame for this, also on what date and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered into the database?
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs:
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being entered
into the database?
18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs:
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being entered
into the database?
23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs:
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being entered
into the database?
28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs:
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield
council and log of it being entered
into the database?
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs:
262,
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being entered
into the database?
On 2nd July 2017 at 17:18hrs:
Would it please be possible to get date
and time it was reported to the Enfield council and log of it being entered
into the database?
If you can get back to me as soon as
possible I would be most grateful as we do not have much time to get all the
information indexed and ready.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1.
2.
request
the video of the police 10-08-2017 -07-55
Copy
of the original diary when it started!
Double1
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433,434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467,468
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488,489,490,491,492
493,494,495,496,497,498
499,500,501,502,503,504
505,506,507,508,509,510
511,512,513,514,515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
523,524,525,526,527,528
529,530,531,532,533,534
535,536,537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544,545,546
547,548,549,550,551,552
553,554,555,556,557,558
559,560,561,562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578,579,580,581,582
583,584,585,586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650,651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661,662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671,672
673,674,675,676,677,678
679,680,681,682,683,684
685,686,687,688,689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701,702
703,704,705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712,713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
721,722,723,724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737,738
739,740,741,742,743,744
745,746,747,748,749,750
751,752,753,754,755,756
757,758,759,760,761,762
763,764,765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850,851,852
853,854,855,856,857,858
859,860,861,862,863,864
865,866,867,868,869,870
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1. 2.
request the video of the police
10-08-2017 -07-55
Copy of the original diary when
it started!
Double1
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers:
263,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:
10/08/2017 07:55:28 PM
Attachments: wwwwwwwwwwwwww.doc
video-2016-09-05-20-14-56.mp4
please can you request the video
footage of the police officers webcams all three different ones of them present
but manly 343ye lowe 10/08/2017
at about 09:45 to 10:35 outside
of mine he told the council officer that I was a dead man and also, they came into
mine and we talked about the Asbo.
I have also added the updated
diary and a video of the banging at me.
I want the audio to do with
George before the injunction hearing and want to request the so-called victims
to court as well by law they have to go if I do this and I cannot load the good
videos up because of their size
264,
wwwwwwwwwwwwww.doc
Who
tried to kill Simon?
A
Novel from a Diary off a Book off Truths, Created and Authored by
Simon:
-
Staring:
Chapter
1
This is my, Introduction.
My Name is Mr. Simon Cordell,
and this is part of my life story.
This book got written by me for
the purposes of supplying true and accurate information to the public.
It is my intentions (To start
this book) with a pretence of a story of a fiction, so I will begin, One day I
found a colourful box and it had a wind up handle that was coming out of the
side of it, so me, being me, I went up to the box and took hold on the handle,
in doing so, I started to spin the handle.
At first, I could hear this
cranking noise; it was ever so quiet but hearing this noise encouraged me, more
and more, to keep on spinning the handle.
One second went by and then
another second, till I started to feel and enjoy the fun in the rhythm, then,
as I went to take my hand of the handle and stop, what I was doing. Pop then
outcome this jack in a box.
Now as some people would, or
might say, let’s get back to reality, this now is an Introduction; which in
fact starts, with a short summary, of my own personal middle adder lessons of
age and in brief, this is a short walking, to some of my earlier child hood
memories:-
Regardless of any deceitful
accusation; The truth is that throughout my whole life I have got raised with high
living standards; off a good statue and that I have a very close mother to son
relationship, my mother and I have always been very close to each other and
this is alongside with the rest of our family member’s.
Together, we have always been
there for each other, this got done by us all, as a family should do for each
other and in a sequence of events, I can remember; historically, when very much
so, in the younger days of my life, when my dad as he still does now, worked
hard, so that he could provide for his loved ones and this was in an addition
to getting managed, for us to get provided, with having nice things; “living
essentials,” such as: A Good Education, Food, Drink, Water, Housing, Holidays
and Good; Clothing.
1
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433,434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467,468
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488,489,490,491,492
493,494,495,496,497,498
499,500,501,502,503,504
505,506,507,508,509,510
511,512,513,514,515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
523,524,525,526,527,528
529,530,531,532,533,534
535,536,537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544,545,546
547,548,549,550,551,552
553,554,555,556,557,558
559,560,561,562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578,579,580,581,582
583,584,585,586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650,651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661,662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671,672
673,674,675,676,677,678
679,680,681,682,683,684
685,686,687,688,689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701,702
703,704,705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712,713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
721,722,723,724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737,738
739,740,741,742,743,744
745,746,747,748,749,750
751,752,753,754,755,756
757,758,759,760,761,762
763,764,765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850,851,852
853,854,855,856,857,858
859,860,861,862,863,864
865,866,867,868,869,870
59.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1.
2.
video footage
of the officers 10-08-2017 -08-01
Copy
of the original diary when it started!
Double2
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 871,872,873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883,884,885,886,887,888
889,890,891,892,893,894
895,896,897,898,899,900
901,902,903,904,905,906
907,908,909,910,911,912
913,914,915,916,917,918
919,920,921,922,923,924
925,926,927,928,929,930
931,932,933,934,935,936
937,938,939,940,941,942
943,944,945,946,947,948
949,950,951,952,953,954
955,956,957,958,959,960
961,962,963,964,965,966
967,968,969,970,971,972
973,974,975,976,977,978
979,980,981,982,983,984
985,986,987,988,989,990
991,992,993,994,995,996
997,998,999,1000,1001,1002
1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008
1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014
1015,1016,1017,1018,1019,1020
1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026
1027,1028,1029,1030,1031,1032
1033,1034,1035,1036,1037,1038
1039,1040,1041,1042,1043,1044
1045,1046,1047,1048,1049,1050
1051,1052,1053,1054,1055,1056
1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062
1063,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068
1069,1070,1071,1072,1073,1074
1075,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080
1081,1082,1083,1084,1085,1086
1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092
1093,1094,1095,1096,1097,1098
1099,1100,1101,1102,1103,1104
1105,1106,1107,1108,1109,1110
1111,1112,1113,1114,1115,1116
1117,1118,1119,1120,1121,1122
1123,1124,1125,1126,1127,1128
1129,1130,1131,1132,1133,1134
1135,1136,1137,1138,1139,1140
1141,1142,1143,1144,1145,1146
1147,1148,1149,1150,1151,1152
1153,1154,1155,1156,1157,1158
1159,1160,1161,1162,1163,1164
1165,1166,1167,1168,1169,1170
1171,1172,1173,1174,1175,1176
1177,1178,1179,1180,1181,1182
1183,1184,1185,1186,1187,1188
1189,1190,1191,1192,1193,1194
1195,1196,1197,1198,1199,1200
1201,1202,1203,1204,1205,1206
1207,1208,1209,1210,1211,1212
1213,1214,1215,1216,1217,1218
1219,1220,1221,1222,1223,1224
1225,1226,1227,1228,1229,1230
1231,1232,1233,1234,1235,1236
1237,1238,1239,1240,1241,1242
1243,1244,1245,1246,1247,1248
1249,1250,1251,1252,1253,1254
1255,1256,1257,1258,1259,1260
1261,1262,1263,1264,1265,1266
1267,1268,1269,1270,1271,1272
1273,1274,1275,1276,1277,1278
1279,1280,1281,1282,1283,1284
1285,1286,1287,1288,1289,1290
1291,1292,1293,1294,1295,1296
1297,1298,1299,1300,1301,1302
1303,1304,1305,1306,1307,1308
1309,1310,1311,1312,1313,1314
1315,1316,1317,1318,1319,1320
1321,1322,1323,1324,1325,1326
1327,1328,1329,1330,1331,1332
1333,1334,1335,1336,1337,1338
1339,1340,1341,1342,1343,1344
1345,1346,1347,1348,1349,1350
1351,1352,1353,1354,1355,1356
1357,1358,1359,1360,1361,1362
1363,1364,1365,1366,1367,1368
1369,1370,1371,1372,1373,1374
1375,1376,1377,1378,1379,1380
1381,1382,1383,1384,1385,1386
1387,1388,1389,1390,1391,1392
1393,1394,1395,1396,1397,1398
1399,1400,1401,1402,1403,1404
1405,1406,1407,1408,1409,1410
1411,1412,1413,1414,1415,1416
1417,1418,1419,1420,1421,1422
1423,1424,1425,1426,1427,1428
1429,1430,1431,1432,1433,1434
1435,1436,1437,1438,1439,1440
1441,1442,1443,1444,1445,1446
1447,1448,1449,1450,1451,1452
1453,1454,1455,1456,1457,1458
1459,1460,1461,1462,1463,1464
1465,1466,1467,1468,1469,1470
1471,1472,1473,1474,1475,1476
1477,1478,1479,1480
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1. 2.
video footage of the officers
10-08-2017 -08-01
Copy of the original diary when
it started!
Double2
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers:
871,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 10/08/2017
08:01:16 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Attachments: wwwwwwwwwwwwww.doc
please can you help me by
requesting the video footage of the police officers webcams all three different
ones of them present but
manly 343ye lowe
10/08/2017
at about 09:45 to 10:35 outside
of mine he told the council officer that I was a dead man and also, they came
into mine and we talked about the Asbo.
I have also added the updated
diary and a video of the banging at me.
I want the audio that is to do
with George before the injunction hearing and want to request the so called
victims to court as well by law they have to go if I do this and I cannot load
the good videos up because of their size##and the audio of when I got arrested
and done an interview for carron when u was there
872,
wwwwwwwwwwwwww.doc
Who
tried to kill Simon?
A
Novel from a Diary off a Book off Truths, Created and Authored by
Simon:
-
Staring:
Chapter
1
This is my, Introduction.
My Name is Mr. Simon Cordell,
and this is part of my life story.
This book got written by me for
the purposes of supplying true and accurate information to the public.
It is my intentions (To start
this book) with a pretence of a story of a fiction, so I will begin, One day I
found a colourful box and it had a wind up handle that was coming out of the
side of it, so me, being me, I went up to the box and took hold on the handle,
in doing so, I started to spin the handle.
At first, I could hear this
cranking noise; it was ever so quiet but hearing this noise encouraged me, more
and more, to keep on spinning the handle.
One second went by and then
another second, till I started to feel and enjoy the fun in the rhythm, then,
as I went to take my hand of the handle and stop, what I was doing. Pop then
outcome this jack in a box.
Now as some people would, or
might say, let’s get back to reality, this now is an Introduction; which in
fact starts, with a short summary, of my own personal middle adder lessons of
age and in brief, this is a short walking, to some of my earlier child hood
memories:-
Regardless of any deceitful
accusation; The truth is that throughout my whole life I have got raised with
high living standards; off a good statue and that I have a very close mother to
son relationship, my mother and I have always been very close to each other and
this is alongside with the rest of our family member’s.
Together, we have always been
there for each other, this got done by us all, as a family should do for each
other and in a sequence of events, I can remember; historically, when very much
so, in the younger days of my life, when my dad as he still does now, worked
hard, so that he could provide for his loved ones and this was in an addition
to getting managed, for us to get provided, with having nice things; “living
essentials,” such as: A Good Education, Food, Drink, Water, Housing, Holidays
and Good; Clothing.
1
873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883,884,885,886,887,888
889,890,891,892,893,894
895,896,897,898,899,900
901,902,903,904,905,906
907,908,909,910,911,912
913,914,915,916,917,918
919,920,921,922,923,924
925,926,927,928,929,930
931,932,933,934,935,936
937,938,939,940,941,942
943,944,945,946,947,948
949,950,951,952,953,954
955,956,957,958,959,960
961,962,963,964,965,966
967,968,969,970,971,972
973,974,975,976,977,978
979,980,981,982,983,984
985,986,987,988,989,990
991,992,993,994,995,996
997,998,999,1000,1001,1002
1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008
1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014
1015,1016,1017,1018,1019,1020
1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026
1027,1028,1029,1030,1031,1032
1033,1034,1035,1036,1037,1038
1039,1040,1041,1042,1043,1044
1045,1046,1047,1048,1049,1050
1051,1052,1053,1054,1055,1056
1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062
1063,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068
1069,1070,1071,1072,1073,1074
1075,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080
1081,1082,1083,1084,1085,1086
1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092
1093,1094,1095,1096,1097,1098
1099,1100,1101,1102,1103,1104
1105,1106,1107,1108,1109,1110
1111,1112,1113,1114,1115,1116
1117,1118,1119,1120,1121,1122
1123,1124,1125,1126,1127,1128
1129,1130,1131,1132,1133,1134
1135,1136,1137,1138,1139,1140
1141,1142,1143,1144,1145,1146
1147,1148,1149,1150,1151,1152
1153,1154,1155,1156,1157,1158
1159,1160,1161,1162,1163,1164
1165,1166,1167,1168,1169,1170
1171,1172,1173,1174,1175,1176
1177,1178,1179,1180,1181,1182
1183,1184,1185,1186,1187,1188
1189,1190,1191,1192,1193,1194
1195,1196,1197,1198,1199,1200
1201,1202,1203,1204,1205,1206
1207,1208,1209,1210,1211,1212
1213,1214,1215,1216,1217,1218
1219,1220,1221,1222,1223,1224
1225,1226,1227,1228,1229,1230
1231,1232,1233,1234,1235,1236
1237,1238,1239,1240,1241,1242
1243,1244,1245,1246,1247,1248
1249,1250,1251,1252,1253,1254
1255,1256,1257,1258,1259,1260
1261,1262,1263,1264,1265,1266
1267,1268,1269,1270,1271,1272
1273,1274,1275,1276,1277,1278
1279,1280,1281,1282,1283,1284
1285,1286,1287,1288,1289,1290
1291,1292,1293,1294,1295,1296
1297,1298,1299,1300,1301,1302
1303,1304,1305,1306,1307,1308
1309,1310,1311,1312,1313,1314
1315,1316,1317,1318,1319,1320
1321,1322,1323,1324,1325,1326
1327,1328,1329,1330,1331,1332
1333,1334,1335,1336,1337,1338
1339,1340,1341,1342,1343,1344
1345,1346,1347,1348,1349,1350
1351,1352,1353,1354,1355,1356
1357,1358,1359,1360,1361,1362
1363,1364,1365,1366,1367,1368
1369,1370,1371,1372,1373,1374
1375,1376,1377,1378,1379,1380
1381,1382,1383,1384,1385,1386
1387,1388,1389,1390,1391,1392
1393,1394,1395,1396,1397,1398
1399,1400,1401,1402,1403,1404
1405,1406,1407,1408,1409,1410
1411,1412,1413,1414,1415,1416
1417,1418,1419,1420,1421,1422
1423,1424,1425,1426,1427,1428
1429,1430,1431,1432,1433,1434
1435,1436,1437,1438,1439,1440
1441,1442,1443,1444,1445,1446
1447,1448,1449,1450,1451,1452
1453,1454,1455,1456,1457,1458
1459,1460,1461,1462,1463,1464
1465,1466,1467,1468,1469,1470
1471,1472,1473,1474,1475,1476
1477,1478,1479,1480
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
813.
Lemmy Nwabuisi _
Re_
Injunction Order against Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (1)
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1481,1482,1483,1484,1485
60.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
813. Lemmy Nwabuisi _
Re_ Injunction Order against
Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (1)
10/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1481,1482,1483,1484,1485
--
1481,
From: Lemmy
Nwabuisi <Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 10
August 2017 10:53
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Injunction Order against Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Injunction
Order with Power of Arrest.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached copy of Injunction
Order with Power of Arrest that was served on Mr Cordell by a process server this
morning. The matter has been listed for further hearing at 10am on 21 August
2017 at the Edmonton County Court.
Kind Regards
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Anti-Social Behaviour Team
Community Safety Unit
Environmental & Community Safety
B Block North
Civic Centre
Enfield
EN13XA
Tel: 020 8379 5354
Mob: 07583115576
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1482,
Re: Injunction Order against Simon Cordell
[SEC=OFFICIAL]->Injunction Order with Power of Arrest.
|
In the
County Court at Edmonton Injunction Order
Claim Number D02ED073
Claimant Mr
Simon Cordell
Defendant Mr
Simon Cordell
109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield
EN3 7JQ
(including ref.) LS/C/LI/157255
(including ref.)
Between
Mr
Simon Cordell,
Defendant
and
London
Borough of Enfield,
Claimant
London
Borough of Enfield
If you do
not obey this order
you will be guilty of contempt of court
and you may be
sent to prison
If you, Mr. Simon Cordell (the
Defendant) disobey this Order you will be guilty of contempt of Court and you
may be sent to prison or fined or have your asset seized. You should read this
Order carefully and are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible. You
have the right to ask the Court to vary or discharge this Order.
Before Deputy
District Judge Harris sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street,
London, N18 2TN,
Upon hearing
Solicitor for the Claimant on without notice application,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell permit the Claimant's employees and contractors
access into 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ to carry out routine
maintenance inspections and necessary repairs within 48 hours of written
notification.
2. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell keep his dog on a lead in communal areas outside
his property.
3. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause physical violence and verbal abuse to
the Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of flats at
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
4. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by intimating
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause intimidation, harassment, alarm and
distress to the Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of
flats at Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
5. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by intimating
or encouraging or permitting any other person) engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance to the
Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of flats at Burncroft
Avenue, Enfield.
6. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by intimating
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from using his pet dog to
frighten, intimidate, or threaten violence to the Claimant's employees, tenants
and visitors at Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
7. A
power of arrest is attached to paragraphs 3 to 6 above.
8. This
order shall remain in force until 8 August 2018 at 23:59 unless before then it
is revoked by further order of the court.
The
court office at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
When corresponding
with the court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote
the claim number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online.
It will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by Adrian B
NI6 General Form of injunction for
interlocutory application or originating application CJR105
1483,
9. Matter
be listed for a further hearing at 10:00AM on 21 August 2017 at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN with a time estimate of 30
minutes. _
10. Costs
in the case.
You are entitled to apply to the court
to reconsider the order before the day.
If your case does settle prior to the
hearing date, please notify the court in writing.
Cases are listed in accordance with
local hearing arrangements determined by the Judiciary and implemented by court
staff. Every effort is made to ensure that hearings start either at the time
specified or as soon as possible thereafter. However, listing practices or
other factors may mean that delays are unavoidable. Furthermore, in some
instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different
court or adjourned to another date. Please contact the court for further
information on the listing arrangements that may apply to your hearing.
Your case has been listed at the same
time as several other cases, but you are required to attend Court at the time
given in your notice, or earlier if you need to speak to your legal
representative. When you arrive at Court you should report to an Usher who will
tell you if the other party are in attendance. You may wish to consult with
them before going into Court to attempt to clarify/resolve any outstanding
issues.
The Judge will decide the order in
which cases are called based on who is in attendance, the time estimate and
other factors. Please ensure that the Usher is aware of your whereabouts at all
times. If you are not in the court at the required time and your case is called
it will be heard in your absence.
You may be able to get free legal aid
advice. Go online at www.gov.uk/legal-aid
for further information.
Dated: 9
August 2017
1484,
Name of court
Claim No. of Enfield
(LS/C/LI/157255)
Claimant's address:
Enfield
PO Box 50
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XA
Name of Claimant: The
Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough
Claimant s phone number: 0208 3796438
Power of arrest County Court at Edmonton D02ED073
Claimant's name (including ref.)
Name of defendant: Mr.
Simon Cordell
Defendant's name (including ref.) Mr. Simon Cordell
Defendant's address:
109 Burncroft Avenue
Enfield
EN3 7JQ
Date order made:
09/08/2017
Name of judge:
Deputy District Judge Harris
(insert The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
statutory provision)
This order includes a power of arrest under (insert statutory
provision)
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 under the
relevant paragraphs of the order to which a power of arrest has been attached
are:
(set out those paragraphs of the order to which the power of arrest is
attached, if necessary, continue on a separate sheet)
See attached
This power of arrest was ordered on | 00/00/2000 | - | 00/00/2000 and
expires on the [00/00/2000]
Note to Arresting Officer
Where the defendant is arrested under the power given by section 155 of
the Housing Act 1996, or section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006; or
section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009; or
The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of section 4 of the
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: -
the defendant shall be brought before the judge within the period of 24
hours beginning at the time of their arrest.
a constable shall inform the person on whose application the injunction
was granted, forthwith where the defendant is arrested under the power given by
section 155 of the Housing Act 1996 or as soon as reasonably practicable where
the defendant is arrested under the power given by section 27 of the Police and
Justice Act 2006 or section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 or section 4
of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Nothing in section 155 of the Housing Act 1996 or section 27 of the
police and Justice Act 2006 or section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 or
section 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act —
1014, shall authorise the detention of the respondent after the expiry
>of the period of 24 hours beginning at the time of their arrest. On
calculating any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day,
Good Friday, or any Sunday.
I110A Power of arrest attached to injunction (06.15) © Crown copyright 2015
1485,
1. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause physical violence and verbal abuse to
the Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of flats at
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
2. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause intimidation, harassment, alarm and
distress to the Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of
flats at Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
3. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing
or encouraging or permitting any other person) engaging or threatening to
engage in conduct that is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance to the
Claimant's employees, tenants and visitors to the block of flats at Burncroft
Avenue, Enfield.
4. The
Defendant, Mr. Simon Cordell be forbidden (whether by himself or by instructing
or encouraging or permitting any other person) from using his pet dog to
frighten, intimidate, or threaten violence to the Claimant's employees, tenants
and visitors at Burncroft Avenue, Enfield.
61
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
814.
Neville Gary _Inspection Visit Wednesday 16th August 2017 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1486,1487,1488,1489,1490,1491,1492
61
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
814. Neville Gary _Inspection
Visit Wednesday 16th August 2017 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1486,1487,1488,1489,1490,1491,1492
--
1486,
From: Neville
Gray <Neville.Gray@Enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 14
August 2017 13:32
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Obie Ebanks
Subject: Inspection
Visit Wednesday 16th August 2017 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: 740772
- LBE V SIMON CORDELL.PDF.
Cordell Letter 14082017.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Lorraine
Please see attached letter as
requested. I have also sent a copy out in the post today. Please ensure Mr
Cordell is also aware of the visit on Wednesday.
Kind regards
Neville Gray
Legal Disrepair Surveyor
EH-Legalrepairs@enfield.gov.uk
For and on behalf of London Borough of
Enfield
Direct Dial: 0208
3758187
Mobile:
0758 0794213
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
From: Jill
Bayley
Sent: 14
August 2017 11:57
To: Neville Gray <Neville.Gray@Enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Cordell
- injunction
Dear Neville,
Here is a copy of the injunction
as requested.
Best wishes Jill
Jill Bayley
Principal Lawyer, Safeguarding and
Corporate Teams Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 6475
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
1487,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1488,
1489,
1490,
1491,
1492,
62.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Inks 15-0-2017 -1-4191 15-08-2017 10-31 1
15/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1493
62.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Inks 15-0-2017
-1-4191 15-08-2017 10-31 1
15/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1493
--
1493
From: Get Canvas Plus <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time:
15/08/2017 10:30:52 AM
Subject: HP
Z6200-6900 Series Compatible Inks
Pigment Ink Cartridges 775ml
100% compatible with the
original HP 771
cartridges making an easy change
over as they mix and match with original inks.
The profiles are also identical
for all our colours
ALL COLOURS INSTOCK
Matt black, Photo black,1
Cyan. Magenta, Yellow, 1
Light cyan, Light magenta, 1
Light grey & Re
BBŁ110
Get Canvas Plus is now offering
a brand-new ink tec compatible ink cartridge for
HP Z Series Printers.
These cartridges are compatible
with models
HP Z6200 HP Z6600 HP Z6800 HP
Z6900
The 775ml cartridges are plug
and play and can be used alongside HP original cartridges. Cost saving and
available in all colours with next day UK delivery.
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth Get Canvas -1-4184 17-08-2017 09-33 1
17/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1494
63.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Get Canvas -1-4184
17-08-2017 09-33 1
17/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1494
--
1494
From: Get Canvas <info@getcanvasplus.co.uk>
Sent time:
17/08/2017 09:33:23 AM
Subject: Wide
Format Inks
Save on Cartridges and Bulk Ink
Canon EPSON
“Roland”
Inks are one of the main
expenses for wide format printers and we at Get Canvas Plus are here to make
ordering inks easier and cheaper for your printing business.
After years of development we
now have 100's of users making huge savings on their ink costs using our
systems and inks whilst retaining the longevity (fade resistance) and image
quality of the original manufacturers inks.
We supply fully compatible
cartridges and refillable ink systems for a large range of Epson, Canon, HP,
Roland wide format printers.
Click here to find Compatible
inks for your printer
You will find all our prices on
our website www.getcanvasplus.co.uk and all order placed
before 3:30pm will be out for delivery to you the very next day.
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
824.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Simon
Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
20/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1495,1496,1497,1498,1499
64.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
824. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
20/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1495,1496,1497,1498,1499
--
1495,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
August 2017 17:36
To: OBIE.EBANKS@ENFIELD.GOV.UK
Obie.Ebanks@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Attachments: Obie
Ebanks-20-08-2017.pdf
Dear Obie Ebanks
Please see attached letter dated
20/08/2017
Regards Lorraine Cordell
1496,
RE: Simon
Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave->Obie
Ebanks-20-08-2017.pdf
20/08/2017
Dear Obie Ebanks,
After meeting you on the 16/08/2017
you asked me to write this email to you in regard to the issues. It was very
nice to meet you and you seemed to want to hear the issues that my son has been
having which have not been addressed by Enfield Council. You seem to understand
when we spoke there were issues that have not been addressed. My son feels he
cannot trust anyone in Enfield Council and I feel you hit the nail on the head
when you said there seems to be a lot of outstanding issue that have not been
addressed and I can see why he does not trust anyone in Enfield council.
When Mr Neville Gray called me
on the 14/08/2017 to arrange the meeting for the Thursday which was the
17/08/2017 I said that's fine. I was on a phone call to my brother at the time
also, and my brother heard what was said as both phones I was using were on
load speaker. Then Mr Neville Gray changed this to the 16/08/2017, I knew I
would not be able to make the 16/08/2017 as I had a hospital appointment on the
16/08/2017 which I said to Mr Neville Gray, I have very many health problems
myself which I told Mr Neville Gray on the 12/07/2017 and I am under many
doctors so have a lot of hospital appointments I have to attend. I asked him if
the date could be done on the 17/08/2017 or the 18/08/2017 due to this he said no
I am not working them days, and the meeting will have to be on the 16/08/2017
we have got an order by the court saying we need to give 48 hours which I
intend to enforce, that can I get someone else to attend my son's flat on this
date, which I said I could not I stated I will cancel my hospital appointment
so I can attend, I know there is a court order which the council needs to give
48 hours’ notice, which I believe was given wrongly as my son has allowed over
many years many council people into his home. I just hope while this order is
in place Enfield council has some respect that people cannot just drop things
when they call as they are well aware my son is unwell and needs me there with
him.
I feel my son has been treated
very unfairly and will try to outline it in this email and keep it as short as
possible. So this will not include everything as I would be here a long time
and this email would be like a book.
Firstly, my son's back garden it
is well kept except for the greenery down the right-hand side which is coming
from next door and as said we need advice is regards to cutting this back.
Issues pointed out to Neville
Gray:
·
Hole in ceiling in bedroom where the
tenant in 113 pushed something though my son's ceiling. Mr Neville Gray
explained his concern if there was an asbestos Problem. You saw my son was
decorating so if we can get a response to this as soon as possible I would be
grateful.
·
Kitchen units: as you know when decent
homes came into my son's property, they said to him the units he had were
better than the ones Enfield Council would be fitting so they did not change
them. You said this was a problem these would not be covered by the 25 years
warranty so why do decent homes give you the option to keep the ones that are
fitted.
·
Back step to back door and adjacent
window handle. These where reported back in 2015 and have never been fixed
correctly.
·
The wall in front room / kitchen that
part was removed many years ago, which Enfield Council has seen many times and
never had a problem with, until Neville
1
1497,
Gray came round on the
12/07/2017 this was then added to a report sent to me on the 19/07/2017 by
Lemmy Nwabuisi, in there was a report by Sarah Fletcher dated 24/02/2017 about
the wall. What I cannot understand if Sarah Fletcher had a problem with this
dated back to 24/02/2017 why were we never informed. As said on the visit if
this is a problem I will get my builder to replace the part of the wall that
was removed it is not a big wall that was removed only half a section of part
of a wall and not the full wall, and if I had been told at any time there was a
problem with this I would have got it replaced via my builder. I cannot
understand why no one informed us of this if anyone from Enfield Council
through it was an issue. It does not look unsightly and was completed
professionally.
I was very pleased when I asked
the plumbers and they informed me the problem regarding the water pressure
(which has continually been blamed on my son including by Mr Neville Gray who
had never seen the plumbing) was in fact no fault of my son's and was in fact a
problem with the pipe work outside the jurisdiction of my son property. There
seems to be lies stemming from Enfield Council and the flats above which state
my son has said he was restricting the water. Why would my son state this if he
was having water pressure issues also and wanted it fixed? I would like this
looked into to find out where these rumours and lies have come from,
considering Enfield Council, Thames Water and private plumbers which were sent
from 117 had been to my son's flat on numerous occasions and have categorically
stated the water pressure problem was not my son's fault this should have been
on Enfield Councils system and I would like reasons as to why they were not.
Please tell me who is not doing their job.
On the 12/07/2017 in the AM, I
would also like to know why Mr Neville Gray said that my son had something in
his flat that was controlling the water to the other flats more than once while
being rude and superior. Also I would like an explanation from Mr Neville Gray
about his conduct on the same day in the PM as to why when he received a call
from the tenants of 117 to say they had no water, that he tried to bully
himself into my son's flat because he believed my son was messing with the
water, If the systems were up to date he would have known there was no way my
son could be tampering with the water. He had also been told my son was very
unwell and made an appointment with me for my son for the Monday 17/07/2017 at
14:00 hours. I do not understand what he would have grained from getting into
my son's flat as he is not a plumber and he did not have one with him at any
point on the 12/07/2017. He was very unprofessional, and we believe that
because he did not get his own way on this date this is why it has been taken
to court and my son now has an injunction. To me this is sheer victimization. I
believe the whole situation could have been avoided if Mr Neville Gray would
have done his job with even a modicum of professionalism.
What I still cannot understand
is why Mr Neville Gray arranged that meeting on the 12/07/2017 with the
landlord and tenants of 117 they had been speaking for days before hand on the
phone, It would have been courteous and professional to have looked at this
system and rang me for an appointment to gain access to my son flat as it
clearly states on the system to call me 1st before going to my son's home, also
his lack of foresight by not checking the system about 113 at this point he would
have released that tenant from 113 had been evicted and Enfield Council had the
keys. It seems a private flat owner deserves courtesy, whereas council tenants
have to jump when the council says jump. Tell me this is fair?
I was very upset and I think you
saw this when you was about to leave and we were standing in the communal area
of the block and Neville Gray saw the CCTV camera in the communal area and
right away said see your son has got a CCTV camera in a way like he was happy
he had found something on my son had done wrong, I stated that is not my son's
and you need to stop blaming my son for everything, I was happy I think you
noticed this too, and checked the wire and where it was going to and said this
is not going into my son's flat it was going into the cupboard next to my son's
front door which no tenant has access to. At that Mr Neville
2
1498,
Gray then saw that the wire he
was talking about was in fact not even going to that dummy CCTV camera which I
believe Enfield Councils owns, it was going in fact up and around the stairs.
And in fact it is the BT phone wire for the block, Neville Gray did not even
say sorry for blaming my son for something that was nothing to do with my son
but yet as soon as he saw it was fast enough to blame my son for this. I would
like to state this is a disgusting attitude and in point of fact Enfield
Council acts this way all the time towards my son.
In regard to the main front door
you noticed on the main door to the block there is an entry code system and not
an intercom system. Unless you know the code to this door you cannot get access
to any of the flats and the tenants do not even know you are there. This
includes deliveries for food, medical, emergencies, and any person coming to see
anyone that lives in the block, (that also includes yourselves Enfield Council)
Please could this be addressed by fitting an intercom system or bell for the
each flat or giving my son permission to fit his own wireless doorbell which he
has asked Enfield Council on many occasions and he has been refused to do this.
I believe that you can also
confirm that my son dog did not bark once or act aggressively to any of you
while you were in my son's flat; she was just sitting in the garden outside the
back door looking in at everyone. I have great concerns with what has been said
about my son's dog and she has never hurt anyone, and my son would never use
his dog in that way at all like people have said.
I would now like to approach the
problems with my son's neighbours many emails, complaints and calls received by
Enfield Council begging them to help my son with this problem, every single
time they ignored our pleas for help, but it seems a year later when complaints
went in about my son from neighbours Enfield Council were very willing to help
them out, don't you think this is a case of double standards and also
discrimination and what I mean by discrimination is racism. We have asked for
help and you have ignored us please explain why? You have briefly seen some
emails but was not able to read them but there are so many more.
On the 21/03/2017 I got a call
back from Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi in this call we were talking about the emails I had
sent Enfield Council, and believe me there are numerous, he then proceeded to tell
me there was only 2 complaints and nothing else and implied I was a lair,
unfortunately for him my phone was on load speaker and my brother and his
friend heard what Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi said, my brother realised this upset me and
said how dare you call my sister a lair, my brothers friend said that is
disgraceful, is implying someone a lair anyway to act for any professional.
Also in this call I told Mr
Lemmy Nwabuisi that my son does not leave his home due to his health which had
been stated in emails before this, Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi stated he did not know
anything about my son having any health problems. I said to him I cannot
understand how you do not know anything about my son's health your team asked
the mental health team if they knew my son and had a reply back from them
saying they do, and it is in the subject access request I got from the council
so how do you not know anything about this. At this I said so you don't even
know my son was sectioned in late 2016 which he replied no. He asked me if I could
send an email with information regarding this and showing my son does not leave
his home, to him which I did. Can you please explain to me why everything
regarding my son (Complaints, emails, health and repairs) seems to disappeared
from the system or is constantly ignored just so you can make my son seem
unreasonable and at fault, this is blatant victimization, to add insult to
injury at the end of the email dated the 21/03/2017 I stated I would wait for a
reply from him with what we can do to address this. I also asked him if he can
check into why all the information that had been submitted seemed was missing
could be addressed and for him to get back to me, why did he not do this?
By now I believe Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi knew my son would need a home visit to address issues why was this
never done why was things just left what reason would there be to have
3
1499,
left this Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi was demanding
my son to come for a meeting before this, yet when he seems to understand my
son does not leave his home why was a date not set to see him with me there for
a meeting to take place at my son's home? It seems house calls was made to
every other tenant accept my son and reports taken.
It was not until after Mr
Neville Gray came on the 12/07/2017 did I ever hear anything back from Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi until the 27/07/2017, and when I did get this correspondence it was to
inform me that Enfield Council were Seeking a procession order and had more
complaints listed which had been made about my son, yet not once did Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi have the common courteous to inform me there were new complaints being
made since March 2017. Do you think it is right what has happened, to me it
seem this is the way Enfield Council wants to handle things Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi
has all my information and my son's why just leave things if I had been
contacted I could have then dealt with this instead I have to go over hours and
hours of information and to me it seems unfair, unjust and unwarranted.
It would take someone that was
willing to sit down, not blame and help my son with everything, as I believe
everyone wants this matter resolved. All it would take is for someone to sit
down look at the emails, video, and audios that we have, and then maybe you
will understand where we are coming from and how wrong this whole situation has
become. Meeting you it really seemed you wanted to listen and to help I really
hope this is the case as honestly, I believe this is what is really needed. The
idea of court petrifies my son, my son does not even want to leave his home let
alone go to a court. Not only has my son's health deteriorated due to the
issues which have never been addressed by Enfield Council, I have very bad
health also and I am always at the hospitals due to being under many doctors.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
4
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
825.
Obie Ebanks _RE_ Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave [SEC=OFFICIAL]
22/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1500,1501,1502,1503
65.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
825. Obie Ebanks _RE_ Simon
Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave [SEC=OFFICIAL]
22/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1500,1501,1502,1503
1500,
From: Obie
Ebanks <Obie.Ebanks@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 22
August 2017 10:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: 109 Burncroft Ave.doc
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mrs Cordell,
Thank you for your email and
attached letter dated 20th August 2017.
Please find attached my
response.
Kind regards
Obie Ebanks
Neighbourhood Officer
Enfield Council Housing
Regeneration & Environment
Directorate
36-44 South Mall
Edmonton Green
N9 0TN
Tel: 0800
40 80 160
Email: Obie.Ebanks@enfield.gov.uk
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2017 17:36
To: Obie Ebanks
Obie Ebanks
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Dear Obie Ebanks
Please see attached letter dated
20/08/2017
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
1501,
Opinions expressed in this email
are those of the individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Enfield. This email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are
strictly confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may
contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication
in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1502,
1503,
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 21
lorraine32@blueyonder.co_
08.31.2017_RE
urgent D02ED073
31/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1504,1505
66.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 21 lorraine32@blueyonder.co_
08.31.2017_RE urgent D02ED073
31/08/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1504,1505
--
1504,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 31
August 2017 17:42
To: 'enquiries@edmonton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
urgent D02ED073
Attachments: D02ED073-Country-Court-Letter-Dated-24-08-2017.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
After a call made to the court
today regarding the attached letter from the court dated 24/08/2018 Claim
number D02ED073 before Deputy District Judge Perry I have been asked to write
this email.
On the 21/08/2017 when we were
last in court Deputy District Judge Perry asked for the case not to be reheard
until 28 days thereafter and that maybe this can be worked out between the
parties.
As I explained to the Judge we
were in the process of getting a date to see a solicitor in this matter we have
not been able to get to see one until today 31/08/2017 Shepherd and Harris
& Co. at 15:00 hours, who are now putting an application in for legal aid,
as my son is not well enough to deal with this case on his own and does need a
solicitors to act on his behalf as there are many issues within Enfield Council
case. There is going to be a large amount of paperwork which will prove this.
I have also emailed Enfield
Council with the view of trying to set up a meeting, as throughout this Enfield
Council has not had one meeting with my son to address the issues he was having
going way back before any complaints was put in about my son.
I am asking if the new date of
14/09/2017 could be extended so we can have the meetings with the solicitors
and get all the paperwork and video and audio information we have and
statements as to what the issues are within this case together.
We did believe that we would
have had just over 28 days to be able to do this, as this is what the judge
ordered, but it seems the date is before the 28 days we were thinking we had to
get everything in order, and due to the time it has taken to have a 1st meeting
with the solicitors the date of the 14/09/2017 gives us very little time to see
if legal aid is granted and get this put in place. And have time to address the
issues of concern in this case with the solicitors.
I hope this issue can be dealt
with and the date can be extended, if a reply can be made via this email, I
would be most grateful
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell Mr Simon
Cordell
1505,
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1.
2.
Pro
Writing Aid -1-4193 01-09-2017 13-00
01/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1506,1507,1508,1509
67.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1. 2.
Pro Writing Aid -1-4193
01-09-2017 13-00
01/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1506,1507,1508,1509
--
1506,
From: Pro Writing
Aid <noreplys@prowritingaid.com>
Sent time:
01/09/2017 01:00:20 PM
Subject: Please
confirm your email
Please confirm your email.
Welcome to Pro Writing Aid
We just need you to click on the
following link (or paste the link into a browser) to activate your license: http://prowritinaaid.com/en/Account/EmailClick?
We also recommend that you save
this information as you may need it again:
Username: re
Email: re_wired@ymail.com
What are the 25 Pro Writing Aid
Reports?
Every writer has their own
favourite report. Which one will be yours?
Find out about the
reports.
Upgrade to Pro Writing Aid
Premium
Pro Writing Aid's online editing
tool is free to use, and always will be, but there are a few Premium features
that make upgrading worth the $3.33/month:
Better Integrations Save You Time
Pro Writing Aid Premium
integrates with MS Word, Open Office, Google Docs, Scrivener and Google Chrome
so you can edit wherever you write, without losing your formatting and your
precious time.
Mac and Windows Support
Your premium license covers Mac
and Windows and all of our word-processor integrations through our desktop app.
No Word Count Limits
Free users are limited to
running reports on 500 words at a time. For Premium users, there is no limit.
Upgrade to Pro
Writing Aid Premium
Getting Started with Pro Writing
Aid
Pro Writing Aid is chock-full of
features that will improve your writing and reduce your editing time. There are
too many to mention here, but some of our most popular features are below.
1507,
Receipt!
1508,
Receipt!
1509,
Receipt!
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1.
2.
Pro
Writing Aid -1-4194 02-09-2017 00-53
Double1
02/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1510
68.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1. 2.
Pro Writing Aid -1-4194
02-09-2017 00-53
Double1
02/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1510
--
1510
From: Pro Writing Aid <noreplys@prowritingaid.com>
Sent time:
02/09/2017 12:52:53 AM
Subject: Your
receipt for 1-year
Your receipt for 1-year.
Pro Writing Aid
Improve your writing
Pro Writing Aid
Thanks for your purchase.
Quantity Product |
Price |
Amount |
1
1-year |
USD40.00 |
USD40.00 |
Sales
Tax |
USD0.00 |
USD0.00 |
|
TOTAL |
USD40.00 |
Registered
in the United Kingdom Company number: 07341390 VAT number: 206-4210-56
Kind Regards
Chris Banks
Head of Product
Pro Writing Aid, all rights
reserved.
unsubscribe from all our emails
Order ID: 1291005
RECEIPT
Date: 01-Sep-2017
Payment by:
Credit Card
Payment to:
Orpheus Technology Ltd
College Farmhouse Denton
Oxford OX44 9JJ United Kingdom
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1.
2.
Pro Writing
Aid -1-4195 02-09-2017 00-53
Double2
02/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1511,1512,1513
69.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1. 2.
Pro Writing Aid -1-4195
02-09-2017 00-53
Double2
02/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1511,1512,1513
--
1511,
From: Pro
Writing Aid <noreplys@prowritingaid.com>
Sent time: 02/09/2017
12:52:57 AM
Subject: Your
Pro Writing Aid License
Your Pro Writing Aid License.
Thank you for upgrading to Pro
Writing Aid Premium
We just need you to click on the
following link (or paste the link into a browser) to activate your license: http://prowritinqaid.com/en/Account/EmailClick?
id=4414529&url=http%3a%2f%2fprowritinqaid.com%2fen%2fApp%2fConfirmation%3flicenceCode%3d155DBCCC-
We also recommend that you save
this information as you may need it again.
1. License
Code: 155DBCCC-40B1-465A-8A31-F9C25D7E9565
2. License
Valid Until: 01-Sep-2018
3. Number
of Users: 1
What are the 25 Pro Writing Aid
Reports?
Every writer has their own
favourite report. Which one will be yours?
Find out about the
reports.
Which version of Pro Writing Aid
is right for you?
1. Desktop Version
Our desktop version has the most functionality. It allows
you to open, edit and save the widest variety of files: Scrivener, MS Word,
text, markdown and more. It also works for both Windows and Mac users.
2. MS Word Add-in
If you usually write in MS Word, download this Add-in for
smoothly integrated writing tools where you need them most.
3. Google Docs Add-in
If you're a Google Docs user, download this Add-in to
resolve issues on the go.
4. Chrome
Extension
You can also install the Chrome extension, which is great
for checking emails, posts, pins, or tweets before you press “send”.
1512,
Sales!
1513,
Sales!
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70, 1.
2. Pro Writing Aid -1-4198 05-09-2017
00-55
05/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1514
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70, 1. 2. Pro Writing Aid -1-4198 05-09-2017 00-55
05/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1514
--
1514,
From: Pro Writing Aid <noreplys@prowritingaid.com>
Sent time:
05/09/2017 12:54:31 AM
Subject:
Friends and Family Discount
Friends and Family Discount.
Pro Writing Aid
Improve your writing
Hello,
Thanks for choosing Pro Writing
Aid premium. We want to express our gratitude by giving you a 10% discount link
for your friends and family. Additionally, for every person who signs up for
Pro Writing Aid premium using your link, you’ll receive 30 days added to your
license. See how many you can get. The record so far is 11 months.
Your discount link is:
http://prowritingaid.com/en/App/Purchase?rf=10&mafid=643375
Or you can just click one of
these buttons to easily share in on social media:
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+
Kind Regards
Chris Banks
Head of Product
Copyright © 2017 Pro Writing
Aid, all rights reserved.
71.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1.
2.
Mother
25-09-2017 -05-41
25/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1515
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 2.
Mother 25-09-2017 -05-41
25/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1515
--
1515,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
25/09/2017 05:41:34 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
RE: desktop
Attachments: Desktop.Rar
Forgot to add the file Saved
from Desktop.Rar
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 25
September 2017 17:39
To:
'Rewired '
Subject: RE:
desktop
Saved from desktop
72.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1.
2.
Report
30-09-2017 -06-41
30/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1516
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1. 2.
Report 30-09-2017 -06-41
30/09/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1516
--
1516,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 30/09/2017
06:41:22 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Attachments: New.
Rar
please help me sort out up to
number 65 in a different Color pen you choose or and 2017 I am working between
thanks
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
835.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Simon
Cordell_ (56)
10/10/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1517,1518,1519
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
835. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Simon Cordell_ (56)
10/10/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1517,1518,1519
--
1517,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 10
October 2017 22:28
To: 'emmanuel@vlssolicitors.com'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Edmonton-Court-Letter-29-09-2017.pdf
Dear Emmanuel
Please see attached court letter the court
sent to my son.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
1518,
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1.
2.
Complaint
CRM COM 45Ellis 1-20754 09-11-2017 14-36
09/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1520,1521
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1. 2.
Complaint CRM COM 45Ellis
1-20754 09-11-2017 14-36
09/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1520,1521
--
1520,
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent time: 09/11/2017
02:35:41 PM
Subject: FW:
Mr Simon Cordell - complaint CRM COM 4516 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
I am writing following our phone
discussion earlier this week. I have consulted with Lemmy's team and been
advised as follows:
You are aware that this matter is
already in court and we have to follow due process. The trial Judge gave directions
to both parties at the hearing on 25th September 2017 which both
parties have to abide by. You have been instructed to file your defence and
witness statement and forward same to the council. We will contact your
solicitors directly if we need any further information in relation to this
case.
Please note that any further complaints
or requests for information from you should be made through solicitors. With this
in mind, I will not be able to speak further with you on the phone about your
case.
Regards,
Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to
Information Officer Complaints & Access to Information Team
Phone:
020 8379 2808
Email: daniel.ellis@enfield.gov.uk
Website:
www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Connected puts many Council
services in one place, speeds up your payments and saves you time - to set up
your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected
From: complaints
and information
Sent: 30
August 2017 14:50
Subject: Mr
Simon Cordell - complaint CRM COM 4516 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thanks for your call this afternoon. I
have recorded your complaint. The reference is CRM COM 4516
We hope to reply within ten working
days, but it may take longer due to the different teams involved and long
history of the complaint.
If you have any queries about this,
please contact us direct via email using complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Kind regards,
Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to
Information Officer Complaints & Access to Information Team
Phone: 020
8379 2808
Email: daniel.ellis@enfield.gov.uk
Website:
www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Connected puts many Council
services in one place, speeds up your payments and saves you time - to set up
your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
1521,
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 2.
Mother 10-11-2017 -06-23
10/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1522,1523,1524,1525,1526,1527,1528
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 2.
Mother 10-11-2017 -06-23
10/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1522,1523,1524,1525,1526,1527,1528
--
1522,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 10/11/2017 06:23:11 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
Does this read any better?
Attachments: flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
here read attached
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 10
November 2017 17:27
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: Does
this read any better?
Issues with My Housing
Disrepair!
Working on My Website!
In 2006 when I first moved into
my flat it never seemed to be in a bad state of living condition, due to it
being decorated by the Enfield Council ready for me to move into.
After the first few months, I
started to notice the walls and ceilings had started to get covered in mould
and then on started to take picture evidence of my sufferings.
I declared to the relevant
body’s that my flat had really bad damp and it took mutable calls and emails to
the Enfield Complaints departments reasonable persons whom over that period of
time sent many different visiting surveyors to get the emergency graded
problems fixed and without any fault of my own this somehow took a couple of
years to get rectified with a disappointing completion date of the year of
2008.
This damp caused me the loss of
enjoyment of my flat and damage to most of my personal property at no fault of
my own again I must stress and I had to have a machine in my bedroom to remove
the water before and after the contractors started the important works.
The well needed Industrial water
removal machine to dry out flat got installed right away, the only time I got
allowed into the bedroom was to empty the bucket of water the machine collected
that did, in the beginning, fill up many times a day, as the months continued
to pass by the amount of unneeded stored water became less and less, right up
until the council and the Enfield homes reasonable persons where able to start
the needed work.
By this time the initial problem
of cause for the damp had gotten documented to be because of bad ventilation
within the estates premises around the year of 2007 and as a resolution to the
problem an air ventilation system got agreed to get adapted to the premises,
the works involved in the installation of this air system meant that I had to
have large circular holes cut into my kitchen window that leads to my back
garden and that of my bathroom window that leads to the main street, the
hardware to the ventilation system got delayed to get installed for a much
longer time frame than anticipated in fact it took another two or three years later
in the year of 2010, leaving my home insured and this happened at no fault of
my own yet again, I got left with holes in my windows.
Even low the flat stayed in an
unliveable state of condition through the years of 2006 till 2008 I got made to
live in my flat, and after some of the disrepair issues got fixed with the
walls and ceilings inside of my flat continued to suffer from the damp issues
due to the floorboards going rotten after the first repairs, causing sinking
floors and this once again made the flat unliveable due to the dangerous risks
involved from the year 2008 till 2010.
I had no flooring laid down in
my bedroom as you walked into the room for a long time in between these years
because my feet had fallen through the wooden floorboard.
In this time frame, my heating
boiler started to also give me lots of issues and the council replaced the main
board more than once.
1523,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
At the end of 2008 when the damp
floorboards got lifted up in my bedroom I suffered the floorboards in the
bathroom getting lifted up and afterwards not laid back down correctly in a
timely and safe manner, I got told I could not get allowed back into to my
bedroom but the bathroom was ok to enter.
The reason that the floorboards
could not get re-laid in my bedroom and bathroom was because the bedroom
radiator pipe leads to the other radiator in the bathroom, this is because they
both share a u bend under the floorboards into each other and the radiators are
on opposite sides of the wall from one and other!
The metal pipe had fractured
under the floorboards causing each room to flood not noticeably since I moved
into my home, until detected.
This error caused me to lose
water pressure in my boiler system, so this leaking water added to the damp
issues
when after noticed another
survivor came out to my address to oversee the problem and agreed for a new
heating system to get installed through the flat and order for the system to
get decommissioned, so for the flat to be ready for the new installation, with
an addition of a temporary peace of wooding for the floor to get laid, as by
this stage I got left with no floor boards in the bathroom and bedroom
inclusive of no working heating apparatus as intended to get fixed and fitted
and holes in my kitchen window a bathroom window and a water collection
machine.
No reasonable persons attended
again for months until many more complaints went in again. And a person
attended and laid temporary flooring!
This lack of organisation on the
Councils behalf and their subcontractors caused me to suffer.
After many complaints, the
floors did get replaced.
In the months of June and / or
July 2015, the initial main emergency problems got finally addressed and the
heating system got reinstated so to be rectified to a degree but the damp still
prosiest to occur even years after!
Mutable emergency repairs that
must get met to the correct ISO standard of fair living standards got neglected
for years, at my loss of living.
The damage that my live got left
in due to lack of negligence caused me sufferings because off housing disrepair
and surely is not acceptable.
Undone housing repairs getting
left to incline rather than getting made to be that of a none persistent issue,
once reported to the councils reasonable persons caused these problems to
escalate and this neglect made it so that in the winter months my bedroom smelt
of damp and mouldy toxins, as an example of the extent of damage I suffered the
complete loss of my clothing, bed and bedding, causing additional bills,
electrical items and life’s stability also that of the extra house upkeep
costs, and I lost mutable amounts of personal memorabilia!
This damp over the years and
trying for the first years to get the problems addressed caused me, a great
deal of stress and bad health.
In the time of me making my
official complaints the Enfield Council came to their rented address and the
council explained to me, when they also see the extent of the living conditions
that they will upkeep the repairs in the flat to the correct living standards,
without any work commencing, as agreed by them, after the councils survivors
made their departure from my rented flat.
At no fault of my own and for an
unfair amount of time my flat stayed so cold if it were not for me needing my
home to live in, it
1524,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
would have equalled to the same
conditions as being outside in the open cold air!
In the winter things go a lot
worse, I needed more than just your normal extra protection off winter covers
so to try my best to keep warm.
I realised that due to my
housing disrepair issues I became unwell all the time due to being so cold all
the time and this did have a large impact on my health, making me have a
personal injury!
This unforgettably caused me
sleep disturbance, headache, prevention of enjoyment, and a breach of trust for
Enfield Councils legal working policy’s frameworks and employees.
Enfield Council not doing work
that should have been done induced more infusing into the existing problems.
I did buy myself an electric
heater but the cost of running this was very high also and at my expense.
As prior mentioned I had
surveyor after surveyor out to my flat but each time every different person in
attendance, would say the work would get done and yet it never got completed.
In 20015 after another complaint
was put into the Enfield councils complaints department, but on this occasion
my mother called in upset and this was in the year of 2015; regarding the
heating, holes in the window, missing floorboards and re occurrence of damp,
when on the phone she got shocked by the Enfield councils reasonable person
whom explained to her that I had removed all my flats heating pipe work and
this is why the heating never got replaced in them past years and that the
Enfield Council were attempting to charge me nearly Ł4000 to replace my
heating.
My mother got upset at hearing
what the lady said to her on the phone, and as a consequence she explained to
the lady that she wanted for her to arrange a manger and surveyor to come to
the flat and that this must happen within the next few days from then on, so to
re analyse the situation then in hand by the complaint departments reasonable
persons, and my mother continued her conversation by expressing; if she had to
she would lift the rest of the flooring up in my flat to prove the pipe work
was all in place and show that the rest including the bedroom and bathroom were
still there.
At this the lady explained while
still on the phone that there is no need for what my mother told her to happen
and that the council will replace the heating system, but the problems did not
stop for me there again and as a continuation the Enfield Council employees
then sent the surveyors out to my flat to oversee and then order to replace the
heating system but survivors or council employees had told the sub-contractors
that I had removed all the pipe work, to the point no one wanted to come out
and do the work.
The sub-contractor was very
shocked to see all the pipework still in place and also said that he is glad
that he meets me and saw the truth himself.
I also worked on the
Confidentiality Agreement
Between; - Company Director Simon Cordell of Too Smooth LTD and ******* and I
continued to Study and finish at the Time Start: 08:00Am and Time End: 10:00Pm!
My mother worked on building my
company website for me with others at the Time Start: 09:00 Am and Time End:
07:30 Pm!
1525,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
In 2006 when I first moved into my flat
it never seemed to be in a bad state of living condition, due to it being decorated
by the Enfield Council ready for me to move into. After the first few months, I
started to notice the walls and ceilings had started to get covered in mould
and then on started to take picture evidence of my sufferings.
I declared to the relevant body’s that
my flat had really bad damp and it took mutable calls and emails to the Enfield
Complaints departments reasonable persons whom over that period of time sent
many different visiting surveyors to get the emergency graded problems fixed
and without any fault of my own this somehow took a couple of years to get
rectified with a disappointing completion date of the year of 2008.
This damp caused me the loss of
enjoyment of my flat and damage to most of my personal property at no fault of
my own again I must stress and I had to have a machine in my bedroom to remove
the water before and after the contractors started the important works.
The well needed Industrial water
removal machine to dry out flat got installed right away, the only time I got
allowed into the bedroom was to empty the bucket of water the machine collected
that did, in the beginning, fill up many times a day, as the months continued
to pass by the amount of unneeded stored water became less and less, right up
until the council and the Enfield homes reasonable persons where able to start
the needed work.
By this time the initial problem of
cause for the damp had gotten documented to be because of bad ventilation
within the estates premises around the year of 2007 and as a resolution to the
problem an air ventilation system got agreed to get adapted to the premises,
the works involved in the installation of this air system meant that I had to
have large circular holes cut into my kitchen window that leads to my back
garden and that of my bathroom window that leads to the main street, the
hardware to the ventilation system got delayed to get installed for a much
longer time frame than anticipated in fact it took another two or three years latter
later
in
the year of 2010, leaving my home insured and this happened at no fault of my
own yet again, I got left with holes in my windows.
Even low thought the flat stayed in an unliveable state
of condition through the years of 2006 till 2008 I got made to live in my flat,
and after some of the disrepair issues got fixed with the walls and ceilings
inside of my flat continued to suffer from the damp issues due to the
floorboards going rotten after the first repairs, causing sinking floors and
this once again made the flat unliveable due to the dangerous risks involved
from the year 2008 till 2010.
I had no flooring laid down in my
bedroom as you walked into the room for a long time in between these years
because my feet had fallen through the wooden floorboard.
In this time frame, my heating boiler
started to also give me lots of issues and the council replaced the main board
more than once.
1526,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
At the end of 2008 when the damp
floorboards got lifted up in my bedroom I suffered the floorboards in the
bathroom getting lifted up and afterwards not laid back down correctly in a
timely and safe manner, I got told I could not get allowed back into to my
bedroom but the bathroom was ok to enter with boarding to walk on.
The reason that the floorboards could
not get re-laid in my bedroom and bathroom was because the bedroom radiator
pipe leads to the other radiator in the bathroom, this is because they both
share a u bend under the floorboards into each other and the radiators are on
opposite sides of the wall from one and other!
The metal pipe had fractured under the
floorboards causing each room to flood not noticeably since I moved into my
home, until detected.
This error caused me to lose water
pressure in my boiler system, so this leaking water added to the damp issues
when after noticed another survivor
came out to my address to oversee the problem and agreed for a new heating
system to get installed thought the flat and order ordered for the system to get decommissioned,
so for the flat to be ready for the new installation, installation,
with an addition of a temporary temporary peace of wooding for the floor to get laid, as by
this stage I got left with no floor boards in the bathroom and bedroom
inclusive of no working heating apparatus as intended to get fixed and fitted
and holes in my kitchen window a bathroom window and a water collection
machine.
No reasonable persons attended again
for months until many more complaints went in again. And a person attended and
laid temporary, temporary flooring!
This lack of organisation on the
Councils behalf and their subcontractors caused me to suffer.
After many complaints, the floors did
get replaced.
In the months’ timeframe of 19 June 2015 and 31 July 2015, the
initial main emergency problems got finally addressed and the heating system
got reinstated so to be rectified to a degree but the damp still prosiest to
occur even years after!
Mutable emergency repairs that must get
met to the correct ISO standard of fair living standards got neglected for
years, at my loss of living.
The damage that my live got left in due
to lack of negligence caused me sufferings because off housing disrepair and
surely is not acceptable.
Undone housing repairs getting left to
incline rather than getting made to be that of a none persistent issue, once
reported to the councils reasonable persons caused these problems to escalate
and this neglect made it so that in the winter months my bedroom smelt of damp
and mouldy toxins, as an example of the extent of damage I suffered the
1527,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
complete loss of my clothing, bed, and
bedding, causing additional bills, electrical items, and life’s stability also
that of the extra house upkeep costs, and I lost mutable amounts of personal
memorabilia!
This damp over the years and trying for
the first years to get the problems addressed caused me, a great deal of stress
and bad health.
In the time of me making my official
complaints the Enfield Council came to their rented address and the council
explained to me, when they also see the extent of the living conditions that
they will upkeep the repairs in the flat to the correct living standards,
without any work commencing, as agreed by them, after the councils survivors
made their departure from my rented flat.
At no fault of my own and for an unfair
amount of time my flat stayed so cold if it were not for me needing my home to
live in, it would have equalled to the same conditions as being outside in the
open cold air!
In the winter things go a lot worse, I
needed more than just your normal extra protection off winter covers so to try
my best to keep warm.
I realised that due to my housing
disrepair issues I became unwell all the time due to being so cold all the time
and this did have a large impact on my health, making me have a personal
injury!
This unforgettably caused me sleep
disturbance, headache, prevention of enjoyment, and a breach of trust for
Enfield Councils legal working policy’s frameworks and employees. Enfield
Council not doing work that should have been done induced more infusing into
the existing problems.
I did buy myself an electric heater but
the cost of running this was very high also and at my expense.
As prior mentioned I had surveyor after
surveyor out to my flat but each time every different person in attendance, would
say the work would get done and yet it never got completed.
In 20015 after another complaint was
put into the Enfield councils complaints department, but on this occasion my
mother called in upset and this was in the year of 2015; regarding the heating,
holes in the window, missing floorboards and re occurrence of damp, when
on the phone she got shocked by the Enfield councils reasonable person whom
explained to her that I had removed all my flats heating pipe work and this is
why the heating never got replaced in them past years and that the Enfield
Council were attempting to charge me nearly Ł4000 to replace my heating.
this section is wrong on the 02/03/2015
I was sick of making calls to the council regarding your heating and nothing
getting done I emailed a complaint to them, regarding multiple issues and
repairs not getting done including your heating, the council once they had this
email started to get jobs done on the list but still nothing regarding your
heating. in May 2015 I got a call from a lady from the council regarding your
heating, saying you had removed all your pipework, in 2015 and you know the
rest from here.
1528,
flat-damage-2006-onwards.doc
My mother got upset at hearing what the
lady said to her on the phone, and as a consequence she explained to the lady
that she wanted for her to arrange a manger and surveyor to come to the flat
and that this must happen within the next few days from then on, so to re
analyse the situation then in hand by the complaint departments reasonable persons,
and my mother continued her conversation by expressing; if she had to she would
lift the rest of the flooring up in my flat to prove the pipe work was all in
place and show that the rest including the bedroom and bathroom were still
there.
At this the lady explained while still
on the phone that there is no need for what my mother told her to happen and
that the council will replace the heating system, but the problems did not stop
for me there again and as a continuation the Enfield Council employees then
sent the surveyors out to my flat to oversee and then order to replace the
heating system but survivors or council employees had told the sub-contractors
that I had removed all the pipe work, to the point no one wanted to come out
and do the work.
The sub-contractor was very shocked to
see all the pipework, pipework still in place and also said that he is glad that
he meets me and saw the truth himself.
I also worked on the Confidentiality
Agreement Between; - Company Director Simon Cordell of Too Smooth LTD and
******* and I continued to Study and finish at the Time Start: 08:00Am and Time
End: 10:00Pm!
My mother worked on building my company
website for me with others at the Time Start: 09:00 Am and Time End: 07:30 Pm!
14/05/2008 the pictures were taken of
your flat,
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1.
2.
Daniel
Ellis -1-26390 10-11-2017 13-15
10/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1529,1530
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1. 2.
Daniel Ellis -1-26390 10-11-2017
13-15
10/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1529,1530
--
1529,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 10/11/2017
01:14:57 PM
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject:
Fwd.: Mr Simon Cordell - complaint CRM COM 4516 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
On Thursday, 9 November 2017, 14:35, complaints and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
wrote:
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
I am writing following our phone
discussion earlier this week. I have consulted with Lemmy's team and been
advised as follows:
You are aware that this matter is
already in court and we have to follow due process. The trial Judge gave
directions to both parties at the hearing on 25th September 2017
which both parties have to abide by. You have been instructed to file your
defence and witness statement and forward same to the council. We will contact
your solicitors directly if we need any further information in relation to this
case.
Please note that any further complaints
or requests for information from you should be made through solicitors. With
this in mind, I will not be able to speak further with you on the phone about
your case.
Regards,
Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to Information
Officer Complaints & Access to Information Team
Phone: 020 8379 2808
Email: daniel.ellis@enfield.gov.uk
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Connected puts many Council services
in one place, speeds up your payments and saves you time - to set up your
account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected
From: complaints
and information
Sent: 30
August 2017 14:50
Subject: Mr
Simon Cordell - complaint CRM COM 4516 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thanks for your call this afternoon. I
have recorded your complaint. The reference is CRM COM 4516
We hope to reply within ten working
days, but it may take longer due to the different teams involved and long
history of the complaint.
If you have any queries about this,
please contact us direct via email using complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Kind regards,
Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to Information
Officer Complaints & Access to Information Team
Phone:
020 8379 2808
Email: daniel.ellis@enfield.gov.uk
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Connected puts many Council
services in one place, speeds up your payments and saves you time - to set up
your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL Campaign
1530,
Enfield
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1.
2.
Dropbox
-1-4863 28-11-2017 23-07
28/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1531
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1. 2.
Dropbox -1-4863 28-11-2017 23-07
28/11/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1531
--
1531,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropbox.com>
Sent time:
28/11/2017 11:07:24 PM
Hi Rewired,
Your Dropbox account password
was recently reset.
While we've updated your
password, any computers, or phones that you previously linked to your Dropbox
account are still connected.
You can disconnect a lost or
stolen device from your account settings.
If you changed your password for
security reasons, we strongly recommend that you unlink any devices, web
sessions, or apps that look unfamiliar or that
you're concerned about. See this Help Centre article for more
information.
If you didn't make this change,
please let us know.
Thanks!
The Dropbox Team
2017 Dropbox
78.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1.
2.
Dropbox
-1-4873 02-12-2017 05-32
02/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1532
78.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1. 2.
Dropbox -1-4873 02-12-2017 05-32
02/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1532
--
1532,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropboxmail.com>
Sent time: 02/12/2017
05:31:51 AM
Hi Rewired,
The Dropbox mobile app lets you view
and share your files from any mobile device, no matter where you are. You can
even mark your most important docs for offline viewing.
With apps for Android, iPhone,
iPad, and Windows phones and tablets, Dropbox has you covered no matter where
you are!
Looking for a central place to create and share ideas? Try
Dropbox
Paper
Want to stop getting tips from
Dropbox Unsubscribe
Dropbox, Inc., PO Box 77767, San
Francisco, CA 94107
79.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
858.
Emmanuel _Simon Cordell
15/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1533,1534,1535,1536
79.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
858. Emmanuel _Simon Cordell
15/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1533,1534,1535,1536
--
1533,
From: Emmanuel
<emmanuel@vlssolicitors.com>
Sent: 15
December 2017 11:11
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: Simon
Cordell
Attachments: VLS-20171215-103522.pdf
VLS_20171215_103441.pdf
Dear Mrs Cordell,
I write to inform you that the court
has discharged the injunction of 9 August 2017 against Simon and the council's
claim is struck out because Enfield Council failed to comply with the order to
file Directions Questionnaire by the 17 November 2017. Copies of the Court
Orders are attached for your information.
Please contact me should you have any
query.
Kind regards,
Emmanuel Onwusiri
VLS SOLICITORS
VLS Solicitors Gibson
House 800
High Road
London
N170DH
DX 36209
Edmonton Exchange
Tel: 0208 808 7999
Fax: 0208 808 1999
Mob: 07940728166
Direct email: emmanuel@vlssolicitors.com http://www.vlssolicitors.com
VLS Solicitors is a trading style of
VLS Solicitors Ltd, a company registered in England & Wales with
Registration number 8572584, having its registered address at Gibson House, 800
High Road, Tottenham London N17 0DH. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. (SRA No.627688)
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. The contents may not be disclosed
or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted
to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
VLS Solicitors cannot accept
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this email as it has been
transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the email may have been
intercepted or amended, please call the sender. When addressed to our clients
any opinion or advice contained in this email is subject to our terms and
conditions.
1534,
Simon Cordell-VLS-20171215-103522.pdf
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
HM Courts & Tribunals Service the
County Court at Edmonton
59 Fore Street London N18 2TN
DX 136686 EDMONTON 3
T 020 8884 6500
Vis Solicitors
Gibson House 800
High Road Tottenham
London
N17 0DH
36209
EDMONTON EXCHANGE
Your ref:
VLS/EO/H/CORDELL/17
Dear Sir
13 December 2017
Re: Case Number: D02ED073 London
Borough of Enfield v Mr Simon Cordell
Enclosed please find copy of courts
letter to the claimant's as directed by the District Judge.
Yours faithfully,
Ourvasse Cundapen Back Office Section
Ext
BLANK
1535,
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
HM Courts & Tribunals Service the
County Court at Edmonton
59 Fore Street London N18 2TN
DX 136686 EDMONTON 3
T 020 8884 6500
Dated:
13 December 2017
Your ref: LS/C/LI/157255
London Borough of Enfield
P O Box 50
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XA
90615
ENFIELD 1
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: Case Number: D02ED073 London
Borough of Enfield v Mr Simon Cordell
The file was referred to the District
Judge and his comments are:
"Your Directions Questionnaire was
received by the court on 20/11/17. Therefore the sanction on the order of
6/11/17 applies."
Yours sincerely,
Ourvasse Cundapen Back Office Section
Ext
cc: defendants
1536,
Simon Cordell –
VLS-20171215-103441.pdf
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number D02ED073
Date 9 November 2017
Ref: LS/C/LI/157255
Ref VLS/EO/H
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
1st
Defendant
CORDELL
Before District Judge Cohen sitting at
the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
Of the Court's own initiative and upon
the claimant having failed to file a direction questionnaire.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
·
The Claimant do file a completed
directions questionnaire by 4.00 pm on 17 November 2017.
·
If the Claimant fails to comply with
paragraph 1 of this order the injunction of 9th August 2017 do stand discharged
without further order and the claim do stand struck out without further order. |
·
Omission to either party to apply to
set aside, vary, or stay this order by an application on notice which must be
filed at this Court not more than 3 days after service of this order.
Dated: 6
November 2017
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN, when corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number.
Tel: 020
8884 6500.
Check if you can issue your
claim online. It will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by Ms M
Tucker \
N24 General Form of Judgment or Order:
CJR065C
80.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1.
2.
Dropbox
-1-4864 30-12-2017 10-15
Double1
30/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1537
80.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1. 2.
Dropbox -1-4864 30-12-2017 10-15
Double1
30/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1537
--
1537,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropbox.com>
Sent time:
30/12/2017 10:14:39 AM
Hi Rewired,
A new web browser just signed
into your Dropbox account. To help keep your account secure, let us know if
this is you.
Is this you?
Where: Near
United Kingdom
When: Dec 30, 2017 at 10:14 am (GMT)
What: Yahoo! on Windows 7
Learn more on how to protect your account.
Thanks,
The Dropbox Team
2017 Dropbox
81.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1.
2.
Dropbox
-1-4865 30-12-2017 10-15
Double2
30/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1538
81.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1. 2.
Dropbox -1-4865 30-12-2017 10-15
Double2
30/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1538
--
1538,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropbox.com>
Sent time:
30/12/2017 10:15:13 AM
Hi Rewired,
You've connected a new app,
'Yahoo!', to your Dropbox.
You can check on this and any
other apps you've connected by visiting your account
page.
Happy Drop boxing!
The Dropbox Team
P.S. Here are some other great
apps that can connect to your Dropbox.
Website creation
RSS blog reader
App automation
2017 Dropbox
82.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1.
2.
Dropbox
-1-4866 31-12-2017 14-21
31/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1539
82.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1. 2.
Dropbox -1-4866 31-12-2017 14-21
31/12/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1539
--
1539,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropbox.com>
Sent time:
31/12/2017 02:20:43 PM
Hi Rewired,
A new web browser just signed
into your Dropbox account. To help keep your account secure, let us know if
this is you.
Is this you?
Where: Near
Enfield Town, England, United
Kingdom
When: Dec 31, 2017 at 2:20 pm (GMT)
What: Chrome on Windows 7
Learn more on how to protect your account.
Thanks,
The Dropbox Team
2017 Dropbox
83.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1.
2.
Luvinia
(Lou) De-Terville - 08-07-2017 04-33
08/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1540
83.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1. 2.
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville -
08-07-2017 04-33
08/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1540
--
1540,
From: Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville <messages-noreply@linkedin.com>
Sent time:
08/07/2017 04:33:31 PM
Subject: I'd like
to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn
Luvinia (Lou) would like to stay
in touch on LinkedIn.
CEO & Manager D.E.M.S
Graphic Designs Enfield, United Kingdom 1,398 connections
LinkedIn is a social network and
online platform for professionals. Learn More
You are receiving Invitation
emails. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members
in features like People You May Know.
This email was sent to re_wired@ymail.com.
2017 LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited
Company, Wilton Plaza, Wilton Place, Dublin 2. LinkedIn is a registered
business name of LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo
are registered trademarks of LinkedIn.
84.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1.
2.
Luvinia
(Lou) De-Terville -13-07-2017 03-02
13/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1541
84.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1. 2.
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville
-13-07-2017 03-02
13/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1541
--
1541,
From: Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville via LinkedIn <invitations@linkedin.com>
Sent time:13/07/2017
03:02:56 PM
Subject:
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville's invitation is awaiting your response
Linked 03,
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville would
like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?
CEO & Manager D.E.M.S
Graphic Designs
You received an invitation to
connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our
members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe
This email was sent to re_wired@ymail.com.
If you need assistance or have
questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer
Service.
2017 LinkedIn Corporation, 1000
West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo are
registered trademarks of LinkedIn.
85.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1. 2.
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville -20-07-2017
05-06
20/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1542
85.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1. 2.
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville
-20-07-2017 05-06
20/07/2017
/ Page Numbers: 1542
--
1542,
From: Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville via LinkedIn <invitations@linkedin.com>
Sent time:
20/07/2017 05:06:05 PM
Subject:
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville's invitation is awaiting
your response
Linked 03,
Luvinia (Lou) De-Terville would
like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond?
CEO & Manager D.E.M.S
Graphic Designs
You received an invitation to
connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our
members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe
This email was sent to re_wired@ymail.com.
If you need assistance or have
questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer
Service.
2017 LinkedIn Corporation, 1000 West
Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94085. LinkedIn and the LinkedIn logo are
registered trademarks of LinkedIn.
Headers
2018
1.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1.
2.
Google
New device 29-01-2018 -03-08
29/01/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1. 2.
Google New device 29-01-2018
-03-08
29/01/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1
--
1,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time:29/01/2018
03:08:03 AM
Subject:
Security alert
Google too smooth 1
New device signed in to
Your Google Account was just
signed in to from a new Windows device. You're getting this email to make sure
that it was you.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services.
© 2018 Google Inc.,1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1.
2.
Mother
Dear Tahir Raz over a week 04-02-2018 -10-21
04/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1. 2.
Mother Dear Tahir Raz over a
week 04-02-2018 -10-21
04/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2
--
2,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 04/02/2018
10:21:09 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
Simon Cordell Bail
Sent from my iPhone Begin
forwarded message:
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 4
February 2018 at 22:18:09 GMT
To: Tahir.Razzaq@met.police.pnn.uk
Subject: Re: Simon Cordell Bail
Dear Tahir Razzaq
My son Simon has been trying to
contract you now for over a week, also his solicitor has also tried to contact
you.
Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/2018 is
due in court tomorrow he also has his bail to attend the police station to see you,
his solicitor said the court takes priority over the police station so if at
all possible could you rearrange his bail as he will not be able to attend the
police station on the 05/02/2018 as he will be at court.
You do have his solicitors
contract and I am sure his solicitor will again try to contact you tomorrow, my
son is also going to try and call you again in the morning as he was told that
is the next time you are on duty.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my
iPhone
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1.
2.
Mother
Dear Tahir Raz over a week 04-02-2018 -10-26
04/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 3
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 2.
Mother Dear Tahir Raz over a
week 04-02-2018 -10-26
04/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 3
--
3,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
04/02/2018 10:26:09 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
Simon Cordell Bail
Simon, I sent this to the police
officer so he knows you can’t not attend the police station tomorrow and the
police can’t say you have not told him
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Date: 4
February 2018 at 22:18:09 GMT
To: Tahir.Razzaq@met.police.pnn.uk
Subject: Re: Simon Cordell Bail
Dear Tahir Razzaq
My son Simon has been trying to
contract you now for over a week, also his solicitor has also tried to contact
you.
Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/2018 is due in
court tomorrow he also has his bail to attend the police station to see you,
his solicitor said the court takes priority over the police station so if at
all possible could you rearrange his bail as he will not be able to attend the
police station on the 05/02/2018 as he will be at court.
You do have his solicitors contract and
I am sure his solicitor will again try to contact you tomorrow, my son is also
going to try and call you again in the morning as he was told that is the next
time you are on duty.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my iPhone
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
910.
Balbinder Kaur Geddes _LBE -v- Simon Cordell - Committal Applications
02/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 4,5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33,34,35,36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51,52,53,54
55,56
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
910. Balbinder Kaur Geddes _LBE
-v- Simon Cordell - Committal Applications
02/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 4,5,6
7,8,9,10,11,12
13,14,15,16,17,18
19,20,21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33,34,35,36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51,52,53,54
55,56
--
4,
From: Balbinder
Kaur Geddes <Balbinder.Kaur-Geddes@Enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
May 2018 13:44
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Ludmilla lyavoo
Subject: LBE
-v- Simon Cordell - Committal Applications
Attachments: Committal Application - 05.02.18 - Simon Cordell.pdf
Committal Application 20.4.18 –
Simon-Cordell.pdf
Dear Mrs Cordell
We have today attempted to serve the
attached documents personally on your son Simon Cordell. We attach copies of
the documents for your record. Copies of the same have been placed in the post
to your address of 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, N97DG.
Yours sincerely
Balbinder Kaur Geddes Legal Officer
Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver
Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 4834
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,
5.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1.
2.
Mother
Here is the sc06_02_2018 - 10-02-2018 -02-14
10/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69,70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
5.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2.
Mother Here is the sc06_02_2018
- 10-02-2018 -02-14
10/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69,70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
--
57,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
10/02/2018 02:14:39 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
new council-docs
Attachments: Si-New-Docs-Enfield-Council-06-02-2018.pdf
Simon
Here are the scanned documents
for Enfield council dated 06/02/2018
--
58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1.
2.
Google
New device 14-02-2018 -06-41
14/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 79
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1. 2.
Google New device 14-02-2018
-06-41
14/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 79
--
79,
From: Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 14/02/2018
06:41:29 PM
Subject: Security
alert
Google too smooth I
New device signed in to
Your Google Account was just
signed in to from a new Windows device. You're getting this email to make sure
that it was you.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services.
2018 Google Inc.,1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1.
2.
Google
New device 15-02-2018 -10-42
15/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 80
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
Google New device 15-02-2018
-10-42
15/02/2018
/ Page Numbers: 80
--
80,
From: Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time:
15/02/2018 10:42:17 AM
Subject:
Template Gallery connected to your Google Account
Hi too,
Template Gallery now has access
to your Google Account re_wired@ymail.com.
Template Gallery can:
• View and manage the files in
your Google Drive
You should only give this access
to apps that you trust. Review or remove apps connected to your account any
time at My Account.
Find out more about
what it means to connect an app to your account.
The Google Accounts team
This email can't receive
replies. For more information, visit the Google
Accounts Help Centre.
You have received this mandatory
email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google
product or account.
2018 Google Inc., 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1.
2.
Mother
Here Plz Read 05-03-2018-04-42
05/03/2018
/ Page Numbers: 81,82,83,84,85,86
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1. 2.
Mother Here Plz Read
05-03-2018-04-42
05/03/2018
/ Page Numbers: 81,82,83,84,85,86
--
81,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 05/03/2018 04:42:58 PM
Subject:
re: Court Letter
Attachments: Si-Letter-to-court-03-03-2018.pdf
Here read please
82,
Si-Letter-to-court-03-03-2018.pdf
Mr. Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield EN3 7JQ 03/03/2018
• Case Ref: EOOED049
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter due to some
confusion with the above case number, this case is with regards to an
Injunction Order from, The London Borough of Enfield towards myself Mr. Simon
Cordell.
1.
On the 09/08/2017 case ref: D02ED073
the Claimant was granted an interim injunction order, this order I disputed,
but due to the Claimant not doing what the court ordered this interim
injunction order was discharged and struck out by the court on the 17/11/2017.
2.
The Claimant tried on the 09/01/2018 to
get case ref: D02ED073 reinstated which the judge did not allow.
3.
On the 09/01/2018 the Claimant put the
new application in for the issue of the same interim injunction order which the
court had refused to reinstate, which the court granted case ref: EOOED049.
4.
The Claimant have stated the interim
injunction order of the 09/01/2018 was served to me on the 10/01/2018, which I
am disputing this was served personally to myself on the 10/01/2018.
5.
On the 05/02/2018 we were to attend
court the judge was not happy that the interim injunction order had been served
correctly due to there being no affidavit of service filed to the court, also
there was other application the Claimant has submitted to the
1
83,
Si-Letter-to-court-03-03-2018.pdf
court which I had not seen, the Judge
did on the 05/02/2018 ask the Claimant to complete a list of things please see
below.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
6. The
Claimant do by 4pm on 09/02/2018 file and serve an affidavit of service.
7. The
Claimant do by 4pm on 09/02/2018 serve on the Defendant by first class post its
application of 05/02/2018.
8. Matter
be listed for further consideration of the order 09/01/2018 and the Claimant's
application referred to above, on 30/05/2018 at 14:00pm (time estimate 1 hour).
9. The
Defendant's address for service is 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield EN3 7JQ
I have received the new application and
within the documents is a statement of affidavit of service which I am still
disputing was served correctly.
Within the statement of affidavit of
service from Andy Philippou, a Process Server of Global Investigation Services
Limited, Earnscliff House, London N99AB, it states please see below.
“1. That I am over sixteen years
of age.
1. That I
did on Wednesday 10 January 2018 at approximately 10.20.am attend at the
offices of VLS Solicitors, Gibson House, 800, High Road, Tottenham, London N17
ODH in order to meet with the Defendant's Solicitor. That I did at
approximately 10.30.am. meet and personally serve Suzanne Ozdemir
(receptionist) of VLS Solicitors with the following:
2. An
Injunction Order dated 09 January 2018 with Notice of Hearing on OS/02no18 at
2.pm
3. A
General Form of Judgement or Order dated 09 January 2018 A Power of Arrest
dated 09 January 2018 An N244Application Notice
4. A
Statement of Lemmy Nwabusi dated 08 January 2018, with exhibits A Court Order •
5. A
Statement of Ludmilla lyavoo dated 03 January 2018, with exhibits
2
84,
Si-Letter-to-court-03-03-2018.pdf
6. That I
did on the same date at approximately 11.30.am and in the absence of a response
from
7. the
Defendant's address of 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JQ post
through the
8. letterbox
of 109 Burncroft -Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JQ copies of the
aforementioned
9. documents
in a sealed plastic wallet for the attention of the defendant.
10. That I
did on the same date having had notification from the Claimant Solicitor of the
Defendant's- arrest the previous evening attend at Wood Green Police Station in
order to meet and personally serve the defendant with the aforementioned
documents. That. I did after having had to wait post interview and having the
matter referred to the duty Sergeant by Officer Tahir Razzaq; meet and serve
the above-named defendant with the aforementioned documentation in the presence
of five officers in the doorway of holding cell 9.
11. That
at the time of service the aforementioned defendant admitted his identity to me
as Simon Cordell, namely an adult male of mixed race, possibly in his mid-20's,
approximately 5'10" tall and slim build.
12. This
statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and .1 make it knowing
that, if it were tendered in evidence, I would be liable to prosecution if I
wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or did-not believe to
be true. ”
As stated, this is a new interim
injunction order dated the 09/01/2018 so why did the Claimant serve this to a
solicitor who in fact was not dealing and new nothing about this application,
and in fact is not representing in this new case.
I believe posting this in someone door
does not class this application as it being served.
And I believe the police allowing a
person into the police custardy area where I was being held in a cell and then allowing
this person along with five police officers is wrong in law.
There is also the fact that Andy
Philippou has stated he personally serve the defendant with the aforementioned
documents in the cell and that I give my name.
This is untrue as I stated to the judge
on the 05th February 2018, I would not allow the above person to
serve me any documents while I was in police custardy, I stated that
3
85,
Si-Letter-to-court-03-03-2018.pdf
the police came to my cell with the
person, and I stood by the CCTV camera in the police cell with my hands over my
ears and started shouting so I could not hear anything that was being said. Due
to me doing this the police closed the cell door and asked the person to leave
the police station.
There is also the fact that the police
had told me they were going to allow this person to serve me in the police
station, my solicitor and mother was also told this, I had told the police I
would not allow this to happen, which my solicitor also told the police I would
not allow this. My mother also spoke to the officer in change and told him it
was a breach of law to allow this, the police are getting involved in a civil
court matter which I would not have any control over as I was classed as not a
free person, and the police had total control, that the order should only be
served at my home address or a business work place. The officer in change said
he would talk to the custardy officer and let her know what he said, when he
asked the custardy officer he told the officer in charge he was going to allow
this, which was then passed on to my mother and my solicitor.
At this point in time I have asked the
police for a subject access request of the CCTV and also all records of me
bring in the police station.
I dispute that the interim injunction
order was served on me personally at the police station.
I also depute the facts which the
Claimant have put in this interim injunction order, since 2014 I have been left
in my home with no help from the Claimant, many calls have been made many
emails have been sent as well as complaints, but it would seem to be the case
that the Claimant have ignored everything regarding me and only go on what the
neighbours have said, I have been left to live in hell with what the neighbours
are doing, I have to live in my own home with CCTV in every room so my
movements are recorded, I record everything as this is the way I have been left
to live like in my own home, because I am being blamed for everything that goes
on in my block of flats.
4
86,
There is many emails which show I asked
the Claimant for help regarding what is going on where I can sit down in my
home and show the Claimant what is going on with my family there with me, The
Claimant has refused to come out and take any reports from me and tell me I
have to go to them to do this but they have been told I do not cope well when I
have to leave my flat, but it seems the Claimants have no problem with going to
the neighbours when they say anything.
It is ironic that I was begging for
help in many emails and phone calls before any complaints when into to the
Claimants about me, yet I am left to deal with it on my own with no help when I
was asking for help. But as soon as a complaint went in from the neighbour the
Claimants act on it. I believe there is reasons for this, and I believe they
will be fully seen by the court.
I have made so many calls to the police
which I do have all the CAD numbers begging for help I just get told they won’t
get involved but as soon as the neighbours put a complaint in the police are
there to arrest me.
I asked for help so many times the
abuse is still ongoing every day by the neighbours, yet the council will take
no reports, we were told to only have contact with the acting solicitors.
This has had a large impact on my
health which the Claimants are well aware off. My mother has had to help write
this to the court.
I am unsure if this order is in place
or not, and when I made a call to the police over the last days, they have told
me they do not believe it has been served correctly. Could the court please
update me regarding this.
Regards
Mr S Cordell
5
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1.
2.
Too Smooth
Mother 12-04-2018 -08-36
12/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 87
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1. 2.
Too Smooth Mother 12-04-2018
-08-36
12/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 87
--
87,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
12/04/2018 08:36:35 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: re:
more 002
Attachments: SI-SEND-12-04-2018.rar
002
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 2.
Too smooth Mother 12-04-2018-11-40 - Deon
Benjamin
12/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95
10.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2.
Too smooth Mother
12-04-2018-11-40 - Deon Benjamin
12/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95
--
88,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 12/04/2018 11:40:05 AM
Subject: re:
some bits
Attachments: Simon Needs. Rar
PIP-Consultaion-filled-15-03-2018-signed.pdf
I am getting all the things I do
the request it may take me a while I am looking for the Barlylands bits, but I
got a lot of information running access my whole hard drives
Sc get on with this I am trying
to get all info
89,
Deon Benjamin
90,
Deon Benjamin
91,
Deon Benjamin
92,
Deon Benjamin
93,
Deon Benjamin
94,
PIP-Consultaion-filled-15-03-2018-signed.pdf
·
JH653813B PIP.6000
·
Your reply
·
Please tell us why you couldn't attend
your consultation and why you couldn't contact us to re- arrange it. If you
have recently moved address, please provide your new address details.
After my form was filled I got a date
of the 02/12/2017 for a home assessment, the lady came on this date, but it
seemed she did not bring the forms so that the assessment could be recorded, we
were told a new date would be made for a home assessment and a letter sent to
us in the post, it may take a little while to get the new date but one would
come and the paperwork would be there this time to have it recorded, a recorded
assessment was asked for and it was checked it was going to be recorded and we
were told yes.
We waited for the new date and a letter
came for an assessment for the 01/02/2018 but this was not a home assessment so
a call was made and it seems a mistake was made so the request went in for the
home assessment and we were told a new letter would come with the date.
About a week later a call was again
made to check for any updates to the assessment centre, where my contact
telephone number was also updated. We were told to wait for the letter with the
new date we were not told on this date the home assessment was refused. We have
never had a new date or letter form the assessment centre since the one dated
for the 01/02/2018 which was cancelled by the assessment centre when the call
was made to them to say about the home assessment.
After I got your letter dated the
15/03/2018 on the 23/03/2018 a call was made to the assessment centre on the
24/03/2018 to find out what was going on, Where we were told, it seemed after
the home assessment date of the 02/12/2017 the file was sent back to the DWP I
am not sure as to the reason why this happened as the assessment dated the
02/12/2017 never went ahead due to their fault with no paperwork for recording
the assessment, I do not understand why the assessment centre did not do a new
date for a home assessment and sent the file back to yourselves the DWP.
The lady on the phone was not able to
tell me the reason the file was sent back to the DWP and a new date not set.
The DWP sent back the file in January
2018 to the assessment centre and it was then the new assessment date of the
01/02/2018 was made without anyone looking into the home assessment until after
the call was made asking why a home assessment was not due to take place this
call was made before the 01/02/2018 assessment date to the assessment centre,
It seems also that my knew phone number
was not updated in there system as the lady said on the phone that a call was
made to me and I was told the home assessment was refused on the 01/02/2018 and
the 02/02/2018, I stated at this time how could I have been told it had been
refused my phone number was not updated with my knew phone number on your
system so how did someone call me and tell me. The lady then said sorry we
tried to call you and got no reply, we stated you just said I had been told via
1
95,
hone the home assessment had been refused
now you are saying you tried to call and got no reply how you can change what
you are saying so easy. But I am sure when you call a cut of number it beeps to
show it is cut of and no longer in use.
I was also told on the call that the
DWP letter was wrong that had been sent to me stating about the missed date of
assessment as being the 01/02/2018. I asked how is it wrong we had no knew
dates for an assessment only the letter for the assessment of the 02/03/2018,
they told us that a new date had been made of the 18/02/2018 for us to attend
the assessment centre that a letter had been sent to me and a text sent to my
old phone number, I was shocked when we were told this, as no knew letters had
come and they had not updated there system with my knew phone number.
I told the lady I was not happy with
what had gone on and asked her for an email address for a complaint to be
filled, we were told they don't have an email address to send a complaint in
and that they would send a complaint file pack out to us to deal with the
complaint which we are now waiting on.
I do not understand why this has
happened if the paperwork for having my assessment recorded on the 02/12/2017
my assessment would have gone ahead on this date. I do not understand why my
file was sent back to the DWP after this and a new date was not setup. I do not
understand why when the DWP sent my file back to the assessment centre it was
not looked at and a home assessment addressed at this time. I do not understand
why there system was not updated with my new phone number, and I do not
understand why the new letter for an assessment of the 18/02/2018 has never
been received as it seems that is the only letter that seems to have gone
missing. and it would seem that the DWP date of the 01/02/2018 is the only date
they have on their system or why would that date be put on your letter dated
the 15/03/2018.
I do believe that something has gone
wrong at no fault of myself, and I do believe good cause has been laid out in
this letter why I did not attend the assessment centre on the 01/02/2018 and
that being that this date was cancelled by the assessment centre after a call
was made to them regarding why it was not a home assessment. I have not failed
to call the assessment centre at any point.
Regards
Deon Benjamin
2
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1.
2.
Mother
omg Simon I can't find it 13-04-2018 -06-08
13/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 96
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
Mother omg Simon I can't find it
13-04-2018 -06-08
13/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 96
--
96,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
13/04/2018 06:08:41 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: re:
check these
Attachments: SI-SEND-12-04-2018-001.rar
omg Simon I have check and
recheck and recheck this document for the festival and I can’t find it if it is
not in any of these files I don’t know what to say I even check all emails and
your emails I think you used barley land and changed the name to lee valley so
I have also included them in this Rar
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
901.
Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ Subject Access Request Simon Cordell 2018020000641
25/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 97,98,99,100,101
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
901. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ Subject
Access Request Simon Cordell 2018020000641
25/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 97,98,99,100,101
--
97,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 25
April 2018 19:07
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Fwd.:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell 2018020000641
Attachments: Other Gateways for Disclosure.pdf
ATT00342.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: <DPAMailbox-.SAR@met.pnn.police.uk>
Date: 27
March 2018 at 11:04:21 BST
To: <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Subject Access Request Simon
Cordell 2018020000641
Good morning,
OUR REFERENCE: 2018020000641 REQUEST
DEADLINES: 25.03.2018
I am writing in response to your email
enquiring about the progress of your Subject Access Request. Unfortunately, we
are not in a position to provide you with a timescale for completion; this is
due to the high volume of requests currently being received by the MPS;
therefore your case is taking longer to process.
Your request was reviewed when first
received and is now waiting to be allocated to a caseworker for processing.
We are not able to prioritise any
application and all requests are being processed strictly by the date they have
been received.
We are not taking telephone calls at
the moment with regard to the progress of any application because the team are
currently dedicating their available work-time to the processing of the
requests in order of receipt to manage the workload effectively without
interruption; ensuring that responses are sent to everyone in the shortest time
possible.
If you require information for court or
other legal proceedings, family court proceedings or employment tribunals,
please see the attached document for suitable disclosure methods.
Please note this is not intended to
infringe in any way on your right to access your personal data, as granted by
Section 7 of the Data Protection Act.
Please accept my sincere apologies for
any inconvenience this is causing you.
Regards,
Anna Sokol |Administration
Assistant for Privacy Team| Strategy and Insight | Strategy and Governance |
Met HQ | Metropolitan Police
Service
Telephone: 020
7161 3500
Email: DPA
Mailbox - SAR
Address:
Information Rights Unit, 3rd Floor, Empress State Building SW6 1SF
Protective Marking: RESTRICTED
Not Suitable for Publication:
98,
Recipients of this email should
be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police
Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act,
Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will
consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information
not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be
obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 020 7161 3500 (783500).
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 23
March 2018 12:59
To: SAR Mailbox –
DPA Enquiries SARenquiries@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell 2018020000641
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email to see
if there is any update as to when I will get the subject access request, I
believe the 40 days is the 25/03/2018 so was wondering if the subject access
reply would be within this time or after it.
Any update I would be grateful
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 14
February 2018 14:27
To: SARonlineapplications@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
I am very sorry I added the
wrong letter please see all attached files I have done a complete knew set.
Regards
From: Marv.Gibson@met.pnn.police.uk
mailto: Marv.Gibson@met.pnn.police.uk
On Behalf Of
SARonlineapplications@met.pnn.police.uk
Sent: 14
February 2018 13:49
To: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
We are unable to process your
request as we require:
·
A copy of a proof of current address
(dated within the last 6 months) for example, a copy of a utility bill or a
bank statement.
The letter you have sent is not
dated within 6 months.
When you re-send the
application, please re-send all documents together in one email (Form 3019,
proof of ID and proof of address) as we do not keep returned applications.
99,
Many thanks,
Mary Gibson| Administration
Assistant | Information Rights Unit
Strategy & Insight |
Strategy & Governance | Met HQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Telephone 0207
161 3500 |
Email
SARonlineapplications@met.pnn.police.uk
Address Information Rights Unit,
PO Box 57192,
LONDON
SW6 1SF
Protective Marking:
RESTRICTED
Not Suitable for Publication: N
Recipients of this email should
be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police
Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act,
Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS
will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information
not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be
obtained from the Information Rights unit - 020 7161 3500 (783500).
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
February 2018 17:40
To: SAR Mailbox - Online Applications
SARonlineapplications@met.pnn.police.uk
SAR Mailbox - DPA Enquiries
SARenquiries@met.pnn.police.uk
Subject: Re:
Subject Access Request Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached documents
with my request for information which is held about me.
Regards Simon Cordell
Consider our environment -
please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication
systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email
and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel
are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email.
The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with
other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious
software infection and corruption of content can still occur during
transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
100,
Consider our environment - please
do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any
attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege
and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your
system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.
Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on
behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email
and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this
communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
101,
Fwd.: Subject
Access Request Simon Cordell 2018020000641->0ther Gateways for
Disclosure.pdf
Other Gateways for Disclosure
Contact Details for Third Party for use
in Legal Proceedings
If you or your solicitor require
the contact details of a third party in relation to pursuing legal proceedings,
you can write to the Commander of the Borough where the incident occurred
quoting Section 35 of the DPA. Your request will then be risk assessed to
decide if it can be released.
Disclosure for Civil Action/Family
Court Proceedings
Should you require disclosure of
documents (or CCTV) held by the MPS for a Civil Action or for Family Court
Proceedings, you may wish to apply for a disclosure order via the courts
specifying which documents are necessary and why. Specifying what information
within each document is necessary.
Please send the disclosure order
to.
Directorate of Legal Services
Metropolitan Police Service 10 Lambs Conduit Street London WC1N 3NR
Court Order
Should the information you have
requested be required for a court case, it may be prudent to obtain a court
order for the information. Your legal representative or HM Courts Service will
be able to assist you with this. If the court case is not current but
anticipated, you should request the documents under Section 35 of the DPA.
Disclosure through these routes
may enable you to receive more information than you would get via the Subject
Access provisions of the DPA, because your rights under Subject Access are for
personal data only. The 40-day time limit on Section 35 requests also does not
apply.
All such requests should be
directed to: -
Directorate of Legal Services,
Metropolitan Police Service 10,
Lambs Conduit Street,
London WC1N 3NR
13.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
898. Ludmilla
Lyavoo _RE_ Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (2)
25/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
898. Ludmilla Lyavoo _RE_ Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (2)
25/04/2018
/ Page Numbers: 102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128
--
102,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 25
April 2018 16:08
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: LBE v Cordell- Application for committal.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
I am the solicitor in conduct of
the injunction proceedings against your son. It is my understanding that during
his last attendance your son has expressed the fact that all correspondence in
relation to the above case should be served to his personal address. We are
therefore not aware that all court correspondence should be sent to you as you
expressed in your email.
However we confirm that an
application for Mr Cordell committal was issued on 20th April 2018, in the
Edmonton County Court and a hearing has now been listed on Tuesday 1st May 2018
at 10am. The application was issued on the basis of a breach of undertaking. A
copy of the application is attached to this email. Your son is advised to
attend the hearing and to seek independent legal advice.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
THE
London
LEGAL
To raise money for free legal
advice charities to help those in need We would be very grateful if you would sponsor
our efforts — ask me for more details
As above please feel free to ask
for more details regarding the walk and for donations for this worthy cause
please go to - https://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/LondonBoroughofEnfield18
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
103,
Sent: 25
April 2018 13:33
To: Lemmy Nwabuisi Lemmy.NWABUISI@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Lemmy
Could you please send all
paperwork that has been sent to my son to me. As you will be aware all
paperwork and letter sent from the council should also be sent to me which has
not been happening this would include all court paperwork.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
104,
RE: Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]->LBE v Cordell- Application
for committal.pdf
The London Borough of Enfield
Legal Services
Po Box 50
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
EN13XA
90615
ENFIELD 1
25 APR 2018
LEGAL SERVICES
105,
--
106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,
127,128,
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
910.
Balbinder
Kaur Geddes _LBE -v- Simon Cordell - Committal Applications
02/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176,177,178,179,180
181
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
910.
Balbinder Kaur Geddes _LBE -v- Simon
Cordell - Committal Applications
02/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176,177,178,179,180
181
--
129,
From: Balbinder
Kaur Geddes <Balbinder.Kaur-Geddes@Enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
May 2018 13:44
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Ludmilla lyavoo
Subject: LBE
-v- Simon Cordell - Committal Applications
Attachments: Committal
Application - 05.02.18 - Simon Cordell.pdf
Committal Application 20.4.18 – Simon-Cordell.pdf
Dear Mrs Cordell
We have today attempted to serve the
attached documents personally on your son Simon Cordell. We attach copies of
the documents for your record. Copies of the same have been placed in the post
to your address of 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, N97DG.
Yours sincerely
Balbinder Kaur Geddes Legal Officer
Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver
Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 4834
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
130,
131,
132,
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176,177,178,179,180
181
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1.
2.
DPR
-1-4250 05-05-2018 17-58
05/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 182,183
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1. 2.
DPR -1-4250 05-05-2018 17-58
05/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 182,183
--
182,
From: DPR
Wholesalers <sales@dprwholesalers.com>
Sent time: 05/05/2018
05:57:38 PM
Subject: DPR
Wholesalers - Bank Holiday Opening Hours
& Squishes
Squishes Available now! See the online version
Bank Holiday Opening Hours
Running for the Brain Tumour Charity
Bank Holiday Opening Hours and
Squishes
May Bank Holiday Opening Hours
We will be closed on Monday 7th
& 28th May 2018, whilst Dhiren runs the Vitality London 10,000 (See below
for sponsorship details)
Normal Opening hours operate on
all other days.
Change of Opening Hours
From the 1st June 2018, we will
be changing our opening hours slightly.
On Mondays we will now be
opening at 8:30am instead of 7am and on Fridays we will be closing at 4:30pm
instead of 5:30pm. As always last entry is 30mins before closing
Last entry 30mins before
closing.
183,
Sales!
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
916. Ludmilla Lyavoo _LBE v Mr Cordell E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
916. Ludmilla Lyavoo _LBE v Mr Cordell E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
--
184,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 14
May 2018 09:51
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: LBE
v Mr Cordell E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments:
Covering letter to Mr
Cordell dated 11.05.2018.pdf
Application notice
dated 11.05.2018.pdf.
Amended application
notice dated 20.04.2018.pdf
Affidavit of Markandu
Mathiyalagan.pdf
Affidavit Revathy Mathiyalagan
20.04.2018.pdf
Amended draft
order.pdf
WS of Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi 10.05.2018.pdf
WS of Ms Kaur Geddes
10.05.2018.pdf
Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of
our application notice dated 11.05.2018 seeking to amend our committal
application dated 20.04.2018 in light of the incident which took place in the
Edmonton County Court on 01.05.2018.
Our process server attended your
son's property, but he refused to open the door despite identifying himself. A
copy was left to his door and he was made aware of it.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient
185,
should perform their own virus
checks.
186,
187,
188,
189,
190,191,192,193,194,195,
196,197,198,199,200,201,
202,203,204,205,206,207,
208,209,210,211,212,213,
214,215,216,217,218,219,
220,221,222,223,224,225,
226,227,228,229,230,231,
232,233,234,
17.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
917. Ludmilla Lyavoo _London Borough of Enfield v Cordell-
E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
917. Ludmilla Lyavoo _London Borough of Enfield v Cordell-
E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
14/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289,290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310,311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322,323,324
325,326,327,328,329,330
331,332,333,334,335,336
337,338,339,340,341,342
343,344,345,346,347,348
349,350,351,352,353,354
355,356,357,358,359,360
--
235,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 14
May 2018 17:36
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: London
Borough of Enfield v Cordell- E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Court Order made by the Edmonton County Court on 14.05.2018.pdf
Pdf bundle of the application - notice
11.05.2018.pdf
pdf version of application to dispense
with service dated 14.05.2018.pdf
Application for committal dated
05.02.2018.pdf
Application for committal dated
20.04.2018.pdf
Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Lorraine Cordell,
We have attempted service of our
committal applications dated 05.02.2018 and 20.04.2018 upon Mr Simon Cordell and
also attempted service of our application to amend our committal application in
light of the incident which took place at Court on 01.05.2018 but Mr Simon
Cordell refused to accept personal service of those documents.
In light of Mr Cordell's refusal
to accept personal service, the threats of violence towards the neighbours and
the fact that a hearing has been listed on 30.05.2018, we have decided to issue
an ex parte application for service to be dispensed with. The application was
considered by Deputy District Judge Genn in the Edmonton County Court who made
the following order:
·
Permission to the Applicant is given to
amend the application for committal
·
Permission is given pursuant to CPR
81.10(5)(b) to serve the amended application by email on you.
In light of the Court order made
by the Court this morning, the attached applications are deemed served upon Mr
Simon Cordell. Please note that your son is entitled to seek independent legal
advice.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of
236,
Enfield. This email and any attachments
or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended solely for
the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential information and
if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error you must not
copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All traffic
handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
237,
238,
239,
240,241,242,243,244,245,
246,247,248,249,250,251,
252,253,254,255,256,257,
258,259,260,261,262,263,
264,265,266,267,268,269,
270,271,272,273,274,275,
276,277,278,279,280,281,
282,283,284,285,286,287,
288,289,290,291,292,293,
294,295,296,297,298,299,
300,301,302,303,304,305,
306,307,308,309,310,311,
312,313,314,315,316,317,
318,319,320,321,322,323,
324,325,326,327,328,329,
330,331,332,333,334,335,
336,337,338,339,340,341,
342,343,344,345,346,347,
348,349,350,351,352,353,
354,355,356,357,358,359,
360,
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
920. Ludmilla
Lyavoo _London Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
23/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433,434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467,468
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
920. Ludmilla Lyavoo _London Borough
of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
23/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 361,362,363,364,365,366
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433,434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467,468
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488
--
361,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 23
May 2018 14:35
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: London
Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: LBE-SV-PRN-002_PR-ECCBS-LYB09571-IRC2020_4349_001.pdf
London Borough of Enfield v
Cordell-E00ED049 [SEC=OFFICIAL] (6.07 MB)
Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Lorraine Cordell,
Please find attached an amended
Order dated 14.5.2018 which gives the Claimant permission to serve the
committal applications dated 05.02.2018 and 20.04.2018 and the application
notice dated 11.05.2018 by email upon you. The order was amended by the Court
under the slip rule.
The applications have already
been served upon you on 14th May 2018 at 17.36pm (please see attached email)
and as far as the Claimant is concerned personal service of all applications
have now been affected upon Mr Simon Cordell.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
362,
Blank Page!
363,
364,
365,
366,
367,368,369,370,371,372
373,374,375,376,377,378
379,380,381,382,383,384
385,386,387,388,389,390
391,392,393,394,395,396
397,398,399,400,401,402
403,404,405,406,407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427,428,429,430,431,432
433,434,435,436,437,438
439,440,441,442,443,444
445,446,447,448,449,450
451,452,453,454,455,456
457,458,459,460,461,462
463,464,465,466,467,468
469,470,471,472,473,474
475,476,477,478,479,480
481,482,483,484,485,486
487,488
19.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1.
2.
DPR -1-4262
25-05-2018 08-56
25/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 489,490,491
19.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1. 2.
DPR -1-4262 25-05-2018 08-56
25/05/2018
/ Page Numbers: 489,490,491
--
489,
From: DPR
Wholesalers <sales@dprwholesalers.com>
Sent time:
25/05/2018 08:56:06 AM
Subject: DPR
Wholesalers - Bank Holiday Opening Hours & Squishes
Privacy Policy Update See the
online version
Opening Hours Changes Squishes
Available now!
Bank Holiday Opening Hours
Running for the Brain Tumour Charity
Late Bank Holiday Opening Hours
and Squishes
Late May Bank Holiday Opening
Hours
We will be closed on Monday 28th
May 2018, whilst Dhiren runs the Vitality London 10,000 (See below for
sponsorship details)
Our new opening hours will
resume from Tuesday 29th May, more information can be found below.
Change of Opening Hours
From the 4th June 2018, we will
be changing our opening hours slightly.
On Mondays we will now be
opening at 8:30am instead of 7am and on Fridays we will be closing at 4:30pm
instead of 5:30pm. As always last entry is 30mins before closing
490,
Sales!
491,
Sales!
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1.
2.
Mother
This has nothing in it 07-06-2018 -12-01
07/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 492
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1. 2.
Mother This has nothing in it
07-06-2018 -12-01
07/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 492
--
492,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 07/06/2018
12:01:09 AM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Re:
list
The email has nothing in it Sent
from my iPhone
On 6 Jun 2018, at 21:34, Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
wrote:
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1102.
Chief Executive _Fwd._ Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
06/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 493,494,495,496
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1102. Chief Executive _Fwd._ Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
06/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 493,494,495,496
--
493,
From: Chief
Executive <Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
December 2018 11:53
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: complaints and information
Subject: FW:
Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell
Thank you for your email address to the
Chief Executive. I am writing in acknowledgement and to advise you that a copy
of your correspondence has been passed to the Complaints and Access to
Information Team. A response will be sent to you direct on the issues raised.
Regards
Heather Littler
Senior Admin Officer
Chief Executive's Unit
London Borough of Enfield
Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, EN1 3XY
Tel: 020
8379 4037
Email: heather.littler@enfield.gov.uk
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities"
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 05
December 2018 14:09
To:
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Sarah Cary
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremy.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
James Rolfe
Tony Theodoulou
Tony.Theodoulou@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached letter regarding
issues I have.
Regards
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield
494,
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
495,
FW: Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]->On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield,
EN3 7JQ.pdf
4. Complaint
05/12/2018
On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of
109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
I am writing this email due to
issues I have regarding a member of staff who works for Enfield Council by the
name off Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator,
Since 2016 when Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator started working for Enfield
Council he has been working on investigations relating to my son Mr. Simon
Cordell.
In this time not once has Mr
Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator, come to see my son’s side
to the alleged allegations regarding what the neighbours have put in about my
son.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator has taken one side to these said alleged
allegations without no investigations,’ Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi it seem has taken one
side to everything that has been said and that is the side of the neighbours,
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi has been told many times we have information which would
proof my son had not done things which have been stated by the neighbours
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator knows my son does not leave the flat he was
told this, and also told that if he wanted to attend a meeting with my son he
could do so with police there to have a meeting to hear my son’s side, he has
never got back to me regarding having a meeting at my son’s home because he
never wanted to, which I am sure if someone is a vulnerable person where was
the duty of care where has it ever been for my son?
I believe Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator just through to himself that my son is in the
wrong he is a vulnerable person I will put pressure on him and get him out
without even thinking there is 2 side to anything. And just blamed my son
without even talking to him this is how it has been since Mr Lemmy
1
496,
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social
Behaviour Coordinator starting working for Enfield Council.
I also feel Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi
has taken information and not relayed it back correctly many times regarding my
son’s health even to the courts. Information is being passed and obtained
relating to my son which should never have been passed to 3 parties or used, how
can this be allowed. There are many other points and failings which have been
allowed to happen and this needs to stop. I will be drafting up a full
complaint of failings and submitting it but this will take a while to draft up
as I have got to go back some years.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi also had my
son arrested on the 09/01/2018 and even though we asked many times, even my own
son’s solicitors could not understand why he was the person still investigating
my son. When his case was part of the court actions being taken against my son
by Enfield Council this is against the law that someone is investigating
something within their own case, and it beaches many other things.
At this point in time I want Mr
Lemmy Nwabuisi taken off dealing with anything to do with my son or related to
him, I feel he has not done acted correctly and feel he has not investigated
anything which would prove my son has done nothing wrong and only wanted to
blame him for everything, I have asked this before and heard nothing back regarding
this. But it has got to the point in time that this needs to happen.
Could someone please get back to
me as soon as possible regarding this?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
2
22,
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1.
2.
Mother
Court-Letter-June 2018.pdf 15-06-2018 -04-39
15/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 497,498,499
22,
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1. 2.
Mother Court-Letter-June
2018.pdf 15-06-2018 -04-39
15/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 497,498,499
--
497,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
15/06/2018 04:39:15 PM
Subject: RE:
check this is pls
Attachments: Court-Letter-15th June.2018.pdf
can you check the attached
documents I want to send the court and say if it ok to send it please. it has
to be short and to the point as Enfield council have not followed orders from
the court
498,
Court-Letter-15th June 2018.pdf
15th June 2018 Case Ref:
E00ED049
Attention of Judge Dias
I am writing this letter
regarding the above case ref: E00ED049 and the hearing that took place on the
30th May 2018.
As stated, Mr Cordell did not
attend court on this day due to him being unwell, this was explained to the
court when we asked for the case to have an adjournment due to Mr Cordell being
unwell.
A list of details was spoken
about and at the end of the hearing you asked the barrister for the claimant to
write the details down email them to you and you would then sign them off.
I have been waiting for the
court order to be sent and as of today’s date 15th June 2018 I have
not had anything sent to me via the claimant.
In this time since the hearing
on the 30th June 2018 I have called the court 3 times and been told there was
nothing on the system and it can take up to two weeks. Today however I spoke to
Paul and was told the order was sent out on the 05th June 2018 which the
claimant was meant to send to me which they have not, I would say that the
claimants would have had this order by now and cannot understand why they have
not sent it as they were the ones that put the application in on the 14th May
2018 asking the court to make the order that everything is sent to me. Which I
still need to make an application to the court to be able to get this removed,
I do not believe the court should have accepted a without notice application
from the claimants to the court regarding having all documents served on me
without me being there.
At this point of time I am not
aware of anything that was due to take place and the claimants have not had any
contact with me at all.
499,
I need the order from the court
so an application can be put to the court regarding many issues.
There are many issues I feel
that happened in court on the 30th June 2018, but due to the claimant barrister
stating in court that I was not allowed to speak on behalf of Mr Cordell I was
not allowed to say the information was misleading which was stated in court. As
you stated it was helpful me being there as you could ask things to me, but I
still am very unsure as to why an adjournment was not granted due to Mr Cordell
being unwell as this was not stated in court. It just seemed the claimant
barrister in fact was saying I was not telling the truth that Mr Cordell was
unwell, and you just seemed to accept that, and the hearing carried on.
I would also like to be able to
pick up from the court the 3 bundles I handed in with my application of the
29th May 2018 which was not heard by the court as I will need the 3 bundles so
that I am able to make a court application.
But as of today’s date 15th June
2018 I have had no information to the order that claimant barrister done for
the court and sent to the court and was signed off by you so have no idea what
is going on.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
931.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon Cordell_ (50)
20/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 500,501,502,503,504
505,506,507,508,509,510
511,512,513,514,515,516
517,518,519,520,521,522
523,524,525,526,527,528
529
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
931. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon
Cordell_ (50)
20/06/2018
/ Page Numbers:
500,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
June 2018 17:46
To: 'Kiran Johal'
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: Court Order made by the Edmonton County Court on 14.05.2018.pdf
Court-Letter-dated-09-02-2018.pdf
Court-Order-Date-Changed.pdf
Edmonton-Court-Letter-12-06-2018.pdf
legal-aid- crm14-signed.pdf
Lorraine Cordell's WS-001.pdf
ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf
Dear Kiran
Please see attached documents for Simon
Cordell, please let me know if you need anything else,
Could you write to the court and ask
for an adjournment and let me know please he is next due in court on the
26/06/2018, I hope the crim 14 has been signed in the right place.
The last order is dated 12/06/2016 and
I only got this yesterday from the court as the council has not sent me
anything as of today's date.
What I will do is over the next few
days I will try and write some form of write up so you can understand better
what the council is ding to him.
Lorraine
501,
502,
503,
504,
505,506,507,508,509,510,511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518,519,520,521,522,523,524,525,
526,527,528,529,
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
932.
Ludmilla Lyavoo _LBE v Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
21/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 530,531,532,533,534
535,536,537,538,539,540
541,542,543,544,545,546
547,548,549,550,551,552
553,554,555,556,557,558
559,560,561,562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578,579,580,581,582
583,584,585,586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650,651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661,662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671,672
673,674,675,676,677,678
679,680,681,682,683,684
685,686,687,688,689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701,702
703,704,705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712,713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
721,722,723,724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737,738
739,740,741,742,743,744
745,746,747,748,749,750
751,752,753,754,755,756
757,758,759,760,761,762
763,764,765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
932. Ludmilla Lyavoo _LBE v
Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
21/06/2018
/ Page Numbers:
530,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 21
June 2018 17:40
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: LBE
v Cordell – bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: LBE
v Cordell Bundle Part 1.pdf
LBE v Cordell Bundle Part 2.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of the
hearing bundle, for your attention. A hardcopy has also been sent to you by
Post.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379
6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield
Council is committed to serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent
services and building strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are
those of the individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Enfield. This email and any attachments or files transmitted with
it are strictly confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It
may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the
intended recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or
use the communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government
Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
531,
532,
533,
534,
535,
536,
537,
538,
539,
540,
541,542,543,544,545,546
547,548,549,550,551,552
553,554,555,556,557,558
559,560,561,562,563,564
565,566,567,568,569,570
571,572,573,574,575,576
577,578,579,580,581,582
583,584,585,586,587,588
589,590,591,592,593,594
595,596,597,598,599,600
601,602,603,604,605,606
607,608,609,610,611,612
613,614,615,616,617,618
619,620,621,622,623,624
625,626,627,628,629,630
631,632,633,634,635,636
637,638,639,640,641,642
643,644,645,646,647,648
649,650,651,652,653,654
655,656,657,658,659,660
661,662,663,664,665,666
667,668,669,670,671,672
673,674,675,676,677,678
679,680,681,682,683,684
685,686,687,688,689,690
691,692,693,694,695,696
697,698,699,700,701,702
703,704,705,706,707,708
709,710,711,712,713,714
715,716,717,718,719,720
721,722,723,724,725,726
727,728,729,730,731,732
733,734,735,736,737,738
739,740,741,742,743,744
745,746,747,748,749,750
751,752,753,754,755,756
757,758,759,760,761,762
763,764,765,766,767,768
769,770,771,772,773,774
775,776,777,778,779,780
781,782,783,784,785,786
787,788,789,790,791,792
793,794,795,796,797,798
799,800,801,802,803,804
805,806,807,808,809,810
811,812,813,814,815,816
817,818,819,820,821,822
823,824,825,826,827,828
829,830,831,832,833,834
835,836,837,838,839,840
841,842,843,844,845,846
847,848,849,850
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
933. Lorraine
Cordell _Fwd._ LBE v Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
22/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 851,852
853,854,855,856,857,858
859,860,861,862,863,864
865,866,867,868,869,870
871,872,873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883,884,885,886,887,888
889,890,891,892,893,894
895,896,897,898,899,900
901,902,903,904,905,906
907,908,909,910,911,912
913,914,915,916,917,918
919,920,921,922,923,924
925,926,927,928,929,930
931,932,933,934,935,936
937,938,939,940,941,942
943,944,945,946,947,948
949,950,951,952,953,954
955,956,957,958,959,960
961,962,963,964,965,966
967,968,969,970,971,972
973,974,975,976,977,978
979,980,981,982,983,984
985,986,987,988,989,990
991,992,993,994,995,996
997,998,999,1000,1001,1002
1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008
1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014
1015,1016,1017,1018,1019,1020
1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026
1027,1028,1029,1030,1031,1032
1033,1034,1035,1036,1037,1038
1039,1040,1041,1042,1043,1044
1045,1046,1047,1048,1049,1050
1051,1052,1053,1054,1055,1056
1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062
1063,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068
1069,1070,1071,1072,1073,1074
1075,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080
1081,1082,1083,1084,1085,1086
1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092
1093,1094,1095,1096,1097,1098
1099,1100,1101,1102,1103,1104
1105,1106,1107,1108,1109,1110
1111,1112,1113,1114,1115,1116
1117,1118,1119,1120,1121,1122
1123,1124,1125,1126,1127,1128
1129,1130,1131,1132,1133,1134
1135,1136,1137,1138,1139,1140
1141,1142,1143,1144,1145,1146
1147,1148,1149,1150,1151,1152
1153,1154,1155,1156,1157,1158
1159,1160,1161,1162,1163,1164
1165,1166,1167,1168,1169,1170
1171,1172
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
933. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ LBE
v Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
22/06/2018
/ Page Numbers:
851,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 22
June 2018 09:36
To: 'Trishna
Kerai'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Cordell -bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 1.pdf
LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 2.pdf
Dear Trishna Kerai
Please see attached documents
that were sent from Enfield Council yesterday the 21/06/2018, sent to my email
at 17:40 which I did not see till this morning.
They say they have put a hard copy
in the post to me as of, yet nothing has come.
They have not done anything of
the order of 12/06/2018 we have had no dates for Simon to go see any doctors, yet
on the order it states everything was meant to be done by the 13/06/2018, but
yet the court order is dated the 12/06/2018
The only reason I got the order
is I called the court 3 times 2 of them times I was told nothing was on the
system and that it can take 2 weeks for us to get the order, the last call on
the 15/06/2018 on the I spoke with Paul a member of court staff he said he did
not know why I did not have the order and sent it in the post to me so I got
that on the 19/06/2018 and I called Kiran.
I said to Kiran I will do a
write-up over the next few days and send it to give a sort of timeline things
happened.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Ludmilla Iyavoo [mailto: Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 21
June 2018 17:40
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: LBE v
Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of
the hearing bundle, for your attention. A hardcopy has also been sent to you by
Post.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
852,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
853,
IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO:
E00ED049
BETWEEN:
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
-and-
MR.
SIMON CORDELL
Claimant
Defendant
BUNDLE FOR THE HEARING OF
26.06.2018
--
854,855,856,857,858
859,860,861,862,863,864
865,866,867,868,869,870
871,872,873,874,875,876
877,878,879,880,881,882
883,884,885,886,887,888
889,890,891,892,893,894
895,896,897,898,899,900
901,902,903,904,905,906
907,908,909,910,911,912
913,914,915,916,917,918
919,920,921,922,923,924
925,926,927,928,929,930
931,932,933,934,935,936
937,938,939,940,941,942
943,944,945,946,947,948
949,950,951,952,953,954
955,956,957,958,959,960
961,962,963,964,965,966
967,968,969,970,971,972
973,974,975,976,977,978
979,980,981,982,983,984
985,986,987,988,989,990
991,992,993,994,995,996
997,998,999,1000,1001,1002
1003,1004,1005,1006,1007,1008
1009,1010,1011,1012,1013,1014
1015,1016,1017,1018,1019,1020
1021,1022,1023,1024,1025,1026
1027,1028,1029,1030,1031,1032
1033,1034,1035,1036,1037,1038
1039,1040,1041,1042,1043,1044
1045,1046,1047,1048,1049,1050
1051,1052,1053,1054,1055,1056
1057,1058,1059,1060,1061,1062
1063,1064,1065,1066,1067,1068
1069,1070,1071,1072,1073,1074
1075,1076,1077,1078,1079,1080
1081,1082,1083,1084,1085,1086
1087,1088,1089,1090,1091,1092
1093,1094,1095,1096,1097,1098
1099,1100,1101,1102,1103,1104
1105,1106,1107,1108,1109,1110
1111,1112,1113,1114,1115,1116
1117,1118,1119,1120,1121,1122
1123,1124,1125,1126,1127,1128
1129,1130,1131,1132,1133,1134
1135,1136,1137,1138,1139,1140
1141,1142,1143,1144,1145,1146
1147,1148,1149,1150,1151,1152
1153,1154,1155,1156,1157,1158
1159,1160,1161,1162,1163,1164
1165,1166,1167,1168,1169,1170
1171,1172
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1.
2.
Mother
LBE Please fiur attention 24-06-2018 -09-49
24/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1173,1174,1175,1176
1177,1178,1179,1180,1181,1182
1183,1184,1185,1186,1187,1188
1189,1190,1191,1192,1193,1194
1195,1196,1197,1198,1199,1200
1201,1202,1203,1204,1205,1206
1207,1208,1209,1210,1211,1212
1213,1214,1215,1216,1217,1218
1219,1220,1221,1222,1223,1224
1225,1226,1227,1228,1229,1230
1231,1232,1233,1234,1235,1236
1237,1238,1239,1240,1241,1242
1243,1244,1245,1246,1247,1248
1249,1250,1251,1252,1253,1254
1255,1256,1257,1258,1259,1260
1261,1262,1263,1264,1265,1266
1267,1268,1269,1270,1271,1272
1273,1274,1275,1276,1277,1278
1279,1280,1281,1282,1283,1284
1285,1286,1287,1288,1289,1290
1291,1292,1293,1294,1295,1296
1297,1298,1299,1300,1301,1302
1303,1304,1305,1306,1307,1308
1309,1310,1311,1312,1313,1314
1315,1316,1317,1318,1319,1320
1321,1322,1323,1324,1325,1326
1327,1328,1329,1330,1331,1332
1333,1334,1335,1336,1337,1338
1339,1340,1341,1342,1343,1344
1345,1346,1347,1348,1349,1350
1351,1352,1353,1354,1355,1356
1357,1358,1359,1360,1361,1362
1363,1364,1365,1366,1367,1368
1369,1370,1371,1372,1373,1374
1375,1376,1377,1378,1379,1380
1381,1382,1383,1384,1385,1386
1387,1388,1389,1390,1391,1392
1393,1394,1395,1396,1397,1398
1399,1400,1401,1402,1403,1404
1405,1406,1407,1408,1409,1410
1411,1412,1413,1414,1415,1416
1417,1418,1419,1420,1421,1422
1423,1424,1425,1426,1427,1428
1429,1430,1431,1432,1433,1434
1435,1436,1437,1438,1439,1440
1441,1442,1443,1444,1445,1446
1447,1448,1449,1450,1451,1452
1453,1454,1455,1456,1457,1458
1459,1460,1461,1462,1463,1464
1465,1466,1467,1468,1469,1470
1471,1472,1473,1474,1475,1476
1477,1478,1479,1480,1481,1482
1483,1484,1485,1486,1487,1488
1489,1490,1491,1492,1493
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1. 2.
Mother LBE Please fiur attention 24-06-2018 -09-49
24/06/2018
/ Page Numbers:
1173,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
24/06/2018 09:49:20 AM
Subject: Fwd.:
LBE v Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 1.pdf
LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 2.pdf
Simon here
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Ludmilla Iyavoo <Lidmilla.lYavoo@enrield.gov.uk>
Date: 21
June 2018 at 17:40:10 BST
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine3 2@.blueyonder. co.uk>
Subject: LBE v
Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of
the hearing bundle, for your attention. A hardcopy has also been sent to you by
Post.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1174,
IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO:
E00ED049
BETWEEN:
THE MAYOR
AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
-and-
MR.
SIMON CORDELL
Claimant
Defendant
BUNDLE FOR THE HEARING OF
26.06.2018
--
1175,1176,
1177,1178,1179,1180,1181,1182
1183,1184,1185,1186,1187,1188
1189,1190,1191,1192,1193,1194
1195,1196,1197,1198,1199,1200
1201,1202,1203,1204,1205,1206
1207,1208,1209,1210,1211,1212
1213,1214,1215,1216,1217,1218
1219,1220,1221,1222,1223,1224
1225,1226,1227,1228,1229,1230
1231,1232,1233,1234,1235,1236
1237,1238,1239,1240,1241,1242
1243,1244,1245,1246,1247,1248
1249,1250,1251,1252,1253,1254
1255,1256,1257,1258,1259,1260
1261,1262,1263,1264,1265,1266
1267,1268,1269,1270,1271,1272
1273,1274,1275,1276,1277,1278
1279,1280,1281,1282,1283,1284
1285,1286,1287,1288,1289,1290
1291,1292,1293,1294,1295,1296
1297,1298,1299,1300,1301,1302
1303,1304,1305,1306,1307,1308
1309,1310,1311,1312,1313,1314
1315,1316,1317,1318,1319,1320
1321,1322,1323,1324,1325,1326
1327,1328,1329,1330,1331,1332
1333,1334,1335,1336,1337,1338
1339,1340,1341,1342,1343,1344
1345,1346,1347,1348,1349,1350
1351,1352,1353,1354,1355,1356
1357,1358,1359,1360,1361,1362
1363,1364,1365,1366,1367,1368
1369,1370,1371,1372,1373,1374
1375,1376,1377,1378,1379,1380
1381,1382,1383,1384,1385,1386
1387,1388,1389,1390,1391,1392
1393,1394,1395,1396,1397,1398
1399,1400,1401,1402,1403,1404
1405,1406,1407,1408,1409,1410
1411,1412,1413,1414,1415,1416
1417,1418,1419,1420,1421,1422
1423,1424,1425,1426,1427,1428
1429,1430,1431,1432,1433,1434
1435,1436,1437,1438,1439,1440
1441,1442,1443,1444,1445,1446
1447,1448,1449,1450,1451,1452
1453,1454,1455,1456,1457,1458
1459,1460,1461,1462,1463,1464
1465,1466,1467,1468,1469,1470
1471,1472,1473,1474,1475,1476
1477,1478,1479,1480,1481,1482
1483,1484,1485,1486,1487,1488
1489,1490,1491,1492,1493
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1.
2.
cPanel
Hosting -1-4731 25-06-2018 12-51
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1494,1495
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1. 2.
cPanel Hosting -1-4731
25-06-2018 12-51
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1494,1495
--
1494,
From:
cPanel Hosting <cpanelsupport@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
25/06/2018 12:50:58 PM
Subject: Your
website hosting is ready.
24/7 support: 020 70841™
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 374
Your hosting account is ready.
It’s time to build your website.
Building the site yourself? Upload
your files.
If you have a lot of content,
use your IP address, username, and password to connect an FTP program.
If you prefer to upload
individual files, look for Files > File Manager on your hosting dashboard.
Browse your computer for files and upload them directly.
WordPress?
Look for the WordPress icon in
the Building Tools section of your dashboard.
If you have any questions or
comments, our specially trained hosting experts are standing by around the
clock. Give them a call at 020 70
1495,
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4729 25-06-2018 11-46
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1496,1497
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4729 25-06-2018 11-46
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1496,1497
--
1496,
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 25/06/2018
11:45:55 AM
Subject: Simon
Cordell, thank you for your order.
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
Thanks for your order, Simon.
Here's your confirmation for
order number 1328802991. Review your receipt and get started using your
products.
Order Number:
1328802991
Product |
Quantity |
Term |
Price |
Economy Linux Hosting with
cPanel |
1 Plan |
1 Year |
Ł47.88 |
Office 365 Starter Email |
1 User |
1 Year |
Ł0.00 |
|
Subtotal: Tax: |
|
Ł47.88 Ł9.58 |
|
Total: |
|
Ł57.46 |
View Full Receipt
Access All Products
NOTE: Your purchase includes enrolment
in our automatic renewal service. This keeps your products up and running,
automatically charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on
file, with no further action on your part. If you do not wish to continue
automatic renewal service, you can cancel this product by visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy
account.
1497,
Start Shopping
Activate your products today.
You have new products or
services in your account waiting to be activated. You've paid for them - now
put them to work.
Get Started
[1]Offer good towards
new product purchases only and cannot be used on product renewals. Cannot be
used in conjunction with any other offer, sale, discount, or promotion. Not
applicable to ICANN fees, taxes, transfers, premium domains, premium templates,
cloud server plans, WP Premium Support services, any marketing or design
services performed by our Professional Web Services team, gift cards or
Trademark Holders/Priority Pre-registration or pre-registration fees. After the
initial purchase term, discounted products will renew at the then-current
renewal list price. Offer may be changed without notice.
Prices are current as of
25/06/2018 and may be changed without notice.
By using these products, you
agree that you are bound by the Universal Terms of
Service and Privacy Policy.
Learn more about our Refund Policy.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4730 25-06-2018 12-27
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1498
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4730 25-06-2018 12-27
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1498
--
1498,
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
25/06/2018 12:26:35 PM
Subject: Your
domain contact info was updated.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1.
2.
Mother
LBE Please fiur attention 25-06-2018 -05-27
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1499,1500
1501,1502,1503,1504,1505,1506
1507,1508,1509,1510,1511,1512
1513,1514,1515,1516,1517,1518
1519,1520,1521,1522,1523,1524
1525,1526,1527,1528,1529,1530
1531,1532,1533,1534,1535,1536
1537,1538,1539,1540,1541,1542
1543,1544,1545,1546,1547,1548
1549,1550,1551,1552,1553,1554
1555,1556,1557,1558,1559,1560
1561,1562,1563,1564,1565,1566
1567,1568,1569,1570,1571,1572
1573,1574,1575,1576,1577,1578
1579,1580,1581,1582,1583,1584
1585,1586,1587,1588,1589,1590
1591,1592,1593,1594,1595,1596
1597,1598,1599,1600,1601,1602
1603,1604,1605,1606,1607,1608
1609,1610,1611,1612,1613,1614
1615,1616,1617,1618,1619,1620
1621,1622,1623,1624,1625,1626
1627,1628,1629,1630,1631,1632
1633,1634,1635,1636,1637,1638
1639,1640,1641,1642,1643,1644
1645,1646,1647,1648,1649,1650
1651,1652,1653,1654,1655,1656
1657,1658,1659,1660,1661,1662
1663,1664,1665,1666,1667,1668
1669,1670,1671,1672,1673,1674
1675,1676,1677,1678,1679,1680
1681,1682,1683,1684,1685,1686
1687,1688,1689,1690,1691,1692
1693,1694,1695,1696,1697,1698
1699,1700,1701,1702,1703,1704
1705,1706,1707,1708,1709,1710
1711,1712,1713,1714,1715,1716
1717,1718,1719,1720,1721,1722
1723,1724,1725,1726,1727,1728
1729,1730,1731,1732,1733,1734
1735,1736,1737,1738,1739,1740
1741,1742,1743,1744,1745,1746
1747,1748,1749,1750,1751,1752
1753,1754,1755,1756,1757,1758
1759,1760,1761,1762,1763,1764
1765,1766,1767,1768,1769,1770
1771,1772,1773,1774,1775,1776
1777,1778,1779,1780,1781,1782
1783,1784,1785,1786,1787,1788
1789,1790,1791,1792,1793,1794
1795,1796,1797,1798,1799,1800
1801,1802,1803,1804,1805,1806
1807,1808,1809,1810,1811,1812
1813,1814,1815,1816,1817,1818
1819
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1. 2.
Mother LBE Please fiur attention 25-06-2018 -05-27
25/06/2018
/ Page Numbers:
1499,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
25/06/2018 05:27:28 PM
Subject: FW:
LBE v Cordell – bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL] test
Attachments: LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 1.pdf
LBE v Cordell Bundle
Part 2.pdf
test
From:
Ludmilla Iyavoo [mailto: Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 21
June 2018 17:40
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: LBE v
Cordell - bundle [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of
the hearing bundle, for your attention. A hardcopy has also been sent to you by
Post.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Campaign
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure
Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1500,
Defendant's conduct we would
seek permission to have service of the application dispensed with.
The Judge read the application
and the Claimant's witness statements and agreed that service could not be
affected and as a result agreed to have all 3 applications served by email upon
the Defendant's mother Ms Lorraine Cordell, pursuant to CPR 81.10(5)(b). '
Therefore what is missing from
the Court order is an additional paragraph which gives the Claimant permission
to serve BOTH committal applications (05.02.2018 and 20.04.2018) by email on
Mrs Cordell. Such position was accepted by the Judge at the hearing but
unfortunately is not reflected in the Court Order. This was requested in the
application notice and agreed by the Judge, we would therefore like the order
to be amended accordingly.
We would be grateful if this
letter could be passed on to the Judge to have the order amended accordingly. Please
note that the next hearing on this case is listed on 30 May 2018, 2pm and we
would be grateful if the order could be amended as a matter of urgency.
faithfully,
lyavoo
Lawyer
For the Director of Law and
Governance
1501,
1502,
1503,
1504,
1505,
1506,
1507,
1508,
1509,
1510,
1511,
1512,
1513,
1514,1515,1516,1517,1518
1519,1520,1521,1522,1523,1524
1525,1526,1527,1528,1529,1530
1531,1532,1533,1534,1535,1536
1537,1538,1539,1540,1541,1542
1543,1544,1545,1546,1547,1548
1549,1550,1551,1552,1553,1554
1555,1556,1557,1558,1559,1560
1561,1562,1563,1564,1565,1566
1567,1568,1569,1570,1571,1572
1573,1574,1575,1576,1577,1578
1579,1580,1581,1582,1583,1584
1585,1586,1587,1588,1589,1590
1591,1592,1593,1594,1595,1596
1597,1598,1599,1600,1601,1602
1603,1604,1605,1606,1607,1608
1609,1610,1611,1612,1613,1614
1615,1616,1617,1618,1619,1620
1621,1622,1623,1624,1625,1626
1627,1628,1629,1630,1631,1632
1633,1634,1635,1636,1637,1638
1639,1640,1641,1642,1643,1644
1645,1646,1647,1648,1649,1650
1651,1652,1653,1654,1655,1656
1657,1658,1659,1660,1661,1662
1663,1664,1665,1666,1667,1668
1669,1670,1671,1672,1673,1674
1675,1676,1677,1678,1679,1680
1681,1682,1683,1684,1685,1686
1687,1688,1689,1690,1691,1692
1693,1694,1695,1696,1697,1698
1699,1700,1701,1702,1703,1704
1705,1706,1707,1708,1709,1710
1711,1712,1713,1714,1715,1716
1717,1718,1719,1720,1721,1722
1723,1724,1725,1726,1727,1728
1729,1730,1731,1732,1733,1734
1735,1736,1737,1738,1739,1740
1741,1742,1743,1744,1745,1746
1747,1748,1749,1750,1751,1752
1753,1754,1755,1756,1757,1758
1759,1760,1761,1762,1763,1764
1765,1766,1767,1768,1769,1770
1771,1772,1773,1774,1775,1776
1777,1778,1779,1780,1781,1782
1783,1784,1785,1786,1787,1788
1789,1790,1791,1792,1793,1794
1795,1796,1797,1798,1799,1800
1801,1802,1803,1804,1805,1806
1807,1808,1809,1810,1811,1812
1813,1814,1815,1816,1817,1818
1819
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
940.
Trishna Kerai_(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Draft Order
26/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1820,1821,1822
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
940. Trishna
Kerai_(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Draft Order
26/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1820,1821,1822
--
1820,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmiNersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 26
June 2018 15:18
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: (DPS:1:CR:
326592:9V) LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Draft Order
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Draft Order.docx
Importance: High
Dear Lorraine,
Further to our telephone conversation,
please find attached the Order I was referring to.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of this
email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to
take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and viruses.
Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of
Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No.
990 0197 14).
1821,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Draft Order->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Draft Order.docx
Claim No: E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant,
Solicitor for the Defendant having recently been instructed and the Defendant
not attending
UPON agreeing that the report of Angela
Hague, Manager of Enfield Assessment Services produced following an assessment
held with the Defendant on 19 June 2018, does not deal with the Defendant’s
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018
UPON the Claimant agreeing to refer the
Defendant to a Consultant Psychiatrist so a mental capacity assessment could be
commissioned
UPON the parties agreeing to an adjournment
giving the circumstances
AND UPON the
Defendant’s newly instructed solicitors confirming that it will accept service
of the order on behalf of the Defendant
IT IS ORDERED
1.
By 4pm on 10 July 2018 the Defendant
shall undergo a mental capacity assessment by a Consultant Psychiatrist at an
appointment to be arranged of which the Defendant shall be given at least 24
hours’ notice and a report shall be prepared in relation to the
1822,
Defendant’s capacity to litigate and capacity to understand
the meaning of the interim injunction dated 09 January 2018 and that report
shall be filed at court and served on each party to the litigation.
2.
The Claimant shall, if so advised, file
and serve a witness statement appending any relevant documentation dealing with
the question of the Defendant’s capacity to litigate and/or capacity to
understand the meaning of the interim injunction dated 09 January 2018 by 4pm
on 17 July 2018.
3.
The matter will be re-listed urgently
on the first open date after 28 days with a time estimate of one hour to
consider further directions. The matter to be reserved to District Judge Dias.
4.
No earlier than seven and no later than
three days prior to the relisted hearing the Claimant shall file and serve a
paginated bundle of documents for use at the hearing.
5.
This order will be deemed served on the
Defendant if the Claimant emails a copy of the order to the Defendant’s
solicitor.
6.
The costs of today’s hearing and the
costs of the hearing dated 30th May 2018 may be in the case.
Dated: 26
June 2018
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
113
Trishna@stuartmillersoliS1CR3265929V) RE Simon Cordell
26/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1823,1824
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
113
Trishna@stuartmillersoliS1CR3265929V) RE Simon Cordell
26/06/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1823,1824
--
1823,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Tnshna@stuartmiNersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 26
June 2018 14:12
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: (DPS:1:CR:
326592:9V) RE: Simon Cordell
Importance: High
Dear Lorraine,
That's great news.
Enough time for us to apply for
legal aid and have that arranged.
I doubt that they will arrange to
assess him within the next 3 days, but if any issue, you can give Simon my
number and ask him to contact me whilst you're away.
Have a good trip.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of this
email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to
take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 26
June 2018 12:47
To: Trishna
Kerai
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
1824,
Dear Trishna Kerai
Just would like to say thank you
for all your help in this matter.
Just got home from the court it
has been adjourned for 28 days so things can be done one of them is the
assessment of my son.
I am going away today and will
be back on the 30th June, so I hope that the council does not arrange a date
for this week for the assessment to take place.
Lorraine
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
944.
Trishna Kerai _(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) Report from Angela Hague, Enfield
Assessment Service
02/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1825,1826,1827,1828
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
944. Trishna Kerai _(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V)
Report from Angela Hague, Enfield Assessment Service
02/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1825,1826,1827,1828
--
1825,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmiNersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 02
July 2018 09:50
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: (DPS:1:CR:
326592:9V) Report from Angela Hague, Enfield Assessment Service
Attachments: Report from Angela Hague, Enfield
Assessment-Service.pdf
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received
this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020
8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The
security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your
responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any
attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do
not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet
transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude
binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached
with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal
data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data
and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by
emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company
(VAT No. 990 0197 14).
1826,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V)
Report from Angela Hague,
Enfield Assessment Service->
Report from Angela
Hague, Enfield Assessment Service.pdf
Entries by Angela Hague -
Manager, Enfield Assessment Service
Originator:
HAGUE, Angela 15 Jun 2018,14:25 [Nursing]
Telephone call from Simon, long
conversation, asking about his appointment he has been offered for next week,
who made the referral and why. Same discussed and remembers that they had
already spoken with lain Williams. Difficult to follow his conversation and to
interrupt. Says he has been on a 10pm curfew for the past 9 years afraid to
leave his house as he feels the police have set this up. Mistaken identity
reports he has read all give descriptions of different people, 4 in total, not
him. All happened because of a party on Lincoln Road, he was not involved but
happened because people were disturbed by the noise. Because of the curfew says
he lost his relationship with his first love has or had a second girlfriend.
Said he has been dialling 999 they get 15,000 calls per day; their time is
going backwards on their records and do not have a RUN number.
Says he does not have a mental
illness no previous contact with services has been good. Sectioned in the past
human rights broken, people coming into his house, says he was giving them
access. Has tape recordings and LinkedIn, Facebook pages of all involved, has
set up a web page. Discussed that they reason I had contacted him was to offer
an appointment next Tuesday 11am, asking why we are coming, offered to see at
Lucas House instead he declined this says prefers to be seen at home. Asked why
I am not treating with dignity and respect that he has told me all about my
colleagues and their treatment of him and I have not apologised to him and
investigating. Discussed that he has the right to compliant which he says he
already has and knows how to make a complaint, reported that he was taping our
conversation and was making a digital copy which he has made of most
interactions with people. He agreed to a home visit next week. The home visit
is with EIS Amal Pomphrey.
Originator:
HAGUE, Angela 19 Jun 2018,13:57 [Nursing]
Telephone call from Simon's
mother Lorraine Cordell. Sounded tearful on the phone, reported that she has
spoken with Simon and he told her that we went to see him today, myself and
Amal. Said that he told her that the appointment went well and that we had told
him there is nothing mentally wrong with him, that he does not need psychiatric
services and is well. Says she is finding it distressing, very worried about
her son as she believes, and everyone else can see that her son is ill. Said he
is struggling to cope, not leaving the house, feels persecuted by his
neighbours. Not managing the court case well. Believes that the has lost trust
in services and feels he needs to build trust with professionals again.
Reported that when she was in
court the information that was given was that her son had PTSD and was
discharged form services, believes it was inaccurate and did not know where the
information came from, though perhaps it was lain Williams as he had around the
same time called to speak to Simon about his referral.
Discussed that we would need
Simons consent to discuss his case. Reported that her mother suffered with
schizophrenia and she has a lot of experience around people who have mental
1827,
illness not believing they have
a mental health problem and don't require treatment. Says she is happy to
encourage her son to engage with services as far as possible.
Originator: HAGUE;
Angela 19Jun 2018, 14:33 [Nursing]
Home visit today as arranged
with Amal Pomphrey from EIS. Client previously under EIS from 2015 discharged
in January this year, difficult to engage. History well known so not repeated.
Simon was friendly and welcoming
into his home. Put his pet dog outside in the garden, visible through patio
doors. Dog appeared in good health though Simon reported that his dog is
stressed about his neighbours the police and mental health services to the
point it has chewed some of the fur off his front paws.
Simon stood for some time keen
to talk about the evidence he has gathered against the police, and local
authority, has taped and logged everything on a website. Showed his website
says not live as yet, all he has to do is click a button and it will show how
he has been unfairly treated by the local authority and police. Website and all
written video and audio recordings linked. Showed a couple of examples CCTV
inside his flat, conversation with ASBO team and written documents. Also showed
us paper files that the has maintained in large ring binders, containing copies
of e-mails and all correspondence. Informed us that he tapes all conversations
he has with health, local authority, and police staff. Has CCTV cameras placed
internally and externally around his flat.
Spoke of how his issues began
many years ago trouble with the police over holding illegal parties. Reported
that he is currently not going out feels afraid. No restrictions placed on him
regarding going out other than not allowed in Industrial areas or 24-hour
venues such as Mac Donalds or Tescos. Reported recently in court with regards
to his neighbour, representing himself does not feel he needs a solicitor.
Recommendation is that he has an assessment with a psychiatrist. However said
he will not attend as the letter has not been properly dated and stamped and
therefore believes he is not bound by it.
Mental state:
Simon was casually dressed, his
hygiene appeared fair. He maintained good eye contact and rapport. His speech
appeared slightly pressured difficult to interrupt but not irritable when
interrupted.
Grandiose ideas around his
intelligence, says he is a millionaire property from wealthy relatives who have
deceased, successful businesses, earning hundreds and thousands of pounds.
Paranoid about his neighbours, believes they and others have spread information
that he may have had herpes. Paranoid delusions believe his neighbours are
deliberately following him from room to room banging on his ceiling. Believes
they want to kill him. Though he did not express any thoughts of wanting to
harm anyone. Believes he is being paid to look after vulnerable people in poor
situations.
1828,
Appears to be a mood element to
his condition pressured speech grandiose, tangential jumping from topic to
topic. However reported that at times his mood can be depressed and upset by
his neighbours. On one occasion he drank some liquid in an attempt to poison
himself, found by mother and taken to A&E discharged. Denied having any
current suicidal ideation or thought to harm himself.
There was no evidence of any
hallucinations. Personality appears to be intact.
Simon appears to lack insight,
asked if he believes he has a mental health condition denied this said he has
never taken medication as he does not believe he has any mental health problem
to require medication.
Impression:
37-year-old male appears to have
had a difficult childhood spoke about scars on his legs from beatings form his
father. Wants to protect children, and vulnerable people believes it is his
duty. 2015 diagnosed with psychotic illness and referred to EIS does not appear
to have engaged with treatment offered, previously prescribed Olanzapine. Does
not appear to require crisis team or mental health act assessment at this time.
But would benefit from assertive follow up in the community. EIS state that has
gone beyond EIS three-year treatment period.
Plan therefore to refer to North
Locality Team Locality Team. E-mail sent.
EIS agree to liaise and advise
court regarding the request for a report.
Closed to EIS.
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4732 05-07-2018 18-31
05/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1829
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4732 05-07-2018 18-31
05/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1829
--
1829,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
05/07/2018 06:31:05 PM
Subject: Thanks
for calling. Let us know how Kris did.
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 374
Your feedback makes
us better.
Thanks for calling GoDaddy
Customer Support.
We're all about providing first-class
care — it's our top priority. Please fill out this quick survey to let us know
how Kris did.
Enter gdbb1005b at checkout or
mention it the next time you call.
[1]See
offer terms, conditions, and legal policies
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260, USA. All rights reserved.
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4733 05-07-2018 20-31
05/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1830
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4733 05-07-2018 20-31
05/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1830
--
1830,
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
05/07/2018 08:31:24 PM
Subject:
Status Alert: Domain Change Notification
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
Domain status notification.
This notification is generated
automatically as a service to you.
We have received a request that
the name servers be changed for the following domain name(s):
TOOSMOOTH.CO.UK
Manage Domain Name
Servers
You do not need to respond to
this email. If, however, you think this change may have been made in error or
fraudulently, please contact us within 15 days.
If you need to address this
matter, or in any way need further assistance or technical support, call 24/7
Support at 020 7084 1810. We appreciate your business!
[1]Offer good towards
new product purchases only and cannot be used on product renewals. Cannot be
used in conjunction with any other offer, sale, discount, or promotion. Not
applicable to ICANN fees, taxes, transfers, premium domains, premium templates,
cloud server plans, WP Premium Support services, any marketing or design
services performed by our Professional Web Services team, gift cards or
Trademark Holders/Priority Pre-registration or pre-registration fees. After the
initial purchase term, discounted products will renew at the then-current
renewal list price. Offer may be changed without notice.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
949.
Trishna Kerai _Fwd._ LBE v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
10/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1831,1832,1833,1834,1835,1836,1837,1838,1839,1840
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
949. Trishna Kerai _Fwd._ LBE v
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
10/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1831,1832,1833,1834,1835,1836,1837,1838,1839,1840
--
1831,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Sent: 10
July 2018 15:05
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Letter to Stuart
Miller Solicitors 10.7.2018 pdf
Letter to ECC
attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment.pdf
report 10.7.2018.pdf
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of
this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility
to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your
personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use your
personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited
is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto: Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
July 2018 15:05
To: Trishna
Kerai
Subject: LBE v
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Trishna,
Please see attached a copy of
our correspondence to the Court enclosing the assessment report of Dr
Dhinakaran.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services
1832,
Enfield Council Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1833,
1834,
1835,
1836,
Psychiatric Report on Mr Simon Cordell
109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
1. Introduction
This report is prepared at the request
of London Borough of Enfield, Antisocial Behaviour Team following directions
from the Edmonton County Court to undertake an assessment on Mr Cordell. My
instructions were received in a letter dated 5 July 2018 and outlined as below:
(1) Whether
the defendant has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions in his
defence.
(2)
Whether the defendant understands the terms
of the injunction order dated 9 January 2018.
2. Details
of current proceedings
The current proceedings relate to an
interim injunction order issued against Mr Cordell, at the Edmonton County
Court on 9 January 2018. This followed numerous complaints from neighbours
about Mr Cordell’s acts of harassment and antisocial behaviour. However it has
been reported that Mr Cordell has continued to breach the order. It has been
reported that a neighbour has been assaulted, harassed, and has received
threats from Mr Cordell. He has also made threats towards certain council
employees. The local authority issued applications for committal due to Mr
Cordell’s breach of the injunction, however the applications could not be
considered due to concerns about his mental capacity.
3. Sources
of information
3.1 I
was provided with the following information to aid in the assessment:
1. Claim
form for an injunction with supporting documents
2. Order
for an injunction dated 9.1.2018
3. Report
of Angela Hague from the Enfield Assessment Team
4. Court
order made by DJ Dias, Edmonton County Court at the hearing on 30.05.2018 and
26.6.2018.
1
1837,
3.2 I
assessed Mr Cordell on 6 July 2018, at his flat 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield
EN3 7JQ, accompanied by two officers from the Enfield Housing Team. I can
confirm that prior to my assessment; I explained to Mr Cordell my role and the
purpose of my visit. I also explained to him that I was acting on the
instructions of the Enfield Council at the directions of the Court.
4.
Assessment of Mr Cordell
4.1 Mr
Cordell spoke to us for a few minutes outside his flat and upon explaining the
purpose of the visit, he allowed us into his flat. He agreed to tie the dog
outside in the garden. The flat although disorganised with papers and folders
scattered around, did not appear overly cluttered. Mr Cordell presented as a
young, slim built, mixed race male with reasonable hygiene. We explained our
roles and the purpose of our visit. Mr Cordell informed us that he was
recording our conversation.
4.2 Mr
Cordell seemed very keen and enthusiastic to talk and we had to explain the
reason of our visit several times to maintain some structure and focus. He
maintained appropriate eye contact and we managed to establish a rapport after
a while. His demeanour was polite and appropriate. There was evidence of
psychomotor agitation as he appeared generally restless and overactive. Mr
Cordell described his appetite and sleep pattern as fine. Objectively I would
regard his mood as labile, rapidly fluctuating between euthymia (normal mood)
and irritability.
4.3 Mr
Cordell’s comprehension of information presented to him appeared adequate. He
was able to understand the queries presented to him. His responses however were
very elaborate and circumstantial. His speech was very pressured, difficult to
interrupt and at times frankly rambling. There was clear evidence of thought
disorder with flight of ideas (rapid shift of ideas with some superficial
apparent connection). Mr Cordell struggled to sustain his goal of thinking as
he often derailed to themes of relevance to him, digressing away from the topic
of discussion. It was very difficult to obtain a direct response to the queries
posed to him and follow his thread of conversation.
4.4 Mr
Cordell’s thought content was replete with various delusional beliefs of
persecutory and grandiose nature. He spoke of an elaborate conspiracy which
involves the Enfield local authority and the metropolitan police, dating back
since 2013, when he claimed that he was arrested for putting up a gazebo in his
garden which led to him being barred from visiting
2
1838,
places
in central London and placed on a curfew from 10 pm. Mr Cordell informed that
he followed these restrictions imposed on him for about a year and returned to
Court and won the case. Mr Cordell then went on to talk about Sally Gilcrest,
the legal executive for the metropolitan police who he alleged set him up for a
million pounds and brought on an ASBO against him, which ended with him being
imposed on a nine-year curfew. Mr Cordell stated that Sally Gilcrest in
conjunction with the borough commander Jane Johnson and the community officer
started spreading rumours that he was “suffering from herpes and has hurt a
woman” which the neighbours in his block became aware of and started
sending him messages addressing him as “you black boy”. Mr Cordell
implied that Sally Gilchrest colluded with the neighbours as she had a vested
interest in getting him out of this country. He stated that the neighbours
above him deliberately bang on his ceiling and have also subject him to other
forms of harassment since 2014. Mr Cordell implied that the neighbours were responsible
for the miscarriage suffered by his then girlfriend and also held them
responsible for the separation from his previous girlfriends. He further stated
that between 2014 and 2016, his mother has made numerous complaints to the
council regarding the harassment he has been subject to and he has won a
criminal case against his neighbours
4.5 Mr
Cordell then went on to elaborate his grievance against Lemmy, the officer who
works for the Enfield local authority. He claimed that he received an email
from Lemmy threatening that he would obtain a possession order against him and
asking him to attend a meeting. He then stated that the ASBO that was served
against him was not valid due to lack of signature. Therefore Lemmy built a
false case against him by using “lower grade cases" to pursue a
possession order and subsequently an injunction order, by falsifying statements
and using “statements from dead cases”. According to Mr Cordell this was
declared as invalid by a Judge, however Lemmy has continued to produce false
orders against him in the way of a second injunction, which he claimed has
never been served on him. Mr Cordell described this as “targeted
malice" by Lemmy as he has used the injunction as a smoke screen to
cover up the ASBO by providing false statements and witnesses.
4.6 In
addition, Mr Cordell also described a number of grandiose beliefs, stating that
he was building a constitution on CIC, which he explained to be Community
Interest Company. He also spoke of a number of other businesses. He was keen to
show us the various documents, emails, and recordings he has accrued as
evidence to support his case.
3
1839,
5. Opinion
and Recommendations
Mr Cordell is a resident at the Enfield borough, who was
served an injunction on 9 January 2018, following numerous complaints by his
neighbours of antisocial behaviour and harassment. Despite this, Mr Cordell has
continued to breach the order with further incidents of harassment, threats,
and assault against the neighbours. In addition, it has been reported that some
council employees have also received threats from Mr Cordell. According to
available information, Mr Cordell has had sporadic contact with the mental
health services and has been recently assessed by the Enfield Mental Health
Assessment Service. During my assessment, Mr Cordell was preoccupied with a
number of persecutory and grandiose delusional beliefs. In addition, he also
presented with other symptoms such as labile mood, pressured speech,
overactivity, and flight of ideas. In my view, Mr Cordell’s current
presentation is consistent with Schizoaffective Disorder, which is recognised
as an enduring mental illness.
I have received specific instructions
to address the following issues:
1. Whether
Mr Cordell has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions to his
defence?
As highlighted above, Mr Cordell’s mental state is replete
with complex persecutory delusional belief system. During my assessment, Mr
Cordell was convinced that the local authority and the police have been
colluding alongside his neighbours to pursue false claims and allegations
against him. In his view, the possession order and the injunction order were
based on false statements, created against him and this did not stand up in
Court and therefore an injunction was not issued against him. In my view,
although there are no significant deficits in Mr Cordell’s comprehension or
retention of information, his ability to process information relevant to the
current proceedings is likely to be influenced by his underlying delusional
beliefs. During my interaction, it was evident that his interpretation of
events and actions of others are influenced by his abnormal beliefs. Mr Cordell
perceives himself as a victim and is aggrieved by the injustice carried out
against him. In my view,
Mr Cordell’s ability to weigh the information relevant to
the current proceedings is impaired due to his tendency to misinterpret any
information presented to him to fit into his entrenched persecutory delusional
beliefs. Moreover Mr Cordell presents with significant thought disorder and it
is unlikely that he will be able to give coherent instructions to the defence.
It is therefore my opinion that Mr Cordell lacks capacity to
litigate and give appropriate instructions to the defence.
4
1840,
2.
Whether Mr Cordell understands the
terms of the injunction order dated 9 January 2018?
Mr Cordell is currently suffering from symptoms of
Schizoaffective Disorder and presents with florid psychotic symptoms. His
thinking and behaviour are influenced by his underlying persecutory beliefs. Mr
Cordell is convinced that the injunction order is a cover up by the local
authority for the errors and mistakes of the ASBO and therefore did not stand
up in Court. Mr Cordell is convinced that the injunction order has been
falsified by certain individuals (particularly Lemmy possibly in conjunction
with others). He therefore does not value the order, or the contents contained
within it. In my opinion Mr Cordell’s capacity to process the information
relevant to the order is again impacted by his delusional beliefs.
Dr Dhara Dinakaran, MBBS, MSc,
MR C Psych
Consultant Psychiatrist
Approved under Section 12 (2) of
MHA
08/07/2018
5
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.16 lorraine32@blueyonder.coassessment
complaint [SEC=OFFI
13/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1841,1842
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.16
lorraine32@blueyonder.coassessment complaint [SEC=OFFI
13/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1841,1842
--
1841,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 13
July 2018 14:48
To: complaints and information
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell - assessment complaint [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Daniel
Thank you for the reply, I
believe what you have been told is misleading, as the council are very aware
everything is recorded our side.
I also notice you have only
covered one issue that was spoke about when you called me after my brother
called you, but I had a feeling that would happen.
I do understand that things are
complexed as Enfield Council has only ever gone one sided and never heard or
wanted to hear anything we had to say, this was clearly shown in the call when
you stated we have not been able to talk to anyone regarding issues, but that
is the way that Enfield Council wanted it they just wanted to believe what they
wanted, but only hearing one side to everything is not correct as there is two
sides to everything.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Jul 2018, at 14:25,
complaints and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
wrote:
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Lorraine,
I am writing further to our recent
telephone conversation about your son’s mental health assessment.
I have been provided with the
following comments from the team handling the case:
On 30th May 2018, the Court
ordered the Claimant (Enfield Council) to appoint a consultant psychiatrist to
assess whether Mr Cordell has capacity to litigate. Before we arranged the
appointment with the consultant psychiatrist, we sought approval from Mr
Cordell's solicitors who were provided with the consultant's details and CV.
The consultant was an independent consultant. The court does not appoint
assessors. The solicitors did not oppose the proposed appointment and their
consent was sought at all times, we also agreed the appointment with them
including dates and times.
I can confirm that two council
officers attended Mr Cordell's flat with the Consultant Psychiatrist at 9.30am
on Friday 6th July 2018 and waited while the consultant assessed Mr Cordell. It
was necessary to send the officers to ensure that the consultant was not at
risk. Previously, on 3 July 2018, a previous consultant had met with Mr Cordell
on her own to carry out an assessment but did not feel safe and had to leave
without completing the assessment. The council officers were not part of the
assessment and only attended the appointment to ensure that the consultant was
not at risk.
I do understand from our
conversation that you intend to pursue this matter further via solicitors.
Kind regards,
Daniel Ellis
Statutory Complaints Officer
Complaints & Access to
Information Team London Borough of Enfield
1842,
Phone: 020
8379 2808
Email: daniel.eNis@enfield.gov.uk
Website:
www.enfield.gov.uk
Classification: OFFICIAL
[Campaign]
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1.
2.
Wix
15-07-2018 -15-07-2018 09-01
15/07/2018
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1. 2.
Wix 15-07-2018 -15-07-2018 09-01
15/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1843
--
1843,
From: Wix Team <newsletter@i.wix.com>
Sent time:
15/07/2018 09:01:28 PM
Subject: Your
Domain Contact Information Has Changed
If you can't see this e-mail, click here
Get social with us!
Your Domain Contact Information
Has Changed
The contact information for your
domain, horrificcorruption.com, has been
changed. If you authorized these changes, there's nothing more you need to do.
If you don't recognize this activity, please
contact Support.
To prevent unauthorized or
accidental transfers, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) regulations require that a 60-day lock be placed on all domains after
they are registered or transferred, or their contact details have been changed.
This means that you will not be able to transfer your domain until Sep 13,
2018. To learn more about ICANN's policy,
Visit the Help Centre or contact
us.
Please do not reply to this
email 500 Terry A Francois Blvd San Francisco, CA 94158 Wix.com Ltd., Wix.com
Inc.
View our privacy policy
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4734 17-07-2018 05-52
17/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1844,1845
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4734 17-07-2018 05-52
17/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1844,1845
--
1844,
From: GoDaddy <AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time:
17/07/2018 05:52:04 AM
Subject:
Simon, your July account summary inside.
24/7 Support: 020 70
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 3748
July Account Summary for Simon.
View Your Account
Did you register a
co.uk
org.uk or
me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain
name may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019.
Learn more.
Thanks for your recent
purchases. Review them here.
This is a great time
to ensure your account is secure. Update your password and
add or review two-step verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers.
Visit My Account and look for
the Contact Preferences tab under
"Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
Domains
Important: Some of your domains
expire soon. Renew them today. Update your domain settings
1845,
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
toosmooth.co.uk
Manage Your Domains
cPanel Hosting
Ł16.10 Ł5.99
Ł28.10 Ł0.99
Ł16.10 Ł3.10
See offer terms,
conditions, and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
956.
Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ LBE v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] (2)
17/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1846,1847,1848
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
956. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ LBE
v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] (2)
17/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1846,1847,1848
--
1846,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 17
July 2018 11:08
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Hi Trishna
I was just wondering if you got the
below email, I sent it on Friday, and was wondering about tomorrow and if a new
court date has been set.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 13
July 2018 at 16:24:00 BST
To: Trishna Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LBE v Cordell
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Hi Trishna
Just wanted to ask I told Simon
about coming to see you on the 18th at 13:00 and he asked if it can be done at
his home address, I am not sure if you can do this but I would be there with
him of you can. I said I would ask you.
Also is a date fixed yet for the
next hearing at court as far as I know we have not got the real court letter
yet with the new date.
Also have you got any of the
emails from the council yet that was sent to the mental health and what the
mental health replied to them
Regards
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:36,
Trishna Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Ludmilla,
Thank you for your email and
providing me with the report.
Can you please confirm that this
report will be used in the next hearing and NOT the previous one as I believe
the previous one will have no precedent now?
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
1847,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT
No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
July 2018 15:05
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Trishna,
Please see attached a copy of
our correspondence to the Court enclosing the assessment report of Dr
Dhinakaran.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
1848,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The
recipient should perform their own virus checks.
41.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1.
2.
Mother
Please find ament report. 20-07-2018 -05-32
20/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1849,1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 2.
Mother Please find ament report.
20-07-2018 -05-32
20/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1849,1850,1851,1852,1853,1854,1855,1856,1857
--
1849,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
20/07/2018 05:32:28 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's Assessment Report
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
image005.jpg
image006.png
image007.png
Letter to ECC attaching Dr
Attachments: Dhinakaran's assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Simon see email Sent from my
iPhone Begin forwarded message:
From:
Trishna Kerai <Trishna@.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Date: 20
July 2018 at 16:28:13 BST
To:
'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject:
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon’s Assessment Report
Dear Lorraine,
Please find attached Simon's
medical assessment report. Please note that this works in our favour as it will
allow us to possibly get rid of the Injunction Order completely.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
1850,
1851,
1852,
Psychiatric Report on Mr Simon
Cordell 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
1853,1854,1855,1856,1857,
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
962. Trishna
Kerai_(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) Simon's Assessment Report
20/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
962. Trishna
Kerai_(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) Simon's Assessment Report
20/07/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1858,1859,1860,1861,1862,1863,1864,1865
--
1858,
From:
Trishna Kerai <Trishna@stuartmiNersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 20
July 2018 16:28
To:
'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: (DPS:1:CR:
326592:9V) Simon's Assessment Report
Attachments: Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment report
10.7.2018.pdf
Dear Lorraine,
Please find attached Simon's medical
assessment report. Please note that this works in our favour as it will allow
us to possibly get rid of the Injunction Order completely.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of this
email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to
take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions
are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No.
990 0197 14).
1859,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V)
Simon's Assessment Report ->Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment report
10.7.2018.pdf
ENFIELD
Connected
ENFIELD Council
Edmonton County Court DX 136686
Edmonton 3
Also by email Dear Sirs
Please reply to: Legal
Services
PO Box 50
Civic Centre Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XA
E-mail: Ludmilla.lyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Phone: 0208
379 8323
DX: 90615
Enfield 1
Fax: 0208
379 6492
My Ref:
LS/C/LI/155584
Your Ref:
Date: 10th
July 2018
URGENT
Re: The London
Borough of Enfield v Cordell Claim number: E00ED049- Edmonton County Court
· We write further to the Order
made by District Judge Dias following the hearing on 26th June 2018.
· Paragraph 1 of the order states
the following: ‘By 4pm on 10 July 2018 the Defendant shall undergo a mental
capacity assessment by a Consultant Psychiatrist at an appointment to be
arranged of which the Defendant shall be given at least 24 hours’ notice and a
report shall be prepared in relation to the Defendant’s capacity to litigate
and capacity to understand the meaning of the interim injunction dated 09
January 2018 and that report shall be filed at court and served on each party
to the litigation’.
· We confirm that the Defendant
was assessed by Dr Dhinakaran, a psychiatrist consultant on 5th July 2018. A
copy of her assessment report is attached to this email and it confirms that
the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate/ understand the terms of the
injunction order.
· The Claimant was also directed
to file a witness statement in response to this assessment if so, advised by
10th July 2018. We confirm that the Claimant has no comments to make at this
stage. We have asked the Defendant’s solicitors to contact the Enfield
Assessment Mental Health team and instruct them to release the Defendant’s
medical documents so the Claimant could consider them and make further
comments. However we have had no confirmation from the Defendant’s solicitors
as to whether the Defendant has provided the relevant consent and we therefore
reserve the right to make further submissions until these documents are
Jeremy Chambers Director of Law
& Governance
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver Street
Enfield EN13XY
EQUALITY
FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EXCELLENT
If you need this document in
another language or format, contact the service using the details above.
1860,
faithfully,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Lawyer
For the Director of Law and
Governance
1861,
Psychiatric Report on Mr Simon
Cordell 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
1862,1863,1864,1865,
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4735 07-08-2018 13-50
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1866,1867
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4735 07-08-2018 13-50
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1866,1867
--
1866,
From: GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 07/08/2018
01:50:22 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell: Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
Your domains are about to
auto-renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
Manage Your Renewals
If the credit card we have
associated with each domain has expired or been closed, we may be unable to
automatically renew your domain(s). To ensure your products are successfully
renewed, please review, and update your credit card information, or if you wish
to cancel automatic renewal, log in to My Account.
NOTE: Our free
product credit policy has been updated - see Section 8 of our Universal Terms
of Service for more details. Active free products created in association with
free credits from this domain registration will expire 1 year from the renewal
of the domain name if they have been activated. Credits that have not been
activated will expire and be removed at the time the domain renews. In the
event that the Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the
free product will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until
cancelled. To review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account. If you do not wish to
renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the
Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
If you wish to cancel automatic
renewal of your product(s), you can turn off this feature in your GoDaddy
account.
1867,
Sales!
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
980.
Ludmilla Iyavoo _FW_ London Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049
Extremely Urgent hearin2
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1868,1869,1870,1871,1872
1873,1874,1875,1876,1877,1878
1879,1880,1881,1882,1883,1884
1885,1886,1887,1888,1889,1890
1891,1892,1893,1894,1895,1896
1897,1898,1899,1900,1901
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
980. Ludmilla Iyavoo _FW_ London
Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent hearin2
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers:
1868,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 07
August 2018 18:03
To: Trishna Kerai
Cc: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: FW:
London Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent hearing
listed on 9th August 2018, 10am
Attachments: letter
to ECC 07.08.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell
07082018 2.pdf
Section 10 - Continuation Sheet.pdf
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's
assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell 07082018
2.pdf
Section 10 -Continuation Sheet.pdf
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's
assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell
07082018 2.pdf
Section 10 -Continuation Sheet.pdf;
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
You will see that I have copied
you and Mrs Cordell to my email to the Court, enclosing an application notice
to appoint Mrs Cordell as Simon's litigation friend. Following the report
produced by Dr Dhinakaran on 7th July 2018 which confirms Mr Cordell's lacks
capacity to litigate, we believe that it will be reasonable that Mr Cordell be
assisted by a litigation friend. Giving Lorraine Cordell's involvement in this
case we are of the view that she will be the best person to be appointed as a
litigation friend.
I have copied Mrs Cordell to
this email correspondence as she's expected to be served and to respond to the
application at the hearing. I will be grateful if you could seek instructions
from Mr Cordell and let me know whether the application will be agreed or
opposed. I would also like to have Mrs Cordell's position in response to the
application ahead of the hearing.
I have asked that the
application be dealt with by DJ Dias at the hearing on 9th August 2018, 10am.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 07
August 2018 17:47
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries
Cc: 'Trishna Kerai'; 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: London
Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent hearing listed on
9th August 2018, 10am
Importance: High
1869,
Dear Sirs
Re: London Borough of Enfield v
Simon Cordell- E00ED049
Please find attached a copy of
our correspondence with an application notice. We would like the application
notice to be dealt with by DJ Dias at the hearing on Thursday 9th August 2018,
10am and we hope that it can be processed and placed on the Court's file as a
matter of urgency.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020 8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Enfield
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged
and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and
receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in
any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1870,
1871,1872,1873,1874,1875,1876,
1877,18781879,1880,1881,1882,
1883,18841885,1886,1887,1888,
1889,18901891,1892,1893,1894,
1895,18961897,1898,1899,1900,
1901
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
979. Ludmilla
Lyavoo _London Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent
hearing li2
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1902
1903,1904,1905,1906,1907,1908
1909,1910,1911,1912,1913,1914
1915,1916,1917,1918,1919,1920
1921,1922,1923,1924,1925,1926
1927,1928,1929,1930,1931,1932
1933,1934,1935
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
979. Ludmilla Lyavoo _London
Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent hearing li2
07/08/2018
/ Page Numbers:
1902,
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 07
August 2018 17:48
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries
Cc: Trishna Kerai; Lorraine Cordell
Subject: London
Borough of Enfield v Simon Cordell- E00ED049 Extremely Urgent hearing listed on
9th August
2018, 10am
Attachments: letter to ECC 07.08.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell
07082018 2.pdf
Section 10 -Continuation Sheet.pdf
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's
assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell
07082018 2.pdf
Section 10 -Continuation Sheet.pdf
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's
assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Application Notice LBE v Cordell
07082018 2.pdf
Section 10 -Continuation Sheet.pdf
Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's
assessment report 10.7.2018.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Sirs
Re: London Borough of Enfield v Simon
Cordell- E00ED049
Please find attached a copy of our
correspondence with an application notice. We would like the application notice
to be dealt with by DJ Dias at the hearing on Thursday 9th August 2018, 10am
and we hope that it can be processed and placed on the Court's file as a matter
of urgency.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong
1903,
communities. Opinions expressed in
this email are those of the individual and not necessarily those of the London
Borough of Enfield. This email and any attachments or files transmitted with it
are strictly confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may
contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1904,
Same as Above!
1905,1906,1907,1908,1909,
1910,1911,1912,1913,19141915,
1916,1917,1918,1919,19201921,
1922,1923,1924,1925,19261927,
1928,1929,1930,1931,19321933,
1934,1935
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1.
2.
Google
New device 13-08-2018 -11-56
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1936
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1. 2.
Google New device 13-08-2018
-11-56
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1936
--
1936,
From: Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 13/08/2018
11:56:15 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Google
Long Gone l
Your account re_wired@ymail.com is listed as the recovery email for longgoneone1@gmail.com.
Don't recognize this account?
New sign-in to your linked
account
Your Google Account was just
signed in to from a new Windows device. You're getting this email to make sure
it was you.
CHECK ACTIVITY
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2018
Google LLC,1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1.
2.
Wix
13-08-2018 -13-08-2018 11-06
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1937,1938
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1. 2.
Wix 13-08-2018 -13-08-2018 11-06
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1937,1938
--
1937,
From: Wix.com <wix-team@emails.wix.com>
Sent time: 13/08/2018
11:06:36 AM
Subject: Submit
Your Wix Site and Win the Opportunity of
a Lifetime
Can't see this email?
Wix Stunning Awards
Submit Your Website for a Chance
to Win
We’re celebrating your website
and everything you’ve done with Wix.
Submit your Wix
website to get your brand in the spotlight. 3 Wix users will win a
tailor-made online campaign* produced by the Wix marketing team. Plus - all
finalists will be featured in our Wix Stunning Awards Showcase for the world to
see.
1938,
IN NO WAY SPONSORED, ENDORSED OR
ADMINISTERED BY, OR ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM. NO PURCHASE
NECESSARY. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE CHANCES OF WINNING.
Void where prohibited. Online
entry only. Binding arbitration; no class relief. Open only to legal residents
of a jurisdiction where this type of contest is permitted, who are in the age
of majority in their jurisdiction of residence at the time of entry and who
have a live and published website created on the Wix
platform, which conforms to Sponsor’s Privacy Policy and
Terms of Use. Entry to the Contest from
12:00 am EST August 13, 2018, until 12:00 am EST August 20, 2018. Subject to Contest Rules. Wix.com Ltd. 40 Namal Tel Aviv,
Tel Aviv, Israel.
Stay up to date with our latest
news & features
Please do not reply to this
email.
500 Terry A Francois Blvd., San
Francisco, CA 94158 Wix.com Ltd., Wix.com Inc. www.wix.com
View our Privacy Policy.
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
992.
Trishna Kerai _FW_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1939,1940,1941,1942
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
992. Trishna Kerai _FW_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
13/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1939,1940,1941,1942
--
1939,
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
Solicitors
Fraud 1 Cybercrime Criminal
Defence
Modem
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of
this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility
to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company
(VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and Mrs
Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell is
an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of tenancy
and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the application needs
to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer
and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmiNersoNdtors.co.uk>
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018.docx
1940,
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1941,
FW: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
amended Order 09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order
09082018.docx
TN THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON Claim No: E00ED049
Before District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018
UPON the Defendant’s mother Mrs Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist the
Defendant’s neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made.
And UPON the Defendant’s mother
agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant
could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 be discharged forthwith.
1942,
2. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the Wood Green Police station.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4736 14-08-2018 22-44
14/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1943,1944
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4736 14-08-2018 22-44
14/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1943,1944
--
1943,
From:
GoDaddy <AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time:
14/08/2018 10:44:10 PM
Subject:
Simon, your August account summary inside.
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
August Account Summary for
Simon.
View Your Account
Did you register a
. co.uk,
org.uk or
me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain name
may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019.
This is a great time
to ensure your account is secure. Update your password and add
or review two-step verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
What's in your account:
Domains
Update your domain settings
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
toosmooth.co.uk
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
1944,
cPanel Hosting
Need to add or remove an
account?
Get Started
Ł31.46 Ł1.67*
Ł14.99 Ł5.99*
Ł18.10 Ł12.49*
See offer terms,
conditions, and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
993.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 (2)
14/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
993. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 (2)
14/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1945,1946,1947,1948,1949,1950
--
1945,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 14
August 2018 12:36
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018.docx
Dear Trishna
Thank you for sending over the
document I have made remarks in the document in red where I feel it needs
rewording.
I hope that helps but I am not
sure how to reword it, if you can do that and send it back to me to take a look
at, I would be grateful
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance
of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid
incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in
this email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our
clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The
security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility
to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
1946,
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
1947,
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1948,
RE: LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018->LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018.docx
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON Claim No: E00ED049
Before
District Judge Dias
B
ETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
--
ORDER
--
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018
UPON the Defendant’s mother Mrs Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist the
Defendant’s neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made.
This is in progress and it was stated my
son would need a 2-bedroom place due to needing someone with him. The council
is already trying to get away with this by saying a like to like place which I
see they are trying to do a 1-bedroom place.
1949,
And UPON
the Defendant’s mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team
so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing.
The above section is wrong I did not
agree to engage with Enfield Mental Health Unit team, so the Defendant could
receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing. (what was
stated I was dealing with the mental health team due to a complaint, and it was
stated I would ask the mental health team if they would help regarding moving
Simon, this is being done ATM, I cannot say my son will take assistance with
his mental health conditions, due to the fact that will be down to him and not
me I can try and get him to get help, but it’s not down to me if he takes it.
IT IS ORDERED:
The interim injunction order dated 09 January
2018 be discharged forthwith.
It was stated it would be dismissed not
discharged the judge asked them if they wanted discharged or dismissed and they
stated dismissed, I see now why they are trying to change this to discharged.
As discharged means discharge is an unconditional discharge where the Court
finds that a crime has technically been committed, but that any punishment of
the defendant would be inappropriate, and the case is closed. It has never been
proven that my son done anything.
The Claimant’s claim and application
for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the Claimant’s applications for the
Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018 and 20 April 2018 and the
Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do stand dismissed.
The Claimant should serve a copy of
this order upon the Wood Green Police station.
This should be all police as it on record
and if he gets arrested at any police station this can come up if it’s not
removed from full record.
There be no order as to costs save for
detailed assessment of the Defendant’s publicly funded costs.
1950,
Dated:
09 August 2018
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1.
2.
Wix
16-08-2018 -16-08-2018 11-06
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1951,1952
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1. 2.
Wix 16-08-2018 -16-08-2018 11-06
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1951,1952
--
1951,
From: Wix.com <wix-team@emails.wix.com>
Sent time: 16/08/2018
11:06:36 AM
Subject: Last
Chance: Submit Your Website to the Wix Stunning Awards
Can't see this email?
Last Chance to Submit Wix
Stunning Awards
Final hours to submit your Wix website for a chance to win!
You can win a tailor-made online
campaign* produced by the Wix marketing team. Plus—all finalists will get
featured in our Wix Stunning Awards Showcase for all to see.
Submit your Wix
website today.
IN NO WAY SPONSORED, ENDORSED OR
ADMINISTERED BY, OR ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM. NO PURCHASE
NECESSARY. A PURCHASE WILL NOT INCREASE CHANCES OF WINNING. Void
1952,
where prohibited. Online entry
only. Binding arbitration; no class relief. Open only to legal residents of a
jurisdiction where this type of contest is permitted, who are in the age of
majority in their jurisdiction of residence at the time of entry and who have a
live and published website created on the Wix
platform, which conforms to Sponsor’s Privacy
Policy and Terms of Use.
Entry to the Contest from 12:00 am EST August 13, 2018, until 12:00 am EST
August 20, 2018. Subject to Contest Rules.
Wix.com Ltd. 40 Namal Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Stay up to date with our latest
news & features
Please do not reply to this
email.
Click here to unsubscribe.
500 Terry A Francois Blvd., San
Francisco, CA 94158 Wix.com Ltd., Wix.com Inc. www.wix.com
View our Privacy Policy.
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
997. Ludmilla
Lyavoo _RE_ Simon Cordell_ (2)
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 1953,1954,1955,1956
1957,1958,1959,1960,1961,1962
1963,1964,1965,1966,1967,1968
1969,1970,1971,1972,1973,1974
1975,1976,1977,1978,1979,1980
1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986
1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992
1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998
1999,2000, 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006
2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012
2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018
2019,2020,2021,2022,2023,2024
2025,2026,2027,2028,2029,2030
2031,2032,2033,2034,2035,2036
2037,2038,2039,2040,2041,2042
2043,2044,2045,2046,2047,2048
2049,2050,2051,2052,2053,2054
2055,2056,2057,2058,2059,2060
2061,2062,2063,2064,2065,2066
2067,2068,2069,2070,2071,2072
2073,2074,2075
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
997. Ludmilla Lyavoo _RE_ Simon
Cordell_ (2)
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers:
1953,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 16
August 2018 17:15
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Attachments: enfield-allocations-scheme-2012-2017
(3).pdf
Dear Mrs Cordell,
I write in response to your
email below and further to our telephone conversation held a few minutes ago.
As explained, it is not usual practice
for a management transfer application to be forwarded to the applicant as this
is a document which is usually completed by a housing officer and used
internally. So please accept my apologies if you may have been advised
previously that this would be the case. However we are happy to discuss its
contents with you should you wish to.
I enclose a copy of the Enfield
Housing Allocation Scheme, which is used by the exceptions panel before
considering a management transfer application.
I explained to you that if the
application goes ahead tomorrow (this was the earliest exceptions panel
meeting), Simon could only be considered for a transfer of property which is
similar to the one he currently occupies (like for like transfer).
You explained to me that you
believe that your son requires supported accommodation. You also said that he
has agreed to see a consultant of the Enfield Mental Health Team and was given
an appointment on 31/08/2018 at 9.30am. I have explained that Simon will need
to be assessed by the team in order to be considered for supported
accommodation. On that basis you agreed to have the management transfer
application deferred to be considered at the next panel meeting which will take
place on 28/09/2018, this would allow more time for an assessment to be carried
out by the Mental health team. Please
confirm that this is agreed by yourself and Simon.
I also confirmed that the
exceptions panel meetings are attended by professionals which means that
tenants or members of their family are not allowed to attend. However the
meetings can be attended by mental health workers.
I hope this email answers your
queries, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 16
August 2018 12:16
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
1954,
Dear Ludmilla, lyavoo
Could you please forward the
housing management transfer application that Lemmy called me about last night
15/08/2018 at 16:15 hours, as I have the mental health team calling me
regarding the like to like section in the application. I have not yet seen the
application that has been filled in for my son by Enfield Council, and I would
like to see it before it is submitted to the broad tomorrow.
Also would it be possible to get
a copy of Enfield Councils guidelines and policies for the management transfer
application, I do believe I have a copy but want to make sure I have the
correct one.
As you are aware at court it was
stated I had to fill an application in by today, but it was not stated as to
what application it was, and then it was found out the application had to be
done by the council so all the wrong information was told to the judge, and as
you are aware what I said to the judge regarding a 2 bedroom and then what
Lemmy said to the judge that my son would not get one, then what the judge said
to Lemmy regarding a 2 bedroom.
I do not want my son placed into
a new home that is not going to be appropriate, I want to get it right for him,
after all his health has gone downhill due to all the court cases and what the
neighbours were and are still doing to him and Enfield council took no notice
of the hell my son was living in all they done was believed the neighbours,
then on top Enfield Council basically telling the courts there was nothing
wrong with my son's health even though I was telling Enfield Council since the
start of 2015 via emails the impact this was having on my son regarding what
the neighbours were doing, I want Enfield Council to take this seriously as so
far where my son has been concerned you have only blamed him for everything and
gone one sided and never heard what my son or I have had to say, I believe if
Enfield Council had done the correct investigations they would have seen there
was a lot more going on here then what the neighbours was saying, but Enfield
Council only blamed without wanting to know the facts.
My son has to be re-housed and I
want that to be done correctly even if more time is needed and this is not
taken to the panel until next week, I do want it done as soon as possible due
to what the neighbours are still doing, I don't want things rushed by Enfield
Council because they know now they have done wrong and made beaches regarding
my son I want it done correctly, as stated I want the mental health input if
they are willing to give it as it seems since I put the complaint in they do
not seem to want to talk with me as stated to you outside the court room, but
that is being addressed and I am waiting for a call back today regarding the
housing issue, I have spoken with a few people over the last week regarding
this, but due to a change over with the people dealing with my son and him not
given a named worker yet it has been hard.
Also can you tell me if I am
allowed to attend the panel hearing and also maybe a mental health worker if
they are willing to attend also? I will await to hear from you today.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 15:06
To: Lorraine Cordell; 'Trishna Kerai'
Cc: Lemmy Nwabuisi
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Mrs Cordell,
I have emailed Michael Adu-
Gyamfi and asked him to contact you as soon as possible, please note that he's
aware of the deadline and will be in touch in due course.
I have emailed a draft order to
Trishna Kerai of Stuart Miller solicitors and I'm currently waiting her
approval. Once I have this, I will be in a position to email the Court with the
agreed order. I can't confirm the time it will take the Court to approve the
order but as soon as this is done, I am sure Ms Kerai will contact you and let
you know.
We will contact the police
regarding the discharge of the injunction order; however we would need a sealed copy of the court order to be
received first before such notification takes place.
1955,
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:40
To: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Trishna Kerai
Lemmy Nwabuisi
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla, lyavoo
Thank you for the update email,
as you will see form my below email I had already been told it would been a
housing management transfer, my brother had a long talk with Nadine and he did
try and speak to Michael Adugyamfi but he was in a meeting, Nadine kindly sent
him an email with my email details for him to contract me, but the best phone
number to call me on is 07807 333545.
Would it be possible to have a
contract email for Michael Adugyamfi as you know I am on a short time scale
ordered by the judge of 7 days to get this addressed.
Also would it be possible to get
the time scale as to when I will get the order form the court, and has the
police been informed regarding the dismissal of both the injection orders.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:28
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Trishna Kerai; Lemmy Nwabuisi
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ms Cordell,
Thank you for your emails.
I have made enquiries with our
housing allocation manager and since Mr Cordell is an existing council tenant,
he will need to apply for a transfer, so he does not need to make a new
rehousing application.
This transfer application must
be done via Simon Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer
in question and will ask him to contact you as soon as possible. Can you please
provide me with a preferred contact number so the officer can make an
appointment with you and Mr Cordell? I have copied Mr Cordell's solicitors to
this email.
1956,
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:18
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla, lyavoo
I believe what we need as this
is what we have just been told on the phone we need to do a housing management
transfer to be able to get this done as Simon should not need to fill out a new
housing application as he is already a tenant.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 13:38
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla Iyavoo
Could you please send me the
link to the application form as I have been looking all day my brother even
went up to the civic centre and they could not give him a link they said there
is not one.
I wanted to get this done as
soon as possible and Enfield Council website is not great to use.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
1957,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1958,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
1959,
1960,
1961,
1962,
1963,
1964,
1965,
1966,
1967,
1968,
1969,
1970,
1971,
1972,
1973,
1974,
1975,
1976,
1977,
1978,
1979,
1980,
1981,
1982,
1983,
1984,
1985,
1986,
1987,
1988,
1989,
1990,
1991,
1992,
1993,
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997,
1998,
1999,
2000,
2001,
2002,
2003,
2004,
2005,
2006,
2007,
2008,
2009,
2010,
2011,
2012,
2013,
2014,
2015,
2016,
2017,
2018,
2019,
2020,
2021,
2022,
2023,
2024,
2025,
2026,
2027,
2028,
2029,
2030,
2031,
2032,
2033,
2034,
2035,
2036,
2037,
2038,
2039,
2040,
2041,
2042,
2043,
2044,
2045,
2046,
2047,
2048,
2049,
2050,
2051,
2052,
2053,
2054,
2055,
2056,
2057,
2058,
2059,
2060,
2061,
2062,
2063,
2064,
2065,
2066,
2067,
2068,
2069,
2070,
2071,
2072,
2073,
2074,
2075,
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
996.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon Cordell_ (45)
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2076
53.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
996. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon
Cordell_ (45)
16/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2076
--
2076,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 16
August 2018 11:10
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla Lyavoo
Could you please forward the
housing management transfer Application that Lemmy called me about last night
at 16:15 hours, as I have the mental health team calling me regarding the like
for like section in the application. I as of yet have not seen the application
and would like to see it and what has been said.
Also would it be possible to get
a copy of Enfield council guidelines and policies for the management transfer, I
do believe I have a copy but want to be 100% I have the right one.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
54.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1.
2.
Wix to
google -20-08-2018 23-00
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2077
54.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1. 2.
Wix to google -20-08-2018 23-00
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2077
--
2077,
From: Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 20/08/2018
11:00:26 PM
Subject:
Security alert for your linked Google account
Wix.com connected to
your Google Account
You received this message
because re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for longgoneone1@gmail.com. If longgoneone1@gmail.com is not
your Google Account, click here to disconnect from that account and
stop receiving emails.
Hi Long,
Wix.com now has access to your
Google Account longgoneone1@gmail.com.
Wix.com can:
• View and manage the files in
your Google Drive
You should only give this access
to apps you trust. Review or remove apps connected to your account any time at My
Account.
Learn more about what it means to connect an app
to your account.
The Google Accounts team
This email can't receive
replies. For more information, visit the Google Accounts Help Centre.
You received this mandatory
email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google
product or account.
© 2018 Google LLC, 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1000. Trishna
Kerai _RE_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2078,2079,2080,2081,2082,2083,2084,2085,2086
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1000. Trishna Kerai _RE_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2078,2079,2080,2081,2082,2083,2084,2085,2086
--
2078,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 20
August 2018 14:35
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: SM
Court Att note—August 9th 18 CORDELL S.DOC
Hi Lorraine,
I will try to rewrite the order by
tonight and send it over to you.
Please find attached last
attendance note from David Greville who attended the last hearing.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended recipient;
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance of this
email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our
clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security
of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your
responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any
attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do
not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet
transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude
binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No.
990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 Dear
Trishna
I was wondering if you had time
as yet to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is
sealed. I have made edited it not sure if it can be worded this way but please
see attached.
The reason I do not believe they
can put
2079,
"And UPON the Defendant's
mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the
Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can
give input but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help
and this is where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered
that I will do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just
removed this from the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the
council telling me I have to do it.
Also are there any notes from
the barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of this
email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to
take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company
No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No.
990 0197 14).
2080,
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you
and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/newsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute
2081,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2082,
2083,
INSTRUCTIONS
Client not present, as he is
ill.
Def's mother and Uncle attend.
Mother has a large correspondence
file, which proves that emails were sent by her to the Council telling them
about Def's mental illness.
(Mother is of the belief that
the Council already knew what is contained in the latest Report).
Probably the most helpful thing
mother tells me is that the construction of the flats where Def lives means
that Def hears a lot of noise from the flat above. This causes tensions. If Def
were moved to a more suitable flat, the current problems are less likely to
recur.
Mother does not want to be a
Litigation Friend as---Def might agree to this today, but 2 days later he could
be accusing mother of being in league with the Council Mother does not want
this case to drive a wedge between her and Def.
Mother says that the statements
that the complainants made in this case are different to the statements they
made against Def in the criminal case (no charge yet), which proves that they
are lying in this case, and mother wants to take them to court for lying.
Spoke to representative from
Enfield B.C. They appear to have no great plan, following the Report that says
Def doesn't understand the injunction, and is not fit to take part in
proceedings. They will suggest that the Court should make some Directions, to
protect other residents, but they cannot suggest any particular Directions, and
appear to want to leave that to the Judge.
There is the possibility of the
Official Solicitor acting as Litigation Friend, but this would take some time
to set up.
CLIENT'S OBJECTIVES (Client not
here).
2084,
2085,
2086,
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
999.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (1)
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2087,2088,2089,2090,2091
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
999. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (1)
20/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2087,2088,2089,2090,2091
--
2087,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018-001.docx
Dear Trishna
I was wondering if you had time
as yet to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is
sealed.
I have made edited it not sure
if it can be worded this way but please see attached.
The reason I do not believe they
can put
"And UPON the Defendant's
mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the
Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can give
input but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help and
this is where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered that
I will do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just removed
this from the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the council
telling me I have to do it.
Also are there any notes from
the barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
Solicitors.
Criminal Defends!
modern LAW
CELEBRATING EXCELLENCE
288,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
2089,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential
and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The
recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2090,
RE: LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018->LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018-001.docx
Claim No: E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother Miss Lorraine Cordell,
confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr Cordell
neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer application on or
before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made. The Claimant will also take into account the need for a two bedroom
so that Mr Cordell can get the support needed from his family so that Mr
Cordell can have someone with him that he trusts.
TT TS ORDERED:
2091,
1. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 be dismissed forthwith.
2. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection order dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been dismissed.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4737 - 23-08-2018 19-21
23/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2092
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4737 - 23-08-2018
19-21
23/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2092
--
2092,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
23/08/2018 07:21:05 PM
Subject:
Renewal receipt for order #1357431481.
24/7 Support: 020
7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
Your renewal
receipts.
Just a heads up. The items below
have been automatically renewed. To review all your products and services,
please go to My Account.
Product |
Quantity |
Term |
Price |
.UK (. CO.UK) Domain Renewal |
1
Domain |
1
Year |
Ł9.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal: |
|
Ł9.99 |
|
Tax: |
|
Ł2.00 |
|
Total: |
|
Ł11.99 |
Go to My Account
We have billed your PayPal
agreement ending with the last two digits: 0V for the amount of Ł11.99.
Your product(s) includes
enrolment in our automatic renewal service. This keeps your products up and
running by automatically charging the then-current renewal fees to your payment
method on file just before they're set to expire, with no further action on
your part. You may cancel this service at any time by turning off the
auto-renewal feature on the Renewals and Billing
page in your GoDaddy account.
Review Legal
Agreements
By using these products, you
agree that you are bound by the Universal Terms of
Service and Privacy Policy.
Learn more about our Refund Policy.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy Operating
Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260, USA. All rights reserved.
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1.
2.
Google
New device 27-08-2018 -04-48
27/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2093,2094
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1. 2.
Google New device 27-08-2018
-04-48
27/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2093,2094
--
2093,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 27/08/2018
04:48:29 PM
Subject:
Security alert for your linked Google account
Template Gallery connected to
your Google Account
You received this message
because re_wired@ymail.com is listed as the recovery email for longgoneone1@gmail.com. If longgoneone1@gmail.com is not
your Google Account, click here to disconnect from that account and
stop receiving emails.
Hi Long,
Template Gallery now has access
to your Google Account longgoneone1@gmail.com. Template
Gallery can:
• View and manage the files in
your Google Drive
You should only give this access
to apps you trust. Review or remove apps connected to your account any time at My
Account.
Learn more about what it means to connect an app
to your account.
The Google Accounts team
This email can't receive
replies. For more information, visit the Google Accounts Help Centre.
You received this mandatory
email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google
product or account.
2018 Google LLC, 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
2094,
Extra Page!
59.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1.
2.
Google
Wix 27-08-2018 -12-19
27/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2095,2096
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1. 2.
Google Wix 27-08-2018 -12-19
27/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2095,2096
--
2095,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 27/08/2018
12:19:37 AM
Subject:
Security alert for your linked Google account
Wix.com connected to your Google
Account
You received this message
because re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for longgoneone1@gmail.com. If longgoneone1@gmail.com is not
your Google Account, click here to disconnect from that account and
stop receiving emails.
Hi Long,
Wix.com now has access to your
Google Account longgoneone1@gmail.com.
Wix.com can:
• View and manage the files in
your Google Drive
You should only give this access
to apps you trust. Review or remove apps connected to your account any time at My
Account.
Learn more about what it means to connect an app
to your account.
The Google Accounts team
This email can't receive
replies. For more information, visit the Google Accounts Help Centre.
You received this mandatory
email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google
product or account. 2018 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
CA 94043, USA
2096,
Extra Page!
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1.
2.
Wix
30-08-2018 -30-08-2018 04-19
30/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2097,2098
60.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1. 2.
Wix 30-08-2018 -30-08-2018 04-19
30/08/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2097,2098
--
2097,
From: Wix.com
<wix-team@emails.wix.com>
Sent time:
30/08/2018 04:19:08 PM
Subject: 8
Design Tricks to Hook Your Visitors
WIX com
Essential Tips for Your Business
Get the latest web design
trends, SEO guidelines, online marketing tips and more,
delivered straight to your
inbox.
Check Out Articles We Think
You'll Love
8 Awesome Design Tricks to Grab
Your Visitors’ Attention Read Article >>
Benjamin Diaz
Photography & Art Direction
Logo Trends of 2018: How to Make
Your Brand Shine Read Article >>
The 7 Deadly Sins of
DIY SEO: 5 Tips for Beginners
That You
2098,
Marketing Revealed Read Article >>
Can Apply Right Now Read Article >>
Stay up to date with our latest
news & features
Please do not reply to this
email.
500 Terry A Francois Blvd., San
Francisco, CA 94158 Wix.com Ltd., Wix.com Inc. www.wix.com
View our Privacy Policy.
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4757 01-09-2018 14-12
01/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2099,2100
61.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4757 01-09-2018 14-12
01/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2099,2100
--
2099,
From: GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 01/09/2018
02:11:54 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell: Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
24/7 Support: 020
7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 374
Your domains are about to
auto-renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
Manage Your Renewals
If the credit card we have
associated with each domain has expired or been closed, we may be unable to
automatically renew your domain(s). To ensure your products are successfully
renewed, please review, and update your credit card information, or if you wish
to cancel automatic renewal, log in to My Account.
NOTE: Our free
product credit policy has been updated - see Section 8 of our Universal Terms of
Service for more details. Active free products created in association with free
credits from this domain registration will expire 1 year from the renewal of
the domain name if they have been activated. Credits that have not been
activated will expire and be removed at the time the domain renews. In the
event that the Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the
free product will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until
cancelled. To review billing or to update your payment information, log in to
your account. If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
If you wish to cancel automatic
renewal of your product(s), you can turn off this feature in your GoDaddy
account.
Your recommended domains are a
click away*. Register now:
ts.
enterprises |
|
t-s-enterprises. Enterprises |
t-s-enterprises.net |
|
tsactions.com |
2100,
This email does not assure the
availability of the specific domains; only that they were still available as of
01 September 2018.
*Offer good towards new product
purchases only and cannot be used on product renewals. Cannot be used in
conjunction with any other offer, sale, discount, or promotion. Not applicable
to ICANN fees, taxes, transfers, premium domains, premium templates, cloud
server plans, WP Premium Support services, any marketing or design services
performed by our Professional Web Services team, gift cards or Trademark
Holders/Priority Preregistration or pre-registration fees. After the initial
purchase term, discounted products will renew at the then- current renewal list
price. Offer may be changed without notice.
**ICANN fee of Ł0.11 per domain
name per year is included.
"Renewal rates do not
include fees from Private Registration, Deluxe Registration, Protected
Registration or Certified Domains. Domains automatically renew at previous
registration length.
Prices are current as of 01/09/2018
and may be changed without notice. All domain name registrations and renewals
are non-refundable and are subject to the terms and conditions of our Registration Agreement.
Certain domains will be billed
up to 30 days prior to the renewal date.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
62.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1007. Trishna
Kerai _RE_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2101,2102,2103,2104,2105
62.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1007. Trishna Kerai _RE_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2101,2102,2103,2104,2105
--
2101,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Importance: High
Dear Ludmilla,
Please find our final draft of the
Order. You will see the amendments we have made.
Please provide us with your views.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily represent
those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended recipient; any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance of this email
or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid incurring legal
liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email
without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our clients,
any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are subject to
the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter or
contract and terms of business. If you have received this email in error please
notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020
8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents by email. The security of this
email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to
take all necessary steps to ensure this email and any attachments or
transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any
responsibility for damage incurred as a result of internet transmissions and
viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company
(VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 15
August 2018 15:49
To: Dias, DJ Allison
Cc: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Judge,
2102,
Further to the hearing which took
place on 9th August 2018, I attach a draft order for the Court's approval. I
apologise for the delay in sending this draft order to you, I have been waiting
for the Defendant's solicitor’s approval which has not been received as yet.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and
Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell
is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of
tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the application needs
to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer
and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
2103,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2104,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2105,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
2. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1004.
Trishna Kerai _RE_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (1)
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2106,2107,2108,2109,2110,2111,2112
63.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1004. Trishna Kerai _RE_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (1)
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2106,2107,2108,2109,2110,2111,2112
-
2106,
Dear Trishna
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:50
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended-Order.docx
Hi Lorraine,
I was on annual leave and just
got back today.
I have just had a look at the
Order and amended it slightly as attached.
Please let me know if you agree
(it's just an amendment of words) and then I will send to the Court. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
2109,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot
be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:45
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
2107,
I have not heard from you and I
believe you was away on holiday I hope you have a great time.
I really need this order dealt
with so it can be signed off and sealed by the court as of yet the order has
not been sent to the court by Enfield Council and this needs to be done ASAP so
it can be sealed.
Please see the attached Document
I have rewritten for it to be sent to Enfield Council so this can be done, if
this can be sent to Enfield Council, I would be most grateful.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 14:35
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Hi Lorraine,
I will try to rewrite the order
by tonight and send it over to you.
Please find attached last
attendance note from David Greville who attended the last hearing.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
2109,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee
and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or opinions
presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily represent those
of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended recipient; any
disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance of this email
or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid incurring legal
liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email
without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our clients,
any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are subject to
the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter or
contract and terms of business. If you have received this email in error please
notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020
8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
2108,
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
I was wondering if you had time as yet
to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is sealed.
I have made edited it not sure if it
can be worded this way but please see attached.
The reason I do not believe they can
put
"And UPON
the Defendant's mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit
team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can give input
but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help and this is
where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered that I will
do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just removed this from
the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the council telling me I
have to do it.
Also are there any notes from the
barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
2109,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
2110,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2111,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist report
of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2112,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
5. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
6. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
7. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
8. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1003. Lorraine
Cordell _Re_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (2)
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2113,2114,2115,2116,2117,2118
64.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1003. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018_ (2)
04/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2113,2114,2115,2116,2117,2118
--
2113,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:45
To: 'Trishna
Kerai'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018-002.docx
Dear Trishna
I have not heard from you and I
believe you was away on holiday I hope you have a great time.
I really need this order dealt
with so it can be signed off and sealed by the court as of yet the order has
not been sent to the court by Enfield Council and this needs to be done ASAP so
it can be sealed.
Please see the attached Document
I have rewritten for it to be sent to Enfield Council so this can be done, if
this can be sent to Enfield Council, I would be most grateful.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Trishna Kerai [mailto: Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 14:35
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Hi Lorraine,
I will try to rewrite the order
by tonight and send it over to you.
Please find attached last
attendance note from David Greville who attended the last hearing.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
2114,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
I was wondering if you had time as yet
to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is sealed.
I have made edited it not sure if it
can be worded this way but please see attached.
The reason I do not believe they can
put
"And UPON
the Defendant's mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit
team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can give input
but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help and this is
where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered that I will
do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just removed this from
the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the council telling me I
have to do it.
Also are there any notes from the
barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
2115,
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
2116,
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
2110,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2117,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR STMON
CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr Cordell
neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer application on or
before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2118,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks capacity
to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction order
made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2112,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
2. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4741 07-09-2018 18-34
07/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2119
65.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4741 07-09-2018 18-34
07/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2119
--
2119,
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
07/09/2018 06:34:20 PM
Subject:
Renewal receipt for order #1364739237.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 374
Your renewal
receipts.
Just a heads up. The items below
have been automatically renewed. To review all your products and services,
please go to My Account.
Product |
Quantity |
Term |
Price |
1 Domain |
1 Year |
|
Ł13.10 |
.COM Domain Renewal t-s-enterprises.com |
Subtotal: Tax: |
|
Ł13.10 Ł2.62 |
|
Total: |
|
Ł15.72 |
Go to My Account
We have billed your PayPal
agreement ending with the last two digits: 0V for the amount of Ł15.72.
NOTE: This message confirms that
during the checkout process, you agreed to GoDaddy's
Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy Policy, and all other agreements applicable to your purchase. You can obtain a
list of all agreements and policies to which you agreed by
contacting GoDaddy customer service. Your use of the purchased products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel your purchase, please learn more
about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that during the
checkout process, you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic renewal
service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically charging
then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no further
action on your part. If you do not wish to continue using
our automatic renewal service, you can cancel by visiting the Renewals and
Billing page in your account.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1.
2.
Mother
I was on annul Order.docx 12-09-2018 -11-14
12/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2120,2121,2122,2123,2124,2125
66.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1. 2.
Mother I was on annul Order.docx
12-09-2018 -11-14
12/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2120,2121,2122,2123,2124,2125
--
2120,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
12/09/2018 11:14:13 AM
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE v Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
here is the order it has not
been sealed yet by the court Trishna is waiting for a reply from the council
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmiNersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:50
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Hi Lorraine,
I was on annual leave and just got back
today.
I have just had a look at the Order and
amended it slightly as attached.
Please let me know if you agree (it's
just an amendment of words) and then I will send to the Court.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 077Q0
QQ3 860
E: trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone
on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents
by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and
any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a result of
internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to
conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your
personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use your
personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited
is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:45
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
I have not heard from you and I
believe you was away on holiday I hope you have a great time.
I really need this order dealt
with so it can be signed off and sealed by the court as of yet the order has
not been sent to the court by Enfield Council and this needs to be done ASAP so
it can be sealed.
2121,
Please see the attached Document
I have rewritten for it to be sent to Enfield Council so this can be done, if
this can be sent to Enfield Council, I would be most grateful.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Trishna Kerai [mailto: Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 14:35
To: 'Lorraine
Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Hi Lorraine,
I will try to rewrite the order
by tonight and send it over to you.
Please find attached last
attendance note from David Greville who attended the last hearing.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
I was wondering if you had time as yet
to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is sealed.
I have made edited it not sure if it
can be worded this way but please see attached.
The reason I do not believe they can
put
"And UPON
the Defendant's mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit
team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can give input
but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help and this is
where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered that I will
do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just removed this from
the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the council telling me I
have to do it.
2122,
Also are there any notes from the
barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services
2123,
Enfield Council Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
2116,
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2124,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
TN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
and
Claimant
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and Defendant,
the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer application
on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2125,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
5. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
6. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
7. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
8. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4739 14-09-2018 21-25
14/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2126,2127
67.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4739 14-09-2018 21-25
14/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2126,2127
--
2126,
From: GoDaddy <AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time:
14/09/2018 09:25:29 PM
Subject:
Simon, your September account summary inside.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
September Account Summary for
Simon.
View Your Account
Did you register
a. co.uk,
. org.uk or
. me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain
name may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019. Learn more.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step verification
protection.
What's in your account:
Domains
Update your domain settings
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
TOOSMOOTH.CO.UK
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
Manage Your Domains
2127,
cPanel Hosting
Get Started
A. site web address is easy for
visitors to understand at a glance—this is your online presence. Shop. site
domains today for just Ł28.10 Ł0.99.
Ł30.70
Ł1.63*
Ł14.99
Ł5.99*
Ł18.10
Ł12.49*
See offer terms,
conditions, and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1021. Trishna
Kerai _RE_ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018_ (2)
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2128,2129,2130,2131,2132,2133,2134
68.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1021. Trishna Kerai _RE_ LBE v
Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018_ (2)
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2128,2129,2130,2131,2132,2133,2134
--
2128,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Sent: 17
September 2018 10:32
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Dear Sirs,
Further to the email below, please
confirm whether you have received our drafted amended order.
I have attached it again for
your attention.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your
personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use your
personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Trishna
Kerai
Sent: 17
September 2018 09:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Hi Ludmilla,
Further to my email below, could
I please have a response with your views in relation to our proposed amended
Order.
2129,
Many thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service
of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is
authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No.
533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller
Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343).
Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Trishna
Kerai
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Ludmilla,
Please find our final draft of the
Order. You will see the amendments we have made. Please provide us with your
views.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
2130,
STUARTMILLER
EXCELLENCE
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance
of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid
incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in
this email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our
clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
service of documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments
cannot be guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to
ensure this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred
as a result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors
by email. Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for
unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller
Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not
want us to use your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or
by post, please opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart
Miller Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited.
Incorporated in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 15
August 2018 15:49
To: Dias, DJ Allison
Cc: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Judge,
Further to the hearing which
took place on 9th August 2018, I attach a draft order for the Court's approval.
I apologise for the delay in sending this draft order to you, I have been
waiting for the Defendant's solicitor’s approval which has not been received as
yet.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
2131,
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and
Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell
is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of
tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the application needs
to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer
and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone:
020 8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your in box
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
2132,
recording/and or monitoring in
accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2133,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
IN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and Defendant,
the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer application
on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2134,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
2. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.31
Trishna@stuartmillersoliell-E00ED049 amended Order 090
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2135,2136,2137,2138,2139,2140,2141
69.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.31
Trishna@stuartmillersoliell-E00ED049 amended Order 090
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2135,2136,2137,2138,2139,2140,2141
--
2135,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Sent: 17
September 2018 10:30
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Yeah, I will send to them again.
Trishna
Kerai | Caseworker | Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208 888 5225
M: 07790 993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The
information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is
intended solely for the addressee and access to this email by anyone else is
unauthorised. Any views or opinions presented are those of the author only and
do not necessarily represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not
the intended recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken in reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be
unlawful. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy
the information in this email without the express permission of the sender.
When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email
or attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the
governing client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you
have received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a VAT registered company
(VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 17
September 2018 10:28
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: Re:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 Hi Trishna
Do you mean you sent to the court?
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Sep 2018, at 09:57, Trishna Kerai
<Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
wrote: Hi,
Yes. I did respond saying I sent
the order...apologies if you did not get the email.
2136,
I will email her now and see
what the position is.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
September 2018 09:57
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: Re:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Hi Trishna
Was wondering if you sent the order to
the court really need it badly for the 28/09/2018 as said in the below email
can you give me an update please.
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 13
Sep 2018, at 10:10, Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Trishna
I was wondering if Ludmilla had
contracted you in regards to the order yesterday I know she emailed you and me about
a call that was made to her yesterday from Simon, but was wondering if she had
also made any reply regarding the order as well.
If she has not can you please send the
rewritten order to the judge at the court, as by her sending the email
yesterday about the call from Simon it shows she is just Ignoring the email
regarding the court
2137,
order, hoping we will not get a sealed
order until after it goes to the panel on the 28/09/2018 so once again the
council can get away with ignoring the hat the judge said in court.
Regards
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Sep 2018, at 15:50, Trishna Kerai
<Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
wrote:
HI Lorraine,
Haven't heard anything from her
yet. I will email her now and CC you in.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone
on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of documents
by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed.
It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure this email and
any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart Miller
Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a result of
internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to
conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell rmailto:lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
September 2018 12:50
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: Re:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 Hi Trishna
I was wondering if you had heard
anything from Ludmilla yet, as this is going to the housing panel on the
28/09/2018 and I need the sealed order from the court by then.
Or they are going to put this to the
housing panel for like for like move which will only be a 1 bedroom.
2138,
Regards
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Sep 2018, at 16:01, Trishna Kerai
<Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
wrote:
Ludmilla will be required to
forward this to the DJ, but if she doesn't get back to me then I will do this
myself.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended recipient;
any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance of this
email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our
clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 04
September 2018 16:00
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
Do not forget it has to be made
for the attention of District Judge Dias who heard the case.
Regards
Lorraine
2139,
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
August 2018 12:48
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna
I was wondering if you had time as yet
to rewrite the order as it need to go to the court so that the order is sealed.
I have made edited it not sure if it
can be worded this way but please see attached.
The reason I do not believe they can
put
"And UPON the Defendant's mother
agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant
could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing. "
Is due to Simon rights I can give input
but there is little I can do if Simon does not agree to take help and this is
where I run into issues and have for a while now. If it is ordered that I will
do it and can’t then I am breaking the order. so I have just removed this from
the order as I do what I can anyways I do not need the council telling me I
have to do it.
Also are there any notes from the
barrister who was there for Simon or any documents I have not got as Simon
likes to keep all documents from all his cases.
Regards
Lorraine
From:
Trishna Kerai mailto: Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
Sent:
13 August 2018 15:14
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
2140,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information
in this email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to
our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo mailto: Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and
Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell is
an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of tenancy
and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the application needs
to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer
and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly,
2141,
delivering excellent services
and building strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfiekigov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the Whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1022.
Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2142,2143,2144,2145,2146,2147,2148
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1022. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
17/09/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2142,2143,2144,2145,2146,2147,2148
--
2142,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 17
September 2018 11:28
To: 'enquiries@edmonton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: FW:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Amended Order.docx
Importance: High
Dear DJ Dias,
I was wondering if you can help at this
time the hearing of the 09/08/2018 there is still an outstanding order to be
sealed by the court. I know my son's solicitor has been trying to address this
with Enfield Council and as yet has had no reply from them regarding the
amended order. I know my son's solicitor has sent the amended order over to the
court directly.
I have also been working with them
regarding the housing move for my son, but am being told they will only move
him to a like to like property; this will be going to the housing panel on the
28/09/2018 regarding the move for my son, I know in Enfield Council order that
was made up they included in this regarding the order from the court my son is
moved I believe this was to give my son more weight with the housing panel.
My son is not at all well and the and I
believe he does need a two bedroom property so he can get the support he needs
from his family as I said in court on the 09/08/2018, I am not just saying this
to be able to get my son a two bedroom, I am saying this so my son can have
family with him all the time so that I can try and get my son back to some sort
of a normal life and the help he needs.
It is at this point that Enfield
Council does not seem to want to reply to my son's solicitor's amended order
that a two bedroom is looked into they have put everything else but that in
there order, I am trying my hardest to work with everyone so my son gets the
help that is needed and I do feel a two bedroom is needed so there can be
someone for my son at all times as I feel that this is the best option for my son.
If you can look into the amended order
attached, I would be most grateful as I believe if it is added to the order it
would give more weight when it goes to the panel on 28/09/2018.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Trishna
Kerai [mailto:Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk]
Sent: 17
September 2018 10:32
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Dear Sirs,
Further to the email below,
please confirm whether you have received our drafted amended order.
I have attached it again for
your attention.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
2143,
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Trishna
Kerai
Sent: 17
September 2018 09:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Hi Ludmilla,
Further to my email below, could
I please have a response with your views in relation to our proposed amended
Order. Many thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
2144,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker | Magistrates
Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in reliance
of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To avoid
incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in
this email without the express permission of the sender. When addressed to our
clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or attachments are
subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client
engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received this
email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020 8888
5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Trishna
Kerai
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Ludmilla,
Please find our final draft of the
Order. You will see the amendments we have made.
Please provide us with your views.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
2145,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 15
August 2018 15:49
To: Dias, DJ Allison
Cc:
Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Judge,
Further to the hearing which took
place on 9th August 2018, I attach a draft order for the Court's approval. I
apologise for the delay in sending this draft order to you, I have been waiting
for the Defendant's solicitor’s approval which has not been received as yet.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and
Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell
is an
2146,
existing council tenant, he is
entitled to apply for a transfer of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing
application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can
support him with his MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to
reflect the above and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN13XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2147,
RE: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order
09082018->LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.docx
Claim No:
E00ED049
IN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
2148,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for
carers and for his family so he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
5. The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
6. The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
7. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
8. There be
no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s publicly
funded costs.
Dated: 09
August 2018
71.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1022. Lorraine
Cordell _Fwd._ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
07/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2149,2150
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1022. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
07/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2149,2150
--
2149,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 07
October 2018 23:57
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla Lyavoo
I was wondering if you had any update
yet regarding the panel meeting on the 28/09/2018 as I have not heard anything.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2018, at 16:08,
Ludmilla Iyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Lorraine Cordell,
Thank you for your emails and your
phone calls. I have been in meetings so was unable to attend to them.
I am taking instructions from my
officers and will respond to your emails in due course.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 02
October 2018 15:32
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ludmilla Lyavoo
Could you please get back to me
with an update as to what's going on. I have spoken to Lemmy today and he does
not know anything, but when he gets back to the office he would give you a
message to contract me, I have left voice messages for a call back for an
update on your office number and I have also sent emails and heard nothing from
you, could you please get back to me with an update, as my son can't take much
more of what he is having to live with.
2150,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my
iPhone
On 1 Oct 2018, at 17:56,
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
Dear Ludmilla Lyavoo
Could you give me an update
please as I have not heard anything.
Regards
Lorraine
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
72.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1036.
Ludmilla Lyavoo _Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (2)
12/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2151,2152,2153,2154
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1036. Ludmilla Lyavoo _Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] _ (2)
12/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2151,2152,2153,2154
--
2151,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
October 2018 11:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Trishna Kerai
Subject: Simon
Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Letter to Mrs Cordell 12.10.2018.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mrs Cordell,
Please find attached a copy of
our correspondence, in response to your recent emails.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2152,
should perform their own virus
checks.
2153,
2154,
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1038. Ludmilla Lyavoo _Pre-action letter Simon
Cordell 15
15/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2155,2156
2157,2158,2159,2160,2161,2162
2163,2164,2165,2166
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1038. Ludmilla Lyavoo _Pre-action letter Simon
Cordell 15
15/10/2018
/ Page Numbers:
2155,
From: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 15
October 2018 16:46
To: Trishna Kerai
Cc: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Pre-action
letter Simon Cordell 15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Pre-action
letter Simon-Cordell 15.10.2018.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Trishna,
We are receiving continuous
report of harassment against Mr Cordell by his neighbours. We therefore enclose
a pre-action letter for your client's attention.
Mrs Lorraine Cordell is also
copied in.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government
2156,
Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2157,
2158,
2159,
2160,
2161,
2162,
2163,
2164,
2165,
2166,
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.36
lorraine32@blueyonder.couk_10.15.2018_Re Simon CORDELL
15/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2167
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.36
lorraine32@blueyonder.couk_10.15.2018_Re Simon CORDELL
15/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2167
--
2167,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 15
October 2018 19:24
To: Trishna@stuartmiNersolicitors.co.uk
Subject: Re: Simon CORDELL
Dear Trishna
Could you pls call me regards
Enfield council please, I did try to call the office last week to speak to you
but was told you will not be back until tomorrow, my phone number is 07807
333545
Regards
Lorraine CORDELL
Sent from my iPhone
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4748 16-10-2018 01-45
16/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2168,2169
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4748 16-10-2018 01-45
16/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2168,2169
--
2168,
From:
GoDaddy <AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time: 16/10/2018
01:44:43 AM
Subject: Simon,
your October account summary inside.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020
7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
October Account Summary for
Simon.
View Your Account
Did you register a
. co.uk,
. org.uk or
. me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain
name may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019.
Learn more.
This is a great time
to ensure your account is secure. Update your password and
add or review two-step verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab under "Settings" to opt-in
to offers related to your purchase.
Shop now >
Domains
Update your domain settings
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
toosmooth.co.uk
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
Manage Your Domains
2169,
cPanel Hosting
Build trust with a .org web
address. Use this respected domain to promote your cause, increase awareness or
inspire support. Shop .org domains for just Ł16.10 Ł5.99 today.
Ł17.10
Ł3.10*
Ł923
Ł0.86*
Ł7.71*
See offer terms, conditions, and
legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1.
2.
Mother
We are receiving neighbours 17-10-2018 -09-13
17/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2170,2171,2172,2173,2174,2175,2176,2177,2178,2179,2180,2181
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1. 2.
Mother We are receivs neighbours 17-10-2018 -09-13
17/10/2018
/ Page Numbers:
2170,2171,2172,2173,2174,2175,2176,2177,2178,2179,2180,2181
--
2170,
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded
message:
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo <Lidmilla.lYavoo@enrield.gov.uk>
Date: 15
October 2018 at 16:46:16 BST
To: Trishna Kerai <Trishna@sluartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Cc: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject:
Pre-action letter Simon Cordell 15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Trishna,
We are receiving continuous
report of harassment against Mr Cordell by his neighbours. We therefore enclose
a pre-action letter for your client's attention.
Mrs Lorraine Cordell is also
copied in.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/newsletters
httpy/www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
17/10/2018 09:13:12 PM
Subject: Fwd.:
Pre-action letter Simon Cordell 15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Pre-action letter Simon Cordell 15.10.2018.pdf
Here
2171,
recipient and receive it in
error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way.
All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2172,
Pre-action letter Simon Cordell
15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
2173,
Pre-action letter Simon Cordell
15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
2174,
Pre-action letter Simon Cordell
15.10.2018 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
2175,2176,2177,2178,2179,2180,2181,
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1041.
Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ (DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) Simon's Assessment Report (2)
25/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2182,2183,2184,2185,2186
2187,2188,2189,2190,2191,2192
2193,2194,2195,2196,2197,2198
2199,2200,2201,2202,2203
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1041. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._
(DPS_1_CR_326592_9V) Simon's Assessment Report (2)
25/10/2018
/ Page Numbers:
2182,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 25
October 2018 14:48
To: Nawal@stuartmiNersolicitors.co.uk
Subject: Fwd.:
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's Assessment Report
Attachments: image001.jpg
ATT00164.htm; image002.jpg
ATT00167.htm
image003.jpg
ATT00170.htm
image004.jpg
ATT00173.htm
image005.jpg
ATT00176.htm
image006.png
ATT00179.htm
image007.png
ATT00182.htm
ATT00185.pdf
ATT00188.htm
Hi Nawal
Pls see report for Simon Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded
message:
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Date: 20
July 2018 at 16:28:13 BST
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: (DPS:1:CR:
326592:9V) Simon's Assessment Report
Dear Lorraine,
Please find attached Simon's
medical assessment report. Please note that this works in our favour as it will
allow us to possibly get rid of the Injunction Order completely.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
STUARTMILLER
2183,
Blank Page!
2184,
Blank Page!
2185,
Blank Page!
2186,
Blank Page!
2187,
Blank Page
2188,
Blank Page!
2189,
Blank Page!
2190,
Blank Page!
2191,
Blank Page!
2192,
Blank Page!
2193,
Blank Page!
2194,
Blank Page!
2195,
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
2196,
2197,
2198,
2199,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's
Assessment Report!
2200,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's
Assessment Report!
2201,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's
Assessment Report!
2202,
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's
Assessment Report!
2203
(DPS:1:CR: 326592:9V) Simon's
Assessment Report!
78.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1.
2.
Mother
The doctor gark in the end 29-10-2018-06-17
29/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2204,2205,2206,2207,2208,2209,2210
78.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1. 2.
Mother The doctor gark in the end 29-10-2018-06-17
29/10/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2204,2205,2206,2207,2208,2209,2210
--
2204,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
29/10/2018 06:17:19 PM
Subject: FW:
Re: Section-2-Paperwork
Attachments: Section-2-chase-farm-25-10-2018.pdf
Simon
The doctor gave me the paperwork
in the end so I took it so it could be scanned and sent to you that way it
can’t be taken away again. with attachment
Mum
2205,
2206,
2207,
2208,
2209,
2210,
***
79.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1.
2.
Mother
Please see attached 06-11-2018 -06-45
06/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2211,2212,2213,2214,2215,2216,2217,2218,2219,2220,2221,2222,2223,2224,2225
79.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1. 2.
Mother Please see attached
06-11-2018 -06-45
06/11/2018
/ Page Numbers:
2211,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 06/11/2018
06:45:08 PM
Subject: RE:
Hospital-Report-06-11-2018
Attachments: Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
please see attached
2212,
NHS
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
Dorset ward
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health Trust
The Chase Building 127
The Ridgeway
Enfield
EN2 8JL
Tel: 020
87024669
Fax: 020
8375 1442
Mental Health Tribunal Report
Date:
01/11/18
Patient details
Mr Simon Cordell (11214451)
Date of birth: 26 Jan
1981
Address: 109
Burncroft Avenue,
Enfield
Post Code: EN3
7JQ
Circumstances of admission and
background
Mr Cordell is a 37 years old man with previous
diagnosis of F29X - Unspecified nonorganic psychosis. He has been known to
CAMHS service in the past and to Adult Mental Health Services since 2014.
However he has not been engaging with the services in recent years despite
numerous attempts from mental health teams.
Mr Cordell become significantly unwell
in mental health in 2014. He deteriorated significantly in mental state, but he
refused engage with mental health service and declined to take medication.
Consequently he had to be detained under Section 2 of MHA in 2016. He was
treated with medication (Olanzapine) during the admission but soon after
discharge he stopped taking his medication. He continued to be seen by Early
Intervention service following a discharge, but he continued to refuse any
treatment for his condition. This led to further deterioration in mental
health. When Mr Cordell is unwell, he presents with persecutory delusions about
his neighbours, council staff and the police. As a result of paranoid beliefs
he becomes more aggressive and threatening especially towards neighbours. From
2016 to January 2018 there were numerous complaints from neighbours reported
about Nr Cordell’s acts of harassment and antisocial behaviour. This led to an
interim injunction order (harassment order) to be issued against Mr Cordell, at
the Edmonton County Court, in January 2018. Mr Cordell breached the order on
multiple occasions. It has been reported that his neighbours have been
assaulted, harassed, and have received threats from Mr Cordell. In addition, Mr
Cordell disengaged with EIS.
In April 2018 further deterioration in
mental health was observed when he contacted the police and complained about
the neighbours making noise. EIS team was contacted and they offered to review
Mr Cordell, but he refused to work with them again.
On the 1st of June he was
arrested for harassing his neighbours and breaching the injunction order
against him. He threatened his neighbour who was at the time with her two
children that he
1
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2213,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
will kill her and her children “ You fucking bitch, I have a bomb for
you, I will get in your block, kill you and your children At that point, EIS
stated that he has gone beyond EIS three year treatment period and therefore
they referred his case to Enfield North Locality Team in June 2018. During the
period of next few months (from June 2018 until October 2018 - they were
reported numerous accounts of harassment and assaults to his council on his
neighbour) Mr Cordell has continued to harass his neighbours and has refused to
engage with mental health services. Few neighbours already moved out from their
flats due to Mr Cordell’s aggressive behaviour and Enfield Council decided to
seek possession of Mr Cordell’s flat via the courts. In a recent court case the
judge recommended that Enfield Council re-house Mr Cordell on the proviso that
he engages with the MH Team. However he failed to do that.
In October 2018, Mr Cordell was
physically aggressive towards another service user who lives in the same
building as him. Mr Cordell took him by the throat and left him feeling unable
to walk around on the floor or even flush his toilet chain for fear of sparking
another altercation (with no basis) about excessive noise.
This triggered a safeguarding process
and Enfield Adult North Locality Team decided to organise MHA assessment as Mr
Cordell refused to engage with them.
Consequently, he was referred for MHA
assessment on the 17th of October 2018. Enfield Adult North Locality
Team agreed that he is at risk to others and his behaviour could also put him
at risk from others. Application for 135(1) was made however a judge found
insufficient evidence presented for a warrant. He was referred to a forensic
sector following this event.
On the 25th of October he
was arrested as the police were called to his flat regarding him breaking a
harassment order and that day, he allegedly assaulted the police who attended
by spitting. Consequently, he was taken to Wood Green police station. He was
found to be thought disordered with grandiose and persecutory delusions,
hypomanic with flight of ideas and pressured speech. Therefore MHA assessment
was organised. He was detained under section 2 of MHA and admitted to Dorset
ward, Chase Farm Hospital on the 25th of October 2018.
Mr Cordell explained that the police
were conspiring with medics and the council to silence him as he had uncovered
police corruption. He also said his neighbours two floors above were
controlling the neighbour below them and caused them to stamp on the floor and
disturb him. It was reported that he appeared to lack insight into his
presentation as he did not believe he was mentally unwell and was adamant to
see a psychiatrist for treatment.
Mental state examination on admission
Mr Cordell is 37-year-old male, mixed
origin, slim build. He was wearing casual and dirty clothes. He engaged in
conversation and made eye contact throughout. He was calm and polite during the
interview; no aggression was observed but did become mildly restless at points.
The conversation was one sided with Mr Cordell keen to talk. He presented with
pressured speech and flight of ideas. Mood, subjectively he described as “fine,
a bit elated”, objectively he was elated. Thoughts: He presented thought
disordered with tangential thinking, grandiose and persecutory delusions. He
was oriented to time, place, and person. He presented with poor insight - does
not want any medications, he does not believe that has a mental health
disorder.
Risk
To self - high
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2214,
NHS
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
Immediate risk to self is low as he
denies any thoughts of self-harm or suicide. There are previous reports of
suicide attempt as teenager. However he is at high risk of being evicted from
his property at present due to deterioration in his mental state and behaviour
and his mental and physical health could be significantly affected if he
becomes homeless.
To others - high
He denies thoughts or plans to hurt
others. He has clearly documented history of aggressive behaviour and currently
elated.
From others - high, as he can be
aggressive towards others, he is at risk of retaliation from others.
Risk of physical and verbal aggression
towards others noted. This in turn, increases risk of others retaliating,
therefore harm towards Mr Cordell.
Past psychiatric history:
Mr Cordell reportedly had disrupted
childhood spending some adolescence in care. He was under CAMHS due to anxiety
as a teenager.
Mr Cordell tried to hang himself at the
age of 16 when in a young offender’s institution; he says he lost consciousness
and needed to be resuscitated. He was moved to a high security hospital and
kept in seclusion on a number of occasions, but he says he would destroy the
padded cell with his teeth. He says he was seen regularly by a psychiatrist
called Dr Caplin from "the safe project".
Mr Cordell says there was a second
occasion where he tried to hang himself when in a cell after he was sentenced.
Mr Cordell denies any contact with
Mental Health Services between that point and 2014.
In March 2014 - He was diagnosed with
Adjustment reaction “anxiety and suicidal thoughts over the last nine months in
the context of having a pending court case (accused of burglary). He was
offered Sertraline 50mg OD.
In November 2014 - Mr Cordell was under
Home Treatment Team. He was diagnosed with Psychotic episode - not deemed
sanctionable under MHA. Following this episode he disengaged with mental health
service.
In November 2015 - He was referred via
BEH HUB to mental health services. At that time Mr Cordell was not eating, not
sleeping, he was paranoid saying people were talking about him or laughing at
him, believed the government was advertising things about him, the TV was
talking about him and talking directly to him. He was smoking cannabis at that
time. He was again found non sanctionable under MHA and disengaged with the
service.
In February 2016 it was applied for
Warrant 135 (1) - but not sufficient evidence was presented to the judge for a
warrant.
In August 2016, he was admitted under
Section 2 of the MHA following custody at Wood Green station for threats to
kill - section 2 reversed on appeal. He was discharged on Olanzapine 5mg and
followed up by EIS. It was reported poor compliance with medication on
discharge. Consequently he was discharged from EIS due to disengagement.
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2215,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health ISIHS Trust
NHS
Past medical history:
Simon said he had Crohn's disease as a
child. He denied any other physical health problems.
Current medications
Nil.
Personal/family history- information
taken from previous assessments/reports
Mr Cordell was born at Chase
Farm Hospital. He has a younger brother and sister. Mr Cordell says he knows
his maternal grandmother attempted suicide on a number of occasions and had had
admissions to mental hospital. Mr Cordell's father worked as a union
representative and his mother ran her own computer company. His parents
recently divorced.
Mr Cordell says he did not get
on well with his father who was a violent man. He was violent towards Mr
Cordell, Mr Cordell's mother and siblings. Mr Cordell left home at the age of
fifteen and was homeless for a while. He was placed in to care after stealing a
pint of milk. He was placed in a series of children's care homes around the UK
but says that each time he would steal a car and drive back to London.
Mr Cordell said he was pushed
hard to achieve at school by his father and that he was "an A-star
student" for most of the time. He says he was intelligent and would do the
work at other times and as a result would often just "mess about" in
class. He went on to college and studied engine mechanics, completing a city
& guilds qualification. After leaving school he went on to get jobs in the construction
industry.
Mr Cordell says he has tried to
build himself up a business for providing party entertainment. At the moment he
says he is not able to earn from this due to the restrictions of his bail.
Mr Cordell has had two long term
relationships. First relationship lasted for thirteen years. Mr Cordell thinks
they broke up due to the repeated involvement of the police in their lives and
the stress this has caused. He is currently in a relationship with Katy and he
said that they were expecting a baby.
Mr Cordell says he does not
smoke tobacco and does not drink alcohol.
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.
2216,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
Grandmother (? maternal) had
BPAD and/or schizophrenia.
Social history:
Mr Cordell works from home currently.
He says that he does 9-10-hour shifts building his website. Previously he has
had multiple different jobs including working at a market and brick laying. He
has a new baby on the way with Katy - due to get married soon. From Rio -
“Enfield Council will be seeking possession of Mr Cordell’s flat via the
courts. In a recent court case the judge recommended that Enfield Council
re-house Mr Cordell on the proviso that he engages with the MH Team. He failed
to fulfil the requirement.
Drug and alcohol history- information
taken from previous assessments/reports
He reported being “Clean as anything,
occasionally have a puff of a cigarette”. He denies drinking any alcohol.
However UDS was positive for cannabis on admission.
Note on Rio previous LSD and cannabis
use.
Forensic history -information taken
from previous assessments/reports
He reported being linked to 500
cases, but he has won every one. He says these are all linked to driving
offences.
From Rio - 2015- 5y ASBO for organising
illegal raves- not allowed to enter industrial or disused premises
between 10pm and 7 am. Young Offender's Institution at the age of 16 after
repeated driving offences (driving without a license). Taken into custody for
threats to kill.
August 2017 an
injunction order was issued though this was discharged by the court in November
2017 due to a procedural error
On the 9th of January 2018
an injunction order was issued against him due to verbal
and physical abuse towards his neighbours and council employees and antisocial
behaviour. He breached the injunction order on multiple occasions. This was
discharged in July 2018, following a forensic psychiatry assessment
which deemed him to lack capacity to understand the conditions of the
injunction (as a result of a psychotic illness).
Enfield council report was issued
recently regarding tenancy concerns and breaches:
The report says the following:
We have received several complaints of
anti-social behaviour against you and going back to 2016 for which you have
been warned numerous times, verbally and formally in writing. Please see below
a list of reports made against you:
1. On 6th
July 2016, it is alleged that you approached an elderly neighbour as he came
out of his flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to
burn down his flat.
2. Sometime
in July 2016 it is alleged that you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric
cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no electricity to his flat.
3. On 6th
August 2016, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours and his
wife and aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you
repeatedly swore and shouted
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2217,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
abuse at him and his wife and called his wife a ‘bitch’ and
tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat by standing in front of
him.
4. Sometimes
in September 2016 it is alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour
outside your block of flats, 109-119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the
local park with another resident and started to shout abuse and He was arrested
on the 1st of June due to breaching the injunction order.
5. threats
at him and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a
walk’.
6. On
27th September 2016, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours
as he was returned to his flat with his family and threatened and swore at him and
demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you later banged on his door,
shouted further abuse, and swear words at him and accused him of making noises
inside his flat.
7. On
28th September 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on a neighbour’s
door and threatened and shouted verbal abuse and swearwords at them. It is also
alleged that you aggressively demanded money from him.
8. On 4th
October 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your ceiling and
accused one of your neighbours of making noises, you then went to your
neighbour’s flat and started kicking and banging on his front door
aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor and was swearing and shouting
abuse at him. It is also alleged that you later went downstairs, dragged your
neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and started to hit it with a
piece of wood.
9. On
22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell
your mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported
that she overheard you threatened her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and
then ‘I’m goanna take her job just for fun’.
10. On 8th
December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbours’ front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making
noise.
11. On
11th December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door several times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also
alleged that you shouted abuse and threats at them.
12. On
14th December 2016, it is alleged that you were verbally abusive towards a
woman who was visiting one of your neighbours as she knocked on your
neighbour’s door.
13. On
23rd December 2016, it is alleged that you banged on a neighbour’s front door,
shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their tap off. You then removed
their electricity fuse thereby cutting off their power supply.
14. 13.On
26th December 2016, it is alleged that you ran up the communal stairs to the
first floor and confronted one of your neighbours as he was going out with his
family and started to shout abuse and threats at him and his wife and accused
him of tampering with your water supply, you also attempted to stop him from
leaving the block.
15. On 3rd
January 2017, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as he
returned to the block with his wife and two-year-old daughter and started
shouting abuse and threats at them.
16. On
21st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse and threats at them and accused them
of making noises.
17. On
31st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at them and accused them of
banging on the floor.
18. We
received a report that on 7th February 2017 you approached the leaseholder of
117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as they were attempting
to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the flat. You said to the
leaseholder that there were problems between you and his tenants but did not
give any specific details. The leaseholder explained to you that his tenants
were experiencing low water pressure in the flat and you said to him ‘you will
not solve the problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder
later
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2218,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
knocked on your door and asked whether you would increase
the water pressure and you stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will
sort it out later’.
19. On 24th
February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk
(Maintenance Surveyor) attended your property at flat 109 Burncroft Avenue to
inspect the property following reports of low water pressure from flats 113 and
117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside your flat, they observed that you have
installed an iron security gate inside your front door. It also appeared to
them that the wall between your kitchen and living room seemed to have been
removed thereby creating an open plan effect. Much of the property was taken up
industrial type printers, boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in your
back garden.
20. On
17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to
post a letter through your door and as he got into his car to drive off after
posting the letter, you ran after him shouting and screaming abuse. The letter
requested that you attend our offices to discuss the nuisance reports being
received from your neighbours. By the time he returned to the office, you had telephoned
him several times. He telephoned you back and you asked whether he was the
person that posted a letter through your letterbox and he said yes. You asked
why he did not stop when you ran after him and he stated that he had another
visit and did not have the time to stop and talk to you. You stated that you
will not attend the meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices
as you are unable to leave your flat and that the meeting should take place in
your flat. Mr Nwabuisi offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and
suggested the local library or at your mother's house, but you refused saying
that you have done nothing wrong and accused him of taking sides with your
neighbours.
21. On 5th
May 2017, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours by saying
that you will ruin his life and that you were going to the police to present
evidence about his illegal activities.
22. On
14th May 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at her and falsely accused her of
making noise and coming into your flat to attack you. You later followed her to
her car shouting abuse and wanting to know where she was going.
23. On
14th May 2017 it is alleged that you allowed your dog to run freely in the
communal area of your block without a lead.
24. On
28th May 2017, the police issued you with a first instance Harassment letter
following reports of harassment and threatening behaviour made to the police by
one of your neighbours. 24.) On 9th June 2017, it is alleged that you attacked
one of your neighbours in the communal hallway of your block as he returned
from work late at night by grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing
bruising to his arm and neck. You also snatched his phone from him as he tried
to video-record the incident.
25. On
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your
neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to
her that you had her bank details and personal details such as date of birth
and said to her that you wanted her and her husband to pay you some money.
26. On
18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your
neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to
her that you knew what time she went out and what time she returned and to tell
her husband that you would like to speak to him.
27. On 23rd
June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that you came out of your flat with your
dog without a lead and attacked one of your neighbours as he returned from work
by punching him twice on the chest. You tried to push him out of the block and
snatched his phone as he brought took it out of his pocket to record the
incident.
28. On
28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was leaving the block. You swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her
of making noise inside her flat. You told her that you know all her personal
details and that of her husband including their full names, phone numbers, date
of birth and banking details. You demanded that they pay you some money and
asked her to tell her husband to come and see you.
29. On
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.
2219,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
leaving the block and accused her of slamming the door. She
denied slamming the door and called her a liar and proceeded to swear and shout
abuse at her.
30. On 2nd
July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as he
was going out with his family with your dog barking and without a lead and
asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is also alleged that as
they left the block, you ran after them swearing and shouting abuse at your
neighbour and demanding that he must pay you some money if he wants you to
leave him alone. You also said to him that you have all their personal details
including their dates of birth and bank details.
31. On
12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended your flat to investigate
reports of low water pressure to flats above yours, but you refused him access.
The Surveyor attended your flat again in the evening of the same day following
further reports that the water supply to the affected flats had completely
ceased and you refused him access. You then followed him to his car swearing
and shouting abuse at him and prevented him from entering his car. He then
called the police.
32. On
11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of your neighbours that you
came to their front door, opened the letterbox, and peeped through it to see
who was inside the flat. You then started swearing and shouting abuse and
banging on their front door as soon as you saw the neighbour’s wife.
33. On 2nd
January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that you stood outside your neighbour’s
property for more than twenty minutes swearing and shouting abuse. You went
away and returned half an hour later, you lifted their letterbox, stuck your
mobile phone through the letterbox and started to record his family while
swearing and shouting abuse. This went on for about fifteen minutes.
34. On 9th
January 2018 at about 12.18pm, you telephone Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour
officer) and accused him of forging documents to get an anti-social behaviour
order against him and you told him that he had made you a prisoner within your
home. You also stated that you knew where he lives in Enfield and that he and
his family were not safe from you. You also told him that you would watch him
leave the office and you would have followed him home and he needed to watch
his back. You called the ASB officer again 30 minutes later and told him that
you knew he has a flat in Edmonton and also knew that one of his colleagues
lives in Edmonton. You also stated that you knew where they live, and they were
not safe.
35. On 9th
January 2018 you called Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and left a
long voicemail on her work telephone number and made threats.
36. On
26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that you came to one of
your neighbour’s front door and started making loud banging noises and rattling
with their letter box. You ran away after the neighbour opened her front door.
37. On 1st
March 2018 it is alleged that you knocked on one of your neighbours’ door
loudly, you started rattling with their letter box and started shouting. This
went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but you left after you’ve heard that the neighbour
was calling the police.
38. On
15th March 2018 it is alleged that you swore, shouted, and assaulted one of you
neighbours in front of his wife and his 3 years old child.
39. On 1st
May 2018, you attended the Edmonton County Court as there was a hearing listed
in relation to an injunction. It is alleged that you started shouting abuse,
swore and make threats to two of the Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB
officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and to one of your neighbours who
attended Court to give evidence. You also swore at a judge. These incidents
were witnessed by members of staff working at the Court.
40. On
29th May 2018, it is alleged that you attended one of your neighbours’
property; you took your dog with you and waited by their front door. It is
alleged that you tried to intimidate them as they were due to attend a hearing
in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in support of a claim for an
injunction issued against you.
41. On
30th May 2018, it is alleged that you made threats to kill to one of your
neighbours. The matter was reported to the police. You were arrested and
released on bail.
42. You
assaulted one of your neighbours on the 26th August 2018 for flashing his
toilet.
43. You
telephoned two council officers (Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla lyavoo) on 12t
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2220,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
September 2018 and made threats to them over the telephone.
You also accused them of fraud and of fabricating evidence to support the
Council’s claim for an injunction
44. On
12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, you called one of your neighbours on his
mobile phone using a private number. It is not known how you obtained his
number, but he terminated the call. You called again using the same private
number, but he terminated the call as soon as he heard your voice. You called
repeatedly after that.
45. On
24th September 2018 at about 11,30am, one of your neighbours returned home from
dropping her daughter at school and as she entered their block of flat, she
noticed that the middle door on the ground floor was open as well as your front
door. As she went up the stairs to their second floor flat, your dog came out of
your flat and started barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs to
her flat to escape from the dog. It was reported that your dog is always
barking whenever they go out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4
years old daughter are terrified.
46. One of
your neighbours reported that his cousin was leaving the block at about on 2nd
October 2018 at 12.45pm, and as you exited the block, you followed him and
suddenly grabbed his jacket from behind and tried to pull him to the ground.
The cousin started shouting to attract neighbours and managed to push you off.
47. There
are other reports from one of your neighbours who reported that on 30th
September 2018, you attempted to break down his front door by kicking it
several times only because he flashed his toilet.
48. It is
reported that you continue to harass and intimidate other residents on a
regular basis.
On the 25th of October he
was arrested for breaching the injection order and spitting at
the police officer on arrest.
Treatment and progress on the ward
On admission to Dorset ward, Mr Cordell
presented elated, mildly irritable and thought disordered. On arrival to the
room he remained calm and polite. He started the conversation by asking for
duty doctor’s name, which he wrote down on a paper. He then stated he has been
detained here illegally because they think he is grandiose. He then went onto
give the duty doctor a timeline of events which were largely related to the
police and his connection with mental health services. In summary, he holds paranoid
ideas that the police have charged him 'in illegal ways' for an ASBO for
'organisation of illegal raves. This has led to several on-going issues with
the police who have involved mental health services and it is a conspiracy
against him.
He states he wasn't assessed properly
by doctors today (25/10/18) and that the doctors who saw him today (25/10/18)
have previously tried to section him and 'failed' because he has 'video
recordings' to prove he is innocent. He referred to multiple acts and dates which
apparently are being broken by keeping him here.
He states he has several businesses
that the police have tried to stop, including 'owning festivals' and his
website called 'horrific corruption' and associated newsroom which he uses to
expose police and doctors who are working in illegal ways. He states he has
'been wronged 78 times by the police' and will 'expose all of the doctors and
police' involved.
He spoke about being a 'privileged
member of the community' and has never tried to hurt anyone. He reports the
police have framed him in a 'sex scandal' and caused multiple issues. He
described a negative relationship with neighbours and states that they bang
from above continuously. He states a previous partner was pregnant and the
neighbours banging led to the
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2221,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
baby being lost.
He denies having a mental health
illness and states he will get out of here once he has his laptop containing
video graphic proof and was requesting a tribunal. During the course of the
conversation he refused to acknowledge he has been sectioned and was adamant he
would be able to leave but was not forceful or physically attempting to leave.
When he was seen by ward doctor on the
26th of October Mr Cordell feels he is in hospital because the
police have “falsified” a report that led to him being kept on a curfew for
years.
He proceeded to talk at length about
circumstance that led him to be charged for handling of stolen goods and
suspicion of burglary in 2013. He believes the case was handled poorly and is
sure the police were conspiring against him. “The abuse of process by the civil
service was unreasonable”.
Following this he reports being placed
on a 2-year injunction and a 5-year curfew. He feels this has led to a
breakdown in a 13-year relationship he had. He also reports this affecting his
company -a community interest company he started up. At one-point Mr Cordell
also mentioned the police targeting him for holding large parties that he was
adamant were not hosted by him.
Mr Cordell reports owning a couple of
local festivals and talks about engaging with multiple charities helping
children. He says he had to stop this as police were harassing him in front of
the children. He alleges to own his own company, his own paper and has just
bought his own book maker for 70000 pounds. He also reports having 180000
friends on Facebook due to all his free parties.
When asked about his neighbours Mr
Cordell said he believes his neighbours have been making up complaints about
him. “My neighbours are calling up the police after forging the paperwork.” He
feels that his neighbours have been attacking him and reports feeling anxious
in his house. Simon says he “kept writing to the police saying please can you
protect me”.
He does not think he is unwell and does
not think he has a mental health problem. He admits he might be elevated but he
believes this is a constructive state.
Mr Cordell reports not being compliant
with any of his medication at any point. He is refusing to take any medication
during this admission. “I’ve spent thousands of pounds showing you my brain, me
being alert saves lives.”
Mr Cordell would like to appeal his
section and feels that by keeping him in hospital we are breaching his rights.
“Physical or mental suffering amount to torture”
He reports sleeping, eating, and
drinking well. Later he suggested this may not be the case stating, “In the
night-time when my neighbours are asleep that’s the best time for working”.
Impression was that he presented with
paranoid and grandiose delusions with significant mood component. In view of
long-term symptoms this is most likely consistent with a Schizoaffective
disorder. He does not currently have capacity for treatment or admission.
He settled in over the weekend,
personal hygiene remained poor, smell of cannabis on him was noticed.
On the 29th October 2018
when he was seen by a nurse, he was irritable and quite hostile. He was
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2222,
NHS
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
on the phone to his relative,
complaining about police and claimed to be falsely accused.
On the 29th of October
Formulation meeting was held:
Care coordinator ‘s feedback:
This
is only the second time meeting Simon. There have been issues with reports he
is assaulting other residents in his council accommodation.
Nursing report:
He
appears paranoid on the ward.
interview with patient:
Mr Cordell appeared very agitated and
vocal and was keen to put across his opinion that he had been illegally
detained.
Mr Cordell reports issues with police
actions in regard to not giving him the ASBO folder properly - this was left
outside instead of giving it to him directly. Mr Cordell continued to explain
other problems with the police’s treatment of him. This includes the
metropolitan police having placed a photo of Mr Cordell in a folder in regard
to a party he had no involvement with. He denies being involved in any of the
parties mentioned in the ASBO. Mr Cordell spoke at length about the injustices
surrounding his placement on curfew and the ASBO order.
He describes how on multiple times
doctors have tried to assess him under the MHA and he has explained to them at
each time the situation with the police. He was once placed under a section 2
and was able to appeal his section.
Mr Cordell reports the neighbours (?2
floors up) trying to deliberately disturb him by making a lot of noise and
flushing the toilet multiple times. He feels they want him to get distressed
and go upstairs to address them. They have been doing this over the last 4
years and are doing this throughout the day. From Mr Cordell’s flat you can
even hear them talking - there is apparently very poor sound proofing.
Mr Cordell has described a council
official as having forged statements and falsely accusing him of threatening
his life. Mr Cordell reports that he is being assaulted by his neighbours as is
his partner’s small child. He feels the stress from this situation may have
been linked to his partner’s miscarriage. Mr Cordell denies any acts of
antisocial behaviour, even in retaliation. At every point where he approaches
the upstairs neighbours, he states he calls the police to ask then to “protect”
him.
In regard to the recent arrest he
reports the police attended due to a fraudulent call from the neighbours. The
police tried to hand him a breach of harassment order which Mr Cordell ripped
and spat on the paper. The police officer then yelled that he had spat on her.
He was then arrested for assault to a police officer. This charge was dropped
in the police station and he was referred for an MHA.
Mr Cordell is currently on benefits. He
reports the expensive hardware he owns (e.g. 70000-pound bookmaker) he buys
broken and second hand cheaply and fixes them. Mr Cordell works from home. He
built a new model constitution - a community interest company which was a
charity farm.
Collateral information:
His mother and uncle would like mental
health service to stop referring to Mr Cordell reporting the police as being
prejudice against him as delusional - they believe this can be proved (showing
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2223,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
photos of his company truck and
hardware).
Mr Cordell ‘s mother is very
upset that doctors have submitted reports stating that he is delusional and
grandiose. They feel the AMHP report is grossly inaccurate.
Mr Cordell ‘s uncle is also
upset that the mental health team would not provide Mr Cordell with a letter to
assist with his housing situation.
They explain that the reason Mr
Cordell has not be prosecuted for the complaints made by the neighbours is
because each time Mr Cordell is able to "prove his innocence"
directly to the police.
Mr Cordell ‘s mother believes he
is very stressed due to the conditions of the ASBO and his neighbours
disturbing him.
His uncle would like us to check
the website that Mr Cordell has set up to highlight the injustices against him
“horrificcorruption.com”. (other websites
mentioned by Simon include the Way back machine and too smooth).
Impression was that Mr Cordell
was unstable in mental state and behaviour. He presented with persecutory
delusions and possibly auditory hallucinations.
Plan was:
1. Requires
further review of notes
2. Liaise
Enfield council re plans for housing - ask Rosie for input
Following the formulation
meeting he presented very grandiose - showing staff and peers his website and
that he has '20,000 emails and 500,000 phone contacts'. He seems elated and
keen to get his message across.
Dr Timothy Rogers e-mailed Dr
Greensides on the 30th of October 2018 as Mr Cordell was referred to a forensic
sector prior MHAA and wrote that he has terrorised their patient (who lives
above him) including one occasion taking him by the throat and left our patient
feeling unable to walk around on the floor or even flush his toilet chain for
fear of sparking another altercation (with no basis) about excessive noise.
Mr Cordell was reviewed on the
31st of October 2018 by Dr Greensides (Consultant psychiatrist), Dr Elia and Dr
Bruce:
Mr Cordell confirms his problems
began in 2013. He moved into his premises in 2013 - there was evidence of CO
poisoning in the flat and all the boiler systems and alarms had to be replaced.
Mr Cordell has been held on
curfew for a long time for organising a party and? wrongly accused of damaging
the premises. Also was accused of burglary and handling of stolen goods - he
was found innocent on both accounts.
Mr Cordell reports having had a
“relationship” with his current partner Katy for the last ?20 years. She has a
son from a previous relationship.
The problems with the neighbours
have been going on for 4 years now. Mr Cordell is concerned about his
neighbours, in particular to how their behaviour might affect their child. 6
flats in total in his council building - the neighbours that are problematic
are 2 floors above Mr Cordell’s. These
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2224,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
NHS
particular neighbours bang on
the water pipes, stamps on the floor (this echo through the flat between) -
this happens first thing in the morning and goes on through the day.
Mr Cordell believes his
neighbours sit in their flat eavesdropping on Mr Cordell’s whereabouts. When he
enters the bathroom, they enter their bathroom and flush the toilet a lot.
Simon has Video and Audio recordings throughout his flat in order to prove his
innocence. There is a husband and wife living there as well as a new-born baby.
Mr Cordell reports he can hear this family talking but he can’t make out what
they are saying - he denies them saying anything negative about him “they’ve
never spoke to me”.
Simon has personal information
about his neighbour which he feels is proof of? tax evasion - he reports the
family own 50 houses in the UK. The neighbour has changed their surname in
order to accommodate some scheme to avoid? tax - Mr Cordell reports he has
“100% evidence” that this is true and feels it is relevant to him because of
how they are treating him. Mr Cordell believes what the neighbours are doing is
a hate crime.
Mr Cordell denies ever having
felt like the TV was talking to him or that the council was advertising his
information. Mr Cordell does feel his personal information is being advertised
somehow - friends have approached him and have information about him he
believes can only have come from secure computer systems.
Mr Cordell is not concerned
about his tenancy at the moment - he states he has recordings that prove his
innocence. Simon is aware the council has told him to stay away from his
neighbours - since this time he states he hasn’t approached his neighbours. He
wants to publish a book about what has been going on. Simon does not appear to
accept that he has become fixated on this issue.
Mr Cordell does not think his
problems with his neighbours are in any way due to him having a mental health
problem. Mr Cordell wouldn’t like to take medication as he doesn’t feel he
needs it and is concerned medication may impact his ability work. He is
particularly concerned that the medication will “dope him out”.
Mr Cordell states he has a good
family support network. He is happy to see the ward psychologist.
Mr Cordell has been informed that
a referral to a forensic psychiatrist who may want to visit him on the ward.
Impression was that he presented
with persecutory delusions and poor insight into his condition. Not currently
deemed to be a risk to himself or others. He could be at high risk of losing
accommodation if continues untreated. Plan was:
1. For
Section 17 leave
2. No
medication at present
3. Refer
to ward Psychologist - Dr Patkas
He has terrorised our patient
(who lives above him) including one occasion taking him by the throat and left our
patient feeling unable to walk around on the floor or even flush his toilet
chain for fear of sparking another altercation (with no basis) about excessive
noise.
Simon-Report-06-11-2018.pdf
2225,
NHS
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
Opinion and recommendations
1. Mr
Cordell suffers from a mental disorder, the symptoms of which at present are persecutory
delusions, grandiose beliefs, and attitude. In addition, he also presented
thought disordered with circumstantial thinking. Probably he has been
experiencing auditory hallucinations too. His condition is complicated by poor
insight into his mental health illness and substance misuse.
2. This
illness is currently of a nature and degree to warrant detention under section
2 of the mental health act.
3. Without
this there are risks to his health, principally mental health which is likely
to continue to deteriorate without intervention. He is also at high risk from
being evicted from his current accommodation which could put his mental and
physical health at significant risk. His safety is compromised by possible
retaliation from others when he is behaving aggressively towards other people.
As well as the safety of others as he was aggressive to his neighbours, council
employees and police prior to admission.
4. This
cannot be carried out in the community as he has limited insight and refuses
intervention, tried for a number of years, and failed.
5. Should
he be discharged then he will be referred to the HTT but is not likely to
engage.
6.
Tribunal need no special arrangements
to accommodate Mr Cordell.
Dr Maja Elia
ST6 to Dr Jonathan Greensides
Consultant Psychiatrist, Dorset ward
80.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1.
2.
Mother
Here the two you got today 08-11-2018-09-29
08/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2226,2227,2228,2229,2230,2231,2232,2233,2234
80.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1. 2.
Mother Here the two you got
today 08-11-2018-09-29
08/11/2018
/ Page Numbers:
2226,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 08/11/2018
09:29:02 PM
Subject: Re:
Reports from today
Attachments: Si-Soobah-Appadoo-08-11-2018.pdf
Si-Bibi-Khodabux-08-11-2018.pdf
here the 2 reports you got today
2227,
Si-Bibi-Khodabux-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet, Enfield,
and Haringey
Mental Health NHS
Trust
«address of person preparing the
report»
Dorset ward
Inpatient Nursing Report on Simon
Cordell
Date of birth:
26/01/1981
Home address: 109
Burncroft Avenue Enfield
Post Code: EN3
7JQ
Hospital: Chase
Farm Hospital-
The Ridgeway Enfield Middlesex EN2 8JL.
MHA status: Section
2
Named Nurse:
Bibi Khodabux
Report prepared by
Bibi Khodabux
Sources of Information: Rio
notes, observations, feedback from the team and 1:1 session’s with patient.
·
I am a staff nurse on Dorset ward, and
I have known Simon since his admission to the ward.
1.
Circumstances leading to admission
Simon is a 37-year-old service user admitted on
25/10/18 under section 2 of the MHA. It was reported that he had not been
engaging with the services in recent years. He was arrested for spitting at a
police officer after they were called about him harassing his neighbours. He
also has a number of no molestation orders against him, forbidding him
contacting them. He was taken to Wood Green police station and during Mental
Health Act assessment he appeared to be thought disordered, had no insight,
held several grandiose and delusional beliefs. On admission he was irritable in
mood, elated and grandiose.
2.
Current nursing care
Simon is nursed in a safe environment. He has been
encouraged to approach staff to discuss his feelings. A therapeutic outlet has
been provided for him to ventilate his feelings.
3.
He has been offered 1:1
·
session with staff on each shift to
discuss his care plan and also to gain his cooperation and to get him involved
in his treatment. He was encouraged to get involved in his care plan and
discuss his views. Staff encouraged him to gain insight so that he would
engage.
·
Staff initiated establishing rapport
with him which has gradually improved.
·
He has politely declined to attend
occupational therapy sessions on the ward. He is currently nursed on general
observation.
·
Nursing report for inpatient
(Reports for MHA Hearings Policy v5.0 -
Appendix H)
2228,
Si-Bibi-Khodabux-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey CTJH
Mental Health NHS Trust
4.
Current medication
He is currently on no regular medication
He is on PRN Lorazepam Maximum 4 mg in 24 hours.
Paracetamol PRN 1g 4-6 hourly.
Ibuprofen 400 mg Maximum TDS in 24 hours
5.
Contact with others
He interacts well with fellow patients and staff on
the ward.
He has been leaving the ward to proceed on
unescorted section 17 leave and he complied with it.
His mother and uncle visited him on the ward and
observed to have interacted well with them.
6.
Progress on the ward-
On admission he presented with challenging
behaviour, intermittently agitated, hostile, argumentative, and demanding to
leave the ward but did not make any physical attempt to leave. He has now.
calmed down but there is limited progress in his mental state.
He has no insight and complains of being wrongfully
detained.
He states that there is a conspiracy by the police
and mental health services that are all out to get him. He claims to have set
up a website with details, videos, and recordings.
7.
During 1:1
with Simon he appears preoccupied with talking
about his websites
He states he has several businesses that the police
have tried to stop.
He is eating and drinking well.
He has limited insight.
He attends to his personal care which has improved.
He socialises with other patients and staff on the
ward.
He engages willingly with staffs.
8.
Incidents
There is no report of any incidents on the ward.
9.
Risk
At present risk to self is low. He did not express
any thoughts of self-harm.
He is at risk of further deterioration in his
mental state if he does not comply with medication.
Risk to others is low on the ward. He did not
present with any aggressive outburst during admission. Has been reported to be
at risk to his neighbours in the community due to his aggressive behaviour.
10. Factors
affecting this hearing
11. Nursing
report for inpatient
(Reports for MHA Hearings Policy v5.0 -
Appendix H)
2
2229,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Hearth NHS Trust
He should be able to attend this tribunal and also
cope with the outcome with the help and support from staffs.
12. Opinion
and recommendations
Is detention in hospital for (S2) or
the provision of medical treatment in hospital justified or necessary.
It is important that Simon remains in hospital
under section 2 so that his mental state can be fully assessed followed by
treatment.
He has no insight and is not willing to cooperate
with his treatment.
He does not believe that he needs medication.
There is a high probability that he will not
cooperate and disengage from services.
He will be putting himself and his neighbours at
risk due to his aggressive and confrontational behaviour.
He will be at risk of losing his accommodation.
Signed
Date: 03/11/2018
(Print Name) Bibi KHODABUX
Nursing report for inpatient
(Reports for MHA Hearings Policy v5.0 -
Appendix H)
3
2230,
Si-Soobah-Appadoo-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet Enfield and Haringey
Mental Health
Trust
Enfield Adult North Locality Team
58-60 Silver Street EN1 3EP
Social Circumstances Report for S.C Rio
no 11214451 on Section 2 of the MHA 1983/2007
Date of birth: 26th
January 1981
Home address: 109
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JQ
Date of Admission:
26™ October 2018
Hospital/Ward:
Chase Farm Hospital, Dorset Ward
Care Coordinator:
Soobah Appadoo- Allocated August 2018
Report prepared by: Soobah Appadoo
Sources of Information: Electronic
Documentation on Rio
Nearest Relative:
Ms Cordell (mother)
Date of this report:
7th November 2018
Who you are and in what capacity you know the
patient, how long you have worked with them: My name is Soobah Appadoo. I am
a CPN with the above-named team. I have been asked to compile this social
circumstance report in support of above-named patient’s Mental Health Review
Tribunal (MHRT) appeal against his detention under Section 2 of the Mental
Health Act.
·
Mr Cordell was admitted on section 2 on
the 26th October 2018.
·
Mr Cordell was previously under the
care of the Early Intervention Team for 3 years. The Early Intervention Team
discharged him in June 2018 and at that point he was referred to our team.
There is a suggestion on RIO notes that he did not engage well with that team.
·
I was allocated to Mr Cordell in August
2018. We offered him an appointment at his flat on the 31st August. Mr Cordell
rang our office the day before and spoke to me. I informed him that I am his
new Care Coordinator. He said that he had been seen for "76 days by his
CC" and there was "nothing wrong with me". He said that the
reason we want to see him is to "cover for missing signatures?". He
said he "will ruin anyone who come to my house" and he has
"recording cameras and audios" to ruin us. He said if you come to my
house "I f...ing will scar you for life".
He used foul languages throughout this contact. He said that I "can take
the f...ing referral and stick it up my a..e". He said that he does not want to see us. I
could not interrupt him: very verbally aggressive with pressure in
speech". I did manage to say that we are a different team from Lucas House
and we want him to have a fresh start- He said "I don't f...ing care"
·
Further to that the MDT advised that we
should assess Mr Cordell in clinic due to the potential risks. We then offered
him an appointment on the 28th September which Mr Cordell did not attend.
1
2231,
Si-Soobah-Appadoo-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
CTIH
Mental Health NHS Trust
·
My report is based on the information
which I have extracted from RIO and my telephone conversation with Mr Cordell’s
mother.
1.
Psychiatric history
·
On the 16th August 2016 Mr Cordell
was admitted to CFH under Section 2 of the MHA. He was discharged on the 27th
August 2016. According to RIO notes Mr Cordell “was arrested at his home
address after his mother raised concerns about his mental state - he was
allegedly verbally threatening towards his neighbour and (?) neighbour's
children. Simon's mother called police who arrested him. He was seen by the FME
at Wood Green police station, was then referred for MHA.”
·
He appealed against his Section. The
Mental Health Review Tribunal discharged him from Section 2 on the 26th
August 2016.
2.
Leading to current admission
·
As I stated above leading to this
admission Mr Cordell did not attend appointments offered to him by our service.
Subsequently due to the allegations made against him I was advised to attend a
Safeguarding meeting for an alleged victim. In that meeting I was informed by
the Council that Mr Cordell has a past and current history of physical and
verbal aggression towards residents in the building. I was informed that the
council has tried to work with Mr Cordell but to no avail. I had informed me
that Mr Cordell was getting easily irritated even by the sound of a flushing
toilet; this happened very recently, and he threatened the resident concerned.
The Council was of the opinion that these are signs of mental illness and
suggested that BEH should proceed with an MHA. The Council argued that this is
for the protection of others as well as Mr Cordell’s own safety.
·
Subsequently the council sent us a copy
of ‘Anti-Social Behaviour, Tenancy concerns and breaches- pre-action letter’
which contained a chronology of alleged incidents dating from 2016. These
alleged incidents were in the meaning of an antisocial behaviour presentation.
·
On the 17th October Mr
Cordell was discussed in our MDT meeting. A decision was made to conduct an
MHA. An MHA was attempted on the 19th October. Mr Cordell did not
cooperate, and the assessment did not take place.
·
On the 23rd October an
application for a warrant was made but was declined on the grounds “that there
was insufficient recent evidence that he was being "kept under proper
control" as he is living alone and “insufficient recent medical evidence
that "he is unable to care for himself.
·
According to RIO, on the 25th
October Mr Cordell was arrested for breaching a harassment order. It was
alleged that he was aggressive towards the police and spat at them. He was
assessed at the police station. On interview he had pressure of speech,
delusions about his neighbours and the police and housing ganging up against
him. He denied drug use. He said that does not have a mental disorder. The
2
2232,
Si-Soobah-Appadoo-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
CTIH
Mental Health NHS Trust
·
doctors who assessed Mr Cordell found
him “hypomanic, with flight of speech, grandiose and thought disordered”
3.
Forensic history
·
Nil known.
4.
Risk History
·
According to the Risk Assessment on RIO
notes Mr Cordell had expressed suicidal thoughts in the past. This was related
to stress from court cases. The date is not stated in the Risk Assessment.
Around that time he said that he had researched ways of harming himself
(poisoning, OD, hanging). He had said in the past that he tried to hang himself
aged 16 when he was in a young offender’s institute. He had said that he needed
resuscitation. He tried to hang himself a second time after he was sentenced by
a judge aged 20. He had said that he drank Nitrous Oxide in 2014 with intent to
die.
·
According to his Risk Assessment he was
regularly a victim or witness of his father’s violent behaviour.
·
There are recent reports from the
Council regarding alleged aggressive behaviours towards other residents. In
June 2018 he was apparently involved in court case with the neighbours who he
apparently threatened to harm.
5.
Social circumstances
Personal History
·
Mr Cordell is single. He has a partner.
He has no children. He was born in Enfield and did his schooling in Edmonton.
Left school aged 16. He studied and worked in mechanics and road works,
electrical and computers after he left school (mother’s report)
Accommodation
·
Mr Cordell lives in a 1 bedroom flat on
the ground floor. The flat has necessary amenities/facilities to allow
independent living.
Employment
·
He is not currently in employment Finances
·
He claims ESA and needs to make an
application for PIP
3
2233,
Si-Soobah-Appadoo-08-11-2018.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
CTIH
Mental Health NHS Trust
6.
Views of family
·
I telephoned Ms Cordell on the 7th
November 2018. Ms Cordell told me that neighbours have been “terrorising” his
son since 2014 in particular a neighbour on the 2nd floor. Ms
Cordell told me that whilst her son is in hospital her nephew has been staying
in the flat to look after the dog. The nephew has reported that the occupier on
the 2nd floor have been “banging” on the floor. She said that the
neighbour then realised that her son is not in the flat when they saw the
nephew coming out of Mr Cordell’s flat. She told me that since the 26th
October the “banging” has stopped. She said that she has complained about the
neighbour herself but thinks these situations are misinterpreted by the council
and the mental health services and her son is then seen as the perpetrator and
or being mentally unwell. Ms Cordell stated that the sound proofing is lacking,
and the noise is real. Other neighbours have made allegations that Mr Cordell
has been aggressive towards them. She said that there is no evidence of this;
police have seen CCTV and found that her son had not left the flat at the time
when these incidents were alleged to have happen. Ms Cordell gave another
example in 2016 where it was alleged by a neighbour that her son had made
threats to kill him. She said that the police initially charged her son with
making threats to kill; after seeing video evidence they charged him with a
‘Public Order Offence’. She said that around the time of this alleged incident
her son was in his flat with some friends. Her son was not allowed to his flat
and was bailed to her flat where he stayed until December 2016. She said that
the CPS after seeing evidence dismissed the case a day before the trial. She
said that the council has never taken the responsibility to look at evidences;
the allegations made against her son (physical assault, letting his dog on the
loose) have not been proven. She said that on the 9th August in court the Judge
ordered Enfield Council to move her son to a 2-bedroom flat but the Council
wants/plans to evict him instead. She said that the Council has no grounds to
apply for her son’s eviction.
·
She said that her son has a one bedroom
flat. She said that he does not want to live there. She said that he needs a 2
bedroom flat with the plan that his cousin could stay with him to provide
emotional support. She said that her son has everything he needs in the flat.
She told me that her son is very independent in activities of daily living; his
personal care is extremely good; he cooks for himself, maintains the flat and
takes responsibility for his bills. She told me that he has no financial
difficulties/no debts.
·
She said that her son has a work
history. In 2010 he was planning to set up a business in the entertainment
industry. He has also built websites in relation to this. At present he is not
in employment. He is in receipt of Employment Support Allowance but needs to
make an application for Personal Independent Payment.
·
I asked her if she thinks her son has a
mental illness; she told me that he suffers from stress and anxiety due to
issues with the neighbours but does not think he has a mental illness. She said
that the judged looked at evidence and did not grant a warrant in October 2018
for a mental health act to take place at her son’s flat.
·
I asked Ms Cordell if she thinks her
son could benefit from support from the community team. She said that he could
do with some support but “we should stop labelling him as being delusional as
he is not delusional”.
4
2234,
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
KWH
Mental Health WHS Trust
7.
After-Care
·
Potentially Mr Cordell care/treatment
would be delivered via the Care Programme Approach. I am the allocated Care
Coordinator and he will have a responsible clinician in the community.
·
My role would be first of all to build
a relationship with Mr Cordell as I have only met him on 2 occasions. I will
try to motivate him to engage with myself and the multidisciplinary team. As
his Care Coordinator I will review Mr Cordell regularly independently and with
the Community RC.
·
We have a Team Clinical Psychologist
and it would be vital for Mr Cordell to have some form of talking therapy. This
is on the basis of the stress and anxiety that his mother states he suffers
from.
·
We have a Dual Diagnosis Worker in the
team who could offer drug counselling if necessary.
·
We have an organisation called
‘Remploy’ which is funded by the Local Authority. Potentially they could support
Mr Cordell to find work. They meet regularly with clients whilst they are in
work and also liaise with employers.
·
I could support Mr Cordell in making an
application for PIP. Alternatively he could get that support from ‘Enfield
Well-Being Connect’
·
The Mental Health Enablement Team could
provide support in tenancy management as well as support to access
education/training and work.
8.
Opinion and recommendations
·
I have met Mr Cordell on two occasions
only and I have not had the opportunity to assess him in the community. A
rapport needs to be established with him.
·
On the basis of recent events, history
of risks to self and alleged risks towards others and taking into account the
views of the MDT on the ward I think that he would benefit from a longer stay
in hospital. This is in-order for the MDT to assess him comprehensively to
determine if he has a severe and enduring mental illness such as
schizophrenia/psychosis. If it is determined that he has a severe mental
illness, then this should be treated accordingly whilst he is in hospital.
Signed: Soobah
Appadoo, CPN
Dated: 07/11/2018
5
81.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1045. Lorraine
Cordell _Fwd._ LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 (2)
08/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2235
81.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1045. Lorraine Cordell _Fwd._ LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 (2)
08/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2235
--
2235,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 08
November 2018 08:44
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Fwd.:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: image001.jpg
ATT03250.htm
image002.jpg
ATT03253.htm
image003.jpg
ATT03256.htm
image004.jpg
ATT03259.htm
image005.jpg
ATT03262.htm
image006.png
ATT03265.htm
image007.png
ATT03268.htm
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
amended Order 09082018.docx
ATT03271.htm
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded
message:
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk>
Date: 13
August 2018 at 15:14:17 BST
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: FW: LBE v Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
Should be 24 Pages
82.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1.
2.
Mother
here the ld. cer discharged 10-11-2018-02-59
10/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2236,2237,2238,2239,2240
82.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1. 2.
Mother here the ld cer discharged
10-11-2018-02-59
10/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2236,2237,2238,2239,2240
--
2236,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
10/11/2018 02:59:36 PM
Subject: RE:
Old Court Order
Attachments: Emmanuel Simon
Cordell.pdf
VLS_20171215_103522.pdf
VLS_20171215_103441.pdf
here the Id court order
discharged they did try and get it put back in t place but the Judge would not
allow it, they started to try from Dec 2017 and failed in Jan 2018 that's why
they done the new order on the 09 Jan 2018
2237,
2238,
2239,
2240,
83.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4738 15-11-2018 00-53
15/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2241,2242
83.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4738 15-11-2018 00-53
15/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2241,2242
--
2241,
From:
GoDaddy <AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time:
15/11/2018 12:53:18 AM
Subject: Simon,
your November account summary inside.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
November Account Summary for
Simon.
View Your Account
Did you register a
. co.uk,
. org.uk or
. me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain
name may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019.
Learn more.
This is a great time to
ensure your account is secure. Update your password and add
or review two-step verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab under "Settings" to opt-in
to offers related to your purchase.
What's in your
account:
Domains
Update your domain settings
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
TOOSMOOTH.CO.UK
Manage Your Domains
2242,
cPanel Hosting
Hang your shingle in a global
marketplace with a. store web and email address. Shop new. store domains for
just
Ł58.10
Ł3.99 right now.
Ł11.70
Ł0.88*
Ł123.86
Ł34.14*
Ł18.10
Ł7.10*
*See
offer terms, conditions, and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
2000254146
84.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1.
2.
Mother
Please see Action 2 Outcome 15-11-2018-07-08
15/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2243,2244,2245,2246,2247,2248,2249
84.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1. 2.
Mother Please see Action 2
Outcome 15-11-2018-07-08
15/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2243,2244,2245,2246,2247,2248,2249
--
2243,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
15/11/2018 07:08:42 PM
Subject: RE:
Appeal-Section-2-outcome
Attachments: Appeal-section-2-Outcome-14-11-2018.pdf
please see attached
2244,
2245,
2246,
2247,
2248,
2249,
85.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1062. Lorraine
Cordell _Re_ For the attention of District Judge Dias - E00ED049
22/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2250,2251,2252,2253,2254,2255
85.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1062. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ For the
attention of District Judge Dias - E00ED049
22/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2250,2251,2252,2253,2254,2255
--
2250,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 22
November 2018 15:42
To: 'enquiries@edmonton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
For the attention of District Judge Dias - E00ED049
Attachments: For the attention of District Judge Dias.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I have written the attached letter for
the attention of District Judge Dias after a call I made to the court and being
told to do this, could you kindly forward the attached letter to District Judge
Dias
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
2251,
RE: For the attention of District Judge
Dias - E00ED049->For the attention of District Judge
Dias.pdf
Miss
Lorraine Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ
Case Ref: E00ED049
For the attention of District Judge
Dias
For and on behalf of Mr Simon Cordell from
Miss Lorraine Cordell (Mother) 22/11/2018
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
VS
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Dear District Judge Dias
·
It is with concern that I must now
bring this matter to your attention regarding the hearing of the 09th
August 2018 case reference E00ED049 for which you were the presiding judge
·
Whereby You asked Enfield Council to
draft the order and to be submitted to the court for it to be sealed, Enfield
Council contacted Mr Cordell’s solicitor regarding amendments that were made,
Mr Cordell’s solicitor was away on annual leave, when Mr Cordell solicitor came
back from annual leave she made amendments to Enfield Council’s draft order but
has never heard back regarding the amendments she made.
·
Enfield Council’s draft order was
somehow then sealed by the court a few days after Mr Cordell’s solicitor sent
the draft order, she had made to Enfield Council and the
1
2252,
courts. At this time the 22 November 2018 we still
have not had a copy of the courts sealed order.
·
I believe there is errors within
Enfield Council’s draft order to what was actually said in court, and I do not
know how to address this, but Enfield Council is stating things to people that
was not even stated in court.
·
At this time I am trying to put in an
application to obtain the transcripts of the court hearing, but I am waiting
for some information from the court in order to be able to do this.
·
Mr Cordell has not long been released
from hospital where he was under section, Enfield Council have still not moved
him and he still living in hell regarding what the neighbours are doing to him.
·
It would seem Enfield Council has been
relaying incorrect information to the mental health team regarding the court
hearings, and I believe they are being able to get away with this due to how
they drafted the court order of the 09th August 2018 hearing.
·
It seems Enfield Council is doing
everything they can not to move my son, they have even stated they are going
for a possession order of his flat, in fact they told the mental health team:
“Enfield Council has decided
to seek possession of Mr Cordell’s flat via the courts. In a recent court case
the judge recommended that Enfield Council rehouse Mr Cordell on the proviso
that he engages with the mental health team which is failed to do.”
·
This was not said in court in fact when
Enfield Council tried to put this in place you told them no you would not allow
this.
·
It seems as if Enfield Council will
stop at nothing to not move my son, I have been trying to liaison with Enfield
Council and the mental health team regarding moving my son, it would seem
shortly after the court hearing my son was moved over to a
2
2253,
new mental health team who I was in contact with
asking for help in regards to them writing a letter regarding my son’s housing
which they refused to do until they had met him, this in itself was going to
cause a problem because as you are aware my son does not feel as if he has a
mental health problem, I even emailed Angela Hague as she was the last person
to have assessed my son in June 2018 which the court had a report of and was
read before the court on the 26 June 2018 at the hearing.
·
The issue seems to be with the like to
like property, which I do not believe is appropriate as I believe my son needs
family support and someone staying with him in order for us to try and make him
understand that he needs support from the mental health team, I know this was
spoken about in court on 9 August 2018 where I believe Enfield Council is
stating you told them to consider this, but Enfield Council will not consider
this unless I get a letter from the mental health team, Enfield Council is also
under the assumption I stated my son needed supported accommodation, I did not
state this in court, I said I did not want my son in supported accommodation
that if my son had a two-bedroom property his family would support him which I
believe in the correct things to do for my son.
·
It seems as if Enfield Council is
continuously passing information that is incorrect to the mental health team,
and the only reason I can see for this is that they are trying to keep him in
hospital.
·
From the point my son was hospitalised
and taken out of that flat his health started to improve greatly in hospital,
even the doctors and nurses noticed this, they tried to put in place a section
3 due to what Enfield Council has said to them, the section 3 was not granted
due to laws within section 3 and my son not being detain-able under section 3,
my son stated he was willing to stay voluntarily in hospital and he was willing
to do this, but due to the doctors not getting the section 3 they wanted, they
then discharged my son the following day with no support in place because they
needed the beds.
·
Since my son has gone back to the flat
his health has started to decline again, due to what the neighbours are doing.
When my son was in hospital his cousin was staying at the flat to look after my
son’s dog, the first day he stayed there he himself was going
3
2254,
to go up to the neighbours regarding the constant
banging, the next day the neighbours saw my son’s cousin from their window, and
I believe at that point they knew my son was not there, so the banging stopped.
·
Since my son was getting no help from
Enfield Council I took it upon myself to make an appointment to see his MP, his
MP is in contact with Enfield Council, but the longer my son is left in that
flat the worst his health is going to get due to what the neighbours are doing.
I believe the MP has now also caught adult social services involved in at this
time we are waiting for a letter from Enfield Council regarding moving my son,
but I am scared due to Enfield Council knowing my son has been released from
hospital they are going to start court proceedings for a possession order,
although the MP has told me not to worry about my son being evicted I cannot
help but worry, I have tried to get hold of my sons solicitor who acted for him
but due to them being more involved in criminal law I do not believe as was
stated in court on 9 August 2018 they understand civil in the way it should be,
a belief they feel that the case was concluded on 9 August 2018, and therefore
have little involvement thereafter.
·
When I called the court and explained
the situation the court bought up the order of 9 August 2018, and stated there
is not an order that my son is moved by Enfield Council, I was under the belief
that this is what the court did order, therefore I fail to understand why it is
not included as part of the court order Enfield Council drafted.
·
Any help would be greatly appreciated
as at this point in time I am not sure what to do or where I stand to help my
son, it seems Enfield Council can do what they want to leave my son in the flat
which is affecting his health due to what the neighbours are doing, mislead the
mental health service in what Enfield Council is saying to them, not once since
this order was made has Enfield Council bothered to even want to see my son to
see how he is coping, I’m sure there should be some duty of care towards my son
yet Enfield Council don’t seem to believe they need to follow that.
·
It just like the way throughout all the
court hearings Enfield Council was at, where they misled the court regarding to
my son’s health, I am asking for help as at this point, I don’t know where to
turn and what to do.
4
2255,
·
I look forward to hearing from you with
your views and recommendations in regard to this.
Yours Sincerely
Miss Lorraine Cordell (Mother of
Simon Cordell
5
86.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1065. Lorraine
Cordell _Re_ Subject access Request Simon Cordell (2)
25/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2256,2257,2258,2259,2260,2261,2262
86.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1065. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Subject access Request Simon Cordell (2)
25/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2256,2257,2258,2259,2260,2261,2262
--
2256,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 25
November 2018 12:07
To: 'enfield.data.protection.officer@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Subject access Request Simon Cordell
Attachments: Simon-Records-Request-Enfield-Council-25-11-2018.pdf
ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf.
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Citizencard.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached 4 documents
regarding the request for all data that his held about me on Enfield Council
systems all departments. If you need a fee or any other information, please
reply to this Email as soon as possible.
Regards
2257,
RE:
Subject access Request Simon Cordell->Simon-Records-Request-Enfield-Council-25-11-2018.pdf
Mr Simon Paul Cordell
109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield
Middlesex
EN3 7JQ
25/11/2018
Data Protection Officer Enfield Council
Civic Offices Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XA
Subject access request
Dear Sir or Madam
I Mr Simon Paul Cordell of
109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, Middlesex,
EN3 7JQ
DOB: 26/01/
Please supply the data about me that I
am entitled to under data protection law
1. Full copy
of all records held about me on all Enfield council systems all departments,
this would include all departments at Enfield Council and any Rd information
that has been shared between any government bodies and 3 parties.
2. This
would include everything that is held on IT systems and held in paper- based
files, for all departments, Telephone Calls, Emails, shared information, Audio,
and video, this would include all dates and times information was received or
sent regarding Mr Cordell.
1
2258,
3. Community
Safety Unit involvement, including all calls and letters and emails relating to
Mr Cordell and any shared information this would include emails phone calls and
any other related information, this would include all dates and times information
was received or sent regarding Mr Cordell.
4. Anti-Social
Behaviour team all reports, including all calls and letters and emails, video
audio and shared information this would include all dates and times information
was received and sent relating to Mr Cordell to any government body or 3 party.
5. Any
neighbours reports statements and emails audio and video and Enfield Council
reports, relating to Anti-Social Behaviour, to and from Enfield Council and any
other 3 party, or government body, this would include police and, mental health
services, adult social care MPs and any information shared, this would include
all dates and times information was received and sent relating to Mr Cordell.
6. Any
information where repairs have needed to be carried out due to Mr Cordell, or a
3-party causing damage to property. This would include any repairs that were
needed from any 3rd party or 3rd party landlord and all invoices for such work
being carried out for any repairs needed or proof that work has been carried
out this would include phone calls and emails, and any information shared, this
would include all dates and times information was received and sent relating to
Mr Cordell.
7. Everything
relating to the work Enfield Council done on Anti-Social Behaviour order for
illegal raves with police in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 this would include
all emails with any other body and meetings and statements written, to and from
Enfield Council and police and any other 3 party, and government bodies, and
information shared. This would include all dates and times information was
received and sent relating to Mr Cordell.
8. Any
court actions taken against Mr Simon Cordell by Enfield Council, with all court
documents and any emails regarding court action. This would include any audio
and video that was stated in court that had been obtained by Enfield Council,
any emails, phone calls, meetings that were done regarding any court
2
2259,
action. This would include all dates and times information
was received and sent relating to Mr Cordell.
9. Any
information police and Enfield council has shared about Mr Cordell, this would
include any emails and any other data used to contract each other. This would
include all dates and times information was received and sent relating to Mr
Cordell.
10. Any
telephone call recording, relating to Mr Cordell from any outside body this
would include Enfield Council making such calls. If no recording data is able
to be produced any dates and times any calls were made or received relating to
Mr Cordell
11. All
emails or Letters sent by Miss Lorraine Cordell to Enfield Council, including
all dates and times and if a reply was sent from email Council.
12. Any
investigations done by the Anti-Social Behaviour and Lemmy Nwabuisi or any
member of staff of Enfield Council to find out if what was being said by the
neighbours was in fact the truth. This would include all information from any
government body outside Enfield Council.
13. Any
investigations done by the Anti-Social Behaviour and Lemmy Nwabuisi or any
member of staff of Enfield Council to find out if what Mr Cordell was saying
the neighbours was doing was correct, this would include via the police. Also
when Mr Cordell was not charged with anything was any investigation done to the
reason why Mr Cordell has not been charged. This would include all emails and
dates and times information was received and sent relating to Mr Cordell.
14. Any
meetings to see Mr Cordell by Enfield Council when Enfield Council knew Mr
Cordell did not leave his flat to grain facts to what Mr Cordell was saying the
neighbours was doing and look at any evidence Mr Cordell and his mother stated
they had which would prove that the neighbours were not telling the truth, this
would include any meeting arranged via Enfield Council to attend with police
which they were told they could. This would include any dates and times
meetings was set up to see Mr Cordell by Enfield Council.
3
2260,
15. Anything
Enfield Council did to support Mr Cordell or put support in place when they
were told time and time again that Mr Cordell health was not good and that he
was a valuable person. This would include all emails and letters, phone calls
and dates and times information were sent or received.
16. All
medical information Enfield Council used in court regarding Mr Cordell
regarding his health from 2017 to 2018 were Enfield Council got the said
information, all emails, and letters phone calls this would include any dates
and times information was sent or received. This would include were Enfield
Council got the information Mr Cordell had PTSD but that he had been discharged
from the mental health team in 2017 and that his health was fine now and he had
nothing wrong with him, that was used in court on the 30/05/2018 before judge
Dais.
17. The
names of any people in Enfield Council all departments, the Mental Health Team,
the police, and any 3rd party or government body of any person passing
information over and receiving information relating to Mr Cordell.
18. This
would include all letters, Emails, Phone calls, meetings, dates, and times
information was sent or received relating to Mr Cordell.
19. All
person’s names that have been sharing information to the Mental Health and
police from Enfield Council and all said information that has been shared. This
would include all letters, Emails, Phone calls, meetings, dates, and times
information was sent or received relating to Mr Cordell.
20. Any
consent that Mr Cordell has given that allows the sharing of any information to
government bodies or 3 parties, and where information has been shared without
consent the law under which this has been done, which would include the
information which can be shared under that law.
21. I know
information that is being held about me is incorrect I have tried to deal with
this a number of times yet the information that is incorrect is still being
used against me and is still on the systems. I have asked for this information
before, but I have never got all the information I requested so want this done
under the new data protection law 2018 this would include all information that
has been given in the past.
4
2261,
If any information is being withheld, I
would like to know why and for what reason it is being withheld and to be sent
full information as to why it is being withheld.
I have already given authority to
Enfield Council that should be on record, for my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell
to be able to do anything for me on my behalf her details are below which
should already be on Enfield Council system. I have included my ID with this
application:
1. Phone
Number: 07807 333545 (this is my mother’s phone number)
2. Email
address is lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
3. Miss
Lorraine Cordell, 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London N9 7DG
If the information cannot be emailed to
my mother’s emails can it, please be sent to her home address which the
information is above for this to be done.
If you need any more data from me, or a
fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
It may be helpful for you to know that
data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one
calendar month.
If you do not normally deal with these
requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant
staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information
Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be
contacted on 0303 123 1113.
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Paul Cordell
5
2262,
RE: Subject
access Request Simon Cordell->ESA) Camfiimed"Letter~Q8~Q3~2Q18'pdf
MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL
109 BURNCROFT
AVENUE
ENFIELD
EN3 7JQ
ESA Merthyr Tydfil Post Handling
Site B Wolverhampton WV99 2FN
www.gov.uk
Telephone: 0800
169 0310
Text phone: 0800
169 0314
Date:
08/03/2018
If you get in touch with us,
tell us this reference number: J
Dear MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL,
Thank you for your request for
information.
The details are as follows: -
You were awarded Employment
Support Allowance Contributory; Employment Support Allowance Income Related .
Claim start date 19/09/17
Claim termination date LIVE
CLAIM • -
At a weekly rate of Ł125.55
Paid up to:
Any other information: IN
SUPPORT GROUP ON ESA
For any further enquiries please
contact us on the above number.
Benefit Centre Manager
Part of the Department for Work
and Pensions
http://dbs02app/BDCentres.nsf/Proof%20of%20Benef!t%20Letter?OpenForm&Seq=4
08/03/2018
87.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
899.
Ludmilla Lyavoo _RE_ Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
27/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2263,2264
87.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
899. Ludmilla Lyavoo _RE_ Simon
Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
27/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2263,2264
--
2263,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquines.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2018 13:31
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
urgent D02ED073
Thank you for your email of 12th
November 2018.
The file was referred to a Judge who
has made the following comments.
"The above case was in Court on
the following dates, time and before the following Deputy/District Judges.
·
Before Deputy District Judge Harris.
·
Before Deputy District Judge Perry at
10:00 am.
·
was adjourned to 25.9.17.
·
Before Employment Judge Taylor at 10:00
am.
The above information is provided as
requested."
Civil Section | HMCTS |
In the Civil and Family Court at
Edmonton
59 Fore Street
Upper Edmonton,
London,
N18 2TN |
DX - 136686
Edmonton 3 Phone: 0208
884 6500
'I am not authorised to bind the Ministry
of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which
may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means'
The HMCTS website: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts
Find your local County Court: https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk
Find the forms you need in Court
proceedings: http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/FormFinder.do
For information on how HMCTS uses
personal data about you please see:
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
November 2018 15:39
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Subject: FW:
urgent D02ED073
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this update email
from the email below I believe I will need
Each court date this was in
court
What time it was heard in court
and for how long.
Which court number was heard in.
The judge that heard the case
for each court hearing.
On what dates was it heard ex
parte and how long the hearing lasted.
2264,
Regards
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
November 2018 14:54
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: RE:
urgent D02ED073
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regard to the
case number D02ED073 which was discharged on the 06/11/2017, I was wondering if
possible, could I get a list of all court dates this case was in court.
Regards
Simon Cordell
This e-mail and any attachments
are intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
88.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1.
2.
Mother
Please take what happened. 28-11-2018-11-42
28/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2265,2266,2267,2268,2269,2270.2271,2272,2273,2274
88.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1. 2.
Mother Please take what
happened. 28-11-2018-11-42
28/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2265,2266,2267,2268,2269,2270.2271,2272,2273,2274
--
2265,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 28/11/2018
11:42:41 AM
Subject:
please deal with this
Attachments: Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
Please take each one and tell me
what happened on each date do not go into one and just write what happened.
2266,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 6th July 2016, it is alleged that
you approached an elderly neighbour as he came out of his flat and started to
shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to burn down his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
Sometime in July 2016 it is alleged
that you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric cupboard and removed his
fuse box resulting in no electricity to his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 6th August 2016, it is alleged that
you threatened one of your neighbours and his wife and aggressively demanded
money from him. It is also alleged that you repeatedly swore and shouted abuse
at him and his wife and called his wife a ‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat by standing in front of him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
Sometimes in September 2016 it is
alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour outside your block of flats,
109 - 119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the local park with another
resident and started to shout abuse and threats at him and said to him ‘I can
get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk’
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 27th September 2016, it is alleged
that you confronted one of your neighbours as he was returned to his flat with
his family and threatened and swore at him and demanded money from him. It is
also alleged that you later banged on his door, shouted further abuse, and
swear words at him and accused him of making noises inside his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 28th September 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on a neighbour’s door and threatened and shouted
verbal abuse and swear words at them. It is also alleged that you aggressively
demanded money from him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of
1
2267,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
this.
·
On 4th October 2016, it is alleged that
you aggressively banged on your ceiling and accused one of your neighbours of
making noises, you then went to your neighbour’s flat and started kicking and
banging on his front door aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor and
was swearing and shouting abuse at him. It is also alleged that you later went
downstairs, dragged your neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and
started to hit it with a piece of wood.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 22nd November 2016 during a
telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell your mother and Ms Sarah
Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported that she overheard you
threatened her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and then ‘I’m goanna take her
job just for fun’.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 8th December 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on one of your neighbours’ front door, shouted
abuse and threats and accused him of making noise.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 11th December 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door several times and accused
them of banging on pipes. It is also alleged that you shouted abuse and threats
at them.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 14th December 2016, it is alleged
that you were verbally abusive towards a woman who was visiting one of your
neighbours as she knocked on your neighbour’s door.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 23rd December 2016, it is alleged
that you banged on a neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse at them and asked
them to turn their tap off. You then removed their electricity fuse thereby
cutting off their power supply.
2
2268,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 26th December 2016, it is alleged
that you ran up the communal stairs to the first floor and confronted one of
your neighbours as he was going out with his family and started to shout abuse
and threats at him and his wife and accused him of tampering with your water
supply, you also attempted to stop him from leaving the block.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 3rd January 2017, it is alleged that
you confronted one of your neighbours as he returned to the block with his wife
and two-year-old daughter and started shouting abuse and threats at them.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 21st January 2017, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse
and threats at them and accused them of making noises.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 31st January 2017, it is alleged that
you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at
them and accused them of banging on the floor.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
We received a report that on 7th
February 2017 you approached the leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his
plumber outside the block as they were attempting to resolve the problem
causing low water pressure in the flat. You said to the leaseholder that there
were problems between you and his tenants but did not give any specific
details. The leaseholder explained to you that his tenants were experiencing
low water pressure in the flat and you said to him ‘you will not solve the
problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder later knocked
on your door and asked whether you would increase the water pressure and you
stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it out later’.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
3
2269,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher
(Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk (Maintenance Surveyor) attended your
property at flat 109 Burncroft Avenue to inspect the property following reports
of low water pressure from flats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside
your flat, they observed that you have installed an iron security gate inside
your front door. It also appeared to them that the wall between your kitchen
and living room seemed to have been removed thereby creating an open plan
effect. Much of the property was taken up industrial type printers, boxes and
folders and there were dog faeces in your back garden.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB
Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to post a letter through your door and
as he got into his car to drive off after posting the letter, you ran after him
shouting and screaming abuse. The letter requested that you attend our offices
to discuss the nuisance reports being received from your neighbours. By the
time he returned to the office, you had telephoned him several times. He
telephoned you back and you asked whether he was the person that posted a
letter through your letterbox and he said yes. You asked why he did not stop
when you ran after him and he stated that he had another visit and did not have
the time to stop and talk to you. You stated that you will not attend the
meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as you are unable to
leave your flat and that the meeting should take place in your flat. Mr
Nwabuisi offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the local
library or at your mother's house, but you refused saying that you have done
nothing wrong and accused him of taking sides with your neighbours.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 5th May 2017, it is alleged that you
threatened one of your neighbours by saying that you will ruin his life and
that you were going to the police to present evidence about his illegal
activities.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 14th May 2017, it is alleged that
you aggressively banged on one of your neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and
threats at her and falsely accused her of making noise and coming into your
flat to attack you. You later followed her to her car shouting abuse and
wanting to know where she was going.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
4
2270,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 14th May 2017 it is alleged that you
allowed your dog to run freely in the communal area of your block without a
lead.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 28th May 2017, the police issued you
with a first instance Harassment letter following reports of harassment and
threatening behaviour made to the police by one of your neighbours.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th June 2017, it is alleged that
you attacked one of your neighbours in the communal hallway of your block as he
returned from work late at night by grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby
causing bruising to his arm and neck. You also snatched his phone from him as
he tried to video-record the incident.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is
alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main
entrance to your building and said to her that you had her bank details and
personal details such as date of birth and said to her that you wanted her and
her husband to pay you some money.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is
alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main
entrance to your building and said to her that you knew what time she went out
and what time she returned and to tell her husband that you would like to speak
to him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is
alleged that you came out of your flat with your dog without a lead and
attacked one of your neighbours as he returned from work by punching him twice
on the chest. You tried to push him out of the block and snatched his phone as
he brought took it out of his pocket to record the incident.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
5
2271,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as she was leaving the block. You
swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her of making noise inside her flat.
You told her that you know all her personal details and that of her husband
including their full names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking details.
You demanded that they pay you some money and asked her to tell her husband to
come and see you.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as she was leaving the block and
accused her of slamming the door. She denied slamming the door and called her a
liar and proceeded to swear and shout abuse at her.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 2nd July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as he was going out with his family
with your dog barking and without a lead and asked him when he was going to
hand over the money. It is also alleged that as they left the block, you ran
after them swearing and shouting abuse at your neighbour and demanding that he
must pay you some money if he wants you to leave him alone. You also said to
him that you have all their personal details including their dates of birth and
bank details.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 12th July 2017 an Enfield Council
Surveyor attended your flat to investigate reports of low water pressure to
flats above yours, but you refused him access. The Surveyor attended your flat
again in the evening of the same day following further reports that the water
supply to the affected flats had completely ceased and you refused him access.
You then followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him and
prevented him from entering his car. He then called the police.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is
alleged by one of your neighbours that you came to their front door, opened the
letterbox, and peeped through it to see who was inside the flat. You then
started swearing and shouting abuse and banging on their front door as soon as
you saw the neighbour’s wife.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
6
2272,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 2nd January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is
alleged that you stood outside your neighbour’s property for more than twenty minutes
swearing and shouting abuse. You went away and returned half an hour later, you
lifted their letterbox, stuck your mobile phone through the letterbox and
started to record his family while swearing and shouting abuse. This went on
for about fifteen minutes.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th January 2018 at about 12.18pm, you
telephone Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour officer) and accused him of forging
documents to get an antisocial behaviour order against him and you told him
that he had made you a prisoner within your home. You also stated that you knew
where he lives in Enfield and that he and his family were not safe from you.
You also told him that you would watch him leave the office and you would have
followed him home and he needed to watch his back. You called the ASB officer
again 30 minutes later and told him that you knew he has a flat in Edmonton and
also knew that one of his colleagues lives in Edmonton. You also stated that
you knew where they live and they were not safe.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th January 2018 you called
Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and left a long voicemail on her work
telephone number and made threats.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 26th February 2018, at around
11.45pm it is alleged that you came to one of your neighbour’s front door and
started making loud banging noises and rattling with their letter box. You ran
away after the neighbour opened her front door.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 1st March 2018 it is alleged that
you knocked on one of your neighbours’ door loudly, you started rattling with
their letter box and started shouting. This went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but
you left after you’ve heard that the neighbour was calling the police.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
7
2273,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 15th March 2018 it is alleged that
you swore, shouted, and assaulted one of you neighbours in front of his wife
and his 3 years old child.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 1st May 2018, you attended the
Edmonton County Court as there was a hearing listed in relation to an
injunction. It is alleged that you started shouting abuse, swore and make
threats to two of the Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB officer and Balbinder
Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and to one of your neighbours who attended Court to give
evidence. You also swore at a judge. These incidents were witnessed by members
of staff working at the Court.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 29th May 2018, it is alleged that
you attended one of your neighbours’ property; you took your dog with you and
waited by their front door. It is alleged that you tried to intimidate them as
they were due to attend a hearing in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence
in support of a claim for an injunction issued against you.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 30 May 2018, it is alleged that you
made threats to kill to one of your neighbours. The matter was reported to the
police. You were arrested and released on bail.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
You assaulted one of your neighbours on
the 26th August 2018 for flashing his toilet.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
You telephoned two council officers
(Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla Iyavoo) on 12th September 2018 and made
threats to them over the telephone. You also accused them of fraud and of
fabricating evidence to support the Council’s claim for an injunction
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of
8
2274,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
this.
·
On 12th September 2018 at about
3.50pm, you called one of your neighbours on his mobile phone using a private
number. It is not known how you obtained his number, but he terminated the
call. You called again using the same private number, but he terminated the
call as soon as he heard your voice. You called repeatedly after that.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 24th September 2018 at
about 11.30am, one of your neighbours returned home from dropping her daughter at
school and as she entered their block of flat, she noticed that the middle door
on the ground floor was open as well as your front door. As she went up the
stairs to their second floor flat, your dog came out of your flat and started
barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs to her flat to escape
from the dog. It was reported that your dog is always barking whenever they go
out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4 years old daughter are
terrified.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
One of your neighbours reported that
his cousin was leaving the block at about on 2 October 2018 at 12.45pm, and as
you exited the block, you followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket from
behind and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to
attract neighbours and managed to push you off.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
There are other reports from one of
your neighbours who reported that on 30th September 2018, you
attempted to break down his front door by kicking it several times only because
he flashed his toilet.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
It is reported that you continue to
harass and intimidate other residents on a regular basis.
9
89.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1.
1
Tracey.
Pericles @nhs. n& Confidential Trust Response 28-11-2018 14-05
28/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2275,2276,2277,2278
89.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1. 1
Tracey. Pericles @nhs. n&
Confidential Trust Response 28-11-2018 14-05
28/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2275,2276,2277,2278
--
2275,
From: PERICLIS,
Tracey (BARNET, ENFIELD, AND HARINGEY MENTAL HEALTH NHS TRUST)
Sent: 28
November 2018 14:05
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Patient. experience (BARNET, ENFIELD,
AND HARINGEY MENTAL HEALTH NHS TRUST)
Subject: Private
& Confidential: Trust Response
Attachments: 2018 11 28 Signed response.pdf
Sent on behalf of Jinjer Kandola, Chief
Executive, Barnet, Enfield & Haringey MH NHS Trust
Dear Mrs Cordell
Please find attached the Trust's
response for your attention.
Yours sincerely
Tracy Periclis
Executive Assistant
to Chairman, Mark Lam
Executive Assistant
to Chief Executive, Jinjer Kandola
Barnet, Enfield & Haringey
MH NHS Trust
Trust HQ, Orchard
House
St Ann's Hospital
St Ann's Road
London
N15 3TH
Tel: 0208
702 6000
Line Manager: Katia Louka, Trust Secretary
Tel: 020 8
702 3035
This message may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform
the
sender that you have received
the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy, or
distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its
contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for
your co-operation.
2276,
NHS mail is the secure email and
directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHS mail
is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with
NHS mail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find
out how you can switch,
https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
2277,
Private & Confidential: Trust
Response ->2018 11 28 Signed response.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
Private & Confidential
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health Trust
Ms Lorraine Cordell Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Trust Headquarters Orchard House
St Ann’s Hospital
St Ann’s Road London N15 3TH
Tel: 020
8702 3559
Email: beh-tr.chiefexecutive@nhs.net
27th November 2018
Our Ref: ENF/18/Q2/SC/6273
Dear Mrs Cordell
Re: Your complaint regarding the
sharing of your son’s information
·
Thank you for passing on your concerns
in your conversation and initial email with Angela Hague on 30th July 2018, and
subsequently with Rachel Yona on 10th August 2018. You raised some key
questions relating to information governance and the sharing of information
regarding your son.
·
Please accept our sincere apologies for
the delay in our response to your queries, which was due to there being a
separate ongoing investigation within the Trust regarding the matters you have
raised.
·
Your concerns have been investigated
and I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.
·
Your concerns were investigated by
Rachel Yona (Enfield Adult Mental Health Community Services Manager) and
involved interviews with staff and a review of your son’s clinical records.
·
You stated that a report written by
Angela Hague regarding your son, dated 15th June 2018 and 19th June 2018, had
been presented in court on 26th June 2018. You stated you had not had prior access
to these reports and explained that you had considered the court case and the
assessments by Angela Hague were separate processes.
·
Please be assured that we have looked
into this matter and I can confirm the report used in court was not a formal
report, but rather a response by Angela to a request for information. The Trust
I had communicated to the Council Legal Services that we would not be providing
a report for the Court and it was
recommended they commission an independent report if this were required.
·
However as part of the investigation,
it has been highlighted that this communication was only shared verbally with
the Council Legal Services, and the position of the Trust was not clarified in
writing.
·
During
our communications with the Council Legal Services it was asked whether your
son had engaged in his recent assessment, and it was for this reason the
information presented in court was given. Our investigation found that the
information which was sent was not a limited, direct response to the question
posed to the Trust; I sincerely regret therefore that information was
overshared and as such this aspect of your complaint is upheld.
·
This is a matter we have taken very
seriously; I would like to offer you our sincere apologies that your son’s information
was used for anything other than it’s intended use whilst in the hands of the
Chairman: Mark
Lam
Chief Executive:
Jinjer Kandola
2278,
Trust, and assure you that we fully understand our
role in ensuring the security and safekeeping of records relating to all of
those in our care. We have completed a full internal incident investigation
into this matter, and I would like to assure you that all due processes and
actions have been taken in relation to this breach.
·
I understand that you also were concerned
about the processing of your son’s information by the Court and the Local
Authority. We are aware your son did not give consent for his records to be
used in Court, and I can confirm the Trust also did not give consent for the
sharing of information by the Local Authority with the Court. Our investigation
found that the London Borough of Enfield requested to know if your son had
engaged in treatment. As part of the legal proceedings the Court had asked for
an assessment of your son’s capacity to litigate and capacity to understand the
meaning of the interim injunction from January 2018. Whilst we cannot speak on
behalf of the Courts, we believe that this was why they passed on the
information.
·
I am very sorry to learn that you feel
the trust between yourself, your son, and the Mental Health Services has been
broken. I understand that your son is now being seen by the Enfield North
Locality Team, and I sincerely hope that they will be able to help rebuild the
trust and develop a good working relationship with yourself and your son.
·
I understand that when you discussed
your concerns with Rachel Yona (Enfield Community Services Manager) you raised
your view that you feel there were inaccuracies within your son’s report.
Please be advised that whilst we are unable to retrospectively amend records,
we are able to add additional entries to reflect your views and comments, and
we would be very happy to add any information as you see fit.
·
Please be assured that the
recommendations from this complaint will be shared with the London Borough of
Enfield Legal Services and across our Enfield Adult Community Mental Health
Teams, to ensure all agencies involved in this situation can learn from this
regrettable incident.
·
We appreciate all feedback from service
users’ experience of our service as this helps us to assess, reflect on our
actions and improve the care we provide. Staff members are committed to
providing and delivering a high standard of care to all our service users. We
try to ensure that through good support and training opportunities, staff are
enabled to deal effectively and sensitively with the needs of all service users
and their relatives. When members of our staff fall below the expected levels
of performance, we ensure that issues are addressed and dealt with quickly. Our
aim is to learn from these experiences and give assurances that any actions as
a result of our investigation will be delivered.
·
If you remain unhappy after this
further contact, you have the right to take your complaint to the Parliamentary
and Health Service Ombudsman. The contact details are as follows:
The Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P4QP
Helpline: 0345
015 4033
Thank you for bringing these matters to
our attention.
Yours sincerely
Jinjer Kandola Chief Executive
Chairman: Mark
Lam
Chief Executive: Jinjer
Kandola
90.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1091.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ transcripts for hearing E00ED049
30/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2279,2280,2281,2282,2283,2284,2285
90.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1091. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
transcripts for hearing E00ED049
30/11/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2279,2280,2281,2282,2283,2284,2285
--
2279,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 30
November 2018 15:27
To: 'enquiries@edmonton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
transcripts for hearing E00ED049
Attachments: ex105-09-08-2018-hearing.pdf
ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached application
for transcripts for case number E00ED049, also attached in my award letter for
ESA and my ID Please let me know if anything else is needed for this
application.
Please could the transcripts if
granted be collected by my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell or sent to my mother’s
email address lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Regards Simon Cordell
2280,
2281,
2282,
2283,
2284,
2285,
91.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1095.
Kailey Plahar_Your request for information (Our ref_
CRM SAR 1085) _ (2)
04/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2286,2287,2288
91.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1095. Kailey Plahar_Your
request for information (Our ref_ CRM SAR 1085) _ (2)
04/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2286,2287,2288
--
2286,
From: Kailey
Plahar <Kailey.Plahar@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 04
December 2018 12:55
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Attachments: ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Citizencard.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell
We note that you have raised a request
for information which relates to another person. In line with the Data
Protection Act 2018, we are unable to correspond with you on these matters.
Where a request for information is made on behalf of somebody else, we need to
confirm that they are happy for you to access their personal information.
Should Simon Cordell want you to act on their behalf and access their personal
information, he will need to provide us with their signed written agreement to
the complaint issues raised and for you to proceed with these on their behalf.
We note that your request is for ‘all
data that is held about me on Enfield Council systems all departments’. As your
request does not provide us with much detail, we need you to clarify the
specific information you are looking for.
In order for us to retrieve relevant
records, we would need to know where your personal information could be
located, and it would greatly help our search if you are able to give us more
details regarding:
·
Clarifying the type of information that
you think the Council may hold about Mr Cordell
·
Clarifying the likely dates or time
period when you think the information may have been created
·
Clarifying if you only want information
relating to a particular issue or specific time period
We have registered your request under
case number CRM SAR 1085, and you may quote this when you get back in touch
with us.
We look forward to your response. Once we
receive the clarification from you, we will contact you with a further update.
Yours sincerely,
Kailey Plahar
Statutory Complaints and Access to
Information Officer
Complaints and Access to Information
Team
Chief Executive
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Sent: 25
November 2018 12:07
To: Enfield Data Protection Officer
(Corporate) <enfield.data.protection.officer@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Subject access Request Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached 4 documents
regarding the request for all data that his held about me on Enfield Council systems
all departments. If you need a fee or any other information, please reply to
this Email as soon as possible.
Regards
2287,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2288,
Your request for information
(Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)->ESA-Camfirmed~Letter-08-03-2018.pdf
MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL 109
BURNCROFTAVENUE ENFIELD EN3 7JQ
ESA Merthyr Tydfil Post Handling
Site B Wolverhampton WV99 2FN
www.gov.uk
Telephone: 0800
169 0310
Text phone: 0800
169 0314
Date:
08/03/2018
If you get in touch with us,
tell us this reference number: JH
Dear MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL,
Thank you for your request for
information.
The details are as follows: -
You were awarded Employment
Support Allowance Contributory; Employment Support Allowance Income Related
Claim start date 19/09/17
Claim termination date LIVE
CLAIM
At a weekly rate of Ł125.55
Paid up to:
Any other information: IN
SUPPORT GROUP ON ESA
For any further enquiries please
contact us on the above number.
Benefit Centre Manager
Part of the Department for Work
and Pensions
http://dbs02app/BDCentres.nsf/Proof%20of%20Benef!t%20Letter?OpenForm&Seq=4
08/03/2018
92.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1098. Lorraine
Cordell _Re_ Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
05/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2289,2290,2291
92.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1098. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr Simon
Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
05/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2289,2290,2291
--
2289,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 05
December 2018 14:09
To: Ian
Davis
Sarah Cary
Jeremy Chambers
James Rolfe
Tony Theodoulou
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
Attachments: On
behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached letter regarding
issues I have.
Regards
2290,
RE: Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ->On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield,
EN3 7JQ.pdf
·
Complaint 05/12/2018
On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of
109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
I am writing this email due to
issues I have regarding a member of staff who works for Enfield Council by the
name off Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator,
Since 2016 when Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator started working for Enfield
Council he has been working on investigations relating to my son Mr. Simon
Cordell.
In this time not once has Mr
Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator, come to see my son’s side
to the alleged allegations regarding what the neighbours have put in about my
son.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator has taken one side to these said alleged
allegations without no investigations,’ Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi it seem has taken one
side to everything that has been said and that is the side of the neighbours,
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi has been told many times we have information which would
proof my son had not done things which have been stated by the neighbours
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator knows my son does not leave the flat he was
told this, and also told that if he wanted to attend a meeting with my son he
could do so with police there to have a meeting to hear my son’s side, he has
never got back to me regarding having a meeting at my son’s home because he
never wanted to, which I am sure if someone is a vulnerable person where was
the duty of care where has it ever been for my son?
I believe Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator just through to himself that my son is in the
wrong he is a vulnerable person I will put pressure on him and get him out
without even thinking there is 2 side to anything. And just blamed my son
without even talking to him this is how it has been since Mr Lemmy
1
2291,
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social
Behaviour Coordinator starting working for Enfield Council.
I also feel Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi
has taken information and not relayed it back correctly many times regarding my
son’s health even to the courts. Information is being passed and obtained
relating to my son which should never have been passed to 3 parties or used,
how can this be allowed. There are many other points and failings which have
been allowed to happen and this needs to stop. I will be drafting up a full
complaint of failings and submitting it but this will take a while to draft up
as I have got to go back some years.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi also had my
son arrested on the 09/01/2018 and even though we asked many times, even my own
son’s solicitors could not understand why he was the person still investigating
my son. When his case was part of the court actions being taken against my son
by Enfield Council this is against the law that someone is investigating
something within their own case, and it beaches many other things.
At this point in time I want Mr
Lemmy Nwabuisi taken off dealing with anything to do with my son or related to
him, I feel he has not done acted correctly and feel he has not investigated
anything which would prove my son has done nothing wrong and only wanted to
blame him for everything, I have asked this before and heard nothing back
regarding this. But it has got to the point in time that this needs to happen.
Could someone please get back to
me as soon as possible regarding this?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
2
93.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
93. 1.
2.
Mother
See Attached Document 06-12-2018-02-02
06/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2292,2293,2294,2295
93.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
93. 1. 2.
Mother See Attached Document
06-12-2018-02-02
06/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2292,2293,2294,2295
--
2292,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
06/12/2018 02:02:17 PM
Subject:
RE: Court Letter dated 03-12-2018
Attachments: Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf
see attached document
2293,
Miss Lorraine Cordell 109 Burncroft
Avenue Enfield EN37JQ
Edmonton County Court
59 Fore Street Upper Edmonton London
N18 2TN
DX 136686 Edmonton 3
Tel: 020 8884 6560
enquiries@edmonton.countvcourt.gsi.gov.uk
Minicom VII 0191
478 1476
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
03 December 2018
Our ref:
E00ED049
Your ref:
Dear Madam
Thank you for your email of 22nd
November 2018.
The file was referred to a Judge who
has made the following comments.
“A copy of the Court Order dated 9th
August 2018 is attached. If you consider that the Order is incorrect or should
be varied, the Court will consider the issue for this upon appropriate
application to the Court at a hearing to be listed. Unfortunately, the Court is
not able to give advice or enter into correspondence with you, but you are
strongly advised to seek further independent legal advice with regards to this
matter.”
Yours faithfully
Customer Services Enc
2294,
Court-Order-09-08-
H8-got-on-the-06-12-2.pdf
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number : E00ED049
Date: 6
September 2018
Ref:
LS/C/Ll/155584
Ref: TKK/TKK/
SIM041/002
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
1st
Defendant
Before District Judge Dias sitting at the
County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant's mother, the Defendant's uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 8th July 2018, confirming that the Defendant
lacks capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the
injunction order made on 9th January 2018.
UPON the Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist the
Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made. _ _ - - - - ~
AND UPON
the Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team
so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The
interim injunction order dated 9th January 2018 be discharged forthwith.
2. The
Claimants claim and application for an injunction dated 9th January 2018, the
Claimants applications for the Defendant's committal dated 5th February and 20
April 2018 and the Claimant's application notice dated 7th August 2018 do stand
dismissed.
The court office at the County Court at
Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NIB 2TN. When corresponding with the court,
please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number.
Tel: 020 8884 6500.
Check if you can issue your claim
online. It will save you time and money. Go to www.moneyelaim.gov.uk to find out more.
N24 General Form of Judgment or Order
Produced by:
D. Humphreys
2295,
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the Wood Green Police station.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant's
publicly funded costs. Dated 09 August 2018
94.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1108.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Simon Cordell update
07/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2296,2297,2298,2299
94.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1108. Lorraine Cordell _Re_
Simon Cordell update
07/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2296,2297,2298,2299
--
2296,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 07
December 2018 14:24
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell update
Attachments: Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf
Dear Trishna Kerai
I am writing this email to see
if you can help regarding the case that went on at Edmonton Country Court.
There has been a great deal of
issues with Enfield Council and not doing what the Judge stated for them to do.
I have had to write to the judge
regarding what Enfield Council are doing and I have had a reply back from the
court.
The order that Enfield Council
drafted does not even mean they have to move my son; he is living in hell and I
am working with the MP also regarding issues.
But the order Enfield Council
wrote needs to go back into court and get addressed as this can no longer carry
on as it is impacting my son's health.
Could you please take a look at
the letter and order that the court sent as we have never had a sealed copy of
the order until the other day due to the letter I wrote.
It would also seem that Enfield
Council when they got our amended order just asked the court to seal their
order.
Also the barrister that attended
court for my son on the 09/08/2018 did he make any court notes up if he did
could you send them to me.
I would be grateful for any help
on this matter
Regards
Lorraine
2297,
Miss Lorraine Cordell 109 Burncroft
Avenue Enfield EN37JQ
Edmonton County Court
59 Fore Street Upper Edmonton London
N18 2TN
DX 136686 Edmonton 3
Tel: 020 8884 6560
enquiries@edmonton.countvcourt.gsi.gov.uk
Minicom VII 0191
478 1476
(Helpline for the deaf and hard of
hearing)
03 December 2018
Our ref:
E00ED049
Your ref:
Dear Madam
Thank you for your email of 22nd
November 2018.
The file was referred to a Judge who
has made the following comments.
“A copy of the Court Order dated 9th
August 2018 is attached. If you consider that the Order is incorrect or should
be varied, the Court will consider the issue for this upon appropriate
application to the Court at a hearing to be listed. Unfortunately, the Court is
not able to give advice or enter into correspondence with you, but you are
strongly advised to seek further independent legal advice with regards to this
matter.”
Yours faithfully
Customer Services Enc
2298,
Court-Order-09-08-
H8-got-on-the-06-12-2.pdf
General Form of Judgment or Order
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number : E00ED049
Date: 6
September 2018
Ref:
LS/C/Ll/155584
Ref: TKK/TKK/
SIM041/002
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
1st
Defendant
Before District Judge Dias sitting at
the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant's mother, the Defendant's uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 8th July 2018, confirming that the Defendant
lacks capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the
injunction order made on 9th January 2018.
UPON the Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine Cordell,
confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist the Defendant's
neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer application on or
before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made. _ _ - - - - ~
AND UPON
the Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit
team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The
interim injunction order dated 9th January 2018 be discharged forthwith.
2. The
Claimants claim and application for an injunction dated 9th January 2018, the
Claimants applications for the Defendant's committal dated 5th February and 20
April 2018 and the Claimant's application notice dated 7th August 2018 do stand
dismissed.
The court office at the County Court at
Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NIB 2TN. When corresponding with the court,
please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number.
Tel: 020 8884 6500.
Check if you can issue your claim
online. It will save you time and money. Go to www.moneyelaim.gov.uk to find out more.
N24 General Form of Judgment or Order
Produced by:
D. Humphreys
2299,
3. The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the Wood Green Police station.
4. There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant's
publicly funded costs. Dated 09 August 2018
95.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
95. 1. 2.
Mother
I am trying to1-2018-002.doc13-12-2018-03-56
13/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2300,2301,2302,2303,2304,2305,2306,2307,2308,2309
95.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
95. 1. 2.
Mother I am trying
to1-2018-002.doc13-12-2018-03-56
13/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2300,2301,2302,2303,2304,2305,2306,2307,2308,2309
--
2300,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
13/12/2018 03:56:07 PM
Subject:
Please Read and deal with it.
Attachments: Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
Simon
I am trying to deal with this;
letters are going in and complaints. I need Lemmy taken off case then I can get
where we need to be but I also got to wait for things like the SAR and until I
got them it’s hard as I need to see what is on Enfield Councils systems, I also
need other SRA to come back I have asked for.
·
We need to see what is down for you we
need to see what has been shared there is a lot to deal with and it just can’t
be done overnight like you think it can.
·
I am doing 4 major write-ups, and this
is just for Enfield Council and these need to be done we need to get complaints
upheld which in turn shows they are in the wrong right now we don’t have that.
·
I have asked for a list to be completed
by you in regard to all the dates I sent over in a letter.
·
I am also doing write-ups for the ASBO
one for the IPCC, one for human rights and police misconduct solicitors in the
hope we get some help, and one for the courts, which outlays everything that
went on in court and what the police done.
·
Yes one write-up can help with the
next, I also writing a next write-up for the IPCC for what the lack of what the
police have done regarding Enfield Council.
·
These are not small write-up they are
large but have to be kept on point.
·
It would help me greatly if you can
complete the dates, I outlined in the document I sent you. But to me it seems
that is too much for you to do. I will send it again with this, but I don’t
think you will do but see attached.
·
I think once you see everything, I am
doing you will see I am not just sitting on my backside and doing nothing. We
cannot bring a case into court without there being order and the paperwork
correctly done. As that will just be all over the place and will go nowhere.
Yes something’s will take ages to complete but that does not mean other parts
are not getting dealt with.
·
I want the ASBO back in court as early
as I can get it there, but the paperwork needs to be in order, and we have to
have a clear outline of what went on.
·
Enfield Council are just digging
themselves deeper into this, but you got to let it run its cause.
·
Things cannot be done overnight like
you think they can be, and if you want this done correctly you will let me get
on with it without keep abusing me.
2301,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 6th July 2016, it is alleged that
you approached an elderly neighbour as he came out of his flat and started to
shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to burn down his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
Sometime in July 2016 it is alleged
that you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric cupboard and removed his
fuse box resulting in no electricity to his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 6th August 2016, it is alleged that
you threatened one of your neighbours and his wife and aggressively demanded
money from him. It is also alleged that you repeatedly swore and shouted abuse
at him and his wife and called his wife a ‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from
going up the stairs to his flat by standing in front of him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
Sometimes in September 2016 it is
alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour outside your block of flats,
109 - 119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the local park with another
resident and started to shout abuse and threats at him and said to him ‘I can
get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk’
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 27th September 2016, it is alleged
that you confronted one of your neighbours as he was returned to his flat with
his family and threatened and swore at him and demanded money from him. It is
also alleged that you later banged on his door, shouted further abuse, and
swear words at him and accused him of making noises inside his flat.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if you
got any evidence of this.
·
On 28th September 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on a neighbour’s door and threatened and shouted
verbal abuse and swear words at them. It is also alleged that you aggressively
demanded money from him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of
1
2302,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
this.
·
On 4th October 2016, it is alleged that
you aggressively banged on your ceiling and accused one of your neighbours of
making noises, you then went to your neighbour’s flat and started kicking and
banging on his front door aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor and
was swearing and shouting abuse at him. It is also alleged that you later went
downstairs, dragged your neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and
started to hit it with a piece of wood.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 22nd November 2016 during a
telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell your mother and Ms Sarah
Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported that she overheard you
threatened her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and then ‘I’m goanna take her
job just for fun’.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 8th December 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on one of your neighbours’ front door, shouted
abuse and threats and accused him of making noise.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 11th December 2016, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door several times and accused
them of banging on pipes. It is also alleged that you shouted abuse and threats
at them.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 14th December 2016, it is alleged
that you were verbally abusive towards a woman who was visiting one of your
neighbours as she knocked on your neighbour’s door.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 23rd December 2016, it is alleged
that you banged on a neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse at them and asked
them to turn their tap off. You then removed their electricity fuse thereby
cutting off their power supply.
2
2303,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 26th December 2016, it is alleged
that you ran up the communal stairs to the first floor and confronted one of
your neighbours as he was going out with his family and started to shout abuse
and threats at him and his wife and accused him of tampering with your water
supply, you also attempted to stop him from leaving the block.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 3rd January 2017, it is alleged that
you confronted one of your neighbours as he returned to the block with his wife
and two-year-old daughter and started shouting abuse and threats at them.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 21st January 2017, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse
and threats at them and accused them of making noises.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 31st January 2017, it is alleged
that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and
threats at them and accused them of banging on the floor.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
We received a report that on 7th
February 2017 you approached the leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his
plumber outside the block as they were attempting to resolve the problem
causing low water pressure in the flat. You said to the leaseholder that there
were problems between you and his tenants but did not give any specific
details. The leaseholder explained to you that his tenants were experiencing
low water pressure in the flat and you said to him ‘you will not solve the
problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder later knocked
on your door and asked whether you would increase the water pressure and you
stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it out later’.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
3
2304,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher
(Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk (Maintenance Surveyor) attended your
property at flat 109 Burncroft Avenue to inspect the property following reports
of low water pressure from flats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside
your flat, they observed that you have installed an iron security gate inside
your front door. It also appeared to them that the wall between your kitchen
and living room seemed to have been removed thereby creating an open plan
effect. Much of the property was taken up industrial type printers, boxes and
folders and there were dog faeces in your back garden.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB
Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to post a letter through your door and
as he got into his car to drive off after posting the letter, you ran after him
shouting and screaming abuse. The letter requested that you attend our offices
to discuss the nuisance reports being received from your neighbours. By the
time he returned to the office, you had telephoned him several times. He
telephoned you back and you asked whether he was the person that posted a letter
through your letterbox and he said yes. You asked why he did not stop when you
ran after him and he stated that he had another visit and did not have the time
to stop and talk to you. You stated that you will not attend the meeting at the
Civic Centre or any of the council offices as you are unable to leave your flat
and that the meeting should take place in your flat. Mr Nwabuisi offered to
have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the local library or at your
mother's house, but you refused saying that you have done nothing wrong and
accused him of taking sides with your neighbours.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 5th May 2017, it is alleged that you
threatened one of your neighbours by saying that you will ruin his life and
that you were going to the police to present evidence about his illegal
activities.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 14th May 2017, it is alleged that
you aggressively banged on one of your neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and
threats at her and falsely accused her of making noise and coming into your
flat to attack you. You later followed her to her car shouting abuse and
wanting to know where she was going.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
4
2305,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 14th May 2017 it is alleged that you
allowed your dog to run freely in the communal area of your block without a
lead.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 28th May 2017, the police issued you
with a first instance Harassment letter following reports of harassment and
threatening behaviour made to the police by one of your neighbours.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th June 2017, it is alleged that
you attacked one of your neighbours in the communal hallway of your block as he
returned from work late at night by grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby
causing bruising to his arm and neck. You also snatched his phone from him as
he tried to video-record the incident.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged
that you confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance
to your building and said to her that you had her bank details and personal
details such as date of birth and said to her that you wanted her and her
husband to pay you some money.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is
alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main
entrance to your building and said to her that you knew what time she went out
and what time she returned and to tell her husband that you would like to speak
to him.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if you
got any evidence of this.
·
On 23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is
alleged that you came out of your flat with your dog without a lead and
attacked one of your neighbours as he returned from work by punching him twice
on the chest. You tried to push him out of the block and snatched his phone as
he brought took it out of his pocket to record the incident.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
5
2306,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as she was leaving the block. You
swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her of making noise inside her flat.
You told her that you know all her personal details and that of her husband
including their full names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking details.
You demanded that they pay you some money and asked her to tell her husband to
come and see you.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as she was leaving the block and
accused her of slamming the door. She denied slamming the door and called her a
liar and proceeded to swear and shout abuse at her.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 2nd July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is
alleged that you confronted your neighbour as he was going out with his family
with your dog barking and without a lead and asked him when he was going to
hand over the money. It is also alleged that as they left the block, you ran
after them swearing and shouting abuse at your neighbour and demanding that he
must pay you some money if he wants you to leave him alone. You also said to
him that you have all their personal details including their dates of birth and
bank details.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 12th July 2017 an Enfield Council
Surveyor attended your flat to investigate reports of low water pressure to
flats above yours, but you refused him access. The Surveyor attended your flat
again in the evening of the same day following further reports that the water
supply to the affected flats had completely ceased and you refused him access.
You then followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him and
prevented him from entering his car. He then called the police.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is
alleged by one of your neighbours that you came to their front door, opened the
letterbox, and peeped through it to see who was inside the flat. You then
started swearing and shouting abuse and banging on their front door as soon as
you saw the neighbour’s wife.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
6
2307,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 2nd January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is
alleged that you stood outside your neighbour’s property for more than twenty
minutes swearing and shouting abuse. You went away and returned half an hour
later, you lifted their letterbox, stuck your mobile phone through the
letterbox and started to record his family while swearing and shouting abuse.
This went on for about fifteen minutes.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th January 2018 at about 12.18pm,
you telephone Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour officer) and accused him of forging
documents to get an antisocial behaviour order against him and you told him
that he had made you a prisoner within your home. You also stated that you knew
where he lives in Enfield and that he and his family were not safe from you.
You also told him that you would watch him leave the office and you would have
followed him home and he needed to watch his back. You called the ASB officer
again 30 minutes later and told him that you knew he has a flat in Edmonton and
also knew that one of his colleagues lives in Edmonton. You also stated that
you knew where they live, and they were not safe.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 9th January 2018 you called
Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and left a long voicemail on her work
telephone number and made threats.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm
it is alleged that you came to one of your neighbour’s front door and started
making loud banging noises and rattling with their letter box. You ran away
after the neighbour opened her front door.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 1st March 2018 it is alleged that
you knocked on one of your neighbours’ door loudly, you started rattling with
their letter box and started shouting. This went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but
you left after you’ve heard that the neighbour was calling the police.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
7
2308,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
·
On 15th March 2018 it is alleged that
you swore, shouted, and assaulted one of you neighbours in front of his wife
and his 3 years old child.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 1st May 2018, you attended the
Edmonton County Court as there was a hearing listed in relation to an
injunction. It is alleged that you started shouting abuse, swore and make
threats to two of the Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB officer and
Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and to one of your neighbours who attended Court
to give evidence. You also swore at a judge. These incidents were witnessed by
members of staff working at the Court.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 29th May 2018, it is alleged that
you attended one of your neighbours’ property; you took your dog with you and
waited by their front door. It is alleged that you tried to intimidate them as
they were due to attend a hearing in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence
in support of a claim for an injunction issued against you.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 30 May 2018, it is alleged that you
made threats to kill to one of your neighbours. The matter was reported to the
police. You were arrested and released on bail.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
You assaulted one of your neighbours on
the 26th August 2018 for flashing his toilet.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
You telephoned two council officers
(Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla Iyavoo) on 12th September 2018 and made
threats to them over the telephone. You also accused them of fraud and of
fabricating evidence to support the Council’s claim for an injunction
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of
8
2309,
Reports-neighbours-Council-23-11-2018-002.doc
this.
·
On 12th September 2018 at
about 3.50pm, you called one of your neighbours on his mobile phone using a
private number. It is not known how you obtained his number, but he terminated
the call. You called again using the same private number, but he terminated the
call as soon as he heard your voice. You called repeatedly after that.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
On 24th September 2018 at
about 11.30am, one of your neighbours returned home from dropping her daughter
at school and as she entered their block of flat, she noticed that the middle
door on the ground floor was open as well as your front door. As she went up the
stairs to their second floor flat, your dog came out of your flat and started
barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs to her flat to escape
from the dog. It was reported that your dog is always barking whenever they go
out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4 years old daughter are
terrified.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
One of your neighbours reported that
his cousin was leaving the block at about on 2 October 2018 at 12.45pm, and as
you exited the block, you followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket from
behind and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to
attract neighbours and managed to push you off.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
There are other reports from one of
your neighbours who reported that on 30th September 2018, you
attempted to break down his front door by kicking it several times only because
he flashed his toilet.
Please write here what happened with this alleged allegation, write if
you got any evidence of this.
·
It is reported that you continue to
harass and intimidate other residents on a regular basis.
9
96.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
96. 1.
2.
GoDaddy
-1-4740 15-12-2018 23-34
15/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2310,2311
96.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
96. 1. 2.
GoDaddy -1-4740 15-12-2018 23-34
15/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2310,2311
--
2310,
From: GoDaddy
<AccountStatus@GoDaddy.com>
Sent time: 15/12/2018
11:33:41 PM
Subject:
Simon, your December account summary inside.
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020
7084 1810
Simon Cordell — Customer
Number: 37
December Account Summary for
Simon.
View Your Account
. co.uk,
. org.uk or
. me.uk
domain before 10 June 2014?
The corresponding .UK domain
name may have been reserved for you. Act fast to secure it before 10 June 2019.
Learn more.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step
verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
What's in your account:
Domains
Update your domain settings
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
T-S-ENTERPRISES.CO.UK
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
TOOSMOOTHENTERTAINMENT.COM
T-S-ENTERPRISES.COM
TOOSMOOTH.CO.UK
Manage Your Domains
2311,
cPanel Hosting
Keep your store open 24/7 with a
.shop web address. Register new .shop domains today for just Ł35.84 Ł8.04.
Ł16.10
Ł9.99*
Ł26.99
Ł4.99*
Ł12.10
Ł0.99*
*See
offer terms, conditions, and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2018 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
2090513407
97.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1127.
Kaunchita Maudhub _Re_ Mr Simon Cordell
28/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2312,2313,2314,2315,2316,2317
97.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1127. Kaunchita Maudhub _Re_ Mr
Simon Cordell
28/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2312,2313,2314,2315,2316,2317
--
2312,
From: Kaunchita
Maudhub <Kaunchita.Maudhub@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 28
December 2018 13:14
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Letter to Lorraine Cordell 28.12.18.pdf
Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a letter in
response to your emails dated 12th and 20th December 18 sent to Ms Andrea
Clemons.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
Tel: 020
8379-4182
kaunchita.maudhub@enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
December 2018 13:55
To:
Andrea Clemons
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremy.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
I was wondering if you was going
to reply to the below email as it has been a few days since I sent it and I
feel this is very important due to the action going to be taken from Enfield
Council, and I did not have a reply to my last email to you.
I would like the incorrect
information corrected that is being used, and without a reply I cannot do this,
I have attached a copy of your letter sent to the MP dated 12/12/2018.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17 December 2018
17:12
To: 'Andrea Clemons'; 'alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk'
2313,
Subject:
RE: Mr Simon Cordell. 109
Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
Today
the MP's aid for Joan Ryan, Alev
Cazimoglu sent me a copy of your letter dated the 12/12/2018, I am shocked to
see what is written within it and the misleading information being passed over
to the MP Joan Ryan.
It was not agreed on the condition that Mr Cordell should engage with
mental health services and provide medical evidence to support the housing
management transfer application. The court did not state this, so I do not know
where this is coming from.
I also do not understand where it is coming from that Mr Cordell had to
provided supporting letter from the mental health services to support his
management transfer application, and he has not done this, he was never meant
to have done this and the management transfer application was completed by
Enfield Council to go to the panel on the 17/08/2018 and it was ready to go to
the panel on this date, but this was deferred to be considered at the next
panel meeting which would have taken place on 28/09/2018, which never happened.
The reason for it being deferred was so that I Miss Lorraine Cordell
could try and get a letter from the mental health team, which I could not so it
therefore should have gone ahead to the panel on the 28/09/2018, which I do
have the emails to prove this. I also do not understand why Enfield Council is
stating supported accommodation was being asked for as this was never asked
for. I did however state in court that a 2 bedroom would be better as my son
could have family live with him so he could get support from his family; I have
never said I am his carer I have never said a lot of things that Enfield
Council is stating I have said.
It was stated in the court order.
·
UPON
the Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage
with the Claimant and assist the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a
housing management transfer application on or before 16 August 2018.
·
UPON
the Claimant agreeing that it will deal with the housing management transfer
application as quickly as possible after being made.
·
AND
UPON the Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health
Unit team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing.
The order was to be agreed with my son’s solicitor upon being drafted
by Enfield Council, but my son’s solicitor was on annual leave and therefore
did not reply to Enfield Council order until she came back of leave, But when
you emailed her it came back that she was on annual leave so
Enfield Council was well aware of this.
Upon her return from annual
leave her amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo, which my son’s
solicitor never had a reply back from Ludmilla Iyavoo regarding her amended
order, but some days after the amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo,
it seems an order was sealed at Edmonton Country Court which was not agreed on
which was Enfield Council drafted order, which we never agreed to and feel it
is misleading as to what was said in court.
I believe a lot of what was said
in court is not being told and misleading information is being said, maybe
someone should ask Ludmilla Iyavoo what the judge said when Ludmilla Iyavoo
said she would go for a possession order to the judge because she did not get
what she wanted.
There is also the fact that my
son was willing to stay in Hospital when he was sectioned on the 25/10/2018, it
was the hospital that discharged him on the 15/11/2018 due to not getting the
section 3 on my son they wanted, that was heard on the 14/11/2018, my son said
as soon as he knew they was not allowing the section 3 on the 14/11/2018 that
they would kick him out of the hospital, as
2314,
this is what they did in 2016,
and the next day the 15/11/2018 that is what the doctors did kicked him out the
hospital, yet my son was willing to stay and build trust up with the doctors
and the mental health team, which had broken down due to what has been ongoing
for some time.
Which in fact would have been a
lot better as if he had been allowed to stay in hospital like he wanted maybe
by now they would have been trust built up with the doctors and teams, this is
what Soohah Appadoo wanted to do as he saw that there was a real problem with
trust and stated this at the appeal on the section 2 at the hearing. On the
16/11/2018 I myself spoke to Soohah Appadoo on the phone, but since that we
have heard nothing from him is this what is being called support put in place
when my son was discharged from hospital?
This misleading information
needs to stop as it is a beach of the data protection act.
I look forward to hearing from
you regarding this, please can you reply as I did not get a reply from you to
my last email, I sent to you.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual
and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2315,
2316,
2317,
98.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1129.
Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr Simon Cordell_ (4)
28/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2318,2319,2320,2321,2322,2323,2324,2325,2326
98.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1129. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ Mr
Simon Cordell_ (4)
28/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2318,2319,2320,2321,2322,2323,2324,2325,2326
--
2318,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 28
December 2018 22:16
To: Kaunchita
Maudhub
Andrea Clemons
Alev Cazimoglu
chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Enfield-Counci-Reply-28-12-2018.pdf
Dear Kaunchita Maudhub and Andrea
Clemons
Please see attached reply to your
letter dated the 28/12/2018.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Kaunchita
Maudhub
[mailto: Kaunchita.Maudhub@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 28
December 2018 13:14
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a letter in
response to your emails dated 12th and 20th December 18 sent to Ms Andrea
Clemons.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
Tel: 020
8379-4182
kaunchita.maudhub@enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
December 2018 13:55
To:
Andrea Clemons
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremv.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
I was wondering if you was going
to reply to the below email as it has been a few days since I sent it and I
feel this is very important due to the action going to be taken from Enfield
Council, and I did not have a reply to my last email to you.
2319,
I would like the incorrect
information corrected that is being used, and without a reply I cannot do this,
I have attached a copy of your letter sent to the MP dated 12/12/2018.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
December 2018 17:12
To: 'Andrea
Clemons'; 'alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk'
2313,
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
Today the MP's aid for Joan Ryan, Alev
Cazimoglu sent me a copy of your letter dated the 12/12/2018, I am shocked to
see what is written within it and the misleading information being passed over
to the MP Joan Ryan.
It was not agreed on the
condition that Mr Cordell should engage with mental health services and provide
medical evidence to support the housing management transfer application. The
court did not state this, so I do not know where this is coming from.
I also do not understand where
it is coming from that Mr Cordell had to provided supporting letter from the
mental health services to support his management transfer application, and he
has not done this, he was never meant to have done this and the management
transfer application was completed by Enfield Council to go to the panel on the
17/08/2018 and it was ready to go to the panel on this date, but this was
deferred to be considered at the next panel meeting which would have taken
place on 28/09/2018, which never happened.
The reason for it being deferred
was so that I Miss Lorraine Cordell could try and get a letter from the mental
health team, which I could not so it therefore should have gone ahead to the
panel on the 28/09/2018, which I do have the emails to prove this. I also do
not understand why Enfield Council is stating supported accommodation was being
asked for as this was never asked for. I did however state in court that a 2
bedroom would be better as my son could have family live with him so he could
get support from his family; I have never said I am his carer I have never said
a lot of things that Enfield Council is stating I have said.
It was stated in the court
order.
·
UPON the Defendant's mother Mrs
Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist
the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
·
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made.
·
AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing
to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant could
receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing.
The order was to be agreed with
my son’s solicitor upon being drafted by Enfield Council, but my son’s
solicitor was on annual leave and therefore did not reply to Enfield Council
order until she came back of leave, But when you emailed her it came back
2320,
that she was on annual leave so
Enfield Council was well aware of this.
Upon her return from annual
leave her amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo, which my son’s
solicitor never had a reply back from Ludmilla Iyavoo regarding her amended
order, but some days after the amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo,
it seems an order was sealed at Edmonton Country Court which was not agreed on
which was Enfield Council drafted order, which we never agreed to and feel it
is misleading as to what was said in court.
I believe a lot of what was said
in court is not being told and misleading information is being said, maybe
someone should ask Ludmilla Iyavoo what the judge said when Ludmilla Iyavoo
said she would go for a possession order to the judge because she did not get
what she wanted.
There is also the fact that my
son was willing to stay in Hospital when he was sectioned on the 25/10/2018, it
was the hospital that discharged him on the 15/11/2018 due to not getting the
section 3 on my son they wanted, that was heard on the 14/11/2018, my son said
as soon as he knew they was not allowing the section 3 on the 14/11/2018 that
they would kick him out of the hospital, as this is what they did in 2016, and
the next day the 15/11/2018 that is what the doctors did kicked him out the
hospital, yet my son was willing to stay and build trust up with the doctors
and the mental health team, which had broken down due to what has been ongoing
for some time.
Which in fact would have been a
lot better as if he had been allowed to stay in hospital like he wanted maybe
by now they would have been trust built up with the doctors and teams, this is
what Soohah Appadoo wanted to do as he saw that there was a real problem with
trust and stated this at the appeal on the section 2 at the hearing. On the
16/11/2018 I myself spoke to Soohah Appadoo on the phone, but since that we
have heard nothing from him is this what is being called support put in place
when my son was discharged from hospital?
This misleading information
needs to stop as it is a beach of the data protection act.
I look forward to hearing from
you regarding this, please can you reply as I did not get a reply from you to
my last email, I sent to you.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
http://www.enfieldgov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Opinions expressed in this email
are those of the individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Enfield. This email
2321,
and any attachments or files
transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended solely for the named
addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you
are not the intended recipient and receive it in error you must not copy,
distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All traffic handled by
the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or
monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2322,2323,2324,2325,2326,
99.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
99. 1.
2.
Google
New device 31-12-2018 -01-04
31/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2327
99.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
99. 1. 2.
Google New device 31-12-2018
-01-04
31/12/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2327
--
2327,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time:
31/12/2018 01:04:58 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for longgoneone1@gmail.com.
Don't recognize this account? Click here
longgoneone1@gmail.com
Your Google Account was just
signed in to from a new Windows device. You're getting this email to make sure
it was you.
Check activity
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2018
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
100.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
100. 1. 2.
Dropbox 12-01-2019 -01-07
12/01/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2328
100.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
100. 1. 2.
Dropbox 12-01-2019 -01-07
12/01/2018
/ Page Numbers: 2328
--
2328,
From: Dropbox <no-reply@dropbox.com>
Sent time: 12/01/2018
01:07:21 AM
Hi Rewired,
Your Dropbox account password
was recently reset.
While we've updated your
password, any computers, or phones that you previously linked to your Dropbox
account are still connected. You can disconnect a lost or stolen device from
your account settings.
If you changed your password for
security reasons, we strongly recommend that you unlink any devices, web
sessions, or apps that look unfamiliar or that you're concerned about. See this
Help Centre article for more information.
If you didn't make this change,
please let us know.
Thanks!
The Dropbox Team
2018 Dropbox
Headers
2019
1.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1. 1
Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk_01.07.2019_RE Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 11:13:00
07/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1. 1
Trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk_01.07.2019_RE Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 11:13:00
07/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
--
1,
From: Trishna
Kerai <Trishna@stuartmillersolidtors.co.uk>
Sent: 07
January 2019 11:13
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Attachments: LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Order 09082018 (686 KB)
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Order 09082018 (680 KB)
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended
Order 09082018 (667 KB)
Hi Lorraine,
Thank you for your emails.
Please see emails attached sent
to Ludmilla in relation to the below.
Emails had been sent to her and
she did not respond confirming whether the amendments were accepted or not.
The only time we were waiting
for your instructions were when we were waiting for an amendment in the Order.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone
on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a result
of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised to
conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not
accept responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees
or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at
info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No.
990 0197 14).
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 28
December 2018 14:14
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell-E00ED049
Dear Trishna Kerai
2,
I have sent some emails to you and I
have had no replies regarding issues I am having regarding the court order that
was made on the 09/08/2018.
Today I got a letter from Enfield
Council which stated that you agreed with Enfield Council draft order on the
13/08/2018 but was waiting instructions from me.
Please see below
6.
"In relation to the allegations
made in regard to the draft Order submitted to the Court. Ms lyavoo explains
that she contacted Ms Trishna Kerai, of Stuart Miller Solicitors; the
caseworker instructed on behalf of Simon Cordell on 10th August 2018 and
emailed her a draft order. Ms lyavoo did not hear from Ms Kerai, so she emailed
her again on 13th August 2018 and asked that she provides her agreement as soon
as possible and if no response was made by 4pm on the same day she will have to
email the draft to the Judge. Ms lyavoo states that she received a response
from Ms Kerai on the same day stating that she agreed with the order, but she
was waiting for your instructions. As no response was forthcoming, Ms lyavoo
had to email the order to the Court on 15th. August 2018 and she also copied
Simon's caseworker to the email. Ms Kerai has never indicated that she was on
annual leave during the time of the correspondence but confirmed that the delay
was due to the receipt of your instructions."
I am very upset as you was well aware
when you sent me the draft order on the 13th August 2018 to me, I
did not agree to it and you said you was going to try and rewrite it that day,
which was not done until after you came back from leave. So how is Enfield
Council blaming that on me saying you stated the delay was due to me not
getting back to you with instructions?
I am having a great deal of issues with
Enfield Council they are not moving Simon and are going to take him back to
court to try and get his flat. They have not put the management transfer
application in front of the panel and are saying they will not do this.
It seems due to the way the court order
was worded this is being put down to me, due to this section in the order
please see below.
7.
AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing
to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant could
receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing.
know you feel that this was dealt with and you
should not need to do any other work regarding this, but this is a mess and I
need some help as my son is suffering due to the on goings of Enfield Council.
I await your reply
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
3,
RE:
Simon Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (686
KB).msg
From: Trishna
Kerai
[Trishna@stuartmiUersolicitors.co.uk]
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo1
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:58:42
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Attachments: image001.jpg
(570 KB)
image002.jpg (1 KB)
image003.jpg (1 KB)
image004.jpg (1 KB)
image005.jpg (2 KB)
image006.png (0 KB)
image007.png (48 KB)
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended
Order.docx (17 KB)
Dear Ludmilla,
Please find our final draft of
the Order. You will see the amendments we have made.
Please provide us with your
views.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
mailto:
Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 15
August 2018 15:49
To: Dias, DJ Allison
Cc: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Judge,
Further to the hearing which
took place on 9th
August 2018, I attach a draft
order for the Court's approval. I apologise for the
4,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (686 KB).msg
delay in sending this draft
order to you, I have been waiting for the Defendant's solicitor’s approval
which has not been received as yet.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to you and Mrs
Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell is
an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of tenancy
and cannot make a rehousing application.
am advised that the application needs to be
done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer and
asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor Corporate
Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615 Enfield 1
Telephone:
020 8379 8323
Fax: 020 8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
5,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (686 KB).msg
Be the first to receive the
latest Council
news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy,
distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All traffic handled by
the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or
monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
6,
RE: Simon Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (686 KB). mgs->LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Amended Order.doc
IN
THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON Claim No:
E00ED049
Before
District Judge Dias
BETWEEN
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFTELD
Claimant
and
MR
STMON CORDELL
Defendant
ORDER
UPON hearing Solicitor for the Claimant and
Defendant, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s uncle, and the Defendant not
attending.
UPON the Court reviewing the psychiatrist
report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 08 July 2018 confirming that the Defendant lacks
capacity to litigate and/or capacity to understand the terms of the injunction
order made on 09 January 2018.
UPON Mr Cordell’s mother, Miss Lorraine
Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist Mr
Cordell neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will deal
with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible after
being made.
7,
And UPON the Claimant taking
into account when dealing with the housing management transfer the need for a
suitable two-bedroom
property so Mr Cordell can have a spare room for carers and for his family so
he can get the support that he requires.
IT IS ORDERED:
· The
interim injunction order dated 09 January 2018 is dismissed forthwith.
· The
Claimant’s claim and application for an injunction dated 09 January 2018, the
Claimant’s applications for the Defendant’s committal dated 05 February 2018
and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant’s application notice dated 07 August 2018 do
stand dismissed.
· The
Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the police to confirm the
injection orders dated 9 August 2017 and the 09 January 2018 has been
dismissed.
· There
be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment of the Defendant’s
publicly funded costs.
· Dated
09 August 2018
8,
RE:
Simon Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (680
KB).msg
From: Trishna
Kerai
[Trishna@stuartmiUersolicitors.co.uk]
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo1
Sent: 17
September 2018 09:58:36
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Attachments: image001.jpg
(570 KB)
image002.jpg (1 KB)
image003.jpg (1 KB)
image004.jpg (1 KB)
image005.jpg (2 KB); image006.png (0 KB)
image007.png (48 KB)
Hi Ludmilla,
Further to my email below, could
I please have a response with your views in relation to our proposed amended
Order. Many thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use your
personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Trishna
Kerai
Sent: 04
September 2018 15:59
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo'
Cc: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High Dear Ludmilla,
Please find our final draft of
the Order. You will see the amendments we have made.
Please provide us with your
views.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
9,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (680 KB).msg
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have received
this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by telephone on 020
8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept
responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or
agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may use your personal data for marketing
purposes. If you do not want us to use your personal data and contact you by
electronic means and / or by post, please opt-out by emailing us at
info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart
Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a trading
name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated in England & Wales
(Company No.
07161343). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla Iyavoo [mailto:
Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 15
August 2018 15:49
To: Dias, DJ Allison
Cc: Trishna Kerai
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Judge,
Further to the hearing which
took place on 9th August 2018, I attach a draft order for the Court's approval.
I apologise for the delay in sending this draft order to you, I have been
waiting for the Defendant's solicitor’s approval which has not been received as
yet.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo
Solicitor
Corporate Team
Legal Services
Enfield Council
Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High Dear Trishna,
write further to my email to you and Mrs
Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr Cordell is
an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer of tenancy
and cannot make a rehousing application.
I am advised that the
application needs to be done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have
emailed the officer and asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible.
Mrs Cordell is also encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they
10,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 Order 09082018 (680 KB).msg
can support him with his MH
issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo
Solicitor
Corporate Team
Legal Services
Enfield Council
Silver Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Be the first to receive the
latest
Council news
straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
11,
RE: Simon Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon
Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018 (667 KB).msg
From: Trishna
Kerai [Trishna@stuartmiUersolicitors.co.uk]
To: 'Ludmilla Iyavoo1
Sent: 13
August 2018 14:52:12
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Attachments: image001.jpg
(570 KB)
image002.jpg (1 KB).
image003.jpg (1 KB)
image004.jpg (1 KB)
image005.jpg (2 KB)
image006.png (0 KB)
image007.png (48 KB
Dear Ludmilla,
Please note that we have no
issues with the Order, but I have been waiting for a response from my client's
mum in relation to the Order. I have just text her and will let you know once
she gets back to me.
Please also note that we will
not be dealing with the Housing Management Transfer Application as we are only
instructed to deal with the breach of Injunction Order.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Trishna Kerai | Caseworker |
Magistrates Court Department
T: 0208
888 5225
M: 07790
993 860
E: trishna@stuartminersolicitors.co.uk
W: www.stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk
The information in this email is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
addressee and access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or
opinions presented are those of the author only and do not necessarily
represent those of Stuart Miller Solicitors. If you are not the intended
recipient; any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken in
reliance of this email or attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. To
avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the
information in this email without the express permission of the sender. When
addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email or
attachments are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing
client engagement letter or contract and terms of business. If you have
received this email in error please notify Stuart Miller Solicitors by
telephone on 020 8888 5225, by fax on 020 8889 5871 or by email at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept service of
documents by email. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be
guaranteed. It is your responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure
this email and any attachments or transmissions are free from viruses. Stuart
Miller Solicitors do not accept any responsibility for damage incurred as a
result of internet transmissions and viruses. Only the Directors are authorised
to conclude binding agreements on behalf of Stuart Miller Solicitors by email.
Stuart Miller Solicitors do not accept responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. Stuart Miller Solicitors may
use your personal data for marketing purposes. If you do not want us to use
your personal data and contact you by electronic means and / or by post, please
opt-out by emailing us at info@stuartmillersolicitors.co.uk Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited is authorised and
regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (ID No. 533277). Stuart Miller
Solicitors is a trading name for Stuart Miller Solicitors Limited. Incorporated
in England & Wales (Company No. 07161343). Stuart Miller Solicitors is a
VAT registered company (VAT No. 990 0197 14).
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo [mailto:Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 13
August 2018 14:48
To: Trishna Kerai
Subject: RE:
LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Dear Trishna,
12,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
amended Order 09082018 (667 KB).msg
I refer to my email sent to you on
Friday 10/08 with a draft order and I am concerned that no response has been
made since. Can you please advise me whether your client is in agreement? If I
do not hear from you by 4pm today, I will have to email the Court and advise
them that your lack of response is delaying the approval of the order.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
Sent: 10
August 2018 14:42
To: 'Trishna Kerai'
Subject: LBE
v Simon Cordell-E00ED049 amended Order 09082018
Importance: High
Dear Trishna,
I write further to my email to
you and Mrs Lorraine Cordell. Our allocation manager has advised us that as Mr
Cordell is an existing council tenant, he is entitled to apply for a transfer
of tenancy and cannot make a rehousing application.
am advised that the application needs to be
done via Mr Cordell's neighbourhood officer. I have emailed the officer and
asked him to contact Mrs Cordell as soon as possible. Mrs Cordell is also
encouraged to contact the Mental Health Team so they can support him with his
MH issues and rehousing. I have amended the order to reflect the above and look
forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
13,
RE: Simon
Cordell-E00ED049-> LBE v Simon Cordell-E00ED049
amended Order 09082018 (667 KB).msg
Be the first to receive the
latest Council
news straight to your inbox
SIGN UPONL NENOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1.
2.
Wix
09-01-2019 -03-13
09/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 14,15
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1. 2.
Wix 09-01-2019 -03-13
09/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 14,15
--
14,
From: Sent time: To:
Subject:
Wix.com <wix-team@emails.wix.com>
09/01/2019 03:13:51 PM re_wired@ymail.com
Here are the trends you need to
know in 2019
WlX.com
Stay Ahead of the Trends in 2019
Get the latest on web design, SEO
and online marketing sent directly to your inbox.
Web Design: What to Know for
2019
SEO: The Definitive List to Get
Found on Google
Social Media: Tips You Can’t
Afford to Miss
Marketing: The Top 10 Trends of
2019
15,
Stay up to date with our latest news
& features.
Please do not reply to this
email.
If you wish to unsubscribe
500 Terry A Francois Blvd San
Francisco, CA 94158 Wix.com Ltd., Wix.com Inc. www.wix.com View
our privacy policy.
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2019_RE Your request for information
(Our ref CRM SAR 13:54:00
21/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18
19,20
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.21.2019_RE
Your request for information (Our ref CRM SAR 13:54:00
21/01/2019
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18,19,20
--
16,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 21
January 2019 13:54
To: 'Kailey Plahar'
Subject: RE:
Your request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Attachments: Simon-Cordell-authority-Letter-21-01-2019.pdf
Dear Kailey Plahar
Please see attached document of
authority for ref: CRM SAR 1085 regarding request for data for Mr Simon
Cordell.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Kailey
Plahar
mailto:
Kailey.Plahar@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 15
January 2019 10:04
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Dear Ms Cordell
I have noted an error in my
email below. We already identification for your son, so we just require
clarification of the request and your son's express permission to share his
personal data with you. I apologise for any inconvenience.
Kind regards
Kailey Plahar
Statutory Complaints and Access
to Information Officer
Complaints and Access to
Information Team
Chief Executive
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
From: Kailey
Plahar
Sent: 15
January 2019 10:02
To: 'Lorraine Cordell' <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Your
request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Dear Ms Cordell Thank you for
your email.
To clarify, the process for
dealing with subject access requests is independent of any other interactions
you have had with any other Council service. We will need express permission
from your son that he is happy for us to share his personal data from you. Once
this is provided, we will also require two forms of identification from your
son to confirm his own identity.
As per my email below, we are
still unclear of what information you/your son requires. Please could you
clarify what information is required and in which departments it is likely to
be held.
17,
When we receive your reply, we
shall provide you with a further update. Should you have any queries in the
meantime Kind regards
Kailey Plahar
Statutory Complaints and Access
to Information Officer
Complaints and Access to
Information Team
Chief Executive
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 08
January 2019 13:55
To: Kailey Plahar <Kailey.Plahar@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Your request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Dear Kailey Plahar
I am writing regarding the below
email case number CRM SAR 1085; I am sorry about the time that it has taken me
to reply but I have been very busy. You state you do not have an authority
Letter on your systems for me to act on behalf of my son Simon Cordell, but
there is in place letters of authority across Enfield Council for me to dealt
with everything for my son. So I cannot understand why you cannot find them as
many have been sent over can you please look into this and see why you feel I
do not already have authority as it has never been removed.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Kailey
Plahar mailto: Kailey.Plahar@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 04
December 2018 12:55
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR 1085)
Dear Ms Cordell
We note that you have raised a request
for information which relates to another person. In line with the Data
Protection Act 2018, we are unable to correspond with you on these matters.
Where a request for information is made on behalf of somebody else, we need to
confirm that they are happy for you to access their personal information.
Should Simon Cordell want you to act on their behalf and access their personal
information, he will need to provide us with their signed written agreement to
the complaint issues raised and for you to proceed with these on their behalf.
We note that your request is for
‘all data that is held about me on Enfield Council systems all departments’. As
your request does not provide us with much detail, we need you to clarify the
specific information you are looking for.
In order for us to retrieve
relevant records, we would need to know where your personal information could
be located, and it would greatly help our search if you are able to give us
more details regarding:
· Clarifying
the type of information that you think the Council may hold about Mr Cordell
· Clarifying
the likely dates or time period when you think the information may have been
created
· Clarifying
if you only want information relating to a particular issue or specific time
period
18,
We have registered your request under
case number CRM SAR 1085, and you may quote this when you get back in touch
with us.
We look forward to your response. Once
we receive the clarification from you, we will contact you with a further
update. Yours sincerely,
Kailey Plahar
Statutory Complaints and Access to
Information Officer
Complaints and Access to Information
Team
Chief Executive
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 25
November 2018 12:07
To: Enfield Data Protection Officer (Corporate) <enfield.data.protection.officer@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject:
RE: Subject
access Request Simon Cordell
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached 4 documents
regarding the request for all data that his held about me on Enfield Council
systems all departments. If you need a fee or any other information, please
reply to this Email as soon as possible.
Regards
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
19,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
20,
RE: Your
request for information (Our ref: CRM SAR
1085)->Simon_Cordell_authority_Letter_21-01-2019.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 21/01/2019
• Subject Access Requests for my data
authority Letter: 21/01/2019
To whom it may concern:
I am writing this letter to
confirm I do give my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell my authority to obtain my
data under the SAR that was submitted to Enfield Council on the 25 November
2018.
I agree and give authority that
my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell may receive replies to any emails that is
written from her email address lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk to Enfield Council
regarding the SAR on my behalf.
My mother Miss Lorraine Cordell
can also speak to anyone that is needed at Enfield Council to deal with the SAR
request that has been submitted on my behalf.
And I allow Enfield Council to
send any data gathered to my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell regarding the SAR.
Full details of my mother Miss
Lorraine Cordell are below.
23 Byron Terrace Edmonton London
N9 7DG
07807 333545
Regards
Simon Cordell
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1.
1
Gis.group@btinternet.com_01.25.2019_SIMON
CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION
25/01/2019
10:43:00
/ Page Numbers: 21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33,34,35
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1. 1
Gis.group@btinternet.com_01.25.2019_SIMON
CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION
25/01/2019 10:43:00
/ Page Numbers: 21,22,23,24
25,26,27,28,29,30
31,32,33,34,35
--
21,
From: A
PHILIPPOU <gis.group@btinternet.com>
Sent: 25
January 2019 10:43
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SIMON
CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION
Attachments: LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE OF SEEKING
POSSESSION 25JAN19.AP.pdf
Hi Lorraine
I have been instructed by the London
Borough of Enfield to effect service of the attached Notice of Seeking
Possession relating to your son Simon Cordell for the address supplied of 106
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JH. Please be mindful of its content
copies of which have been posted through the letterbox of your son's address as
well as attaching two further copies on and adjacent to the front door of said
property.
Many thanks
Andy
Global Investigation Services
Incorporating the G.I.S. Group
(UK)
Earnscliff House London N9 9AB
Tel: 020 8884 6299 Mobile: 07918 104488
22,
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
(Cyprus)
No 6, Ground Floor Offices
6, Freedom Road Drousheia Village
Paphos District Cyprus 8700
Tel:(00357) 99136710 Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
Andy Philippou
·
Full Member/Association of British
Investigators 1508 (p)
·
Full Member Institute of Professional
Investigators
·
Full Member/World Association of
Professional Investigators
23,
SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF
SEEKING POSSESSION->LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE
OF SEEKING POSSESSION 25JAN19 AP.pdf
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Housing Department P.O. Box No. 60,
Civic Centre, Enfield
NOTICE
OF SEEKING POSSESSION
HOUSING
ACT 1985 - SECTION 83
THIS NOTICE IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS
REQUIRING YOU TO GIVE UP POSSESSION OF YOUR DWELLING. YOU SHOULD READ IT AND
ALL THE NOTES VERY CAREFULLY.
1.
To: Mr Simon Cordell
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 1
If you need advice about this Notice,
and what you should do about it, take it as quickly as possible to a Citizens’ Advice
Bureau, a Housing Aid Centre, or a Law Centre, or to a Solicitor. You may be
able to receive Legal Aid, but this will depend on your personal circumstances.
2.
The Landlord, the Mayor and Burgesses
of the London Borough of Enfield intends to apply to the Court for an order
requiring you to give up possession of:
109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN3 7JQ
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 2
If you are a secure tenant under the
Housing Act 1985, you can only be required to leave your dwelling if your
landlord obtains an order for possession from the Court. The order must be
based on one of the Grounds, which are set out in the 1985 Act (see paragraphs
3 and 4 below).
If you are willing to give up
possession without a Court order, you should notify the person who signed this
Notice as soon as possible and say when you would leave.
3.
Possession will be sought on Grounds 1
& 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985, which read:
Ground 1
l
24,
Rent lawfully due from the tenant has
not been paid or an obligation of the tenancy has been broken or not performed.
Ground 2
a)
The tenant or a person residing in or
visiting the dwelling-house -
has been guilty of conduct causing or
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing, visiting,
or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or
(aa)
has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance
to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by
the landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions,
and that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions, or
b)
has been convicted of—
i.
using the dwelling-house or allowing
it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
ii.
an indictable offence committed in,
or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 3
Whatever Grounds for possession are set
out in paragraph 3 of this Notice, the Court may allow any of the other Grounds
to be added at a later stage. If this is done, you will be told about it so you
can argue at the hearing in Court about the new Ground, as well as the Grounds
set out in paragraph 3 if you want to.
4. The
reasons for taking this action are>
You have failed to comply with the
following obligations of your tenancy agreement which commenced on 14th
August 2006.
The relevant conditions of the tenancy
agreement are as follows:
As to Ground 2
Condition 9
2
25,
“You, the tenant, are responsible for
the behaviour of anyone, including your children, living in, or visiting your
home. This means that you must ensure that they do not act in breach of any of
these conditions. Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way. This
applies in the property, in communal and surrounding areas, any property
belonging to the council and or anywhere within Enfield borough.”
Condition 10
“You must not act in any way which
causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance or is anti-social.”
Condition 21
“You must not abuse, harass, make
offensive comments and/or malicious allegations, use or threaten to use
violence against any of our officers or agents, or against a councillor. This
applies at any time and in any place. We may report the matter to the Police.”
As to Ground 1
Condition 31
“You must take care not to cause damage
to your property or the property of your neighbours.”
Condition 33
“You must keep the inside of your property
clean and in reasonable decorative order.”
Condition 34
“You must not use the property in any
way that may cause a health or safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or pests
(for example, by hoarding items inappropriately).”
Condition 44
“You must obtain our prior written
permission before carrying out any alterations, improvements or structural work
to the property. You may need to obtain other permissions such as planning
permission or building regulations approval.”
Condition 53
“You must keep the inside of the
property, the fixtures and fittings and all glass in the property in good
repair during the tenancy.”
3
26,
Condition 57
“You must allow our employees,
representatives and contractors to come into your property to service any
electrical and gas supplies and appliances that we are responsible for
maintaining.”
Condition 69
“You must not interfere with the
electric or gas supply.”
Condition 76
“You have the right to keep one pet, or
animal such as a cat, a dog, small bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider,
small snake or lizard, rabbit hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic
rat as long as they do not cause damage to the property, or nuisance or
annoyance to anyone in your locality.”
Condition 79
“You must always keep your dog(s) on a
lead in communal areas and on our land.”
Particulars of Breaches
1. On 6th
July 2016, it is alleged that you approached an elderly neighbour as he came
out of his flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to
burn down his flat.
2. Sometime
in July 2016 it is alleged that you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric
cupboard and removed his fuse box, resulting in no electricity to his flat. ,
3. On 6th
August 2016, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours and his
wife and aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you
repeatedly swore and shouted abuse at him and his wife and called his wife a
‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat by standing
in front of him.
4. Sometime
in September 2016 it is alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour
outside your block of flats, 109-119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the
local park with another resident and started to shout abuse and threats at him
and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk’.
4
27,
5. On 27th
September 2016, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as he
returned to his flat with his family, threatened, swore at him, and demanded
money from him. It is also alleged that you later banged on his door, shouted
further abuse, and swear words at him and accused him of making noise inside
his flat.
6. On
28th September 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on a
neighbour’s door and threatened and shouted verbal abuse and swear words at
them. It is also alleged that you aggressively demanded money from him.
7. On 4th
October 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your ceiling and
accused one of your neighbours of making noise, you then went to your
neighbour’s flat and started kicking and banging on his front door aggressively,
accused him of banging on the floor and was swearing and shouting abuse at him.
It is also alleged that you later went downstairs, dragged your neighbour’s
motorbike from where it was parked and started to hit it with a piece of wood.
8. On
22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell
your mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported
that she overheard you threaten her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and then
‘I’m goanna take her job just for fun’.
9. On 8th
December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making
noise. .
10. On
11th December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s
door several times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also alleged
that you shouted abuse and threats at them.
11. On
14th December 2016, it is alleged that you were verbally abusive towards a
woman who was visiting one of your neighbours as she knocked on your
neighbour’s door. ,
12. On
23rd December 2016, it is alleged that you banged on a neighbour’s front door,
shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their tap off. You then removed
their electricity fuse thereby cutting off their power supply.
5
28,
13. On
26th December 2016, it is alleged that you ran up the communal stairs to the
first floor and confronted one of your neighbours as he was going out with his
family and started to shout abuse and threats at him, his wife and accused him
of tampering with your water supply. You also attempted to stop him from
leaving the block.
14. On 3rd
January 2017, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as he
returned to the block with his wife and two-year-old daughter and started
shouting abuse and threats at them.
15. On
21st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse and threats at them and accused them
of making noise.
16. On
31st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at them and accused them of
banging on the floor.
17. We
received a report that on 7th February 2017 you approached the leaseholder of
117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as they were attempting
to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the flat. You said to the
leaseholder that there were problems between you and his tenants but did not
give any specific details. The leaseholder explained to you that his tenants
were experiencing low water pressure in the flat and you said to him ‘you will
not solve the problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder
later knocked on your door and asked whether you would increase the water
pressure and you stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it
out later’.
18. On
24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk
(Maintenance Surveyor) attended your property at flat 109 Burncroft Avenue to
inspect the property following reports of low water pressure from flats 113 and
117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside your flat, they observed that you had
installed an iron security gate inside your front door. It also appeared to
them that the wall between your kitchen and living room seemed to have been
removed thereby creating an open plan effect. Much of the property was taken up
by industrial type printers, boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in
your back garden.
19. On
17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to
post a letter through your door and as he got into his car to drive off after
posting the letter, you ran after him shouting and screaming abuse. The letter
requested that you attend our offices to
6
29,
discuss the nuisance reports being received from
your neighbours. By the time he returned to the office, you had telephoned him
several times. He telephoned you back and you asked whether he was the person
that posted a letter through your letterbox and he said yes. You asked why he
did not stop when you ran after him and he stated that he had another visit and
did not have the time to stop and talk to you. You stated that you will not
attend the meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as you are
unable to leave your flat and that the meeting should take place in your flat.
Mr Nwabuisi offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the
local library or at your mother's house, but you refused saying that you have
done nothing wrong and accused him of taking sides with your neighbours.
20. On 5th
May 2017, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours by saying
that you will ruin his life and that you were going to the police to present
evidence about his illegal activities.
21. On
14th May 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at her and falsely accused her of
making noise and coming into your flat to attack you. You later followed her to
her car shouting abuse and wanting to know where she was going.
22. On
14th May 2017 it is alleged that you allowed your dog to run freely in the
communal area of your block without a lead.
23. On
28th May 2017, the police issued you with a first instance Harassment letter
following reports of harassment and threatening behaviour made to the police by
one of your neighbours.
24. On 9th
June 2017, it is alleged that you attacked one of your neighbours in the
communal hallway of your block as he returned from work late at night by
grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing bruising to his arm and neck.
You also snatched his phone from him as he tried to videorecord the incident.
25. On
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your
neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to
her that you had her bank details and personal details such as date of birth
and said to her that you wanted her and her husband to pay you some money.
7
30,
26. On 18th
June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours
as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to her that you
knew what time she went out and what time she returned and to tell her husband
that you would like to speak to him.
27. On
23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that you came out of your flat with
your dog without a lead and attacked one of your neighbours as he returned from
work by punching him twice on the chest. You tried to push him out of the block
and snatched his phone as he took it out of his pocket to record the incident.
28. On
28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was leaving the block. You swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her
of making noise inside her flat. You told her that you know all her personal
details and that of her husband including their full names, phone numbers, date
of birth and banking details. You demanded that they pay you some money and
asked her to tell her husband to come and see you.
29. On
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was leaving the block and accused her of slamming the door. She denied
slamming the door and called her a liar and proceeded to swear and shout abuse
at her.
30. On 2nd
July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as he
was going out with his family with your dog barking and without a lead and
asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is also alleged that as
they left the block, you ran after them swearing and shouting abuse at your
neighbour and demanding that he must pay you some money if he wants you to
leave him alone. You also said to him that you have all their personal details
including their dates of birth and bank details.
31. On
12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended your flat to investigate
reports of low water pressure to flats above yours, but you refused him access.
The Surveyor attended your flat again in the evening of the same day following
further reports that the water supply to the affected flats had completely
ceased and you refused him access. You then followed him to his car swearing
and shouting abuse at him and prevented him from entering his car. He then
called the police.
8
31,
32. On
11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of your neighbours that you
came to their front door, opened the letterbox, and peeped through it to see
who was inside the flat. You then started swearing and shouting abuse and
banging on their front door as soon as you saw the neighbour’s wife.
33. On 2nd
January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that you stood outside your neighbour’s
property for more than twenty minutes swearing and shouting abuse. You went
away and returned half an hour later, you lifted their letterbox, stuck your
mobile phone through the letterbox and started to record his family while
swearing and shouting abuse. This went on for about fifteen minutes.
34. On 9th
January 2018 at about 12.18pm, you telephone Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour
officer) and accused him of forging documents to get an Anti-Social Behaviour
order against you and you told him that he had made you a prisoner within your
home. You also stated that you knew where he lives in Enfield and that he and
his family were not safe from you. You also told him that you would watch him
leave the office and you would have followed him home and he needed to watch
his back. You called the ASB officer again 30 minutes later and told him that
you knew he has a flat in Edmonton and also knew that one of his colleagues
lives in Edmonton. You also stated that you knew where they live, and they were
not safe.
35. On 9th
January 2018 you called Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and left a
long voicemail on her work telephone number and made threats.
36. On
26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that you came to one of
your neighbour’s front door and started making loud banging noises and rattling
with their letter box. You ran away after the neighbour opened her front door.
37. On 1st
March 2018 it is alleged that you knocked on one of your neighbours’ door
loudly, you started rattling with their letter box and started shouting. This
went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but you left after you’ve heard that the neighbour
was calling the police.
38. On
15th March 2018 it is alleged that you swore, shouted, and assaulted one of you
neighbours in front of his wife and his 3 years old child.
9
32,
39. On 1st
May 2018, you attended the Edmonton County Court as there was a hearing listed
in relation to an injunction. It is alleged that you started shouting abuse,
swore and make threats to two of the Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB
officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and to one of your neighbours who
attended Court to give evidence. You also swore at a judge. These incidents
were witnessed by members of staff working at the Court.
40. On
29th May 2018, it is alleged that you attended one of your neighbours’
property; you took your dog with you and waited by their front door. It is
alleged that you tried to intimidate as they were due to attend a hearing in
the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in support of a claim for an
injunction issued against you.
41. On
30th May 2018, it is alleged that you made threats to kill to one of your
neighbours. The matter was reported to the police. You were arrested and
released on bail.
42. On
29th August 2018, it is alleged that you assaulted one of your neighbours for
flushing his toilet.
43. You
telephoned two council officers (Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla lyavoo) on 12th
September 2018 and made threats to them over the telephone. You also accused
them of fraud and of fabricating evidence to support the Council’s claim for an
injunction
44. On
12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, you called one of your neighbours on his
mobile phone using a private number. It is not known how you obtained his
number, but he terminated the call. You called again using the same private
number, but he terminated the call as soon as he heard your voice. You called
repeatedly after that.
45. On
24th September 2018 at about 11.30am, one of your neighbours returned home from
dropping her daughter at school and as she entered their block of flat, she
noticed that the middle door on the ground floor was open as well as your front
door. As she went up the stairs to their second floor flat, your dog came out
of your flat and started barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs
to her flat to escape from the dog. It was reported that your dog is always
barking whenever they go out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4
years old daughter are terrified.
10
33,
46. On 30th
September 2018, it is alleged that you attempted to break down one of your
neighbour’s front door by kicking it several times and accused him flushing his
toilet.
47. On 2nd
October 2018 at about 12:45pm, it is alleged that you attacked one of your
neighbour’s cousins as he was leaving the block. It is alleged that as he
exited the block, you followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket from behind
and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to attract
neighbours and managed to push you off.
48. On
18th October 2018, you telephoned one of the Enfield Council solicitors, Miss
Ludmilla lyavoo almost ten times, making threats and intimidating her. You
suggested that she stops working on the case or you will try to get her struck
off from the ‘register’.
49. On
19th October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo at least five times and
left two voice messages making threats and trying to intimidate the solicitor
working on the case.
50. On
22nd October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number
and left one threatening and intimidating voice message.
51. 51.On
23rd October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number
and left an intimidating voice message.
52. On
24th October 2018, you telephoned Ludmilla lyavoo twice but did not leave any
messages.
53. On
16th December 2018 at around 6pm, it is alleged that you repeatedly banged on
one of your neighbour’s door and peeped through his letterbox.
54. On
17th January 2019, you were videotaped when you confronted one of your
neighbours outside your block of flats (109-119 Burncroft Avenue) as he was
taking his three-year-old daughter to school and started shouting abuse and
threats at him thereby preventing him from taking his daughter to school. You
then followed him and his daughter up the stairs to their second floor flat and
was videotaped by a member of the neighbour’s family as you attempted to attack
them causing them to run into their flat for safety with you forcing the door
to try and gain entry. Your neighbour and his family have since fled their
property as a result of your constant threats and intimidation.
11
34,
55. On
18th January 2019, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number and
started making threats and the solicitor ended the call. You called again three
times and left a voice message making threats and intimidation.
56. On
23rd January 2019, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo eight times within a
ten-minute period.
57. It is
reported that you continue to harass and intimidate other residents on a
regular basis.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 4.
Before the Court will grant an order on
any of the Grounds 1 to 8 or 12 to 16, it must be satisfied that it is
reasonable to require you to leave. This means that, if one of these Grounds is
set out in paragraph 3 to this Notice, you will be able to argue at the hearing
in Court that it is not reasonable that you should have to leave, even if you
accept that the Ground applies.
Before the court grants an order on any
of the Grounds 9 to 16, it must be satisfied that there will be suitable
alternative accommodation for you when you have to leave. This means that the
Court will have to decide that, in its opinion, there will be other
accommodation which is reasonably suitable for the needs of you and your
family, taking into particular account various factors such as the nearness of
your place of work, and the sort of housing that other people with similar
needs are offered. Your new home will have to be let to you on another secure
tenancy or a private tenancy under the Rent Act of a kind that will give you
similar security.
There is no requirement for suitable
alternative accommodation where Grounds 1 to 8 apply.
If your landlord is not a local
authority, and the local authority gives a certificate that it will provide you
with suitable accommodation, the Court has to accept the certificate.
One of the requirements of Ground 10A
is that the landlord must have approval for the redevelopment scheme from the Secretary
of State (or, in the case of a housing association landlord, the Housing
Corporation). The landlord must have consulted all secure tenants affected by
the proposed redevelopment scheme.
12
35,
5. Court proceedings for possession of the
dwelling-house can be begun immediately. The date by which the tenant is to
give up possession of the dwelling-house is Monday the 25 February 2019.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 5
Court proceedings may be begun at once
or at any time during the following twelve months. Once the twelve months are
up this Notice will lapse, and a new Notice must be served before possession
can be sought.
Possession of your dwelling-house
cannot be obtained until after this date, which cannot be earlier than the date
when your tenancy or license could have been brought to an end. This means that
if you have a weekly or fortnightly tenancy, there should be at least 4 weeks
between the date this Notice is given, and the date possession is ordered.
Signed
Anti-Social Behaviour Team Leader
On behalf of Enfield
Council Housing
Address: The
Edmonton Centre,
36-44 South Mall London N9 OTN
13
5.
Blank Space
6.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1.
2.
2nd Possession
Order 06-02-2019-04-49
06/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1. 2.
2nd Possession Order
06-02-2019-04-49
06/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 36
37,38,39,40,41,42
43,44,45,46,47,48
49,50,51
--
36,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 06/02/2019 04:49:19 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: New
Docs
Attachments: Untitled(1).pdf
37,
38,
39,
Blank Page!
40,
IN
THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
CLAIM
NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
PARTICULARS
OF CLAIM
1. The
Claimant is the Landlord and the freehold owner of the premises known as 109
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (hereinafter referred to as the premises).
2. The
premises are a one-bedroom flat located in a block of flats, granted to the
Defendant, Simon Cordell on 14 August 2006. The current weekly gross rent is
Ł98.24. The Defendant lives in the Property alone and is in receipt of
Employment and Support Allowance as well as Housing Benefits.
3. The
Claimant is seeking possession of the premises from the Defendant because on
numerous occasions and times since the commencement of the tenancy, the
Defendant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her tenancy
agreement.
PARTICULARS OF TENANCY CONDITIONS
Condition 9
“You, the tenant, are responsible for
the behaviour of anyone, including your children, living in, or visiting your
home. This means that you must ensure that they do not act in breach of any of
these conditions. Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way. This
applies in. the property, in
41,
communal and surrounding areas, any
property belonging to the council and or anywhere within Enfield borough.”
Condition 10
"You must not act in any way
which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance or is
anti-social.”
Condition 21
“You must not abuse, harass, make
offensive comments and/or malicious allegations, use or threaten to use
violence against any of ours. Officers or agents, or against a councillor. This
applies at any time and in any place. We may report the matter to the Police.”
Condition 31
“You must take care not to cause
damage to your property or the property of your neighbours.”
Condition 33
“You must keep the inside of your
property clean and in reasonable decorative order.”
Condition 34
"You. Must not use the property
in any way that may cause a health or safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or
pests (for example, by hoarding items inappropriately).”
Condition 44
“You must obtain our prior written
permission before carrying out any alterations, improvements or structural work
to the property. You may need to obtain other permissions such as planning
permission or building regulations approval.”
Condition 53
“You must keep the inside of the
property, the fixtures and fittings and all glass in the property in good
repair during the tenancy.”
Condition 57
“You must allow our employees,
representatives and contractors to come into your property to service any
electrical and gas supplies and appliances that we are responsible for
maintaining.”
Condition 69
“You must not interfere with the
electric or gas supply."
Condition 76
“You have the right to keep one pet,
or animal such as a cat, a dog, small bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider,
small snake or lizard, rabbit hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic
rat as long as they do not cause damage to the property, or nuisance or
annoyance to anyone in your locality.”
2
42,
Condition 79
“You must always keep your dog(s) on
a lead in communal areas and on our land.”
4. The
Claimant claims that the Defendant has acted in contravention of the above
tenancy conditions.
5. Detail
of the nuisance acts that the Defendant has engaged in which constitute a
breach of these conditions are particularised in the attached Schedule of
Nuisance.
6. The
Claimant alleges that there have been reports of nuisance and anti-social
behaviour from the Defendant since July 2016.
7. The
Defendant has been given verbal and written warnings of the anti-social
behaviour and has been invited to attend meetings with his mother to see the
Claimant's officers to discuss his conduct and behaviour, but he declined to
attend.
PARTICULARS OF WARNING LETTERS AND
REQUEST FOR MEETINGS
1. On 29
December 2016 a letter was sent to the Defendant to attend a meeting on 6
December 2016, but the Defendant cancelled the meeting.
2. On 31
January 2017 to attend a meeting for 9 February 2017 that was cancelled by the
Defendant.
3. On 16
February 2017 for a meeting on 22 February 2017 that again was cancelled by the
Defendant
4. On 16
March 2017 for a meeting on 23 March 2017 that was cancelled by the Defendant.
5. On 15
October 2018 a pre-action letter was sent to the Defendant informing of legal
action as a consequence of his antisocial behaviour conduct.
3
43,
8. The
Claimant is seeking to rely on Grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act
195 in the claim for possession of the premises.
Ground 1 of
Schedule 2 states " Rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or
an obligation of the tenancy has not been broken or not performed”.
Ground 2 Schedule
2 states” the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house:
Has been guilty of conduct
causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing,
visiting, or otherwise engaging in unlawful activity in the locality, or
(aa) has
been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to
the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by the
landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions, and
that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions, or
b) has
been convicted of—
I.
using the dwelling-house or allowing it
to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
II.
an indictable offence committed in, or
in the locality of, the dwelling-house.
9. In
accordance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, a
Notice of Seeking Possession was served on the Defendant on 25 January 2019.
The Claimant claims that it is
reasonable to grant possession of the premises on account of the Defendant’s
conduct.
4
44,
11. The
Claimant has informed the Defendant of the impact of his conduct and behaviour
on other residents and sent him warning letters. The Notice of Seeking
Possession clearly sets out the details of the complaints.
12. The
Claimant was assessed by a consultant psychiatrist on 6th July 2018 and she
confirmed that the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. Possession
of the premises known as 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.
2. Mesne
profit at the rate of Ł13.99 per day from the day possession is granted.
3. Costs
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in
this Particulars of Claim are true.
I am duly authorised by the Claimant
to sign this statement.
Signed
Dated: 29th
January 2019
(Claimant’s Solicitor)
5
45,
IN
THIE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON CLAIM NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
SCHEDULE OF NUISANCE ACTIVITIES
1. On 6th
July 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant approached an elderly neighbour as
he came out of his flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and
threatened to burn down his flat.
2. Sometime
in July 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant damaged the lock of a neighbour’s
electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no electricity to his
flat.
3. On 6th
August 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant threatened one of his neighbours
and his wife and aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that
the Defendant repeatedly swore and shouted abuse at him and his wife and called
his wife a ‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat
by standing in front of him.
4. Sometime
in September 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant confronted an elderly
neighbour outside his block of flats, 109 - 119 Burncroft Avenue as he was
going to the local park with another resident and started to shout abuse and
threats at him and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go for
a walk’. .
5. On
27th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of his
neighbours as he returned to his flat with his family, threatened, swore at
him, and demanded money from him. It is also alleged that the Defendant later
banged on his door, shouted further abuse, and swear words at him and accused
him of making noise inside his flat.
6. On
28th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on a
neighbour’s door and threatened and shouted verbal abuse and swear words at
them. It is also alleged that the Defendant aggressively demanded money from
him.
7. On 4th
October 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
ceiling and accused one of his neighbours of making noise, then went to his
neighbour's flat and started kicking and banging on his front door
6
46,
aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor,
swore and shouted abuse at him. It is also alleged that the Defendant later
went downstairs, dragged his neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and
started to hit it with a piece of wood.
8. On
22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation between the Defendant, Mrs
Cordell the Defendant mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms
Fletcher reported that she overheard the Defendant threaten her by saying 'I’m
goanna do her over’ and then Tm goanna take her job just for fun'.
9. On 8th
December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on one of
his neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making
noise.
10. 10.On
11th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour’s door several times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also
alleged that the Defendant shouted abuse and threats at them.
11. 11.On
14th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant was verbally abusive
towards a woman who was visiting one of his neighbours as she knocked on his
neighbour's door.
12. On
23rd December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant banged on a neighbour’s
front door, shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their tap off. The
Defendant then removed their electricity fuse thereby cutting off their power
supply.
13. On
26th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant ran up the communal stairs
to the first floor and confronted one of his neighbours as he was going out
with his family and started to shout abuse and threats at him and his wife and
accused him of tampering with his water supply. The Defendant also attempted to
stop him from leaving the block.
14. On 3rd
January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of his neighbours
as he returned to the block with his wife and two-year-old daughter and started
shouting abuse and threats at them.
15. On
21st January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour's door, swore, and shouted abuse and threats at them and accused them
of making noise.
16. On 31st
January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at them and accused them of
banging on the floor.
7
47,
17. We
received a report that on 7th February 2017 that the Defendant approached the
leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as they
were attempting to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the flat.
The Defendant said to the leaseholder that there were problems between him and
his tenants but did not give any specific details. The leaseholder explained to
the Defendant that his tenants were experiencing low water pressure in the flat
and the Defendant said to him ’you will not solve the problem as I am
restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder later knocked on the Defendant
door and asked whether he would increase the water pressure and the Defendant
stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it out later’.
18. On
24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk
(Maintenance Surveyor) attended the Defendant property at flat 109 Burncroft
Avenue to inspect the property following reports of low water pressure from
fiats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside the Defendant flat, they
observed that the Defendant had installed an iron security gate inside his
front door. It also appeared to them that the wall between the Defendant
kitchen and living room seemed to have been removed thereby creating an open
plan effect. Much of the property was taken up with industrial type printers,
boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in the Defendant’s back garden.
19. 19.On
17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to
post a letter through the Defendant door and as he got into his car to drive
off after posting the letter, the Defendant ran after him shouting and
screaming abuse. The letter requested that the Defendant attend the Council
office to discuss the nuisance reports being received from his neighbours. By
the time he returned to the office, the Defendant had telephoned him several
times. Lemmy Nwabuisi telephoned the Defendant back and the Defendant asked
whether he was the person that posted a letter through his letterbox and Lemmy
Nwabuisi said yes. The Defendant asked why he did not stop when he ran after
him and Lemmy Nwabuisi stated that he had another visit and did not have the
time to stop and talk to him. The Defendant stated that he will not attend the
meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as he is unable to
leave his flat and that the meeting should take place in his flat. Mr Nwabuisi
offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the local library
or at his mother's house, but the Defendant refused saying that he have done
nothing wrong and accused Lemmy Nwabuisi of taking sides with his neighbours.
20. On 5th
May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant threatened one of his neighbours by
saying that he will ruin his life and that the Defendant was going to the police
to present evidence about his illegal activities.
8
48,
21. On
14th May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on
one of his neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at her and falsely
accused her of making noise and coming into his flat to attack him. The
Defendant later followed her to her car shouting abuse and wanting to know
where she was going.
22. On
14th. May 2017 it is alleged that the Defendant allowed his dog to run freely
in the communal area of his block without a lead.
23. On
28th May 2017, the police issued the Defendant with a first instance Harassment
letter following reports of harassment and threatening behaviour made to the
police by one of the Defendant neighbours.
24. On 9th
June 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant attacked one of his neighbours in
the communal hallway of his block as he returned from work late at night by
grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing bruising to his arm and neck.
The Defendant also snatched his phone from him as he tried to video-record the
incident.
25. 25.On
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of
his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to his building and said to
her that he had her bank details and personal details such as date of birth and
said to her that he wanted her and her husband to pay the Defendant some money.
26. On
18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of
his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to his building and said to
her that he knew what time she went out and what time she returned and to tell
her husband that the Defendant would like to speak to him.
27. On 23rd
June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that the Defendant came out of his flat
with his dog without a lead and attacked one of his neighbours as he returned
from work by punching him twice on the chest. The Defendant tried to push him
out of the block and snatched his phone as he took it out of his pocket to
record the incident.
28. On
28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his
neighbour as she was leaving the block. The Defendant swore and shouted abuse
at her and accused her of making noise inside her flat. The Defendant told her
that he knows all her personal details and that of her husband including their
full names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking details. The Defendant
demanded that they pay him some money and asked her to tell her husband to come
and see him.
29. On
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his
neighbour as she was leaving the block and accused her of slamming
9
49,
the
door. She denied slamming the door and the Defendant called her a liar and
proceeded to swear and shout abuse at her.
30. On 2nd
July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his neighbour
as he was going out with his family with his dog barking and without a lead.
The Defendant asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is also
alleged that as they left the block, the Defendant ran after them swearing and
shouting abuse at his neighbour and demanding that he must pay him some money
if he wants the Defendant to leave him alone. The Defendant also said to him
that he has all their personal details including their dates of birth and bank
details.
31. On
12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended the Defendant flat to
investigate reports of low water pressure to flats above his, but he refused
him access. The Surveyor attended the Defendant flat again in the evening of
the same day following further reports that the water supply to the affected
flats had completely ceased and the Defendant refused him access. The Defendant
then followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him and prevented
him from entering his car. The Surveyor then called the police.
32. On
11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of his neighbours that the
Defendant came to their front door, opened the letterbox, and peeped through it
to see who was inside the flat. The Defendant then started swearing and
shouting abuse and banging on their front door as soon as he saw the
neighbour’s wife.
33. On 2nd
January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that the Defendant stood outside his
neighbour’s property for more than twenty minutes swearing and shouting abuse.
The Defendant went away and returned half an hour later, lifted their
letterbox, stuck his mobile phone through the letterbox and started to record
his neighbour’s family while swearing and shouting abuse. This went on for
about fifteen minutes.
34. On 9th
January 2018 at about 12.18pm, the Defendant telephoned Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB
Behaviour officer) and accused him of forging documents to get an anti-social
behaviour order against him. The Defendant further told him that he had made
him a prisoner within his home. The Defendant stated that he knows where he
lives in Enfield and that he and his family were not safe from him. The Defendant
told Lemmy Nwabuisi that he would watch him leave the office and he would have
followed him home and he needed to watch his back. The Defendant called the ASB
officer again 30 minutes later and told him that he knows he has a flat in
Edmonton and also know that one of his colleagues lives in Edmonton. The
Defendant also stated that he knows where they live and they were not safe.
10
50,
35. On 9th
January 2018 the Defendant called Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and
left a long voicemail on her work telephone number and made threats.
36. On
26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that the Defendant came to
one of his neighbour’s front door and started making loud banging noises and
rattling with their letter box. The Defendant ran away after the neighbour
opened her front door.
37. On 1st
March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant knocked on one of his neighbours’
door loudly, he started rattling with their letter box and shouting. This went
on for 5 to 10 minutes, but the Defendant left after he heard that the
neighbour was calling the police.
38. On
15th March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant swore, shouted, and assaulted
one of his neighbours in front of his wife and his 3 years old child.
39. On 1st
May 2018, the Defendant attended the Edmonton County Court as there was a
hearing listed in relation to an injunction. It is alleged that the Defendant
started shouting abuse, swore and make threats to two of the Claimant’s
employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and
to one of his neighbours who attended Court to give evidence. The Defendant
also swore at a judge. These incidents were witnessed by members of staff
working at the Court.
40. On
29th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant attended one of his neighbours’
property; he took his dog with him and waited by their front door. It is
alleged that the Defendant tried to intimidate as they were due to attend a
hearing in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in support of a claim for
an injunction issued against the Defendant.
41. On
30th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant made threats to kill to one of
his neighbours. The matter was reported to the police. The Defendant was
arrested and released on bail.
42. On
29th August 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant assaulted one of his
neighbours for flushing his toilet.
43. The
Defendant telephoned two council officers (Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla Lyavoo)
on 12th September 2018 and made threats to them over the telephone. The
Defendant also accused them of fraud and of fabricating evidence to support the
Council’s claim for an injunction
44. On
12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, the Defendant called one of his neighbours
on his mobile phone using a private number. It is not known how you obtained
his number, but he terminated the call. The Defendant called
11
51,
again
using the same private number, but he terminated the call as soon as he heard
his voice. The Defendant called repeatedly after that.
45. On
24th September 2018 at about 11.30am, one of the Defendant neighbours returned
home from dropping her daughter at school and as she entered their block of
flat, she noticed that the middle door on the ground floor was open as well as
the Defendant front door. As she went up the stairs to their second floor flat,
the Defendant dog came out of the Defendant flat and started barking at her.
The neighbour had to run up the stairs to her flat to escape from the dog. It
was reported that the Defendant dog is always barking whenever they go out or
return to the block and the neighbour and 4 years old daughter are terrified.
46. On
30th September 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant attempted to break down
one of his neighbour’s front door by kicking it several times and accused him
flushing his toilet.
47. On 2nd
October 2018 at about 12:45pm, it is alleged that the Defendant attacked one of
his neighbour’s cousins as he was leaving the block. It is alleged that as he
exited the block, the Defendant followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket
from behind and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to
attract neighbours and managed to push the Defendant off.
48. On
18th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned one of the Enfield Council
solicitors, Miss Ludmilla lyavoo almost ten times, making threats and
intimidating her. The Defendant suggested that she stops working on the case or
you will try to get her struck off from the 'register'.
49. On
19th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo at least five
times and left two voice messages making threats and trying to intimidate the
solicitor working on the case.
50. On
22nd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private
number and left one threatening and intimidating voice message.
51. On
23rd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private
number and left an intimidating voice message.
52. On
24th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Ludmilla lyavoo twice but did not
leave any messages.
53. On
16th December 2018 at around 6pm, it is alleged that the Defendant repeatedly
banged on one of his neighbour’s door and peeped through his letterbox.
54. On
17th January2019, the Defendant was videotaped when he confronted one of his
neighbours outside his block of flats (109-119 Burncroft Avenue) as he was
taking his three-year-old daughter to school and started shouting
12
Extra Page
abuse and threats at him thereby preventing him from taking
his daughter to school. The Defendant then followed him and his daughter up the
stairs to their second floor flat and was videotaped by a member of the
neighbour's family as he attempted to attack them causing them to run into
their flat for safety with the Defendant forcing the door to try and gain
entry. The neighbour and his family have since fled their property as a result
of the Defendant constant threats and intimidation.
55. On 18th
January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla Lyavoo from a private
number and started making threats and the solicitor ended the call. The
Defendant called again three times and left a voice message making threats and
intimidation.
56. On
23rd January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo eight times
within a ten-minute period.
57. On
25th January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo on two
occasions acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Seeking Possession, threaten to
have her struck off the register and accused her of falsifying evidence against
him.
13
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
2nd Possession Order
06-02-2019-05-00 1
06/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 52
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
2nd Possession Order 06-02-2019-05-00 1
06/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 52
--
52
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 06/02/2019 05:00:16 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Attachments:
UTF-8bVW50aXRsZWQoMSkgRnJlc2ggUG9zc2Vzc3Rpb24gT3J
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 5. 1. 2.
2nd Possession Order
06-02-2019 -04-59
/ Page Numbers: 53,54
55,56,57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8.
5. 1. 2.
2nd
Possession Order
06-02-2019
-04-59
/ Page Numbers: 53,54
55,56,57,58,59,60
61,62,63,64,65,66
67,68,69
--
53,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time:06/02/2019 04:59:13 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Fwd.:
New Docs
Attachments: Untitled(1).pdf
— Forwarded message —
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
6 February 2019, 16:49:23 GMT
Subject: New
Docs
54,
55,
56,
Blank Page!
57,
IN
THE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
CLAIM
NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
PARTICULARS
OF CLAIM
1. The
Claimant is the Landlord and the freehold owner of the premises known as 109 Burncroft
Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (hereinafter referred to as the premises).
2. The
premises are a one-bedroom flat located in a block of flats, granted to the
Defendant, Simon Cordell on 14 August 2006. The current weekly gross rent is
Ł98.24. The Defendant lives in the Property alone and is in receipt of
Employment and Support Allowance as well as Housing Benefits.
3. The
Claimant is seeking possession of the premises from the Defendant because on
numerous occasions and times since the commencement of the tenancy, the
Defendant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of her tenancy
agreement.
PARTICULARS OF TENANCY CONDITIONS
Condition 9
“You, the tenant, are responsible for
the behaviour of anyone, including your children, living in, or visiting your
home. This means that you must ensure that they do not act in breach of any of
these conditions. Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way. This
applies in. the property, in
58,
communal and surrounding areas, any
property belonging to the council and or anywhere within Enfield borough.”
Condition 10
"You must not act in any way
which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance or is
anti-social.”
Condition 21
“You must not abuse, harass, make offensive
comments and/or malicious allegations, use or threaten to use violence against
any of ours. Officers or agents, or against a councillor. This applies at any
time and in any place. We may report the matter to the Police.”
Condition 31
“You must take care not to cause
damage to your property or the property of your neighbours.”
Condition 33
“You must keep the inside of your
property clean and in reasonable decorative order.”
Condition 34
"You. Must not use the property
in any way that may cause a health or safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or
pests (for example, by hoarding items inappropriately).”
Condition 44
“You must obtain our prior written
permission before carrying out any alterations, improvements or structural work
to the property. You may need to obtain other permissions such as planning
permission or building regulations approval.”
Condition 53
“You must keep the inside of the
property, the fixtures and fittings and all glass in the property in good
repair during the tenancy.”
Condition 57
“You must allow our employees,
representatives and contractors to come into your property to service any
electrical and gas supplies and appliances that we are responsible for
maintaining.”
Condition 69
“You must not interfere with the
electric or gas supply."
Condition 76
“You have the right to keep one pet,
or animal such as a cat, a dog, small bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider,
small snake or lizard, rabbit hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic
rat as long as they do not cause damage to the property, or nuisance or
annoyance to anyone in your locality.”
2
59,
Condition 79
“You must always keep your dog(s) on
a lead in communal areas and on our land.”
4. The Claimant
claims that the Defendant has acted in contravention of the above tenancy
conditions.
5. Detail
of the nuisance acts that the Defendant has engaged in which constitute a
breach of these conditions are particularised in the attached Schedule of
Nuisance.
6. The
Claimant alleges that there have been reports of nuisance and anti-social
behaviour from the Defendant since July 2016.
7. The
Defendant has been given verbal and written warnings of the anti-social
behaviour and has been invited to attend meetings with his mother to see the
Claimant's officers to discuss his conduct and behaviour, but he declined to
attend.
PARTICULARS OF WARNING LETTERS AND
REQUEST FOR MEETINGS
1. On 29 December
2016 a letter was sent to the Defendant to attend a meeting on 6 December 2016,
but the Defendant cancelled the meeting.
2. On 31
January 2017 to attend a meeting for 9 February 2017 that was cancelled by the
Defendant.
3. On 16
February 2017 for a meeting on 22 February 2017 that again was cancelled by the
Defendant
4. On 16
March 2017 for a meeting on 23 March 2017 that was cancelled by the Defendant.
5. On 15
October 2018 a pre-action letter was sent to the Defendant informing of legal
action as a consequence of his antisocial behaviour conduct.
3
60,
8. The
Claimant is seeking to rely on Grounds 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act
195 in the claim for possession of the premises.
Ground 1 of
Schedule 2 states " Rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or
an obligation of the tenancy has not been broken or not performed”.
Ground 2
Schedule 2 states” the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the
dwelling-house:
Has been guilty of conduct
causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing,
visiting, or otherwise engaging in unlawful activity in the locality, or
(aa) has
been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to
the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by the
landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions, and
that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions, or
c) has
been convicted of—
I.
using the dwelling-house or allowing it
to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
II.
an indictable offence committed in, or
in the locality of, the dwelling-house.
9. In
accordance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, a
Notice of Seeking Possession was served on the Defendant on 25 January 2019.
The Claimant claims that it is
reasonable to grant possession of the premises on account of the Defendant’s
conduct.
4
61,
11. The
Claimant has informed the Defendant of the impact of his conduct and behaviour
on other residents and sent him warning letters. The Notice of Seeking
Possession clearly sets out the details of the complaints.
12. The
Claimant was assessed by a consultant psychiatrist on 6th July 2018 and she
confirmed that the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. Possession
of the premises known as 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.
2. Mesne
profit at the rate of Ł13.99 per day from the day possession is granted.
3. Costs
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in
this Particulars of Claim are true.
I am duly authorised by the Claimant
to sign this statement.
Signed
Dated: 29th
January 2019
(Claimant’s Solicitor)
5
62,
IN
THIE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON CLAIM NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
SCHEDULE OF NUISANCE ACTIVITIES
1. On 6th
July 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant approached an elderly neighbour as
he came out of his flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and
threatened to burn down his flat.
2. Sometime
in July 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant damaged the lock of a neighbour’s
electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no electricity to his
flat.
3. On 6th
August 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant threatened one of his neighbours
and his wife and aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that
the Defendant repeatedly swore and shouted abuse at him and his wife and called
his wife a ‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat
by standing in front of him.
4. Sometime
in September 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant confronted an elderly
neighbour outside his block of flats, 109 - 119 Burncroft Avenue as he was
going to the local park with another resident and started to shout abuse and
threats at him and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go
for a walk’. .
5. On
27th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of his
neighbours as he returned to his flat with his family, threatened, swore at
him, and demanded money from him. It is also alleged that the Defendant later
banged on his door, shouted further abuse, and swear words at him and accused
him of making noise inside his flat.
6. On
28th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on a
neighbour’s door and threatened and shouted verbal abuse and swear words at
them. It is also alleged that the Defendant aggressively demanded money from
him.
7. On 4th
October 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
ceiling and accused one of his neighbours of making noise, then went to his
neighbour's flat and started kicking and banging on his front door
6
63,
aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor,
swore and shouted abuse at him. It is also alleged that the Defendant later
went downstairs, dragged his neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and
started to hit it with a piece of wood.
8. On
22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation between the Defendant, Mrs
Cordell the Defendant mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms
Fletcher reported that she overheard the Defendant threaten her by saying 'I’m
goanna do her over’ and then Tm goanna take her job just for fun'.
9. On 8th
December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on one of
his neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making
noise.
10. 10.On
11th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour’s door several times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also
alleged that the Defendant shouted abuse and threats at them.
11. 11.On
14th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant was verbally abusive
towards a woman who was visiting one of his neighbours as she knocked on his
neighbour's door.
12. On
23rd December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant banged on a neighbour’s
front door, shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their tap off. The
Defendant then removed their electricity fuse thereby cutting off their power
supply.
13. On
26th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant ran up the communal stairs
to the first floor and confronted one of his neighbours as he was going out
with his family and started to shout abuse and threats at him and his wife and
accused him of tampering with his water supply. The Defendant also attempted to
stop him from leaving the block.
14. On 3rd
January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of his neighbours
as he returned to the block with his wife and two-year-old daughter and started
shouting abuse and threats at them.
15. On
21st January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour's door, swore, and shouted abuse and threats at them and accused them
of making noise.
16. On
31st January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged on his
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at them and accused them of
banging on the floor.
7
64,
17. We
received a report that on 7th February 2017 that the Defendant approached the
leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as they
were attempting to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the flat.
The Defendant said to the leaseholder that there were problems between him and
his tenants but did not give any specific details. The leaseholder explained to
the Defendant that his tenants were experiencing low water pressure in the flat
and the Defendant said to him ’you will not solve the problem as I am
restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder later knocked on the Defendant
door and asked whether he would increase the water pressure and the Defendant
stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it out later’.
18. On
24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk
(Maintenance Surveyor) attended the Defendant property at flat 109 Burncroft
Avenue to inspect the property following reports of low water pressure from
fiats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside the Defendant flat, they
observed that the Defendant had installed an iron security gate inside his
front door. It also appeared to them that the wall between the Defendant
kitchen and living room seemed to have been removed thereby creating an open
plan effect. Much of the property was taken up with industrial type printers,
boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in the Defendant’s back garden.
19. 19.On
17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to
post a letter through the Defendant door and as he got into his car to drive
off after posting the letter, the Defendant ran after him shouting and
screaming abuse. The letter requested that the Defendant attend the Council
office to discuss the nuisance reports being received from his neighbours. By
the time he returned to the office, the Defendant had telephoned him several
times. Lemmy Nwabuisi telephoned the Defendant back and the Defendant asked
whether he was the person that posted a letter through his letterbox and Lemmy
Nwabuisi said yes. The Defendant asked why he did not stop when he ran after
him and Lemmy Nwabuisi stated that he had another visit and did not have the
time to stop and talk to him. The Defendant stated that he will not attend the
meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as he is unable to
leave his flat and that the meeting should take place in his flat. Mr Nwabuisi
offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the local library
or at his mother's house, but the Defendant refused saying that he have done
nothing wrong and accused Lemmy Nwabuisi of taking sides with his neighbours.
20. On 5th
May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant threatened one of his neighbours by
saying that he will ruin his life and that the Defendant was going to the
police to present evidence about his illegal activities.
8
65,
21. On
14th May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant aggressively banged
on one of his neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at her and falsely
accused her of making noise and coming into his flat to attack him. The
Defendant later followed her to her car shouting abuse and wanting to know
where she was going.
22. On
14th. May 2017 it is alleged that the Defendant allowed his dog to run freely
in the communal area of his block without a lead.
23. On
28th May 2017, the police issued the Defendant with a first instance Harassment
letter following reports of harassment and threatening behaviour made to the
police by one of the Defendant neighbours.
24. On 9th
June 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant attacked one of his neighbours in
the communal hallway of his block as he returned from work late at night by
grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing bruising to his arm and neck.
The Defendant also snatched his phone from him as he tried to video-record the
incident.
25. 25.On
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of
his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to his building and said to
her that he had her bank details and personal details such as date of birth and
said to her that he wanted her and her husband to pay the Defendant some money.
26. On
18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted one of
his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to his building and said to
her that he knew what time she went out and what time she returned and to tell her
husband that the Defendant would like to speak to him.
27. On
23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that the Defendant came out of his
flat with his dog without a lead and attacked one of his neighbours as he
returned from work by punching him twice on the chest. The Defendant tried to
push him out of the block and snatched his phone as he took it out of his
pocket to record the incident.
28. On 28th
June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his neighbour
as she was leaving the block. The Defendant swore and shouted abuse at her and
accused her of making noise inside her flat. The Defendant told her that he
knows all her personal details and that of her husband including their full
names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking details. The Defendant demanded
that they pay him some money and asked her to tell her husband to come and see
him.
29. On
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his
neighbour as she was leaving the block and accused her of slamming
9
66,
the
door. She denied slamming the door and the Defendant called her a liar and
proceeded to swear and shout abuse at her.
30. On 2nd
July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that the Defendant confronted his neighbour
as he was going out with his family with his dog barking and without a lead.
The Defendant asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is also
alleged that as they left the block, the Defendant ran after them swearing and
shouting abuse at his neighbour and demanding that he must pay him some money
if he wants the Defendant to leave him alone. The Defendant also said to him
that he has all their personal details including their dates of birth and bank
details.
31. On
12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended the Defendant flat to
investigate reports of low water pressure to flats above his, but he refused
him access. The Surveyor attended the Defendant flat again in the evening of
the same day following further reports that the water supply to the affected
flats had completely ceased and the Defendant refused him access. The Defendant
then followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him and prevented
him from entering his car. The Surveyor then called the police.
32. On
11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of his neighbours that the
Defendant came to their front door, opened the letterbox, and peeped through it
to see who was inside the flat. The Defendant then started swearing and
shouting abuse and banging on their front door as soon as he saw the
neighbour’s wife.
33. On 2nd
January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that the Defendant stood outside his
neighbour’s property for more than twenty minutes swearing and shouting abuse.
The Defendant went away and returned half an hour later, lifted their
letterbox, stuck his mobile phone through the letterbox and started to record
his neighbour’s family while swearing and shouting abuse. This went on for
about fifteen minutes.
34. On 9th
January 2018 at about 12.18pm, the Defendant telephoned Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB
Behaviour officer) and accused him of forging documents to get an anti-social
behaviour order against him. The Defendant further told him that he had made
him a prisoner within his home. The Defendant stated that he knows where he
lives in Enfield and that he and his family were not safe from him. The
Defendant told Lemmy Nwabuisi that he would watch him leave the office and he
would have followed him home and he needed to watch his back. The Defendant
called the ASB officer again 30 minutes later and told him that he knows he has
a flat in Edmonton and also know that one of his colleagues lives in Edmonton.
The Defendant also stated that he knows where they live and they were not safe.
10
67,
35. On 9th
January 2018 the Defendant called Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and
left a long voicemail on her work telephone number and made threats.
36. On
26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that the Defendant came to
one of his neighbour’s front door and started making loud banging noises and
rattling with their letter box. The Defendant ran away after the neighbour
opened her front door.
37. On 1st
March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant knocked on one of his neighbours’
door loudly, he started rattling with their letter box and shouting. This went
on for 5 to 10 minutes, but the Defendant left after he heard that the
neighbour was calling the police.
38. On 15th
March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant swore, shouted, and assaulted one
of his neighbours in front of his wife and his 3 years old child.
39. On 1st
May 2018, the Defendant attended the Edmonton County Court as there was a
hearing listed in relation to an injunction. It is alleged that the Defendant
started shouting abuse, swore and make threats to two of the Claimant’s
employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and
to one of his neighbours who attended Court to give evidence. The Defendant
also swore at a judge. These incidents were witnessed by members of staff
working at the Court.
40. On
29th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant attended one of his neighbours’
property; he took his dog with him and waited by their front door. It is
alleged that the Defendant tried to intimidate as they were due to attend a
hearing in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in support of a claim for
an injunction issued against the Defendant.
41. On
30th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant made threats to kill to one of
his neighbours. The matter was reported to the police. The Defendant was
arrested and released on bail.
42. On
29th August 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant assaulted one of his
neighbours for flushing his toilet.
43. The
Defendant telephoned two council officers (Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla Lyavoo)
on 12th September 2018 and made threats to them over the telephone. The
Defendant also accused them of fraud and of fabricating evidence to support the
Council’s claim for an injunction
44. On
12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, the Defendant called one of his neighbours
on his mobile phone using a private number. It is not known how you obtained
his number, but he terminated the call. The Defendant called
11
68,
again
using the same private number, but he terminated the call as soon as he heard
his voice. The Defendant called repeatedly after that.
45. On
24th September 2018 at about 11.30am, one of the Defendant neighbours returned
home from dropping her daughter at school and as she entered their block of
flat, she noticed that the middle door on the ground floor was open as well as
the Defendant front door. As she went up the stairs to their second floor flat,
the Defendant dog came out of the Defendant flat and started barking at her.
The neighbour had to run up the stairs to her flat to escape from the dog. It
was reported that the Defendant dog is always barking whenever they go out or
return to the block and the neighbour and 4 years old daughter are terrified.
46. On
30th September 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant attempted to break down
one of his neighbour’s front door by kicking it several times and accused him
flushing his toilet.
47. On 2nd
October 2018 at about 12:45pm, it is alleged that the Defendant attacked one of
his neighbour’s cousins as he was leaving the block. It is alleged that as he
exited the block, the Defendant followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket
from behind and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to
attract neighbours and managed to push the Defendant off.
48. On
18th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned one of the Enfield Council
solicitors, Miss Ludmilla lyavoo almost ten times, making threats and
intimidating her. The Defendant suggested that she stops working on the case or
you will try to get her struck off from the 'register'.
49. On
19th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo at least five
times and left two voice messages making threats and trying to intimidate the
solicitor working on the case.
50. On
22nd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private
number and left one threatening and intimidating voice message.
51. On
23rd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private
number and left an intimidating voice message.
52. On
24th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Ludmilla lyavoo twice but did not
leave any messages.
53. On
16th December 2018 at around 6pm, it is alleged that the Defendant repeatedly
banged on one of his neighbour’s door and peeped through his letterbox.
54. On
17th January2019, the Defendant was videotaped when he confronted one of his
neighbours outside his block of flats (109-119 Burncroft Avenue) as he was
taking his three-year-old daughter to school and started shouting
12
69.
abuse and threats at him thereby preventing him from taking
his daughter to school. The Defendant then followed him and his daughter up the
stairs to their second floor flat and was videotaped by a member of the
neighbour's family as he attempted to attack them causing them to run into
their flat for safety with the Defendant forcing the door to try and gain
entry. The neighbour and his family have since fled their property as a result
of the Defendant constant threats and intimidation.
55. On
18th January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla Lyavoo from a private
number and started making threats and the solicitor ended the call. The
Defendant called again three times and left a voice message making threats and
intimidation.
56. On
23rd January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo eight times
within a ten-minute period.
57. On
25th January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo on two
occasions acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Seeking Possession, threaten to
have her struck off the register and accused her of falsifying evidence against
him.
13
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.11.2019_RE Legal Aid Agency
Requirements
11/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82,83,84
85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.11.2019_RE
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
11/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 70,71,72
73,74,75,76,77,78
79,80,81,82,83,84
85,86,87,88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119,120
121,122,123,124,125,126
127,128,129,130,131,132
133,134,135,136,137,138
139,140,141,142,143,144
145,146,147,148,149,150
151,152,153,154,155,156
157,158,159,160,161,162
163,164,165,166,167,168
169,170,171,172,173,174
175,176
--
70,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 11
February 2019 18:17
To: 'Liselle Archer'
Subject: RE:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
Attachments:
Ř ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf.
Ř Fresh Possession Order-06-02-2019-Full.pdf; Simon-Licence-
Ř Front-Back.pdf.
Ř Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf.
Ř VLS-20171215-103522.pdf.
Ř VLS-20171215-103441.pdf.
Ř Citizencard.pdf.
Ř Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018-001 (2).pdf.
Ř 2018 11 28 Signed response.pdf.
Ř A PHILIPPOU-Re-SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING
POSSESSION-25-01-2019-001.pdf.
Ř A PHILIPPOU-SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION-
25--01-2019.pdf.
Ř alev.cazimoglu@parliament.pdf;
Ř alev.cazimoglu@parliament-03-01-2019.pdf;
Ř alev.cazimoglu@parliament-17-12-2018.pdf;
Ř alev.cazimoglu@parliament-21-12-2018.pdf;
Ř alev.cazimoglu@parliament-23-11-2018.pdf;
Ř Chief Executive- Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield,
EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL] -06-12-2018.pdf.
Ř Enfield-Counci-Reply-28-12-2018.pdf.
Ř Joan Ryan-Re- Simon Cordell (Case Ref_ JR14051) -10-12-2018.pdf.
Ř Kaunchita Maudhub-Re-Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue.pdf.
Ř Letter to ECC attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment report 10 7
2018.pdf.
Ř Letter to Lorraine Cordell 28.12.18 (2).pdf; Letter to Lorraine
Cordell 28.12.18.pdf.
Ř LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE OF SEEKING
POSSESSION 25JAN19 AP (2).pdf.
Ř Lorraine Cordell-RE-Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue.pdf.
Ř Ludmilla Iyavoo-RE-Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL] -27-11-2018.pdf.
Ř Ludmilla Iyavoo- RE-Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
-27-11-2018-001.pdf.
Ř MEQ 13653 (4).pdf; MEQ 13653-001.pdf.
Ř On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ
(2).pdf.
Ř On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3
7JQ-05-12-2018.pdf.
Ř Paul Buckridge-RE-Simon Cordell-30-11-2018.pdf.
Ř Paul Buckridge-RE-Simon Cordell-30-11-2018-001.pdf
Dear Liselle Archer
I am writing this letter
regarding the case that Enfield Council has laid before the court for a
Possession Order for my son’s flat.
The court hearing is for the
08/03/2019 at 10:00 hours. I have tried to attach the most up to date
information as there is a long history to this with Enfield Council and my son.
I have ordered my son's bank statements but am waiting for them to come in the
post so have included the other documents asked for in the email, and if a date
can be set for him to see someone maybe by the time we see someone we will have
the bank statement, but my son has had legal aid in the below cases, Please see
attached documents.
I am writing this to give you
some form of information relating to this case as it has in some ways been
ongoing for some time.
Enfield Council has had 2 other
court cases regarding these matters which were for injunction orders please see
below information they were for the same cases as in this new Possession Order.
E00ED049: Edmonton
Country Court
8.
Interim Injunction order started by
Enfield Council on the 09th January 2018 at Edmonton Country Court,
to replace the one that was struck out by the court on the
06/11/2017 as the Judge would not put it back in place.
9.
This case went on until the 09/08/2018,
please see attached court order which was made, which Enfield Council was meant
to have moved my son, which has never happened I have been trying to get this
done since this date and Enfield Council have not done anything.
D02ED073: Edmonton
Country Court
(1 Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 9th August 2017 at Edmonton
Country Court.
71,
(2 This
case ended up being struck out on the 06/11/2017, the reason for this was due
to Enfield Council not doing what the court asked them to do.
Even through there is a court
order in place for Enfield Council to move my son, Enfield Council has done
nothing only kept my son in a flat that is causing his health to be impacted
and lied to multiple bodies regarding the order that was made on the 09/08/2018.
The judge warned Enfield Council regarding a Possession Order on my son on the
09/08/2018, there is a lot of paperwork regarding all of this which will need
to be gone over.
There are so many Emails and
Documents regarding everything that has gone on it will be too much to send via
email. So I have only put a few of the last emails and Letters including the
new order, the other information will need to be done at a meeting as there is
just so much information.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Liselle
Archer [mailto: liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 07
February 2019 15:51
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Madam
Following our telephone conversation
today, please see below the requirements for the application for public funding
(Legal Aid).
Please bring the following documents in
order for us to open a case:
1. Most
recent award letter confirming that your son receives ESA
2. Bank
statements of all adults over the age 18 living in the household.
(Please note that the bank statements
must be:
Covering the last 3 months with no
gaps, this includes 07 February 2019 -07 November 2018)
For all bank statements including savings
accounts and dormant accounts)
3. Passport
or Driving Licence (proof of ID)
4. Tenancy
Agreement and letters from your landlord
5. Anything
else you consider relevant.
Please note we
are unable to open a case until we have received all of the above documents.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
72,
Email liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319 fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44 (0)1582
726579
Please reply to our Head Office www.tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78 SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
73,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements '->ESA-Camfirmed~Letter-08-03-2018.pdf
MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL 109
BURNCROFTAVENUE ENFIELD EN3 7JQ
ESA Merthyr Tydfil Post Handling
Site B Wolverhampton WV99 2FN
Telephone: 0800
169 0310
Text phone: 0800 169 0314
Date: 08/03/2018
If you get in touch with us,
tell us this reference number: JH65
Dear MR SIMON PAUL CORDELL,
Thank you for your request for
information.
The details are as follows: -
You were awarded Employment
Support Allowance Contributory; Employment Support Allowance Income Related .
Claim start date 19/09/17
Claim termination date LIVE
CLAIM • -
At a weekly rate of Ł125.55
Paid up to:
Any other information: IN
SUPPORT GROUP ON ESA
For any further enquiries please
contact us on the above number.
Benefit Centre Manager
Part of the Department for Work
and Pensions
http://dbs02app/BDCentres.nsf/Proof%20of%20Benef!t%20Letter?OpenForm&Seq=4 08/03/2018
74,
75,
*
Notice of Hearing
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: f00ED222
Date: 4 February 2019
Ref:
LS/C/PB/159272
Ref:
THE MAYOR
AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Claimant
SIMON
CORDELL
Defendant
TAKE NOTICE that
the Hearing will take place on 8 March 2019 at 10:00 AM
at the County Court at Edmonton,
59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN
When you should attend
30 minutes has been allowed for
the Hearing
Please Note: This case may be released to
another Judge, possibly at a different Court
Cases are listed in accordance
with local hearing arrangements determined by the Judiciary and implemented by
court staff. Every effort is made to ensure that hearings start either at the
time specified or as soon as possible thereafter. However, listing practices or
other factors may mean that delays are unavoidable. Furthermore, in some
instances a case may be released to another judge, possibly at a different
court or adjourned to another date. Please contact the court for further
information on the listing arrangements that may apply to your hearing.
Your case has been listed at the
same time as several other cases, but you are required to attend Court at the
time - given in your notice, or earlier if you need to speak to your legal
representative. When you arrive at Court you should report to an Usher who will
tell you if the other party are in attendance. You may wish to consult with
them before going into Court to attempt to clarify/resolve any outstanding
issues.
The Judge will decide the order
in which cases are called based on who is in attendance, the time estimate and
other factors. Please ensure that the Usher is aware of your whereabouts at all
times. If you are not in the court at the required time and your case is called
it will be heard in your absence.
If your case does settle prior
to the hearing date, please notify the court in writing.
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NIB 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number.
Tel: 020
8884 6500.
Check if you can issue your
claim online. It will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneydaim.gov.uk to find out more.
Produced by: Ms. M. E. Lazarou
N24 Notice of
PTR/Added/Restored/Hrg/Management Conference CJR024
76,
Claim form for: F00ed222
In the County Court at Edmonton
possession of property Claim no,
Fee Account no.
PBA0079006
You may be able to Issue your
claim online and it may save you time and money. Go to www.possessiondaim.gov.uk
to find out more. Claimant
(name(s) and address(es))
The Mayor and Burgesses of the
London Borough of Enfield PO Box 50 Civic Centre Silver Street Enfield EN13XA
Defendant(s)
(name(s) and address(es))
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Avenue Enfield EN37JQ
The claimant is claiming
possession of:
109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3
7JQ
which (includes) (does not
include) residential property. Full particulars of the claim are attached. (The
claimant is also making a claim for money).
This claim will be heard on at 20 at
am/pm
At the hearing
The court will consider whether
or not you must leave the property and, if so, when.
It will take into account
information the claimant provides and any you provide.
What you should do
Get help and advice immediately
from a solicitor or an advice agency.
Help yourself and the court by
filling in the defence form and coming to the hearing to make sure the court
knows all the facts.
Name: Simon
Cordell
Address: 109
Burncroft Avenue
Enfield Council Service
EN37JQ
Court fee: Ł355.00
Legal representative's costs TBA
Total amount:
Issue date 31 JAN
2019
Find out how HM Courts and
Tribunals Service uses personal information you give them when you fill in a
form: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/aboutypersonal-informatiQn-charter
NS Claim form for possession of
property (07.18) © Crown copyright 2018
77,
78,
IN THE
COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
CLAIM
NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Claimant
and
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
PARTICULARS
OF CLAIM
1.
The Claimant is the Landlord and the freehold owner of the
premises known as 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (hereinafter referred
to as the premises).
2.
The premises are a one-bedroom flat located in a block of
flats, granted to the Defendant, Simon Cordell on 14 August 2006. The current
weekly gross rent is Ł98.24. The Defendant lives in the Property alone and is
in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance as well as Housing Benefits.
3.
The Claimant is seeking possession of the premises from the
Defendant because on numerous occasions and times since the commencement of the
tenancy, the Defendant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of
her tenancy agreement.
PARTICULARS OF TENANCY
CONDITIONS
Condition 9
"You, the tenant, are
responsible for the behaviour of anyone, including your children, living in, or
visiting your home. This means that you must ensure that they do not act in
breach of any of these conditions. Also, you must not encourage them to act in
such a way. This applies in -the property, in
79,
communal and surrounding areas, any
property belonging to the council and or anywhere within Enfield borough.”
Condition 10
"You must not act in any way
which causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance or is
anti-social."
Condition 21
“You must not abuse, harass, make
offensive comments and/or malicious allegations, use or threaten to use
violence against any of ours. officers or agents, or against a councillor. This
applies at any time and in any place. We may report the matter to the Police.”
Condition 31
“You must take care not to cause damage
to your property or the property of your neighbours.”
Condition 33
"You must keep the inside of
your property clean and in reasonable decorative order.”
Condition 34
“You. Must not use the property in
any way that may cause a health or safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or
pests (for example, by hoarding items inappropriately).”
Condition 44
“You must obtain our prior written permission
before carrying out any alterations, improvements or structural work to the
property. You may need to obtain other permissions such as planning permission
or building regulations approval."
Condition 53
“You must keep the inside of the
property, the fixtures and fittings and all glass in the property in good
repair during the tenancy.”
Condition 57
“You must allow our employees,
representatives and contractors to come into your property to service any
electrical and gas supplies and appliances that we are responsible for
maintaining.”
Condition 69
“You must not interfere with the
electric or gas supply.”
Condition 76
“You have the right to keep one pet,
or animal such as a cat, a dog, small bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider,
small snake or lizard, rabbit hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic
rat as long as they do not cause damage to the property, or nuisance or
annoyance to anyone in your locality.”
2
80,
Condition 79
"You must always keep your
dog(s) on a lead in communal areas and on our land.”
4.
The Claimant claims that the Defendant has acted in
contravention of the above tenancy conditions.
5.
Detail of the nuisance acts that the Defendant has engaged
in which constitute a breach of these conditions are particularised in the
attached Schedule of Nuisance.
6.
The Claimant alleges that there have been reports of
nuisance and anti-social behaviour from the Defendant since July 2016.
7.
The Defendant has been given verbal and written warnings of
the anti-social behaviour and has been invited to attend meetings with his
mother to see the Claimant’s officers to discuss his conduct and behaviour, but
he declined to attend.
PARTICULARS OF WARNING LETTERS AND
REQUEST FOR MEETINGS
1. On
29 December 2016 a letter was sent to the Defendant to attend a meeting on 6
December 2016, but the Defendant cancelled the meeting.
2. On
31 January 2017 to attend a meeting for 9 February 2017 that was cancelled by
the Defendant.
3. On
16 February 2017 for a meeting on 22 February 2017 that again was cancelled by
the Defendant
4. On
16 March 2017 for a meeting on 23 March 2017 that was cancelled by the
Defendant.
5. On
15 October 2018 a pre-action letter was sent to the Defendant informing of legal
action as a consequence of his antisocial behaviour conduct.
3
81,
8.
The Claimant is seeking to rely on Grounds 1 and 2 of
Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 195 in the claim for possession of the premises.
Ground 1 of
Schedule 2 states " Rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or
an obligation of the tenancy has not been broken or not performed
Ground 2 Schedule
2 states” the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house:
a)
Has been guilty of conduct causing or
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing, visiting,
or otherwise engaging in unlawful activity in the locality, or
(aa)
has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance
to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by
the landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions,
and that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions, or
b)
has been convicted of—
I.
using the dwelling-house or allowing
it to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
II.
an indictable offence committed in,
or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.
9. In
accordance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, a
Notice of Seeking Possession was served on the Defendant on 25 January 2019.
10. The
Claimant claims that it is reasonable to grant possession of the premises on
account of the Defendant’s conduct.
4
82,
11. The
Claimant has informed the Defendant of the impact of his conduct and behaviour
on other residents and sent him warning letters. The Notice of Seeking
Possession clearly sets out the details of the complaints,
12. The
Claimant was assessed by a consultant psychiatrist on 6th July 2018 and she confirmed
that the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. Possession
of the premises known as 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.
2. Mesne
profit at the rate of Ł13.99 per day from the day possession is granted.
3. Costs
Statement of T ruth
I believe that the facts stated in
this Particulars of Claim are true.
I am duly authorised by the Claimant
to sign this statement.
(Claimant’s Solicitor)
Dated:
29 January 2019
5
83,
IN
THIE COUNTY COURT AT EDMONTON
CLAIM
NO
BETWEEN
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
and Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
Defendant
SCHEDULE OF NUISANCE ACTIVITIES
1.
On 6th July 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
approached an elderly neighbour as he came out of his flat and started to shout
abuse and swear at him and threatened to burn down his flat.
2.
Sometime in July 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant
damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric cupboard and removed his fuse box
resulting in no electricity to his flat.
3.
On 6th August 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
threatened one of his neighbours and his wife and aggressively demanded money
from him. It is also alleged that the Defendant repeatedly swore and shouted
abuse at him and his wife and called his wife a ‘bitch’ and tried to stop him
from going up the stairs to his flat by standing in front of him.
4.
Sometime in September 2016 it is alleged that the Defendant
confronted an elderly neighbour outside his block of flats, 109-119 Burncroft
Avenue as he was going to the local park with another resident and started to
shout abuse and threats at him and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park,
I know you go for a walk’.
5.
,5. On 27th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
confronted one of his neighbours as he returned to his flat with his family,
threatened, swore at him, and demanded money from him. It is also alleged that
the Defendant later banged on his door, shouted further abuse, and swear words
at him and accused him of making noise inside his flat.
6.
On 28th September 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on a neighbour's door and threatened and shouted verbal
abuse and swear words at them. It is also alleged that the Defendant
aggressively demanded money from him.
7.
On 4th October 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on his ceiling and accused one of his neighbours of making
noise, then went to his neighbour’s flat and started kicking and banging on his
front door
6
84,
aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor, swore and
shouted abuse at him. It is also alleged that the Defendant later went
downstairs, dragged his neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and
started to hit it with a piece of wood.
8.
On 22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation
between the Defendant, Mrs Cordell the Defendant mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher,
neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported that she overheard the Defendant
threaten her by saying 'I’m goanna do her over’ and then ‘I’m goanna take her
job just for fun’.
9.
On 8th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on one of his neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse and
threats and accused him of making noise.
10.
10.On 11th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on his neighbour’s door several times and accused them of
banging on pipes. It is also alleged that the Defendant shouted abuse and
threats at them.
11.
On 14th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant was
verbally abusive towards a woman who was visiting one of his neighbours as she
knocked on his neighbour’s door.
12.
On 23rd December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant
banged on a neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse at them and asked them to
turn their tap off. The Defendant then removed their electricity fuse thereby
cutting off their power supply.
13.
On 26th December 2016, it is alleged that the Defendant ran
up the communal stairs to the first floor and confronted one of his neighbours
as he was going out with his family and started to shout abuse and threats at
him and his wife and accused him of tampering with his water supply. The
Defendant also attempted to stop him from leaving the block.
14.
On 3rd January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant
confronted one of his neighbours as he returned to the block with his wife and
two-year-old daughter and started shouting abuse and threats at them.
15.
On 21st January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on his neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse and
threats at them and accused them of making noise.
16.
On 31st January 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on his neighbour's door, shouted abuse, and threats at them
and accused them of banging on the floor.
7
85,
17.
We received a report that on 7th February 2017 that the
Defendant approached the leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber
outside the block as they were attempting to resolve the problem causing low
water pressure in the flat. The Defendant said to the leaseholder that there
were problems between him and his tenants but did not give any specific
details. The leaseholder explained to the Defendant that his tenants were
experiencing low water pressure in the flat and the Defendant said to him ‘you
will not solve the problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The
leaseholder later knocked on the Defendant door and asked whether he would
increase the water pressure and the Defendant stated '! cannot do anything at
the moment, I will sort it out later’.
18.
On 24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer)
and Steve Stirk (Maintenance Surveyor) attended the Defendant property at fiat
109 Burncroft Avenue to inspect the property following reports of low water
pressure from flats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside the Defendant
flat, they observed that the Defendant had installed an iron security gate
inside his front door. It also appeared to them that the wall between the
Defendant kitchen and living room seemed to have been removed thereby creating
an open plan effect. Much of the property was taken up with industrial type
printers, boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in the Defendant’s back
garden.
19.
On 17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited
109 Burncroft Avenue to post a letter through the Defendant door and as he got
into his car to drive off after posting the letter, the Defendant ran after him
shouting and screaming abuse. The letter requested that the Defendant attend
the Council office to discuss the nuisance reports being received from his
neighbours. By the time he returned to the office, the Defendant had telephoned
him several times. Lemmy Nwabuisi telephoned the Defendant back and the
Defendant asked whether he was the person that posted a letter through his
letterbox and Lemmy Nwabuisi said yes. The Defendant asked why he did not stop
when he ran after him and Lemmy Nwabuisi stated that he had another visit and
did not have the time to stop and talk to him. The Defendant stated that he will
not attend the meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as he
is unable to leave his flat and that the meeting should take place in his flat.
Mr Nwabuisi offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the
local library or at his mother's house, but the Defendant refused saying that
he have done nothing wrong and accused Lemmy Nwabuisi of taking sides with his
neighbours.
20.
On 5th May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant threatened
one of his neighbours by saying that he will ruin his life and that the
Defendant was going to the police to present evidence about his illegal
activities.
8
86,
21.
On 14th May 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant
aggressively banged on one of his neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats
at her and falsely accused her of making noise and coming into his flat to
attack him. The Defendant later followed her to her car shouting abuse and
wanting to know where she was going.
22.
On 14th May 2017 it is alleged that the Defendant allowed
his dog to run freely in the communal area of his block without a lead.
23.
On 28th May 2017, the police issued the Defendant with a
first instance Harassment letter following reports of harassment and
threatening behaviour made to the police by one of the Defendant neighbours.
24.
On 9th June 2017, it is alleged that the Defendant attacked
one of his neighbours in the communal hallway of his block as he returned from
work late at night by grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing bruising
to his arm and neck. The Defendant also snatched his phone from him as he tried
to video-record the incident.
25.
On 16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant confronted one of his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance
to his building and said to her that he had her bank details and personal
details such as date of birth and said to her that he wanted her and her
husband to pay the Defendant some money.
26.
On 18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant confronted one of his neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance
to his building and said to her that he knew what time she went out and what
time she returned and to tell her husband that the Defendant would like to
speak to him.
27.
On 23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant came out of his flat with his dog without a lead and attacked one of
his neighbours as he returned from work by punching him twice on the chest. The
Defendant tried to push him out of the block and snatched his phone as he took
it out of his pocket to record the incident.
28.
On 28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant confronted his neighbour as she was leaving the block. The Defendant
swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her of making noise inside her flat.
The Defendant told her that he knows all her personal details and that of her
husband including their full names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking
details. The Defendant demanded that they pay him some money and asked her to
tell her husband to come and see him.
29.
On 30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant confronted his neighbour as she was leaving the block and accused her
of slamming
9
87,
the door. She denied slamming the door and the Defendant
called her a liar and proceeded to swear and shout abuse at her.
30.
On 2nd July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that the
Defendant confronted his neighbour as he was going out with his family with his
dog barking and without a lead. The Defendant asked him when he was going to
hand over the money. It is also alleged that as they left the block, the
Defendant ran after them swearing and shouting abuse at his neighbour and
demanding that he must pay him some money if he wants the Defendant to leave
him alone. The Defendant also said to him that he has all their personal
details including their dates of birth and bank details.
31.
On 12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended the
Defendant flat to investigate reports of low water pressure to flats above his,
but he refused him access. The Surveyor attended the Defendant flat again in
the evening of the same day following further reports that the water supply to
the affected flats had completely ceased and the Defendant refused him access.
The Defendant then followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him
and prevented him from entering his car. The Surveyor then called the police.
32.
On 11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of
his neighbours that the Defendant came to their front door, opened the
letterbox, and peeped through it to see who was inside the flat. The Defendant
then started swearing and shouting abuse and banging on their front door as
soon as he saw the neighbour’s wife.
33.
On 2nd January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that the
Defendant stood outside his neighbour’s property for more than twenty minutes
swearing and shouting abuse. The Defendant went away and returned half an hour
later, lifted their letterbox, stuck his mobile phone through the letterbox and
started to record his neighbour’s family while swearing and shouting abuse.
This went on for about fifteen minutes.
34.
On 9th January 2018 at about 12.18pm, the Defendant
telephoned Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour officer) and accused him of forging
documents to get an anti-social behaviour order against him. The Defendant
further told him that he had made him a prisoner within his home. The Defendant
stated that he knows where he lives in Enfield and that he and his family were
not safe from him. The Defendant told Lemmy Nwabuisi that he would watch him
leave the office and he would have followed him home and he needed to watch his
back. The Defendant called the ASB officer again 30 minutes later and told him
that he knows he has a flat in Edmonton and also know that one of his
colleagues lives in Edmonton. The Defendant also stated that he knows where
they live, and they were not safe.
10
88,
35.
On 9th January 2018 the Defendant called Kaunchita Maudhub
(ASB Behaviour officer) and left a long voicemail on her work telephone number
and made threats.
36.
On 26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that
the Defendant came to one of his neighbour’s front door and started making loud
banging noises and rattling with their letter box. The Defendant ran away after
the neighbour opened her front door.
37.
On 1st March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant knocked
on one of his neighbours’ door loudly, he started rattling with their letter
box and shouting. This went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but the Defendant left
after he heard that the neighbour was calling the police.
38.
On 15th March 2018 it is alleged that the Defendant swore,
shouted, and assaulted one of his neighbours in front of his wife and his 3
years old child.
39.
On 1sl May 2018, the Defendant attended the Edmonton County
Court as there was a hearing listed in relation to an injunction. It is alleged
that the Defendant started shouting abuse, swore and make threats to two of the
Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes,
lawyer) and to one of his neighbours who attended Court to give evidence. The
Defendant also swore at a judge. These incidents were witnessed by members of
staff working at the Court.
40.
On 29th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant attended
one of his neighbours’ property; he took his dog with him and waited by their
front door. It is alleged that the Defendant tried to intimidate as they were
due to attend a hearing in the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in
support of a claim for an injunction issued against the Defendant.
41.
On 30th May 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant made
threats to kill to one of his neighbours. The matter was reported to the
police. The Defendant was arrested and released on bail.
42.
On 29th August 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant
assaulted one of his neighbours for flushing his toilet.
43.
The Defendant telephoned two council officers (Lemmy
Nwabuisi and Ludmilla lyavoo) on 12th September 2018 and made threats to them
over the telephone. The Defendant also accused them of fraud and of fabricating
evidence to support the Council’s claim for an injunction
44.
On 12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, the Defendant called
one of his neighbours on his mobile phone using a private number. It is not
known how you obtained his number, but he terminated the call. The Defendant
called
11
89,
again using the same private number, but he terminated the
call as soon as he heard his voice. The Defendant called repeatedly after that.
45.
On 24th September 2018 at about 11.30am, one of the
Defendant neighbours returned home from dropping her daughter at school and as
she entered their block of flat, she noticed that the middle door on the ground
floor was open as well as the Defendant front door. As she went up the stairs
to their second floor flat, the Defendant dog came out of the Defendant flat
and started barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs to her flat
to escape from the dog. It was reported that the Defendant dog is always
barking whenever they go out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4
years old daughter are terrified.
46.
On 30th September 2018, it is alleged that the Defendant
attempted to break down one of his neighbour’s front door by kicking it several
times and accused him flushing his toilet.
47.
On 2nd October 2018 at about 12:45pm, it is alleged that the
Defendant attacked one of his neighbour’s cousins as he was leaving the block.
It is alleged that as he exited the block, the Defendant followed him and
suddenly grabbed his jacket from behind and tried to pull him to the ground.
The cousin started shouting to attract neighbours and managed to push the
Defendant off.
48.
On 18th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned one of the
Enfield Council solicitors, Miss Ludmilla lyavoo almost ten times, making
threats and intimidating her. The Defendant suggested that she stops working on
the case or you will try to get her struck off from the 'register'.
49.
On 19th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla
lyavoo at least five times and left two voice messages making threats and
trying to intimidate the solicitor working on the case.
50.
On 22nd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla
lyavoo from a private number and left one threatening and intimidating voice
message.
51.
On 23rd October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla
lyavoo from a private number and left an intimidating voice message.
52.
On 24th October 2018, the Defendant telephoned Ludmilla
lyavoo twice but did not leave any messages.
53.
On 16th December 2018 at around 6pm, it is alleged that the
Defendant repeatedly banged on one of his neighbour’s door and peeped through
his letterbox.
54.
On 17th January2019, the Defendant was videotaped when he
confronted one of his neighbours outside his block of flats (109-119 Burncroft
Avenue) as he was taking his three-year-old daughter to school and started
shouting
12
90,
abuse and threats at him thereby preventing him from taking
his daughter to school. The Defendant then followed him and his daughter up the
stairs to their second floor flat and was videotaped by a member of the
neighbour's family as he attempted to attack them causing them to run into
their flat for safety with the Defendant forcing the door to try and gain
entry. The neighbour and his family have since fled their property as a result
of the Defendant constant threats and intimidation.
55.
55.On 18th January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss
Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number and started making threats and the
solicitor ended the call. The Defendant called again three times and left a
voice message making threats and intimidation.
56.
56.On 23rd January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss
Ludmilla lyavoo eight times within a ten-minute period.
57.
On 25th January 2019, the Defendant telephoned Miss Ludmilla
lyavoo on two occasions acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Seeking
Possession, threaten to have her struck off the register and accused her of
falsifying evidence against him.
13
91,
Copy of my Driving Licence!
92,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements
->Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf
General
Form of Judgment or Order
In the
County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: E00ED049
Date: 6 September 2018
Ref: LS/C/Ll/155584
Ref:
TKK/TKK/ [SIM041/002
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
1st
Defendant
Before District Judge Dias
sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
UPON hearing Solicitor for the
Claimant and Defendant, the Defendant's mother, the Defendant's uncle, and the
Defendant not attending.
UPON the
Court reviewing the psychiatrist report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 8th July 2018,
confirming that the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate and/or capacity to
understand the terms of the injunction order made on 9th January 2018.
UPON the
Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage with
the Claimant and assist the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a
housing management transfer application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the
Claimant agreeing that it will deal with the housing management transfer
application as quickly as possible after being made.
AND UPON the
Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team
so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
The interim injunction order dated 9th January 2018 be
discharged forthwith.
2.
The Claimants claim and application for an injunction dated
9th January 2018, the Claimants applications for the Defendant's committal
dated 5th February and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant's application notice
dated 7th August 2018 do stand dismissed.
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NIB 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyelaim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by: D. Humphreys
N24 General Form of Judgment or
Order CJR0h5C
93,
3.
The Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the Wood
Green Police station.
4.
There be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment
of the Defendant's publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09 August 2018
94,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->VLS_20171215_103522.pdf
HM Courts & Tribunals
Service
Vis Solicitors
Gibson House
800 High Road
Tottenham
London
N17 0DH
36209 EDMONTON EXCHANGE
HM Courts & Tribunals
Service the County Court at Edmonton
59 Fore Street London N18 2TN
DX 136686
EDMONTON
T 020 8884
6500
Your ref: VLS/EO/H/CORDELL/17
Dear Sir
13 December 2017
Re: Case
Number: D02ED073 London Borough of Enfield v Mr Simon Cordell
Enclosed please find copy of
courts letter to the claimant's as directed by the District Judge.
Yours faithfully,
Ourvasse Cundapen Back Office
Section Ext
95,
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
London Borough of Enfield
P O Box 50
Civic Centre
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XA
90615 ENFIELD 1
HM Courts & Tribunals Service the
County Court at Edmonton
59 Fore Street London N18 2TN
DX 136686 EDMONTON 3
T 020 8884 6500
Your ref: LS/C/LI/157255
Dear Sir/Madam
13 December 2017
Re: Case Number: D02ED073 London Borough
of Enfield v Mr Simon Cordell
The file was referred to the District
Judge and his comments are:
"Your Directions Questionnaire was
received by the court on 20/11/17. Therefore the sanction on the order of
6/11/17 applies."
Yours sincerely,
Ourvasse Cundapen Back Office Section
Ext
cc: defendants
96,
97
My ID Card!
98,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements
->Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf
General
Form of Judgment or Order
In the
County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: E00ED049
Date: 6 September 2018
Ref: LS/C/Ll/155584
Ref:
TKK/TKK/ [SIM041/002
THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
MR
SIMON CORDELL
1st
Defendant
Before District Judge Dias
sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
UPON hearing Solicitor for the
Claimant and Defendant, the Defendant's mother, the Defendant's uncle, and the
Defendant not attending.
UPON the
Court reviewing the psychiatrist report of Dr Dhinakaran dated 8th July 2018,
confirming that the Defendant lacks capacity to litigate and/or capacity to
understand the terms of the injunction order made on 9th January 2018.
UPON the
Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage with
the Claimant and assist the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a
housing management transfer application on or before 16 August 2018.
UPON the Claimant
agreeing that it will deal with the housing management transfer application as
quickly as possible after being made.
AND UPON the
Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team
so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health conditions and
housing.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
The interim injunction order dated 9th January 2018 be
discharged forthwith.
2.
The Claimants claim and application for an injunction dated
9th January 2018, the Claimants applications for the Defendant's committal
dated 5th February and 20 April 2018 and the Claimant's application notice
dated 7th August 2018 do stand dismissed.
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NIB 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyelaim.gov.uk to find out more.
Produced by: D. Humphreys
N24 General Form of Judgment or
Order CJR0h5C
99,
3.
The Claimant should serve a copy of this order upon the Wood
Green Police station.
4.
There be no order as to costs save for detailed assessment
of the Defendant's publicly funded costs.
Dated: 09 August 2018
100,
RE: Legal Aid Agency Requirements ->2018
11 28 Signed response.pdf
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey
Mental Health NHS Trust
A University Teaching Trust
Private & Confidential
Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey Mental
Health Trust
Ms Lorraine Cordell
Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Trust Headquarters Orchard House St
Ann’s Hospital
St Ann’s Road London N15 3TH
Tel: 020 8702 3559
Email: beh-tr.chiefexecutive@nhs.net
27th November 2018
Our Ref: ENF/18/Q2/SC/6273
Dear Mrs Cordell
Re: Your complaint regarding the
sharing of your son’s information
Thank you for passing on your concerns
in your conversation and initial email with Angela Hague on 30th
July 2018, and subsequently with Rachel Yona on 10th August 2018. You
raised some key questions relating to information governance and the sharing of
information regarding your son. Please accept our sincere apologies for the
delay in our response to your queries, which was due to there being a separate
ongoing investigation within the Trust regarding the matters you have raised.
Your concerns have been investigated
and I am now in a position to respond to your complaint. Your concerns were
investigated by Rachel Yona (Enfield Adult Mental Health Community Services
Manager) and involved interviews with staff and a review of your son’s clinical
records.
You stated that a report written by
Angela Hague regarding your son, dated 15th June 2018 and 19th
June 2018, had been presented in court on 26th June 2018. You stated
you had not had prior access to these reports and explained that you had
considered the court case and the assessments by Angela Hague were separate
processes.
Please be assured that we have looked
into this matter and I can confirm the report used in court was not a formal
report, but rather a response by Angela to a request for information. The Trust
had communicated to the Council Legal Services that we would not be providing a
report for the Court and it was recommended they commission an independent
report if this were required. However as part of the investigation, it has been
highlighted that this communication was only shared verbally with the Council
Legal Services, and the position of the Trust was not clarified in writing.
During our communications with the
Council Legal Services it was asked whether your son had engaged in his recent
assessment, and it was for this reason the information presented in court was
given. Our investigation found that the information which was sent was not a
limited, direct response to the question posed to the Trust; I sincerely regret
therefore that information was overshared and as such this aspect of your
complaint is upheld.
This is a matter we have taken very
seriously; I would like to offer you our sincere apologies that your son’s
information was used for anything other than it’s intended use whilst in the
hands of the
Chairman: Mark
Lam
Chief Executive: Jinjer Kandola
101,
Trust, and assure you that we fully
understand our role in ensuring the security and safekeeping of records
relating to all of those in our care. We have completed a full internal
incident investigation into this matter, and I would like to assure you that
all due processes and actions have been taken in relation to this breach.
I understand that you also were
concerned about the processing of your son’s information by the Court and the
Local Authority. We are aware your son did not give consent for his records to
be used in Court, and I can confirm the Trust also did not give consent for the
sharing of information by the Local Authority with the Court. Our investigation
found that the London Borough of Enfield requested to know if your son had
engaged in treatment. As part of the legal proceedings the Court had asked for
an assessment of your son’s capacity to litigate and capacity to understand the
meaning of the interim injunction from January 2018. Whilst we cannot speak on
behalf of the Courts, we believe that this was why they passed on the
information.
I am very sorry to learn that you feel
the trust between yourself, your son, and the Mental Health Services has been
broken. I understand that your son is now being seen by the Enfield North
Locality Team, and I sincerely hope that they will be able to help rebuild the
trust and develop a good working relationship with yourself and your son.
I understand that when you discussed
your concerns with Rachel Yona (Enfield Community Services Manager) you raised
your view that you feel there were inaccuracies within your son’s report.
Please be advised that whilst we are unable to retrospectively amend records,
we are able to add additional entries to reflect your views and comments, and
we would be very happy to add any information as you see fit.
Please be assured that the
recommendations from this complaint will be shared with the London Borough of
Enfield Legal Services and across our Enfield Adult Community Mental Health
Teams, to ensure all agencies involved in this situation can learn from this
regrettable incident.
We appreciate all feedback from service
users’ experience of our service as this helps us to assess, reflect on our
actions and improve the care we provide. Staff members are committed to
providing and delivering a high standard of care to all our service users. We
try to ensure that through good support and training opportunities, staff are
enabled to deal effectively and sensitively with the needs of all service users
and their relatives. When members of our staff fall below the expected levels
of performance, we ensure that issues are addressed and dealt with quickly. Our
aim is to learn from these experiences and give assurances that any actions as
a result of our investigation will be delivered.
If you remain unhappy after this
further contact, you have the right to take your complaint to the Parliamentary
and Health Service Ombudsman. The contact details are as follows:
The Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London SW1P4QP Helpline: 0345 015 4033
Thank you for bringing these matters to
our attention.
Yours sincerely
Jinjer Kandola Chief Executive
Chairman:
Mark Lam
Chief Executive: Jinjer
Kandola
102,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->A PHILIPPOU_ Re_ SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF
SEEKING POSSESSION-25-01-2019-001.pdf
From: A
PHILIPPOU [gis.group@btmtemet.com]
Sent: 25
January 2019 10:51
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: SIMON
CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION
Hi Lorraine
my apologies this should have
read 109 of Burncroft
Many thanks
Andy
Global Investigation Services
Incorporating the G.I.S. Group
(UK)
Earnscliff House London N9 9AB
Tel: 020
8884 6299
Mobile: 07918 104488
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
(Cyprus)
No 6, Ground Floor Offices
103,
·
Freedom Road Drousheia Village Paphos
District Cyprus 8700
Tel:(00357)
99136710
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
Andy Philippou
Full
Member/Association of British Investigators 1508 (p)
Full Member Institute
of Professional Investigators
Full Member/World
Association of Professional Investigators
On Friday, 25 January 2019
10:42:49 GMT, A PHILIPPOU <gis.group@btinternet.com> wrote:
Hi Lorraine
I have been instructed by the
London Borough of Enfield to effect service of the attached Notice of Seeking
Possession relating to your son Simon Cordell for the address supplied of 106
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JH. Please be mindful of its content
copies of which have been posted through the letterbox of your son's address as
well as attaching two further copies on and adjacent to the front door of said
property.
Many thanks
Andy
Global Investigation Services
Incorporating the G.I.S. Group
(UK)
Earnscliff House
104,
London
N9 9AB
Tel: 020
8884 6299
Mobile: 07918 104488
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
(Cyprus)
No 6, Ground Floor Offices
6, Freedom Road Drousheia
Village Paphos District Cyprus 8700
Tel:(00357)
99136710
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
Andy Philippou
Full
Member/Association of British Investigators 1508 (p)
Full Member Institute
of Professional Investigators
Full Member/World
Association of Professional Investigators
105,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->A PHILIPPOU_SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING
POSSESSION-25--01-2019.pdf
From: A
PHILIPPOU [gis.group@btmtemet.com]
Sent: 25
January 2019 10:43
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: SIMON CORDELL RE
NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION
Attachments: LONDON BOROUGH OF
ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION 25JAN19 AP.pdf
Hi Lorraine
I have been instructed by the
London Borough of Enfield to effect service of the attached Notice of Seeking
Possession relating to your son Simon Cordell for the address supplied of 106
Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7JH. Please be mindful of its content
copies of which have been posted through the letterbox of your son's address as
well as attaching two further copies on and adjacent to the front door of said
property.
Many thanks
Andy
Global Investigation Services
Incorporating the G.I.S. Group
(UK)
Earnscliff House London N9 9AB
Tel: 020
8884 6299
Mobile: 07918 104488
Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
106,
(Cyprus)
No 6, Ground Floor Offices
6, Freedom Road Drousheia Village
Paphos District Cyprus 8700
Tel:(00357) 99136710 Email: gis.group@btinternet.com
Andy Philippou
Full Member/Association of British
Investigators 1508 (p)
Full Member Institute of Professional
Investigators
Full Member/World Association of
Professional Investigators
107,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->alev.cazimoglu@parliament.pdf
From: alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk
Sent: 03
January 2019 09:59
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
CRM MEQ 13856 - Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (Case Ref:
JR5802) [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: ~WRD106.jpg
image002.png
On behalf of Mr Simon
Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.pdf
image001.png
Dear Lorraine
Please see the latest response
from Enfield Council in relation to your complaint. We will contact you as soon
as we receive any further responses.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for
Enfield North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA
T: 0207
219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST
T: 0208
804 4543
Sent: 21
December 2018 16:00
To: RYAN,
Joan
Subject: FW: CRM
MEQ 13856 - Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (Case Ref:
JR5802) [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Joan Ryan MP,
I am writing in response to the
letter of complaint that has been submitted by Lorraine Cordell concerning the
handling of her son’s case (letter attached) We have received a number of
communications from Ms Cordell about various matters relating to the court
proceedings that were taken against Simon Cordell and issues to do with his
mental health. We have therefore sought legal clarification on some of those
points and we intend to respond to all these matters (including the attached
letter) once we have received the appropriate advice.
Please be advised we will
provide you will a full response in the new year.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
108,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->alev.cazimoglu@parliament-03-01-2019.pdf
From: alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk
Sent: 03
January 2019 09:59
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
CRM MEQ 13856 - Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (Case Ref:
JR5802) [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: ~WRD106.jpg
image002.png
On behalf of Mr Simon
Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.pdf
image001.png
Dear Lorraine
Please see the latest response
from Enfield Council in relation to your complaint. We will contact you as soon
as we receive any further responses.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for Enfield
North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA
T: 0207
219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST
T: 0208
804 4543
Sent: 21
December 2018 16:00
To: RYAN,
Joan
Subject: FW:
CRM MEQ 13856 - Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ (Case Ref:
JR5802) [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Joan Ryan MP,
I am writing in response to the
letter of complaint that has been submitted by Lorraine Cordell concerning the
handling of her son’s case (letter attached) We have received a number of
communications from Ms Cordell about various matters relating to the court
proceedings that were taken against Simon Cordell and issues to do with his
mental health. We have therefore sought legal clarification on some of those
points and we intend to respond to all these matters (including the attached
letter) once we have received the appropriate advice.
Please be advised we will
provide you will a full response in the new year.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
109,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->alev.cazimoglu@parliament-17-12-2018.pdf
From: alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk
Sent: 17
December 2018 11:16
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
MEQ 13653 - Simon Cordell (Case Ref: JR5802) - Due Date 12/12/18 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: MEQ
13653.pdf
WRD000.jpg
Dear Lorraine
Please see the response in
relation to your complaint. I know you will be upset with the contents of the
letter, but I think Simon needs to cooperate with the Mental Health Teams.
Joan is happy to write to the
Mental Health Trust if Simon needs support from them.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for
Enfield North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA
T: 0207
219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST
T: 0208
804 4543
Sent: 14 December 2018
14:51 To: RYAN, Joan
Subject: Re: MEQ
13653 - Simon Cordell (Case Ref: JR5802) - Due Date 12/12/18 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Joan Ryan MP,
Please find attached a response
to your enquiry from Lorraine Cordell on behalf of her son Simon Cordell of
Burncroft Avenue.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
110,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->alev.cazimoglu@parliament-21-12-2018.pdf
From: alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk
Sent: 21
December 2018 11:41 To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
(Case Ref: JR5802)
Attachments:
image003.jpg
image002.jpg
image001.png
Dear Lorraine
Please see latest response from
the Mental Health Trust following Joan's request for an appointment for Simon.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for
Enfield North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA
T: 0207
219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST
T: 0208
804 4543
Sent: 18
December 2018 16:56
To:
CAZIMOGLU, Alev
Subject: RE: (Case
Ref: JR5802)
Dear Alev,
Thank you for your email.
I can confirm that the team is
trying to work with Mr Cordell, and that appointments have been offered. Best
Wishes Rachel Yona
Enfield Adult Mental Health
Community Services Manager Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust
111,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->alev.cazimoglu@parliament-23-11-2018.pdf
From: alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk
Sent: 23
November 2018 16:20
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Fwd.: SC [SEC=OFFICIAL] (Case Ref: JR5802)
Attachments: image002.png
WRD000.jpg.
image001.jpg.
image003.png.
image004.jpg
Dear Lorraine
Please see the latest response
below.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for
Enfield North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA T: 0207 219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST T: 0208 804 4543
From: Cllr
Alev Cazimoglu
Sent: 19
November 2018 15:34
To: CAZIMOGLU,
Alev
Subject: Fwd.:
SC [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Denise
Cook-Smith
Date: 19 November 2018 at 15:32:12
GMT
To: Cllr
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: FW: SC
[SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Hi Alev
Further to your enquiry
regarding Simon Cordell. Please see the update below from Debbie Morgan.
SC was discharged from hospital
on 15/11/18 having been detained under the Mental Health Act for the purpose of
assessment of his mental health. SC did not believe he required to be in
hospital or wish to accept the proposed treatment that was offered. As there is
insufficient grounds or risk for further detention or to take any further
intrusive measures against his will, he has been discharged.
SC does not believe he has a
mental illness that requires him to take treatment or to maintain on-going
engagement with mental health services. He appears disappointed with services
in which he perceives to have received from both housing and metropolitan
police believing he is being targeted for things he has not done. His
assessment has not elicited he has care needs warranting supported
accommodation or a package of care to sustain independent living as he can be
adequately supported through universal services. He presents with adequate
daily living skills and can live in general needs housing. He appears to be
young man who has particular beliefs, which may lead to him having differences
in opinion with others, which may impact on relationships with others;
particularly those in positions of authority. His mental health/psychological
state therefore remains fragile; however the risk is not such that he can be
forced to engage with services.
112,
He was offered follow-up by
mental health services in the community to which he declined, although agreed
the he can be contacted by nurses from the ward to check on progress following
discharge. He has been allocated a care coordinator (Soohah Appadoo, North
Locality Team - 0208 379 4142) who will continue to try to engage him to build
a relationship. SC describes his main presenting need to be that of his
relationship with particular neighbours within his block, whom he believes to
be intentionally causing him a nuisance by way of making noise, and reports
feeling disbelieved and unfairly treated by the housing department and police.
He therefore wants to be moved from his current accommodation.
His mother approached the ward
Consultant for a supporting letter to provide to housing for a 2-bedroom
property citing she is his main carer. As there is no evidence to suggest SC
requires to be looked after due to having care needs requiring a live-in carer
her request was declined, she was advised to suggest housing put their request
in writing should this be housing’s request. Mental Health would support
relocation to alternative accommodation to reduce further tensions between the
residents within the block.
Hi mother advised that SC has/or
is in the possess of eviction, and that he was discharged from hospital with no
support which does not seem to be the case. Support has been offered which has
been declined and will continue to be offered to assist in managing the current
situation or avoid and/or mitigation a situation of eviction.
113,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Chief Executive_ FW_ Mr Simon Cordell of 109
Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL] -06-12-2018.pdf
From: Chief
Executive [Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 06
December 2018 11:53
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
complaints and information
Subject: FW: Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: On
behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ.pdf Classification:
OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell
Thank you for your email address
to the Chief Executive. I am writing in acknowledgement and to advise you that
a copy of your correspondence has been passed to the Complaints and Access to
Information Team. A response will be sent to you direct on the issues raised.
Regards
Heather Littler
Senior Admin Officer
Chief Executive's Unit
London Borough of Enfield
Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, EN1 3XY
Tel: 020
8379 4037
Email: heather.littler@enfield.gov.uk
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities"
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 05
December 2018 14:09
To: Chief
Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Sarah Cary
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremy.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
James Rolfe
Tony Theodoulou
Tony.Theodoulou@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached letter
regarding issues I have.
Regards
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UPONL NENOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
114,
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
115,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Enfield-Counci-Reply-28-12-2018.pdf
·
Simon Cordell - 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield,
EN3 7JQ - 28/12/2018
Dear Kaunchita Maudhub and
Andrea Clemons
Thank you for the reply letter
to my emails dated the 28/12/18, I have today contracted by email Mr Cordell's
solicitors who were acting for my son Trishna Kerai, but she is away until the
2nd January 2019, Trishna Kerai was well aware I did not agree with Enfield
Council's draft order, which was sent to me by her on the 13th August 2018 at
15:14, I made a reply to her with the points I did not agree to right away, and
she was due to rewrite them points I did not agree with. Then she went on leave
and did not do the rewrite until she came back of leave. This was when her
amended order was sent back to Ludmilla Iyavoo and she got no reply and a few
days after this Enfield Council draft order was sealed by the court.
I did not agree to submit a
housing management transfer to be considered by the exceptions panel on
17/08/2018, As Ms lyavoo is well aware it is Enfield Council neighbourhood
officer that has to complete this application, In fact I have nothing to do
with the making of this application I was not even allowed to see it after it
was completed by the neighbourhood officer even when I asked to see it I was
not allowed to be sent it as it is only used internally.
I did not only email Ludmilla
Iyavoo I had calls with her and we spoke, I also left voice messages for her,
when the management transfer application was deferred on the 16/08/2018 it was
only due to be deferred until the next panel meeting on 29/09/2018 when it
should have gone before the panel even if it was a like to like move but this
did not happen. When I emailed Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo on the 28/09/2018 I asked for
an update as I had not heard anything, I did not know I was meant to have given
her an update regarding the appointment; and I am sure I said to her on a phone
call when the management transfer application was deferred if I got any medical
information I would email it to her as soon as I got it, so by not sending
anything to her I sure she would have known I had not got anything, in fact the
mental health team was not replying to me at all, looking back now I believe
that was due to them looking into the complaint I had sent. But the medical
evidence was not necessary for it to have gone to the housing panel.
1
116,
I did not get any updates from
Ludmilla Iyavoo at this stage or any reasons it was not put forward to the
panel on that date. I again emailed Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo on the 01/10/2018 and
after talking to Lemmy Nwabuisi on the 02/10/2018 via a phone call I sent a
next email to Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo asking for an update on the 02/10/2018, I did
get a reply on the 02/10/2018 from Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo stating she had been in
meetings and was unable to attend to my voice messages calls or emails, and
that she was taking instructions from her office and would get back to me in
due cause. I again emailed Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo on the 07/10/2018 as I still had
not had any updates, I did not get a reply so again sent an email on the
09/10/2018 to Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo, on the 12/10/2018 I did get a reply to that
email, but from my emailed it would have been very clear I wanted it to go to
the panel, at that point I was very busy and did not have time to reply to that
email, I then got an next email on the 15/10/2018 from Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo
stating court action was going to start. At this point I knew in my heart
Enfield Council was never going to put this to the panel and only wanted one
thing and this was the real reason it took Ms Ludmilla Iyavoo so long to reply
to my emails and calls, so it was around this time I made arrangements to see
my son’s MP as I felt I was not getting anywhere and through maybe it was
better coming from the MP.
The issue with appointments
being made they are for my son to go to the clinic; I have told them many times
my son does not leave the flat and a home appointment should be made which they
are still falling to do. I spoke to Soohah Appadoo, North Locality Team more
than once saying this is an issue and been told he will get back to me
regarding it after he has a meeting with his team about it but he has not done
this yet.
If you are now agreeing that the
court did not actually record that my son submits a housing transfer
application on the condition that he engages with mental health team, why has
Enfield Council been stating this to everyone as this is incorrect is it not? I
believe this should be corrected should it not?
Yes, I agreed to talk with the mental
health team which I have done, and it is clear I have done this as it stated in
your letters and replies to the MP, so I am doing what I
2
117,
was asked to do by Enfield
Council at court, so why is Enfield Council not doing what they were meant to
do?
This section in the court order “AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing to engage
with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant could receive
assistance with his mental health conditions and housing.” is also something I did not agree to, and it was
this point I asked to be rewritten or removed along with other sections.
The reason I did not agree to it being written in the court order was due to
the fact I knew I was limited in what I could do with the mental health team,
and really the way the draft court order is worded by Enfield Council was not
said in court that way and was I believe only written this way for Enfield
Council to get out of moving my son.
There is only so much I can do
as my son has rights even under the mental health act, so when I agreed I knew
I would be limited in what I could do. It seems Enfield Council are just
passing the buck over to anyone they can and not doing anything to help my son
and passing incorrect information over all the time to people.
There is a duty of care and so
far, Enfield Council has beached that in every way possible regarding my son,
also the beaches in data protection is beyond anything I have ever seen when is
this going to stop? By now you would have the complaint outcome letter that was
submitted to the mental health team which was upheld, which should have been
learned from, but it seems the sharing of information regarding my son is even
worse now than when it was when I submitted the complaint to the mental health
team. There has never been no consent from my son for Enfield Council to share
data the way they have with the mental health team the way it has been shared.
When is Enfield Council going to
help my son? not leave him to suffer the way Enfield Council has done since the
end of 2014 when I started making calls about what was going on with the
neighbours, from the start of 2015 I had to start sending emails to Enfield
Council regarding what was going on with the neighbours because Enfield Council
was just not getting back to me regarding the phone calls and still no one got
back to me until 21/09/2015, it seems Enfield Council only acts when it is
against my son, as I was putting in reports and complaints regarding what the
3
118,
neighbours were doing well
before any report or complaint went in regarding my son,
I was told so many times by
Lemmy Nwabuisi to forget all about the emails I sent, and it seems Enfield
Council don’t seem to have many of the emails I sent begging for help with what
was ongoing.
To me this is one sided only and
not once has Lemmy Nwabuisi ever asked to see anything this is a beach and
discrimination against my son, not even the police take one side to everything
at least they do an investigation, which I believe the council also have a duty
to do.
Why is Enfield Council also
allowed to try and pressure neighbours into doing statements against their
will, against my son and don’t think I don’t know about this as I do, why am I
being told by neighbours Enfield Council is out to get my son really badly and
are not going to stop until they do get him out, why are neighbours even being
talked to about my son? It seems Enfield Council will stop at nothing regarding
my son.
Why has Lemmy Nwabuisi or any
other Enfield Council worker ever taken any report from my son regarding
anything when they have been told time and time again, we have proof my son has
not done the things that is being said he has done? Why does Enfield Council
see fit to wait months and months and months to tell us about any reports? The
list can go on and on, but we know already Enfield Council will do nothing for
my son but disregard him.
Please could you clarify for me
whether or not you are seeking possession order for my son flat? Because you
have now admitted in your letter to me dated the 28/12/2018 that the
information used in your letter dated the 12/12/2018 was incorrect as it was
not stated in the court order my son had to engage with mental health team to
be able to get a housing management transfer, and that my son did not need to
provide medical evidence to support the housing management transfer
application, and you did in fact have enough information to put this to the
panel as the application was completed by the 16/08/2018. As it really seems to
me that Enfield Council has not done what was within the court order or taken
anything the Judge said in court on the 09/08/2018 into account, and the basic
for the seeking possession order on my son's
4
119,
flat was based on facts that was
clearly not in the court order, if Enfield Council had put this before the
panel then this would not even be an issue and we would not need to address
this now.
Also I would like to say at this
point Trishna Kerai from Stuart miller solicitors is no longer acting
solicitors for my son, so there is no need for the legal team or any other team
within Enfield Council to forward any documents to her regarding my son.
I apologise for the sternness of
this letter, but it seems where my son and I are concerned we seem to take one
step forward then two back and I am sure you can sympathise with how
frustrating this must be.
I look forward to hearing from
you soon.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
5
120,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Joan Ryan_ Re_ Simon Cordell (Case Ref_ JR14051)
-10-12-2018.pdf
From: Joan
Ryan [alev.cazimoglu@parliament.uk]
Sent: 10
December 2018 14:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: Simon
Cordell (Case Ref: JR14051)
Hi Lorraine
We have sent your most recent
letter to the council in addition to all the other information you have
provided. We will contact you as soon as we receive a reply.
Kind regards,
Alev, on behalf of Joan Ryan MP
Labour Member of Parliament for
Enfield North
t: 0208
804 4543 (Enfield North)
t: 0207
219 2442 (Westminster)
Westminster Office:
House of Commons, London, SW1A
OAA
T: 0207
219 2442
Constituency Office:
542 Hertford Road, Enfield, EN3
5ST
T: 0208
804 4543
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 7
December 2018 13:39
To: CAZIMOGLU,
Alev
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Alev Cazimoglu
I know you said to me today on
the phone that you would get back to me if you heard anything from Enfield
Council.
But this cannot be allowed to
carry on, this is making my son's health worse with what is going on and him
being in that flat, the banging does not stop even people I am I getting to
stay with my son don't want to be there due to how bad it is it does not stop.
Enfield Council is now making my
son stay in a flat living in hell, they know the issues why have they not just
moved him out of there?
How long is it going to take
with letters going backwards and forwards with no end to it? All awhile my son
is suffering badly, and it is impacting on his health how far is Enfield
Council going to let this go?
Enfield Council has not once
asked my son's side to this they only go with what is being said about my son
is this right? This are always 2 sides to anything so why is Enfield Council only
taking one side to all of this and not once hearing our side?
Enfield Council has had long
enough to move my son why have they not.
I need help to deal with this
and I can’t wait months for anything to be done, and that is not saying you are
not doing your best as I know you are it seems Enfield Council are the ones
holding this up and really for what reason, is it so they can make my son
suffer more?
Regards
Lorraine
UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail
is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use,
disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for
viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any
121,
virus transmitted by this
e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be
used for sensitive data.
122,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Kaunchita Maudhub_ Re_ Mr Simon Cordell. 109
Burncroft Avenue.pdf
From: Kaunchita
Maudhub [Kaunchita.Maudhub@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 28
December 2018 13:14
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Attachments:
Letter to Lorraine Cordell 28.12.18.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a letter in
response to your emails dated 12th and 20th December 18 sent to Ms Andrea
Clemons.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
Tel: 020
8379-4182 kaunchita.maudhub@enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
December 2018 13:55
To:
Andrea Clemons
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremy.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
I was wondering if you was going
to reply to the below email as it has been a few days since I sent it and I
feel this is very important due to the action going to be taken from Enfield
Council, and I did not have a reply to my last email to you.
I would like the incorrect
information corrected that is being used, and without a reply I cannot do this,
I have attached a copy of your letter sent to the MP dated 12/12/2018.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
December 2018 17:12
To: 'Andrea
Clemons
123,
Subject: RE: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
Today the MP's aid for Joan
Ryan, Alev Cazimoglu sent me a copy of your letter dated the 12/12/2018, I am
shocked to see what is written within it and the misleading information being
passed over to the MP Joan Ryan.
It was not agreed on the
condition that Mr Cordell should engage with mental health services and provide
medical evidence to support the housing management transfer application. The
court did not state this, so I do not know where this is coming from.
I also do not understand where
it is coming from that Mr Cordell had to provided supporting letter from the
mental health services to support his management transfer application, and he
has not done this, he was never meant to have done this and the management
transfer application was completed by Enfield Council to go to the panel on the
17/08/2018 and it was ready to go to the panel on this date, but this was
deferred to be considered at the next panel meeting which would have taken
place on 28/09/2018, which never happened.
The reason for it being deferred
was so that I Miss Lorraine Cordell could try and get a letter from the mental
health team, which I could not so it therefore should have gone ahead to the
panel on the 28/09/2018, which I do have the emails to prove this. I also do
not understand why Enfield Council is stating supported accommodation was being
asked for as this was never asked for. I did however state in court that a 2
bedroom would be better as my son could have family live with him so he could
get support from his family; I have never said I am his carer I have never said
a lot of things that Enfield Council is stating I have said.
It was stated in the court order.
·
UPON the Defendant's mother Mrs
Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage with the Claimant and assist
the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a housing management transfer
application on or before 16 August 2018.
·
UPON the Claimant agreeing that it will
deal with the housing management transfer application as quickly as possible
after being made.
·
AND UPON the Defendants mother agreeing
to engage with the Enfield Mental Health Unit team so the Defendant could
receive assistance with his mental health conditions and housing.
The order was to be agreed with
my son’s solicitor upon being drafted by Enfield Council, but my son’s
solicitor was on annual leave and therefore did not reply to Enfield Council
order until she came back of leave, But when you emailed her it came back that
she was on annual leave so Enfield Council was well aware of this.
Upon her return from annual
leave her amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo, which my son’s
solicitor never had a reply back from Ludmilla Iyavoo regarding her amended
order, but some days after the amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo,
it seems an order was sealed at Edmonton Country Court which was not agreed on
which was Enfield Council drafted order, which we never agreed to and feel it
is misleading as to what was said in court.
I believe a lot of what was said
in court is not being told and misleading information is being said, maybe
someone should ask Ludmilla Iyavoo what the judge said when Ludmilla Iyavoo
said she would go for a possession order to the judge because she did not get
what she wanted.
124,
There is also the fact that my
son was willing to stay in Hospital when he was sectioned on the 25/10/2018, it
was the hospital that discharged him on the 15/11/2018 due to not getting the
section 3 on my son they wanted, that was heard on the 14/11/2018, my son said
as soon as he knew they was not allowing the section 3 on the 14/11/2018 that
they would kick him out of the hospital, as this is what they did in 2016, and
the next day the 15/11/2018 that is what the doctors did kicked him out the
hospital, yet my son was willing to stay and build trust up with the doctors
and the mental health team, which had broken down due to what has been ongoing
for some time.
Which in fact would have been a
lot better as if he had been allowed to stay in hospital like he wanted maybe
by now they would have been trust built up with the doctors and teams, this is
what Soohah Appadoo wanted to do as he saw that there was a real problem with
trust and stated this at the appeal on the section 2 at the hearing. On the
16/11/2018 I myself spoke to Soohah Appadoo on the phone, but since that we
have heard nothing from him is this what is being called support put in place
when my son was discharged from hospital?
This misleading information
needs to stop as it is a beach of the data protection act.
I look forward to hearing from
you regarding this, please can you reply as I did not get a reply from you to
my last email, I sent to you.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UPONL NENOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential
and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
125,
126,
127,
Psychiatric Report on Mr Simon Cordell
109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
1.
Introduction
This report is prepared at the request of
London Borough of Enfield, Antisocial Behaviour Team following directions from
the Edmonton County Court to undertake an assessment on Mr Cordell. My
instructions were received in a letter dated 5 July 2018 and outlined as below:
1. Whether
the defendant has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions in his
defence.
2. Whether
the defendant understands the terms of the injunction order dated 9 January
2018.
2. Details
of current proceedings
The current proceedings relate to an
interim injunction order issued against Mr Cordell, at the Edmonton County
Court on 9 January 2018. This followed numerous complaints from neighbours
about Mr Cordell’s acts of harassment and antisocial behaviour. However it has
been reported that Mr Cordell has continued to breach the order. It has been
reported that a neighbour has been assaulted, harassed, and has received
threats from Mr Cordell. He has also made threats towards certain council
employees. The local authority issued applications for committal due to Mr
Cordell’s breach of the injunction, however the applications could not be
considered due to concerns about his mental capacity.
3.
Sources of information
3.1 I
was provided with the following information to aid in the assessment:
3.2 Claim
form for an injunction with supporting documents
3.3 Order
for an injunction dated 9.1.2018
3.4 Report
of Angela Hague from the Enfield Assessment Team
3.5 Court
order made by DJ Dias, Edmonton County Court at the hearing on 30.05.2018 and
26.6.2018.
1
128,
3.6 I
assessed Mr Cordell on 6 July 2018, at his flat 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield
EN3 7JQ, accompanied by two officers from the Enfield Housing Team. I can
confirm that prior to my assessment; I explained to Mr Cordell my role and the
purpose of my visit. I also explained to him that I was acting on the
instructions of the Enfield Council at the directions of the Court.
4.
Assessment of Mr Cordell
4.1 Mr
Cordell spoke to us for a few minutes outside his flat and upon explaining the
purpose of the visit, he allowed us into his flat. He agreed to tie the dog
outside in the garden. The flat although disorganised with papers and folders
scattered around, did not appear overly cluttered. Mr Cordell presented as a
young, slim built, mixed race male with reasonable hygiene. We explained our
roles and the purpose of our visit. Mr Cordell informed us that he was
recording our conversation.
4.2 Mr
Cordell seemed very keen and enthusiastic to talk and we had to explain the
reason of our visit several times to maintain some structure and focus. He
maintained appropriate eye contact and we managed to establish a rapport after
a while. His demeanour was polite and appropriate. There was evidence of
psychomotor agitation as he appeared generally restless and overactive. Mr
Cordell described his appetite and sleep pattern as fine. Objectively I would
regard his mood as labile, rapidly fluctuating between euthymia (normal mood)
and irritability.
4.3 Mr
Cordell’s comprehension of information presented to him appeared adequate. He
was able to understand the queries presented to him. His responses however were
very elaborate and circumstantial. His speech was very pressured, difficult to
interrupt and at times frankly rambling. There was clear evidence of thought
disorder with flight of ideas (rapid shift of ideas with some superficial
apparent connection). Mr Cordell struggled to sustain his goal of thinking as
he often derailed to themes of relevance to him, digressing away from the topic
of discussion. It was very difficult to obtain a direct response to the queries
posed to him and follow his thread of conversation.
4.4 Mr
Cordell’s thought content was replete with various delusional beliefs of
persecutory and grandiose nature. He spoke of an elaborate conspiracy which
involves the Enfield local authority and the metropolitan police, dating back
since 2013, when he claimed that he was arrested for putting up a gazebo in his
garden which led to him being barred from visiting
2
129,
places in central London and placed on a curfew
from 10 pm. Mr Cordell informed that he followed these restrictions imposed on
him for about a year and returned to Court and won the case. Mr Cordell then
went on to talk about Sally Gilcrest, the legal executive for the metropolitan
police who he alleged set him up for a million pounds and brought on an ASBO
against him, which ended with him being imposed on a nine-year curfew. Mr
Cordell stated that Sally Gilcrest in conjunction with the borough commander
Jane Johnson and the community officer started spreading rumours that he was “suffering
from herpes and has hurt a woman” which the neighbours in his block became
aware of and started sending him messages addressing him as “you black boy”.
Mr Cordell implied that Sally Gilcrest colluded with the neighbours as she had
a vested interest in getting him out of this country. He stated that the
neighbours above him deliberately bang on his ceiling and have also subject him
to other forms of harassment since 2014. Mr Cordell implied that the neighbours
were responsible for the miscarriage suffered by his then girlfriend and also
held them responsible for the separation from his previous girlfriends. He
further stated that between 2014 and 2016, his mother has made numerous
complaints to the council regarding the harassment he has been subject to and
he has won a criminal case against his neighbours
4.5 Mr
Cordell then went on to elaborate his grievance against Lemmy, the officer who
works for the Enfield local authority. He claimed that he received an email
from Lemmy threatening that he would obtain a possession order against him and
asking him to attend a meeting. He then stated that the ASBO that was served
against him was not valid due to lack of signature. Therefore Lemmy built a
false case against him by using “lower grade cases" to
pursue a possession order and subsequently an injunction order, by falsifying
statements and using “statements from dead cases”. According to
Mr Cordell this was declared as invalid by a Judge, however Lemmy has continued
to produce false orders against him in the way of a second injunction, which he
claimed has never been served on him. Mr Cordell described this as “targeted
malice" by Lemmy as he has used the injunction as a smoke screen
to cover up the ASBO by providing false statements and witnesses.
4.6 In
addition, Mr Cordell also described a number of grandiose beliefs, stating that
he was building a constitution on CIC, which he explained to be Community
Interest Company. He also spoke of a number of other businesses. He was keen to
show us the various documents, emails, and recordings he has accrued as
evidence to support his case.
3
130,
5
Opinion and Recommendations
Mr Cordell is a resident at the Enfield borough,
who was served an injunction on 9 January 2018, following numerous complaints
by his neighbours of antisocial behaviour and harassment. Despite this, Mr
Cordell has continued to breach the order with further incidents of harassment,
threats, and assault against the neighbours. In addition, it has been reported
that some council employees have also received threats from Mr Cordell.
According to available information, Mr Cordell has had sporadic contact with
the mental health services and has been recently assessed by the Enfield Mental
Health Assessment Service. During my assessment, Mr Cordell was preoccupied
with a number of persecutory and grandiose delusional beliefs. In addition, he
also presented with other symptoms such as labile mood, pressured speech,
overactivity, and flight of ideas. In my view, Mr Cordell’s current
presentation is consistent with Schizoaffective Disorder, which is recognised
as an enduring mental illness.
I have received specific instructions to address
the following issues:
1. Whether
Mr Cordell has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions to his
defence?
As
highlighted above, Mr Cordell’s mental state is replete with complex
persecutory delusional belief system. During my assessment, Mr Cordell was
convinced that the local authority and the police have been colluding alongside
his neighbours to pursue false claims and allegations against him. In his view,
the possession order and the injunction order were based on false statements,
created against him and this did not stand up in Court and therefore an
injunction was not issued against him. In my view, although there are no
significant deficits in Mr Cordell’s comprehension or retention of information,
his ability to process information relevant to the current proceedings is
likely to be influenced by his underlying delusional beliefs. During my
interaction, it was evident that his interpretation of events and actions of
others are influenced by his abnormal beliefs. Mr Cordell perceives himself as
a victim and is aggrieved by the injustice carried out against him. In my view,
Mr
Cordell’s ability to weigh the information relevant to the current proceedings
is impaired due to his tendency to misinterpret any information presented to
him to fit into his entrenched persecutory delusional beliefs. Moreover Mr
Cordell presents with significant thought disorder and it is unlikely that he
will be able to give coherent instructions to the defence.
It
is therefore my opinion that Mr Cordell lacks capacity to litigate and give
appropriate instructions to the defence.
4
131,
2. Whether
Mr Cordell understands the terms of the injunction order dated 9 January 2018?
Mr
Cordell is currently suffering from symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder and
presents with florid psychotic symptoms. His thinking and behaviour are
influenced by his underlying persecutory beliefs. Mr Cordell is convinced that
the injunction order is a cover up by the local authority for the errors and
mistakes of the ASBO and therefore did not stand up in Court. Mr Cordell is
convinced that the injunction order has been falsified by certain individuals
(particularly Lemmy possibly in conjunction with others). He therefore does not
value the order, or the contents contained within it. In my opinion Mr
Cordell’s capacity to process the information relevant to the order is again
impacted by his delusional beliefs.
Dr Dhara Dinakaran, MBBS,
MSc, MR C Psych
Consultant Psychiatrist
Approved under Section 12 (2) of MHA
08/07/2018
5
132,
133,
134,
135,
Blank Page!
136,
137,
138,
139,
RE: Legal Aid Agency Requirements
->LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE OF SEEKING
POSSESSION 25JAN19 AP (2).pdf
LONDON
BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
Housing Department P.O. Box No. 60,
Civic Centre, Enfield
NOTICE
OF SEEKING POSSESSION HOUSING ACT 1985 - SECTION 83
THIS NOTICE IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS
REQUIRING YOU TO GIVE UP POSSESSION OF YOUR DWELLING. YOU SHOULD READ IT AND
ALL THE NOTES VERY CAREFULLY.
1. To: Mr Simon Cordell
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 1
If you need advice about this Notice, and
what you should do about it, take it as quickly as possible to a Citizens’
Advice Bureau, a Housing Aid Centre, or a Law Centre, or to a Solicitor. You
may be able to receive Legal Aid, but this will depend on your personal
circumstances.
2. The
Landlord, the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield intends to
apply to the Court for an order requiring you to give up possession of:
109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield,
Middlesex, EN3 7JQ
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 2
If you are a secure tenant under the
Housing Act 1985, you can only be required to leave your dwelling if your
landlord obtains an order for possession from the Court. The order must be
based on one of the Grounds, which are set out in the 1985 Act (see paragraphs
3 and 4 below).
If you are willing to give up
possession without a Court order, you should notify the person who signed this
Notice as soon as possible and say when you would leave.
3. Possession
will be sought on Grounds 1 & 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985,
which read:
Ground 1
l
140,
Rent lawfully due from the tenant has
not been paid or an obligation of the tenancy has been broken or not performed.
Ground 2
a)
The tenant or a person residing in or
visiting the dwelling-house –
has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to
cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person residing, visiting, or
otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality, or
(aa)
has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance
to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed (whether or not by
the landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing management functions,
and that is directly or indirectly related to or affects those functions, or
b)
has been convicted of—
I.
using the dwelling-house or allowing it
to be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or
II.
an indictable offence committed in, or
in the locality of, the dwelling-house.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 3
Whatever Grounds for possession are set
out in paragraph 3 of this Notice, the Court may allow any of the other Grounds
to be added at a later stage. If this is done, you will be told about it so you
can argue at the hearing in Court about the new Ground, as well as the Grounds
set out in paragraph 3 if you want to.
4.
The reasons for taking this action
are>
You have failed to comply with the
following obligations of your tenancy agreement which commenced on 14th
August 2006.
The relevant conditions of the tenancy
agreement are as follows:
As to Ground 2
Condition 9
2
141,
“You, the tenant, are responsible for
the behaviour of anyone, including your children, living in, or visiting your
home. This means that you must ensure that they do not act in breach of any of
these conditions. Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way. This
applies in the property, in communal and surrounding areas, any property
belonging to the council and or anywhere within Enfield borough.”
Condition 10
“You must not act in any way which
causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance or annoyance or is anti-social.”
Condition 21
“You must not abuse, harass, make
offensive comments and/or malicious allegations, use or threaten to use
violence against any of our officers or agents, or against a councillor. This
applies at any time and in any place. We may report the matter to the Police.”
As to Ground 1
Condition 31
“You must take care not to cause damage
to your property or the property of your neighbours.”
Condition 33
“You must keep the inside of your property
clean and in reasonable decorative order.”
Condition 34
“You must not use the property in any
way that may cause a health or safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or pests
(for example, by hoarding items inappropriately).”
Condition 44
“You must obtain our prior written
permission before carrying out any alterations, improvements or structural work
to the property. You may need to obtain other permissions such as planning
permission or building regulations approval.”
Condition 53
“You must keep the inside of the
property, the fixtures and fittings and all glass in the property in good
repair during the tenancy.”
3
142,
Condition 57
“You must allow our employees,
representatives and contractors to come into your property to service any
electrical and gas supplies and appliances that we are responsible for
maintaining.”
Condition 69
“You must not interfere with the
electric or gas supply.”
Condition 76
“You have the right to keep one pet, or
animal such as a cat, a dog, small bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider,
small snake or lizard, rabbit hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic
rat as long as they do not cause damage to the property, or nuisance or
annoyance to anyone in your locality.”
Condition 79
“You must always keep your dog(s) on a
lead in communal areas and on our land.”
Particulars of Breaches
1. On 6th
July 2016, it is alleged that you approached an elderly neighbour as he came
out of his flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to
burn down his flat.
2. Sometime
in July 2016 it is alleged that you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric
cupboard and removed his fuse box, resulting in no electricity to his flat. ,
3. On 6th
August 2016, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours and his
wife and aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you
repeatedly swore and shouted abuse at him and his wife and called his wife a
‘bitch’ and tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat by standing
in front of him.
4. Sometime
in September 2016 it is alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour
outside your block of flats, 109-119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the
local park with another resident and started to shout abuse and threats at him
and said to him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk’.
4
143,
5. On
27th September 2016, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours
as he returned to his flat with his family, threatened, swore at him, and
demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you later banged on his door,
shouted further abuse, and swear words at him and accused him of making noise
inside his flat.
6. On 28th
September 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on a neighbour’s
door and threatened and shouted verbal abuse and swear words at them. It is
also alleged that you aggressively demanded money from him.
7. On 4th
October 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your ceiling and
accused one of your neighbours of making noise, you then went to your
neighbour’s flat and started kicking and banging on his front door
aggressively, accused him of banging on the floor and was swearing and shouting
abuse at him. It is also alleged that you later went downstairs, dragged your
neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and started to hit it with a
piece of wood.
8. On
22nd November 2016 during a telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell your
mother and Ms Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms Fletcher reported that
she overheard you threaten her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and then ‘I’m
goanna take her job just for fun’.
9. On 8th
December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making
noise. .
10. On
11th December 2016, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door several times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also
alleged that you shouted abuse and threats at them.
11. On
14th December 2016, it is alleged that you were verbally abusive towards a
woman who was visiting one of your neighbours as she knocked on your
neighbour’s door. ,
12. On
23rd December 2016, it is alleged that you banged on a neighbour’s front door,
shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their tap off. You then removed
their electricity fuse thereby cutting off their power supply.
5
144,
13. On
26th December 2016, it is alleged that you ran up the communal stairs to the
first floor and confronted one of your neighbours as he was going out with his
family and started to shout abuse and threats at him, his wife and accused him
of tampering with your water supply. You also attempted to stop him from
leaving the block.
14. On 3rd
January 2017, it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours as he
returned to the block with his wife and two-year-old daughter and started
shouting abuse and threats at them.
15. On
21st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, swore, and shouted abuse and threats at them and accused them
of making noise.
16. On
31st January 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at them and accused them of
banging on the floor.
17. We
received a report that on 7th February 2017 you approached the leaseholder of
117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as they were attempting
to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the flat. You said to the
leaseholder that there were problems between you and his tenants but did not
give any specific details. The leaseholder explained to you that his tenants
were experiencing low water pressure in the flat and you said to him ‘you will
not solve the problem as I am restricting their water supply’. The leaseholder
later knocked on your door and asked whether you would increase the water
pressure and you stated, ‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it
out later’.
18. On
24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer) and Steve Stirk
(Maintenance Surveyor) attended your property at flat 109 Burncroft Avenue to
inspect the property following reports of low water pressure from flats 113 and
117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside your flat, they observed that you had
installed an iron security gate inside your front door. It also appeared to
them that the wall between your kitchen and living room seemed to have been
removed thereby creating an open plan effect. Much of the property was taken up
by industrial type printers, boxes and folders and there were dog faeces in
your back garden.
19. On
17th March 2017 Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB Coordinator visited 109 Burncroft Avenue to
post a letter through your door and as he got into his car to drive off after
posting the letter, you ran after him shouting and screaming abuse. The letter
requested that you attend our offices to
6
145,
discuss the nuisance reports being received from your
neighbours. By the time he returned to the office, you had telephoned him
several times. He telephoned you back and you asked whether he was the person
that posted a letter through your letterbox and he said yes. You asked why he
did not stop when you ran after him and he stated that he had another visit and
did not have the time to stop and talk to you. You stated that you will not
attend the meeting at the Civic Centre or any of the council offices as you are
unable to leave your flat and that the meeting should take place in your flat.
Mr Nwabuisi offered to have the meeting at a neutral venue and suggested the
local library or at your mother's house, but you refused saying that you have
done nothing wrong and accused him of taking sides with your neighbours.
20. On 5th
May 2017, it is alleged that you threatened one of your neighbours by saying
that you will ruin his life and that you were going to the police to present
evidence about his illegal activities.
21. On
14th May 2017, it is alleged that you aggressively banged on one of your
neighbour’s door, shouted abuse, and threats at her and falsely accused her of
making noise and coming into your flat to attack you. You later followed her to
her car shouting abuse and wanting to know where she was going.
22. On
14th May 2017 it is alleged that you allowed your dog to run freely in the
communal area of your block without a lead.
23. On
28th May 2017, the police issued you with a first instance Harassment letter
following reports of harassment and threatening behaviour made to the police by
one of your neighbours.
24. On 9th
June 2017, it is alleged that you attacked one of your neighbours in the
communal hallway of your block as he returned from work late at night by
grabbing him on the arm and neck thereby causing bruising to his arm and neck.
You also snatched his phone from him as he tried to videorecord the incident.
25. On
16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your
neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to
her that you had her bank details and personal details such as date of birth
and said to her that you wanted her and her husband to pay you some money.
7
146,
26. On 18th
June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is alleged that you confronted one of your neighbours
as she was exiting the main entrance to your building and said to her that you
knew what time she went out and what time she returned and to tell her husband
that you would like to speak to him.
27. On
23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is alleged that you came out of your flat with
your dog without a lead and attacked one of your neighbours as he returned from
work by punching him twice on the chest. You tried to push him out of the block
and snatched his phone as he took it out of his pocket to record the incident.
28. On
28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was leaving the block. You swore and shouted abuse at her and accused her
of making noise inside her flat. You told her that you know all her personal
details and that of her husband including their full names, phone numbers, date
of birth and banking details. You demanded that they pay you some money and
asked her to tell her husband to come and see you.
29. On
30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as
she was leaving the block and accused her of slamming the door. She denied
slamming the door and called her a liar and proceeded to swear and shout abuse
at her.
30. On 2nd
July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is alleged that you confronted your neighbour as he
was going out with his family with your dog barking and without a lead and
asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is also alleged that as
they left the block, you ran after them swearing and shouting abuse at your
neighbour and demanding that he must pay you some money if he wants you to
leave him alone. You also said to him that you have all their personal details
including their dates of birth and bank details.
31. On
12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended your flat to investigate
reports of low water pressure to flats above yours, but you refused him access.
The Surveyor attended your flat again in the evening of the same day following
further reports that the water supply to the affected flats had completely
ceased and you refused him access. You then followed him to his car swearing
and shouting abuse at him and prevented him from entering his car. He then
called the police.
8
147,
32. On
11th November 2017 at 11.30am, it is alleged by one of your neighbours that you
came to their front door, opened the letterbox, and peeped through it to see
who was inside the flat. You then started swearing and shouting abuse and
banging on their front door as soon as you saw the neighbour’s wife.
33. On 2nd
January 2018 at 6.30pm, it is alleged that you stood outside your neighbour’s
property for more than twenty minutes swearing and shouting abuse. You went
away and returned half an hour later, you lifted their letterbox, stuck your
mobile phone through the letterbox and started to record his family while
swearing and shouting abuse. This went on for about fifteen minutes.
34. On 9th
January 2018 at about 12.18pm, you telephone Lemmy Nwabuisi (ASB Behaviour
officer) and accused him of forging documents to get an Anti-Social Behaviour
order against you and you told him that he had made you a prisoner within your
home. You also stated that you knew where he lives in Enfield and that he and
his family were not safe from you. You also told him that you would watch him
leave the office and you would have followed him home and he needed to watch
his back. You called the ASB officer again 30 minutes later and told him that
you knew he has a flat in Edmonton and also knew that one of his colleagues
lives in Edmonton. You also stated that you knew where they live, and they were
not safe.
35. On 9th
January 2018 you called Kaunchita Maudhub (ASB Behaviour officer) and left a
long voicemail on her work telephone number and made threats.
36. On
26th February 2018, at around 11.45pm it is alleged that you came to one of
your neighbour’s front door and started making loud banging noises and rattling
with their letter box. You ran away after the neighbour opened her front door.
37. On 1st
March 2018 it is alleged that you knocked on one of your neighbours’ door
loudly, you started rattling with their letter box and started shouting. This
went on for 5 to 10 minutes, but you left after you’ve heard that the neighbour
was calling the police.
38. On
15th March 2018 it is alleged that you swore, shouted, and assaulted one of you
neighbours in front of his wife and his 3 years old child.
9
148,
39. On 1st
May 2018, you attended the Edmonton County Court as there was a hearing listed
in relation to an injunction. It is alleged that you started shouting abuse,
swore and make threats to two of the Claimant’s employees (Lemmy Nwabuisi, ASB
officer and Balbinder Kaur Geddes, lawyer) and to one of your neighbours who
attended Court to give evidence. You also swore at a judge. These incidents
were witnessed by members of staff working at the Court.
40. On
29th May 2018, it is alleged that you attended one of your neighbours’
property; you took your dog with you and waited by their front door. It is
alleged that you tried to intimidate as they were due to attend a hearing in
the Edmonton County Court to give evidence in support of a claim for an
injunction issued against you.
41. On
30th May 2018, it is alleged that you made threats to kill to one of your
neighbours. The matter was reported to the police. You were arrested and
released on bail.
42. On
29th August 2018, it is alleged that you assaulted one of your neighbours for
flushing his toilet.
43. You
telephoned two council officers (Lemmy Nwabuisi and Ludmilla lyavoo) on 12th
September 2018 and made threats to them over the telephone. You also accused
them of fraud and of fabricating evidence to support the Council’s claim for an
injunction
44. On
12th September 2018 at about 3.50pm, you called one of your neighbours on his
mobile phone using a private number. It is not known how you obtained his
number, but he terminated the call. You called again using the same private
number, but he terminated the call as soon as he heard your voice. You called
repeatedly after that.
45. On
24th September 2018 at about 11.30am, one of your neighbours returned home from
dropping her daughter at school and as she entered their block of flat, she
noticed that the middle door on the ground floor was open as well as your front
door. As she went up the stairs to their second floor flat, your dog came out
of your flat and started barking at her. The neighbour had to run up the stairs
to her flat to escape from the dog. It was reported that your dog is always
barking whenever they go out or return to the block and the neighbour and 4
years old daughter are terrified.
10
149,
46. On 30th
September 2018, it is alleged that you attempted to break down one of your
neighbour’s front door by kicking it several times and accused him flushing his
toilet.
47. On 2nd
October 2018 at about 12:45pm, it is alleged that you attacked one of your
neighbour’s cousins as he was leaving the block. It is alleged that as he
exited the block, you followed him and suddenly grabbed his jacket from behind
and tried to pull him to the ground. The cousin started shouting to attract
neighbours and managed to push you off.
48. On
18th October 2018, you telephoned one of the Enfield Council solicitors, Miss
Ludmilla lyavoo almost ten times, making threats and intimidating her. You suggested
that she stops working on the case or you will try to get her struck off from
the ‘register’.
49. On
19th October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo at least five times and
left two voice messages making threats and trying to intimidate the solicitor
working on the case.
50. On
22nd October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number
and left one threatening and intimidating voice message.
51. On
23rd October 2018, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number
and left an intimidating voice message.
52. On
24th October 2018, you telephoned Ludmilla lyavoo twice but did not leave any
messages.
53. On
16th December 2018 at around 6pm, it is alleged that you repeatedly banged on
one of your neighbour’s door and peeped through his letterbox.
54. On
17th January 2019, you were videotaped when you confronted one of your
neighbours outside your block of flats (109-119 Burncroft Avenue) as he was
taking his three-year-old daughter to school and started shouting abuse and
threats at him thereby preventing him from taking his daughter to school. You
then followed him and his daughter up the stairs to their second floor flat and
was videotaped by a member of the neighbour’s family as you attempted to attack
them causing them to run into their flat for safety with you forcing the door
to try and gain entry. Your neighbour and his family have since fled their
property as a result of your constant threats and intimidation.
11
150,
55. On
18th January 2019, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo from a private number
and started making threats and the solicitor ended the call. You called again
three times and left a voice message making threats and intimidation.
56. On
23rd January 2019, you telephoned Miss Ludmilla lyavoo eight times within a
ten-minute period.
57. It is
reported that you continue to harass and intimidate other residents on a
regular basis.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 4.
Before the Court will grant an order on
any of the Grounds 1 to 8 or 12 to 16, it must be satisfied that it is
reasonable to require you to leave. This means that, if one of these Grounds is
set out in paragraph 3 to this Notice, you will be able to argue at the hearing
in Court that it is not reasonable that you should have to leave, even if you
accept that the Ground applies.
Before the court grants an order on any
of the Grounds 9 to 16, it must be satisfied that there will be suitable
alternative accommodation for you when you have to leave. This means that the
Court will have to decide that, in its opinion, there will be other accommodation
which is reasonably suitable for the needs of you and your family, taking into
particular account various factors such as the nearness of your place of work,
and the sort of housing that other people with similar needs are offered. Your
new home will have to be let to you on another secure tenancy or a private
tenancy under the Rent Act of a kind that will give you similar security.
There is no requirement for suitable
alternative accommodation where Grounds 1 to 8 apply.
If your landlord is not a local authority,
and the local authority gives a certificate that it will provide you with
suitable accommodation, the Court has to accept the certificate.
One of the requirements of Ground 10A
is that the landlord must have approval for the redevelopment scheme from the
Secretary of State (or, in the case of a housing association landlord, the
Housing Corporation). The landlord must have consulted all secure tenants
affected by the proposed redevelopment scheme.
12
152,
5. Court
proceedings for possession of the dwelling-house can be begun immediately. The
date by which the tenant is to give up possession of the dwelling-house is
Monday the 25 February 2019.
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 5
Court proceedings may be begun at once
or at any time during the following twelve months. Once the twelve months are
up this Notice will lapse, and a new Notice must be served before possession
can be sought.
Possession of your dwelling-house
cannot be obtained until after this date, which cannot be earlier than the date
when your tenancy or license could have been brought to an end. This means that
if you have a weekly or fortnightly tenancy, there should be at least 4 weeks
between the date this Notice is given, and the date possession is ordered.
Signed
Anti-Social Behaviour Team Leader
On behalf of
Enfield Council Housing Address: The Edmonton Centre,
36-44 South Mall London N9 OTN
Dated: 24/01/2019
13
151,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Lorraine Cordell_ RE_ Mr Simon Cordell. 109
Burncroft Avenue.pdf
From: Lorraine
Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 28
December 2018 22:16
To: 'Kaunchita
Maudhub
Andrea Clemons
Alev Cazimoglu
chief.executive@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Enfield-Counci-Reply-28-12-2018.pdf
Dear Kaunchita Maudhub and
Andrea Clemons
Please see attached reply to
your letter dated the 28/12/2018.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Kaunchita Maudhub
mailto: Kaunchita.Maudhub@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 28
December 2018 13:14
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Re: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL] Importance: High
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Please find attached a letter in
response to your emails dated 12th and 20th December 18 sent to Ms Andrea
Clemons.
Yours Sincerely
Kaunchita Maudhub
Anti-Social Behaviour - Team
Leader
Community Safety Unit
Enfield Council
Civic Centre, Silver St
Enfield EN1 3XA
Tel: 020
8379-4182 kaunchita.maudhub@enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
December 2018 13:55
To:
Andrea Clemons
Chief Executive
Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Jeremy Chambers
Jeremy.Chambers@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
I was wondering if you was going
to reply to the below email as it has been a few days since I sent it and I
feel this is very important due to the action going to be taken from Enfield
Council, and I did not
153,
have a reply to my last email to you.
I would like the incorrect information
corrected that is being used, and without a reply I cannot do this, I have
attached a copy of your letter sent to the MP dated 12/12/2018.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
December 2018 17:12
To: 'Andrea Clemons’.
Subject: RE:
Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue. EN3 7JQ
Dear Andrea Clemons
Today the MP's aid for Joan Ryan, Alev Cazimoglu
sent me a copy of your letter dated the 12/12/2018, I am shocked to see what is
written within it and the misleading information being passed over to the MP
Joan Ryan.
It was not agreed on the condition that
Mr Cordell should engage with mental health services and provide medical
evidence to support the housing management transfer application. The court did
not state this, so I do not know where this is coming from.
I also do not understand where it is
coming from that Mr Cordell had to provided supporting letter from the mental
health services to support his management transfer application, and he has not
done this, he was never meant to have done this and the management transfer
application was completed by Enfield Council to go to the panel on the
17/08/2018 and it was ready to go to the panel on this date, but this was
deferred to be considered at the next panel meeting which would have taken
place on 28/09/2018, which never happened.
The reason for it being deferred was so
that I Miss Lorraine Cordell could try and get a letter from the mental health
team, which I could not so it therefore should have gone ahead to the panel on
the 28/09/2018, which I do have the emails to prove this. I also do not
understand why Enfield Council is stating supported accommodation was being
asked for as this was never asked for. I did however state in court that a 2
bedroom would be better as my son could have family live with him so he could
get support from his family; I have never said I am his carer I have never said
a lot of things that Enfield Council is stating I have said.
It was stated in the court order.
10. UPON
the Defendant's mother Mrs Lorraine Cordell, confirming that she will engage
with the Claimant and assist the Defendant's neighbourhood officer in making a
housing management transfer application on or before 16 August 2018.
11. UPON
the Claimant agreeing that it will deal with the housing management transfer
application as quickly as possible after being made.
12. AND
UPON the Defendants mother agreeing to engage with the Enfield Mental Health
Unit team so the Defendant could receive assistance with his mental health
conditions and housing.
154,
The order was to be agreed with my
son’s solicitor upon being drafted by Enfield Council, but my son’s solicitor
was on annual leave and therefore did not reply to Enfield Council order until
she came back of leave, But when you emailed her it came back that she was on
annual leave so Enfield Council was well aware of this.
Upon her return from annual
leave her amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo, which my son’s
solicitor never had a reply back from Ludmilla Iyavoo regarding her amended
order, but some days after the amended order was sent over to Ludmilla Iyavoo,
it seems an order was sealed at Edmonton Country Court which was not agreed on
which was Enfield Council drafted order, which we never agreed to and feel it
is misleading as to what was said in court.
I believe a lot of what was said
in court is not being told and misleading information is being said, maybe
someone should ask Ludmilla Iyavoo what the judge said when Ludmilla Iyavoo
said she would go for a possession order to the judge because she did not get
what she wanted.
There is also the fact that my
son was willing to stay in Hospital when he was sectioned on the 25/10/2018, it
was the hospital that discharged him on the 15/11/2018 due to not getting the
section 3 on my son they wanted, that was heard on the 14/11/2018, my son said
as soon as he knew they was not allowing the section 3 on the 14/11/2018 that
they would kick him out of the hospital, as this is what they did in 2016, and
the next day the 15/11/2018 that is what the doctors did kicked him out the hospital,
yet my son was willing to stay and build trust up with the doctors and the
mental health team, which had broken down due to what has been ongoing for some
time.
Which in fact would have been a
lot better as if he had been allowed to stay in hospital like he wanted maybe
by now they would have been trust built up with the doctors and teams, this is
what Soohah Appadoo wanted to do as he saw that there was a real problem with
trust and stated this at the appeal on the section 2 at the hearing. On the 16/11/2018
I myself spoke to Soohah Appadoo on the phone, but since that we have heard
nothing from him is this what is being called support put in place when my son
was discharged from hospital?
This misleading information
needs to stop as it is a beach of the data protection act.
I look forward to hearing from
you regarding this, please can you reply as I did not get a reply from you to
my last email, I sent to you.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLNE NOW
UK/newsletters
155,
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
156,
RE: Legal Aid Agency Requirements ->Ludmilla Iyavoo_ RE_
Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL] -27-11-2018.pdf
From:
Ludmilla Iyavoo
Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:45
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
I am not longer dealing with
Simon's case. This matter has been re-allocated to my colleague Paul Buckridge
who would be in touch.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XA
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:17
To: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move
Dear Ludmilla
Can you tell me when the next
panel meeting is and if Simon paperwork will be put forward for the move at
this meeting please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
157,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your Inbox
SIGN UPONL NENOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
158,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Ludmilla Iyavoo_ RE_ Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
-27-11-2018-001.pdf
From:
Ludmilla Iyavoo [Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:53
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Paul
Buckridge
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
Paul Buckridge is a lawyer
working in the legal team. I have copied him to this email and have asked him
to contact you once he has received instructions from the relevant officer.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla Iyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XA
DX 90615
Enfield 1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:50
To: Ludmilla Iyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Ludmilla
Who is Paul Buckridge what
department does he work for can you tell me this please and if you have a
contract for him could this be passed on please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ludmilla
Iyavoo
mailto:
Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:45
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell,
159,
I am not longer dealing with
Simon's case. This matter has been re-allocated to my colleague Paul Buckridge
who would be in touch.
Kind regards,
Ludmilla lyavoo Solicitor
Corporate Team Legal Services Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XA
DX 90615 Enfield
1
Telephone: 020
8379 8323
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
November 2018 12:17
To: Ludmilla
lyavoo <Ludmilla.Iyavoo@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell Move
Dear Ludmilla
Can you tell me when the next
panel meeting is and if Simon paperwork will be put forward for the move at
this meeting please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may
160,
contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
161,
162,
163,
164,
165,
RE: Legal Aid Agency Requirements ->On
behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ (2).pdf
·
Complaint 05/12/2018
On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft
Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
I am writing this email due to issues I
have regarding a member of staff who works for Enfield Council by the name off
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator,
Since 2016 when Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator started working for Enfield Council he has
been working on investigations relating to my son Mr. Simon Cordell.
In this time not once has Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator, come to see my son’s side to
the alleged allegations regarding what the neighbours have put in about my son.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social
Behaviour Coordinator has taken one side to these said alleged allegations
without no investigations,’ Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi it seem has taken one side to
everything that has been said and that is the side of the neighbours, Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi has been told many times we have information which would proof my son
had not done things which have been stated by the neighbours
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour
Coordinator knows my son does not leave the flat he was told this, and also
told that if he wanted to attend a meeting with my son he could do so with
police there to have a meeting to hear my son’s side, he has never got back to
me regarding having a meeting at my son’s home because he never wanted to,
which I am sure if someone is a vulnerable person where was the duty of care
where has it ever been for my son?
I believe Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator just through to himself that my son is in the
wrong he is a vulnerable person I will put pressure on him and get him out
without even thinking there is 2 side to anything. And just blamed my son
without even talking to him this is how it has been since Mr Lemmy
1
166,
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour
Coordinator starting working for Enfield
Council.
I also feel Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi has taken
information and not relayed it back correctly many times regarding my son’s
health even to the courts. Information is being passed and obtained relating to
my son which should never have been passed to 3 parties or used, how can this
be allowed. There are many other points and failings which have been allowed to
happen and this needs to stop. I will be drafting up a full complaint of
failings and submitting it, but this will take a while to draft up as I have
got to go back some years.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi also had my son
arrested on the 09/01/2018 and even though we asked many times, even my own
son’s solicitors could not understand why he was the person still investigating
my son. When his case was part of the court actions being taken against my son
by Enfield Council this is against the law that someone is investigating
something within their own case, and it beaches many other things.
At this point in time I want Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi taken off dealing with anything to do with my son or related to him, I
feel he has not done acted correctly and feel he has not investigated anything
which would prove my son has done nothing wrong and only wanted to blame him
for everything, I have asked this before and heard nothing back regarding this.
But it has got to the point in time that this needs to happen.
Could someone please get back to me as
soon as possible regarding this?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
2
167,
RE: Legal Aid Agency Requirements ->On
behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ-05-12-2018.pdf
• Complaint 05/12/2018
On behalf of Mr Simon Cordell of 109
Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ
I am writing this email due to issues I
have regarding a member of staff who works for Enfield Council by the name off
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator,
Since 2016 when Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator started working for Enfield Council he has
been working on investigations relating to my son Mr. Simon Cordell.
In this time not once has Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator, come to see my son’s side to
the alleged allegations regarding what the neighbours have put in about my son.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social
Behaviour Coordinator has taken one side to these said alleged allegations
without no investigations,’ Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi it seem has taken one side to
everything that has been said and that is the side of the neighbours, Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi has been told many times we have information which would proof my son
had not done things which have been stated by the neighbours
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the Anti-Social
Behaviour Coordinator knows my son does not leave the flat he was told this,
and also told that if he wanted to attend a meeting with my son he could do so
with police there to have a meeting to hear my son’s side, he has never got
back to me regarding having a meeting at my son’s home because he never wanted
to, which I am sure if someone is a vulnerable person where was the duty of
care where has it ever been for my son?
I believe Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi the
Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator just through to himself that my son is in the
wrong he is a vulnerable person I will put pressure on him and get him out
without even thinking there is 2 side to anything. And just blamed my son
without even talking to him this is how it has been since Mr Lemmy
1
168,
Nwabuisi the Anti-Social Behaviour
Coordinator starting working for Enfield
Council.
I also feel Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi has taken
information and not relayed it back correctly many times regarding my son’s
health even to the courts. Information is being passed and obtained relating to
my son which should never have been passed to 3 parties or used, how can this
be allowed. There are many other points and failings which have been allowed to
happen and this needs to stop. I will be drafting up a full complaint of failings
and submitting it, but this will take a while to draft up as I have got to go
back some years.
Mr Lemmy Nwabuisi also had my son
arrested on the 09/01/2018 and even though we asked many times, even my own
son’s solicitors could not understand why he was the person still investigating
my son. When his case was part of the court actions being taken against my son
by Enfield Council this is against the law that someone is investigating
something within their own case, and it beaches many other things.
At this point in time I want Mr Lemmy
Nwabuisi taken off dealing with anything to do with my son or related to him, I
feel he has not done acted correctly and feel he has not investigated anything
which would prove my son has done nothing wrong and only wanted to blame him
for everything, I have asked this before and heard nothing back regarding this.
But it has got to the point in time that this needs to happen.
Could someone please get back to me as
soon as possible regarding this?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
2
169,
Blank Page!
170,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Paul Buckridge_ RE_ Simon Cordell-30-11-2018.pdf
From: Paul
Buckridge [Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 30 November
2018 15:43
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Ms Cordell
My instructing client is the
Council Housing and Anti-Social Behaviour section.
Regards,
Paul Buckridge
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 30
November 2018 14:54
To: Paul
Buckridge Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Paul Buckridge
Regarding point 1, I have not
demanded a 2 bedroom flat for my son I only said it would be better as someone could
be there with my son, but Enfield council was told to re-house my son by the
court even if it was a like to like as Enfield Council stated this should have
been done.
Regarding point 2, I will deal
with this when the paperwork is received due to what the judge stated in court
on the 09/08/2018 regarding this.
But could you please give me the
name of the person who has instructed you to start the proceedings against
Simon Cordell for possession.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Paul
Buckridge
mailto:
Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 30
November 2018 14:17
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Ms Cordell
Thank you for your email. I
apologise for not responding earlier I was waiting instructions.
In respect to point 1 of your
email, I am advised by my client that they will not be submitting any paperwork
to the exception panel. Our client informs that the court order of 9/8/18 does
not mandate the council to offer a two-bed property to Mr Cordell.
I am now instructed by my client
to issue proceedings against Simon Cordell for possession.
Regards,
Paul Buckridge
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
171,
Sent: 30
November 2018 11:12
To: Paul
Buckridge Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Paul Buckridge
I have not had a reply from you
in regard to the emails I sent to Ludmilla.
·
Could you please tell me if my son
paperwork will be put in front the next panel regarding moving him as was meant
to be done via the court order of the 09/08/2018, if so, what date is the next
panel meeting.
·
Or are you going to commence possession proceedings as was
stated by Ludmilla emails dated the 18/10/2018
Could you please tell me if you
have had instructions in regards as to what is the next steps to be taken. As I
myself need to know so I can address this matter as soon as possible for my
son.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Paul
Buckridge
mailto: Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 27
November 2018 16:51
To: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: Simon
Cordell
Importance: High
Dear Ms Cordell
I am in receipt of the email exchange
between my colleague and yourself. I have recently taken over the matter and
will on receipt of instructions from our client revert to you on the points
that you have raised. I will endeavour to get instructions tomorrow and provide
a full response.
Regards,
Paul Buckridge
Locum Solicitor | Corporate Team
| Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
020 8379 5492
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
DX: 90615
Enfield 1
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
172,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your Inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
173,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your Inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
174,
RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements ->Paul Buckridge_ RE_ Simon
Cordell-30-11-2018-001.pdf
From: Paul
Buckridge [Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 30
November 2018 14:17
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Ms Cordell
Thank you for your email. I
apologise for not responding earlier I was waiting instructions.
In respect to point 1 of your
email, I am advised by my client that they will not be submitting any paperwork
to the exception panel. Our client informs that the court order of 9/8/18 does
not mandate the council to offer a two-bed property to Mr Cordell.
I am now instructed by my client
to issue proceedings against Simon Cordell for possession.
Regards,
Paul Buckridge
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 30
November 2018 11:12
To: Paul
Buckridge <Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Alev Cazimoglu
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell
Dear Paul Buckridge
I have not had a reply from you
in regard to the emails I sent to Ludmilla.
·
Could you please tell me if my son
paperwork will be put in front of the next panel regarding moving him as was
meant to be done via the court order of the 09/08/2018, if so, what date is the
next panel meeting.
·
Or are you going to commence possession
proceedings as was stated by Ludmilla emails dated the 18/10/2018
Could you please tell me if you
have had instructions in regards as to what is the next steps to be taken. As I
myself need to know so I can address this matter as soon as possible for my
son.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Paul
Buckridge
mailto: Paul.Buckridge@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 27
November 2018 16:51
To:
lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: Simon
Cordell
Importance: High
Dear Ms Cordell
I am in receipt of the email
exchange between my colleague and yourself. I have recently taken over the
matter and will on receipt of instructions from our client revert to you on the
points that you have raised. I will endeavour to get instructions tomorrow and
provide a full response.
Regards,
Paul Buckridge
175,
Locum Solicitor | Corporate Team
| Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
m 020 8379 5492
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA DX: 90615 Enfield 1
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive
176,
it in error you must not copy,
distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All traffic handled by
the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or
monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.12.2019_FW Legal Aid Agency
Requirements Simon Cordell
12/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 177,178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.12.2019_FW
Legal Aid Agency Requirements Simon Cordell
12/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 177,178,179,180
181,182,183,184,185,186
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289
--
177,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
February 2019 18:14
To: 'Liselle Archer'
Subject: FW:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements Simon Cordell
Attachments:
ESA-Comfirmed-Letter-08-03-2018.pdf.
Fresh Possession Order 06_02_2019-Full.pdf
Simon-Licence-Front-Back.pdf
Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018.pdf
VLS_20171215_103522.pdf;
VLS_20171215_103441.pdf
Citizencard.pdf;
Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018-001 (2).pdf
2018 11 28 Signed
response.pdf
A PHILIPPOU_ Re_
SIMON CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION-25-01-2019-001.pdf
A PHILIPPOU_SIMON
CORDELL RE NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION- 25--01-2019.pdf
alev.cazimoglu@parliament-03-01-2019.pdf
alev.cazimoglu@parliament-17-12-2018.pdf
alev.cazimoglu@parliament-21-12-2018.pdf
alev.cazimoglu@parliament-23-11-2018.pdf
Chief Executive-FW-Mr
Simon Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave, Enfield, EN3 7JQ [SEC=OFFICIAL]
-06-12-2018.pdf
Enfield-Counci-Reply-28-12-2018.pdf
Joan
Ryan-Re-Simon-Cordell (Case Ref_ JR14051) -10-12-2018.pdf
Kaunchita
Maudhub-Re-Mr Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue.pdf
Letter to ECC
attaching Dr Dhinakaran's assessment report 10 7 2018.pdf
Letter to Lorraine
Cordell 28.12.18 (2).pdf
Letter to Lorraine
Cordell 28.12.18.pdf
LONDON BOROUGH OF
ENFIELD RE LBE V SIMON CORDELL NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION 25JAN19 AP (2).pdf
Lorraine Cordell-RE-Mr
Simon Cordell. 109 Burncroft Avenue.pdf
Ludmilla Iyavoo-RE-
Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL] -27-11-2018.pdf
Ludmilla
Iyavoo-RE-Simon Cordell Move [SEC=OFFICIAL] -27-11-2018-001.pdf
MEQ 13653 (4).pdf
MEQ 13653-001.pdf
On behalf of Mr Simon
Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ (2).pdf
On behalf of Mr Simon
Cordell of 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ-05-12-2018.pdf
Paul
Buckridge-RE-Simon Cordell-30-11-2018.pdf
Paul
Buckridge-RE-Simon Cordell-30-11-2018-001.pdf
Simon-Bank-Statements-12-02-2019.pdf
Dear Liselle Archer
Please see attached documents
including his bank statements which was missing from the below email. But can
the solicitor please read below email as that says some bits about the case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
February 2019 18:17
To:
'Liselle Archer'
Subject: RE: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Liselle Archer
I am writing this letter
regarding the case that Enfield Council has laid before the court for a
Possession Order for my son’s flat. The court hearing is for the 08/03/2019 at
10:00 hours. I have tried to attach the most up to date information as there is
a long history to this with Enfield Council and my son. I have ordered my son's
bank statements but am waiting for them to come in the post so have included
the other documents asked for in the email, and if a date can be set for him to
see someone maybe by the time we see someone we will have the bank statement,
but my son has had legal aid in the below cases, Please see attached documents.
I am writing this to give you
some form of information relating to this case as it has in some ways been
ongoing for some time. Enfield Council has had 2 other court cases regarding
these matters which were for injunction orders please see below information
178,
they were for the same cases as in this
new Possession Order.
E00ED049: Edmonton Country Court
13. Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 09th January 2018
at Edmonton Country Court, to replace the one that was struck
out by the court on the 06/11/2017 as the Judge would not put it back in place.
14. This
case went on until the 09/08/2018, please see attached court order which was
made, which Enfield Council was meant to have moved my son, which has never
happened I have been trying to get this done since this date and Enfield
Council have not done anything.
D02ED073: Edmonton Country Court
1. Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 9th August 2017
at Edmonton Country Court.
2. This
case ended up being struck out on the 06/11/2017, the
reason for this was due to Enfield Council not doing what the court asked them
to do.
Even through there is a court order
in place for Enfield Council to move my son, Enfield Council has done nothing
only kept my son in a flat that is causing his health to be impacted and lied
to multiple bodies regarding the order that was made on the 09/08/2018. The
judge warned Enfield Council regarding a Possession Order on my son on the
09/08/2018, there is a lot of paperwork regarding all of this which will need
to be gone over.
There are so many Emails and Documents
regarding everything that has gone on it will be too much to send via email. So
I have only put a few of the last emails and Letters including the new order,
the other information will need to be done at a meeting as there is just so
much information.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Liselle
Archer
mailto:
liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 07
February 2019 15:51
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Madam
Following our telephone conversation
today, please see below the requirements for the application for public funding
(Legal Aid).
Please bring the following documents in
order for us to open a case:
·
Most recent award letter confirming
that your son receives ESA
·
Bank statements of all adults over the
age 18 living in the household.
Please note that the bank statements
must be:
Covering the last 3 months with no gaps,
this includes 07 February 2019 -07 November 2018)
For all bank statements
including savings accounts and dormant accounts)
179,
·
Passport or Driving Licence (proof of
ID)
·
Tenancy Agreement and letters from your
landlord
·
Anything else you consider relevant.
Please note we are
unable to open a case until we have received all of the above documents.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office www.tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
First for family law
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
180,
Same as Above!
181,
Same as Above!
182,
Same as Above!
183,
Same as Above!
184,
Same as Above!
185,
Same as Above!
186,
Same as Above!
187,188,189,190,191,192
193,194,195,196,197,198
199,200,201,202,203,204
205,206,207,208,209,210
211,212,213,214,215,216
217,218,219,220,221,222
223,224,225,226,227,228
229,230,231,232,233,234
235,236,237,238,239,240
241,242,243,244,245,246
247,248,249,250,251,252
253,254,255,256,257,258
259,260,261,262,263,264
265,266,267,268,269,270
271,272,273,274,275,276
277,278,279,280,281,282
283,284,285,286,287,288
289
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1.
2.
Mother
18-02-2019
-09-26
/ Page Numbers: 290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
Mother
18-02-2019 -09-26
/ Page Numbers: 290,291,292,293,294
295,296,297,298,299,300
301,302,303,304,305,306
307,308,309,310
--
290,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 18/02/2019 09:26:54 PM
Subject: RE: RE:
Enfield Council files Part 002
Attachments: Sar
1085 records 16022019-part 2.pdf
Part 2 of 3
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 18
February 2019 21:26
Subject: RE: RE:
Enfield Council files Part 001
please see attached please del
this email once you have downloaded files 1 of 3
291,
292,
293,
294,
295,
296,
297,
298,
299,
300,
301,
302,
303,
304,
305,
306,
307,
308,
309,
310,
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
Mother 18-02-2019 -09-26
18/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 311,312
313,314,315,316,317,318
319,320,321,322
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
Mother 18-02-2019 -09-26
18/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 311,312,313,314,
315,316,317,318, 319,320,321,322
--
311,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 18/02/2019 09:29:02 PM
Subject: RE:
RE: Enfield Council files Part 003
Attachments:
Sar 1085 records 16022019.part 3.pdf
Part 3 of 3
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 18
February 2019 21:27
Subject: RE:
RE: Enfield Council files Part 002
Part 2 of 3
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 18
February 2019 21:26
Subject: RE:
RE: Enfield Council files Part 001
please see attached please del this
email once you have downloaded files 1 of 3
312,
313,
314,
315,
316,
317,
318,
319,
320,
321,
322,
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1.
1
Prob. lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.20.2019_Re Booked
Appointments _001
325,326
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1. 1
Prob. lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.20.2019_Re Booked Appointments
_001
20/02/2019 20:03:00
/ Page Numbers: 323,324,325,326
323,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
<lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
February 2019 20:03
To: Liselle Archer
Subject: Re:
Booked Appointments
Dear Liselle Archer
Would it please be possible to
set a meeting up for Simon Cordell for Monday afternoon, it has taken me longer
to get a laptop then I was hoping.
If you can get back to me, I
would be most grateful Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2019, at 12:36,
Liselle Archer <liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Lorraine
Following our telephone
conversation today, these appointments have been booked for you in relation to
your son’s case:
Friday 15 February 2019 @ 12pm:
Telephone Legal Aid Application Appointment
Monday 18 February 2019 @ 3pm:
Office Face to Face Appointment
Please note: if the legal aid application is not submitting on Friday, the
appointment booked for Monday will have to be rescheduled.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
fax +44 (0)20
8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office
324,
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78 SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
February 2019 18:14
To: Liselle Archer <liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: FW:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements Simon Cordell
Dear Liselle Archer
Please see attached documents
including his bank statements which was missing from the below email. But can
the solicitor please read below email as that says some bits about the case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
February 2019 18:17
To: 'Liselle Archer'
Subject: RE:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Liselle Archer
I am writing this letter regarding the
case that Enfield Council has laid before the court for a Possession Order for
my son’s flat. The court hearing is for the 08/03/2019 at 10:00 hours. I have
tried to attach the most up to date information as there is a long history to
this with Enfield Council and my son. I have ordered my son's bank statements
but am waiting for them to come in the post so have included the other
documents asked for in the email, and if a date can be set for him to see
someone maybe by the time we see someone we will have the bank statement, but
my son has had legal aid in the below cases, Please see attached documents.
I am writing this to give you some form
of information relating to this case as it has in some ways been ongoing for
some time.
Enfield Council has had 2 other court
cases regarding these matters which were for injunction orders please see below
information they were for the same cases as in this new Possession Order.
325,
E00ED049:
Edmonton Country Court
1.
Interim Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the
09th January 2018 at Edmonton Country Court, to replace the one that was struck
out by the court on the 06/11/2017 as the Judge would not put it back in place.
2.
This case went on until the 09/08/2018, please see attached
court order which was made, which Enfield Council was meant to have moved my
son, which has never happened I have been trying to get this done since this
date and Enfield Council have not done anything.
D02ED073:
Edmonton Country Court
1. Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 9th August 2017
at Edmonton Country Court.
2. This
case ended up being struck out on the 06/11/2017, the
reason for this was due to Enfield Council not doing what the court asked them
to do.
Even through there is a court order
in place for Enfield Council to move my son, Enfield Council has done nothing
only kept my son in a flat that is causing his health to be impacted and lied
to multiple bodies regarding the order that was made on the 09/08/2018. The
judge warned Enfield Council regarding a Possession Order on my son on the
09/08/2018, there is a lot of paperwork regarding all of this which will need
to be gone over.
There are so many Emails and Documents
regarding everything that has gone on it will be too much to send via email. So
I have only put a few of the last emails and Letters including the new order,
the other information will need to be done at a meeting as there is just so
much information.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Liselle
Archer
mailto:
liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 07
February 2019 15:51
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Legal
Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Madam
Following our telephone conversation
today, please see below the requirements for the application for public funding
(Legal Aid).
Please bring the following documents in
order for us to open a case:
1. Most
recent award letter confirming that your son receives ESA
2. Bank
statements of all adults over the age 18 living in the household.
(Please note that the bank statements
must be:
Covering the last 3 months with no
gaps, this includes 07 February 2019 -07 November 2018)
• For all bank statements including
savings accounts and dormant accounts)
326,
3. Passport
or Driving Licence (proof of ID)
4. Tenancy
Agreement and letters from your landlord
5. Anything
else you consider relevant.
Please note we are
unable to open a case until we have received all of the above documents.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office www.tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners • Mukesh Badhan • D
Shanmuganathan
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1.
1
Prob. lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.20.2019_Re
Booked Appointments
20/02/2019
20:03:00
Double of 13
/ Page Numbers: 327,328,
329,330
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1. 1
Prob. lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.20.2019_Re
Booked Appointments
20/02/2019 20:03:00
Double of 13
/ Page Numbers: 327,328,329,330
327,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 20
February 2019 20:03
To: Liselle Archer
Subject: Re:
Booked Appointments
Dear Liselle Archer
Would it please be possible to set a meeting
up for Simon Cordell for Monday afternoon, it has taken me longer to get a
laptop then I was hoping.
If you can get back to me, I would be
most grateful Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2019, at 12:36, Liselle
Archer <liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Lorraine
Following our telephone
conversation today, these appointments have been booked for you in relation to
your son’s case:
1. Friday
15 February 2019 @ 12pm: Telephone Legal Aid Application Appointment
2. Monday
18 February 2019 @ 3pm: Office Face to Face Appointment
Please note: if the legal aid application is not submitting on Friday, the
appointment booked for Monday will have to be rescheduled.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office
328,
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
February 2019 18:14
To: Liselle Archer <liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: FW:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements Simon Cordell
Dear Liselle Archer
Please see attached documents including
his bank statements which was missing from the below email. But can the
solicitor please read below email as that says some bits about the case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
February 2019 18:17
To: 'Liselle Archer'
Subject: RE:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Liselle Archer
I am writing this letter regarding the
case that Enfield Council has laid before the court for a Possession Order for
my son’s flat. The court hearing is for the 08/03/2019 at 10:00 hours. I have
tried to attach the most up to date information as there is a long history to
this with Enfield Council and my son. I have ordered my son's bank statements
but am waiting for them to come in the post so have included the other
documents asked for in the email, and if a date can be set for him to see
someone maybe by the time we see someone we will have the bank statement, but
my son has had legal aid in the below cases, Please see attached documents.
I am writing this to give you some form
of information relating to this case as it has in some ways been ongoing for some
time.
Enfield Council has had 2 other court
cases regarding these matters which were for injunction orders please see below
information they were for the same cases as in this new Possession Order.
329,
E00ED049: Edmonton
Country Court
1. Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 09th January 2018 at
Edmonton Country Court, to replace the one that was struck out by the court on
the 06/11/2017 as the Judge would not put it back in place.
2. This
case went on until the 09/08/2018, please see attached court order which was
made, which Enfield Council was meant to have moved my son, which has never
happened I have been trying to get this done since this date and Enfield
Council have not done anything.
D02ED073:
Edmonton Country Court
3. Interim
Injunction order started by Enfield Council on the 9th August 2017 at Edmonton
Country Court.
4. This
case ended up being struck out on the 06/11/2017, the reason for this was due
to Enfield Council not doing what the court asked them to do.
5. Even
through there is a court order in place for Enfield Council to move my son,
Enfield Council has done nothing only kept my son in a flat that is causing his
health to be impacted and lied to multiple bodies regarding the order that was
made on the 09/08/2018. The judge warned Enfield Council regarding a Possession
Order on my son on the 09/08/2018, there is a lot of paperwork regarding all of
this which will need to be gone over.
6. There
are so many Emails and Documents regarding everything that has gone on it will
be too much to send via email. So I have only put a few of the last emails and
Letters including the new order, the other information will need to be done at
a meeting as there is just so much information.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Liselle
Archer
mailto: liselle@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent:
07 February 2019 15:51
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject:
Legal Aid Agency Requirements
Dear Madam
Following our telephone conversation
today, please see below the requirements for the application for public funding
(Legal Aid).
Please bring the following documents in
order for us to open a case:
1. Most
recent award letter confirming that your son receives ESA
2. Bank
statements of all adults over the age 18 living in the household.
(Please note that the bank statements
must be:
Covering the last 3 months with no
gaps, this includes 07 February 2019 -07 November 2018)
• For all bank statements including
savings accounts and dormant accounts)
330,
3. Passport
or Driving Licence (proof of ID)
4. Tenancy
Agreement and letters from your landlord
5. Anything
else you consider relevant.
Please note we
are unable to open a case until we have received all of the above documents.
Kind Regards
Liselle Archer
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office www.tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.22.2019_Re Simon Cordell
22/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 331,332
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_02.22.2019_Re
Simon Cordell
22/02/2019
/ Page Numbers: 331,332
331,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 22
February 2019 16:34
To: Ronak Ahmed
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell
Dear Ronak Ahmed
Thank you for the below email
would it please be possible for you to call me on 07807 333545. I don't think
it's going to be that easy on the 08/03/2019 as the last 2 court cases Enfield
Council has tried to railroad my son with the court totally misleading the
courts with everything including my son's health. My son did not even attend
the last 3 hearings due to what was going on and the court assessment was
ordered by the court. There have also been major data beaches between Enfield
Council staying to the MH team there was a court order for information to be
given to them regarding my son which there was not. I know on the 08/03/2019
that Enfield Council is going to try and get the possession order on that date.
Even though they have not complied with the court order dated the 09/08/2018
where they were meant to have moved my son. They have never put anything in
front of the housing management panel to even start this, they have lied to the
MP and also the MH teams.
This case really does need to be
heard by judge dais who heard the last 3 hearings from the last case.
Simon is very worried, and this
is not helping him, Enfield Council knows he does not cope with court hearings
also, the impact this is having on my son is very bad.
If you can call me, I would be
most grateful.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my
iPhone
On 22 Feb 2019, at 15:33, Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
wrote:
Dear Ms Cordell
I have been forwarded your email
below and can confirm that I am unfortunately not able to meet with you on
Monday. Additionally, I am on holiday next week so if you need to speak to
someone at the Office then please ask for Sean. My colleague Liselle Archer
will also not be in the office from Monday so please do not send her any emails
going forward.
The hearing on 8 March 2019 will
be a brief 5-minute hearing and we will be requesting directions from the court
on that occasion. This means that there will be opportunity to present further
documents to trial (which will be sometime winter 2019 or spring 2020.
Therefore I propose that we meet after I return from holiday. I will arrange
for my colleague Sean or an external lawyer to represent Simon Cordell at the
first hearing.
Best wishes
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tel (01582)726579
Email
ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 20
February 2019 20:03
To: Liselle Archer <liselle@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
332,
Subject: Re:
Booked Appointments
Dear Liselle Archer
Would it please be possible to
set a meeting up for Simon Cordell for Monday afternoon, it has taken me longer
to get a laptop then I was hoping.
If you can get back to me, I
would be most grateful
Regards
Lorraine Cordell Sent from my
iPhone
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2019_RE Complaint [SEC=OFFICIAL]
ALL NEW STUFF
04/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 333,334,335
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_03.04.2019_RE
Complaint [SEC=OFFICIAL]
ALL NEW STUFF
04/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 333,334,335
333,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 04
March 2019 13:21
To: 'Chief Executive'
Subject: RE:
Complaint [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Heather, Littler
Thank you for the below reply, but I
fear just passing a copy of my correspondence will do very little, as I have
been waiting for a reply just from one complaint since I believe the
05/12/2019, and there are multiple emails and letters going back to 2018 and
the start of 2019 I have yet to have a reply from, also the SAR I put in on
25/11/2018 is still on going with really only data from 1997 included within a
few documents I did get which I am writing emails for updates and getting no
replies.
So you can see things are for some
reason things are not being dealt with, Also I get no correspondence asking for
more time, I write more emails to ask for an update but yet no replies so I
think you can see that issues are not being dealt with in the correct way, and
this has been like this for years not a few months, it is like I am wasting my
time sitting and writing anything as it seem Enfield Council are not addressing
anything I have asked.
This is why I have asked the Chief
Executive's Unit to get involved as I feel I am getting nowhere, and that
should not be the case I should at least get a reply. There are multiple issues
and it seems where my son is involved Enfield Council just pushes it under the
table.
As it seems you have just pushed this
to the same teams that are not doing their job and have not done their job for
some time, is there anyone else in Enfield Council I can take this to that is
higher as it seems no one wants to do anything within Enfield Council,
I also do feel that departments within
Enfield Council have deleted multiple of my correspondence from Enfield Council
systems so it looks like I am doing nothing, when in fact I am. Multiple
beaches in data can also be proven regarding the sharing of my son's data, and
multiple other beaches. I have been told to ask under what jurisdiction within
law; Enfield Council is using to share data, and what security is being taken
by Enfield Council when passing information over to other bodies within, yet I
have had no reply to this also along with multiple other questions I have
asked.
I would like to know if anyone at
Enfield Council is going to take anything serious?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Chief
Executive
mailto: Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 04
March 2019 12:11
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: complaints and information; Andrea
Clemons
Subject: RE:
Complaint [SEC=OFFICIAL]
334,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Ms Cordell
Thank you for your email addressed to
the Chief Executive. I am writing in acknowledgement and to advise you that a
copy of your correspondence has been passed to the Complaints and Access to
Information Team. A response will be sent to you direct on the issues raised.
Regards
Heather Littler
Senior Admin Officer
Chief Executive's Unit
London Borough of Enfield
Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield, EN1 3XY
Tel: 020
8379 4037
Email: heather.littler@enfield.gov.uk
"Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities"
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Sent: 03
March 2019 15:29
To: Chief Executive <Chief.Executive@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Complaint
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I feel it is
the only option I have left, I have written emails and complaints and I just do
not get a reply to them,
I have had to CC you into some of them
in order to try and get a reply some I do get a reply when I CC you into emails
but most of the time I get nothing.
I do not feel it is correct have to do
this and as far as I know when you are CC into emails I am sure you should over
see it and make sure things are getting addressed but it seems like this is
failing now and I would like to know the reason why it is failing so badly.
I do know there is a pending court case
for my son which Enfield Council has submitted to the court, but I do not feel
that is a reason why emails / letters / complaints are not followed up,
from my understanding when a complaint
is submitted you are on a time limited in order to make a reply yet even
complaints are failing to deal or address complaint in a timely manner, I do
not just write emails and letters for the fun of things I write them in order
to get answer to what I am asking.
I am sorry for the way in which I have
had to word this email, but this is not just one letter / complaint / email
which has gone un-replied to this has been ongoing now for years.
the way in which my son has been
treated is a disgrace by Enfield Council, not once in all these years has
anyone from Enfield Council come to see my son and as his side to anything or
look at all the data my son has got which will prove he has not done all the
things that is being said.
It seems all Enfield Council wants to
do is court case after court case and mislead the courts as that has been done
many times regarding my son, and when the court orders something Enfield
Council fails to do that as well.
This is becoming more and more serious
regarding the failing towards my son and I feel it has gone far enough and
therefore I would like you to address these failing.
Regards
335,
Lorraine Cordell
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1. 2.
Diary to mother
version 05_03_2019 - 05-03-2019-1-08-03
/ Page Numbers: 336
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1. 2.
Diary to mother version 05_03_2019 -
05-03-2019-1-08-03
/ Page Numbers: 336
--
336,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 05/03/2019 08:03:29 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: This
is updated version 05_03_2019
Attachments: 9b2fde35-b16e-a32d-2036-0151df77810a@yahoo.com
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c_03.29.2019_RE
Your Son's Case 1
29/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 337
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c_03.29.2019_RE
Your Son's Case 1
29/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 337
--
337,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 29
March 2019 11:11
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son's Case
Good morning
Given the outcome of the last hearing,
there is no further action to be taken at this stage. If the Council make
further applications to the Court, then we will need to respond as appropriate.
I need to send some standard letters to
your son which I will complete next week.
Kind Regards
Ron Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tel (01582) 726579
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 25
March 2019 11:21
To: Sean Shanmuganathan
Ronak Ahmed
Subject: RE:
Dear Sean and Ron
I was wondering if you could
give me an update regarding my son Mr Simon Cordell case, I just wanted to know
what way we are going with this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
19
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1.
1
Enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_03.12.2019_Auto
reply
/ Page Numbers: A, B, C
19
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1. 1
Enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_03.12.2019_Auto
reply
/ Page Numbers: A, B, C,
A,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
March 2019 17:03
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto
reply
**
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS **
Thank you for your email, which has
been received by the court. Depending on the nature of your email you may
receive a response via email or post.
What documents can be sent by email?
You can send all letters and documents
relevant to the case including adoption cases. However, due to the sensitive
nature of adoption work the court will only send emails to secure email
accounts. If a hard copy of a document has been filed at court by DX or
Post, an electronic copy should not be sent. As yet please note that
court bundles are not part of this process and will not be printed.
For more information regarding e-mails
please go to the following http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/email-guidance
What is a secure email account?
An email account is considered secure
when security measures are in place to make sure the data in the email can’t be
accessed by users without the relevant approval. Any account that ends in the
following is considered secured: gsi, pnn, gsx, gcsx, gse, cjsm, and nhs.net.
What emails will HMCTS accept?
To make sure we operate this service as
efficiently and effectively as possible there are exemptions.
All Civil and Family process,
applications and documents will be accepted by email as long as when the entire
email is printed out it is not more than 50 pages. This should include the
email, all attachments (including any documents embedded in another) and enough
copies to serve on required parties.
Please note that:
15. A
page is one side, so 50 pages equals 25 pieces of paper printed on both sides.
16. Do
not use more than one email to take any step in a case which requires a
document or documents to be filed.
DOCUMENTS FOR HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PD, 5B.2. FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE PD 5B
You have received an order to attend
court for a hearing.
It would greatly assist the court staff
if you could ensure documents you file into court have a hearing date endorsed
on the covering letter, paperwork, or email.
This will then enable the court staff
to identify the document is placed on file in readiness for the hearing.
Please note, if the court is unaware of
the pending hearing, when you file your documents, this may result in the
document not reaching the court file in time for the hearing.
Can processes that carry a fee be sent
by email?
In both Civil and Family cases court
processes that carry a fee can also be received by email and processed by court
staff. However the same conditions as above must apply and in addition the
party issuing the process must either quote a Fee Account number, or the party
who wants to pay has a valid credit or debit card. If you wish to pay using
this method, please say this on the
B,
email and include a contact number for
the Court to contact you to take payment.
What is Fee Account?
This is a Direct Debit function that is
quick, safe, and easy to use. It is available for solicitors and large
organisations. Once you have set up an account all you need is to provide your
fee account number within the body of the email. The fee will then be deducted
from your account. For more information and to apply for Fee Account please
visit www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees/payment-by-account.
Any document submitted that breaches any
of the above terms will remain unprocessed. This is in line with Court Practice
Directions 5BPD.1 - 5BPD.9.3.
When you email the court the subject
line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -
·
The claim numbers
·
The title of the claim (abbreviated if
necessary) **
·
The subject matter (e.g. defence)
·
If relating to a hearing the date and
time of hearing in bold black
·
The judge’s name, where the
correspondence/document is for their attention
**If your email is in relation to a
family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain the name,
telephone number and email address of the sender. Correspondence and
documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice
form, it must be sent in that form by attachment. The complete email (including
any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb.
The rest of this automated message
provides information that customers often find useful.
Edmonton County Court
The public counter services are no
longer available at this court.
Urgent applications and processes that
need to be dealt with in person will be through an appointment only system.
Users should contact the court on 0208 8846510 between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm
Monday to Friday to make an appointment.
The main telephone number for Civil and
Family enquiries is 0208 884 6500 Gold fax 0870 3240314
Our address is The County Court at
Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London, N18 2TN DX 136686 Edmonton 3
The court building is open between 9.00
am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday.
We have a secure drop box located in
reception for personal deliveries to the court, which is opened once a day at
9.00 am Monday to Friday.
Website links
Information on Court forms and fees can
be also be obtained from www.justice.gov.uk Issuing
a claim for Money or Possession of Property - MCOL & PCOL
C,
If you would like to issue a claim for money
or property you can do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by visiting: www.moneydaim.gov.uk or
www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.You
will save money by issuing a claim for possession of property or a money claim
online rather than sending it to the court.
Legal Advice
If you are uncertain how to proceed,
the Civil Procedure Rules available on the Ministry of Justice website - http://www.justice.gov.uk - provide details. On many occasions it is best for
people to seek professional legal advice from a solicitor, legal executive,
legal advice agency or Citizens Advice Bureau. You can also contact Civil Legal
Advice on 0845 345 4 345 or via their website.
For information on how HMCTS uses
personal data about you please see:
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20.1.
1
sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_03.12.2019_
12/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 341
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20.1. 1
sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_03.12.2019_
12/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 341
--
341,
From: Sean Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 12
March 2019 16:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Kind Regards
D Shanmuganathan Partner
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44 (0)20 8829 2937
Email sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members ‘names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
first for family Law
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder_03.12.2019_RE
urgent FOOED222
12/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 342
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder_03.12.2019_RE
urgent FOOED222
12/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 342
--
342,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
March 2019 17:03
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: RE:
urgent FOOED222
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email as I believe a
mistake has been made with the above court case number FOOED222
We attended court on the 08/03/2019
where Mr S Cordell had an acting solicitor acting for him, but the court order
has been sent to Mr S Cordell home address and not the acting solicitors.
Could you please amend the court case
number to show the acting solicitors please so documents can be sent to them as
they have not had the court order of the 08/03/2019 it has been sent to Mr S
Cordell address.
The acting solicitor's information is:
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP D
Shanmuganathan Partner 1 St Michaels Terrace London N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089
Email sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Kind Regards
22.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1.
1
Enquiries.edmonton.co3.13.2019_Read
urgent FOOED222
13/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 343, 344
22.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1. 1
Enquiries.edmonton.co3.13.2019_Read
urgent FOOED222
13/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 343, 344
--
343,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 13
March 2019 10:08
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
urgent FOOED222
Attachments: urgent
FOOED222 (11.0 KB)
Importance: High
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
344,
Read: urgent FOOED222 -> urgent
FOOED222 (11.0 KB).msg
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries [enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk]
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 13
March 2019 10:08:10
Subject: Read:
urgent FOOED222
Your message
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries
Subject: RE:
urgent FOOED222
Sent: 12/03/2019 17:02
was read on 13/03/2019 10:07
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1.
2.
Mother
15-03-2019 -09-13
15/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 345,346,347
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 1. 2.
Mother 15-03-2019 -09-13
15/03/2019
/ Page Numbers: 345,346,347
--
345,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 15/03/2019 09:13:56 PM
Subject: re:
document
Attachments: Court-Order=F00ED222-08-03-2019.pdf
here
346,
General Form of Judgment or
Order in the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: F00ED222
Date: 11 March 2019
Ref LS/C/PB/159272
Ref
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD h* Claimant
SIMON
CORDELL
1st
Defendant
Before District Judge Davies
sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN.
Upon
hearing the Solicitor for the Claimant and the Solicitor for the Defendant
Upon the
Particulars of Claim setting out (at paragraph 12 that the Defendant was
assessed by a Consultant Psychiatrist on 06/07/2018 as lacking capacity to
litigate
IT IS ORDERED THAT
These proceedings are adjourned
generally with permission to restore in order for the parties to apply to the
Official Solicitor to consider whether he is prepared to act as Litigation
Friend for the Defendant. If no request to restore is made by 4pm on
08/06/2019, the claim will stand struck out without further order.
Costs reserved.
Dated 8
March 2019
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money. Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by: A. ABIODUN
N24 General Form of Judgment or
Order
CJR065C
347,
Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Avenue Enfield EN3 7JQ
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1.
2.
Wix
27-04-2019-01-06
27/04/2019
/ Page Numbers: 348
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1. 2.
Wix 27-04-2019-01-06
27/04/2019
/ Page Numbers: 348
--
348,
From: Wix.com <wix-team@notifications.wix.com>
Sent time: 27/04/2019 01:06:08 AM
Subject: Your Domain horrificcorruption.com
Will Renew Soon
Can't see this email
WlX.com
Your Domain Will Renew Soon
Your domain, horrificcorruption.com, will automatically renew
for another year on Jun 6, 2019 for GBP20.72.
To ensure uninterrupted service,
your payment method may be charged up to two weeks before the renewal date.
Simply check that your payment
information is correct so your domain will renew on time:
·
Access your Billing & Payments
·
Click on horrificcorruption.com
·
Click Update Payment Method to check
your payment info and make any changes
·
Click Update and you're ready to go for
another year
To learn more about the way Wix
processes your payments,
You may disable auto-renewal or cancel
your subscription at any time through your account.
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c_04.30.2019_RE
Your Son's Case 1
30/04/2019
/ Page Numbers: 349
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c_04.30.2019_RE
Your Son's Case 1
30/04/2019
/ Page Numbers: 349
--
349,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 30
April 2019 16:57
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son's Case
Good afternoon
Thank you or your email.
We have not heard anything yet and I am
hoping that the Claimants do not take any action so that the claim is stuck
out. If contact is made, then we shall of course be in touch.
In relation to opening up the old court
order, I am not confident that such a step would be covered by Legal Aid.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tel
(01582) 726579
Email
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From:
Lorraine Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 23
April 2019 11:40
To: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Your
Son's Case
Dear Ronak Ahmed
I was wondering if there was any
update and if Enfield Council has made any contract with you regarding my son.
Sean also said when we saw him at court maybe the old court order should be
reopened due to Enfield Council not doing what the court ordered I was
wondering your input in this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1.
2.
Wix
07-05-2019 -03-17
05/05/2019
/ Page Numbers: 350
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1. 2.
Wix 07-05-2019 -03-17
05/05/2019
/ Page Numbers: 350
--
350,
From: Wix.com
<wix-team@notifications.wix.com>
Sent time: 07/05/2019 03:17:46 AM
Subject: Your
Domain horrificcorruption.com Will Renew
Soon
Can't see this email?
WlX.com
Your Domain Will Renew Soon
Your domain, horrificcorruption.com, will automatically renew
for another year on Jun 6, 2019 for GBP20.72.
To ensure uninterrupted service,
your payment method may be charged up to two weeks before the renewal date.
Simply check that your payment
information is correct so your domain will renew on time:
·
Access your Billing & Payments
·
Click on horrificcorruption.com
·
Click Update Payment Method to check
your payment info and make any changes
·
Click Update and you're ready to go for
another year
To learn more about the way Wix
processes your payments,
You may disable auto-renewal or
cancel your subscription at any time through your account.
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1.
2.
Wix
06-06-2019 -05-55
06/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 351
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1. 2.
Wix 06-06-2019 -05-55
06/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 351
--
351,
From: Wix.com
<wix-team@notifications.wix.com>
Sent time: 06/06/2019 05:55:06 AM
Subject: Your
domain horrificcorruption.com has
expiredWlX.com
Your Domain Has Expired
·
Your registration for horrificcorruption.com expired on Jun 6, 2019,
and your domain has been disconnected from your site.
·
Take the following steps to keep your
domain:
Access your Billing &
Payments
Next to horrificcorruption.com, click on Extend
Keep Your Domain
Please note that once a domain's
registration expires, there is a grace period during which the domain may be
renewed, followed by a 30-day Redemption period with a $100 renewal penalty.
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Re Simon Cordell FOOED222 _001
12/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 352,353
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Re Simon Cordell FOOED222 _001
12/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 352,353
--
352,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:31
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
I have chased up London Borough
of Enfield as to what steps if any they have taken to restore the matter and
will revert to you once they reply. We are on court record so should be
notified by the Court Direct of any developments.
In the interim, it may be
advisable to set up a royal mail redirection service and have post sent
elsewhere. Not fool proof but worth considering.
Please do note that I am not a
full-time member of staff and am contracted to provide services to the Firm and
so may not be dealing with my cases every single working day. If you are ever
anxious about anything, please give the office a ring and speak to Sean who is
normally in.
Please try not to worry.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: Wednesday,
June 12, 2019 1:40:16 PM
To: Sean Shanmuganathan; Ronak Ahmed
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean or Ronak
Can you please reply to the
below email as we are worried.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
June 2019 13:25
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
Today I called Enfield Country Court to
make sure FOOED222 had been struck out for my son Simon Cordell, but what I
have been told is Enfield Council has reopened it, the person at the court
would give me no other information as I am not listed on the court record that
I can been told anything.
353,
My son has had no letters from the
court as of yet and there is a real issue that he will not get any letters
because his door was broken by the police and they had to put wood up so he has
nowhere for the postman to post his letters, we know from a long time now also
that the postman is just putting his letters in the hallway to his block and
other people are taking his letters so I am worry that the court have sent his
something but he had not had it, but I would have also through that seeing as
you are the acting solicitors for my son for this case the court would have
updated you I would have also through Enfield Council would have updated you
regarding what they wanted to do, I spoke to Sean today and he has not heard
anything at all.
Would it please be possible for you to
make contract with the court and find out what is going on as I think this
would be the better option to find out what Enfield Council is doing.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c2019_RE
Simon Cordell FOOED222
12/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 354,355
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c2019_RE
Simon Cordell FOOED222
12/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 354,355
--
354,
From: Ronak
Ahmed
<ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:54
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
The
London Borough of Enfield have reverted to us just now to state that they have
written to the Court asking to take the matter forward. They have confirmed
that we are on court record so all correspondence will be sent to
us.
Please wait for further contact
from us.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44 (0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:31
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
I have chased up London Borough of
Enfield as to what steps if any they have taken to restore the matter and will
revert to you once they reply. We are on court record so should be notified by
the Court Direct of any developments.
In the interim, it may be advisable to
set up a royal mail redirection service and have post sent elsewhere. Not fool
proof but worth considering.
Please do note that I am not a
full-time member of staff and am contracted to provide services to the Firm and
so may not be dealing with my cases every single working day. If you are ever
anxious about anything, please give the office a ring and speak to Sean who is
normally in.
Please try not to worry.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday,
June 12, 2019 1:40:16 PM
To: Sean Shanmuganathan; Ronak Ahmed
355,
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean or Ronak
Can you please reply to the
below email as we are worried.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
June 2019 13:25
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
Today I called Enfield Country Court to
make sure FOOED222 had been struck out for my son Simon Cordell, but what I
have been told is Enfield Council has reopened it, the person at the court
would give me no other information as I am not listed on the court record that
I can been told anything.
My son has had no letters from the court
as of yet and there is a real issue that he will not get any letters because
his door was broken by the police and they had to put wood up so he has nowhere
for the postman to post his letters, we know from a long time now also that the
postman is just putting his letters in the hallway to his block and other
people are taking his letters so I am worry that the court have sent his
something but he had not had it, but I would have also through that seeing as
you are the acting solicitors for my son for this case the court would have
updated you I would have also through Enfield Council would have updated you
regarding what they wanted to do, I spoke to Sean today and he has not heard
anything at all.
Would it please be possible for you to
make contract with the court and find out what is going on as I think this
would be the better option to find out what Enfield Council is doing.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1.
1
Enquiries.edmonton.coe.gov.uk_06.17.2019_Auto
reply
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 356,357,358
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1. 1
Enquiries.edmonton.coe.gov.uk_06.17.2019_Auto
reply
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 356,357,358
--
356,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 17
June 2019 15:25
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto
reply
**
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS **
Thank you for your email, which has
been received by the court. Depending on the nature of your email you may
receive a response via email or post.
What documents can be sent by email?
You can send all letters and documents
relevant to the case including adoption cases. However, due to the sensitive
nature of adoption work the court will only send emails to secure email
accounts. If a hard copy of a document has been filed at court by DX or
Post, an electronic copy should not be sent. As yet please note that
court bundles are not part of this process and will not be printed.
For more information regarding e-mails
please go to the following http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/email-guidance
What is a secure email account?
An email account is considered secure
when security measures are in place to make sure the data in the email can’t be
accessed by users without the relevant approval. Any account that ends in the
following is considered secured: gsi, pnn, gsx, gcsx, gse, cjsm, and nhs.net.
What emails will HMCTS accept?
To make sure we operate this service as
efficiently and effectively as possible there are exemptions.
All Civil and Family process, applications
and documents will be accepted by email as long as when the entire email is
printed out it is not more than 50 pages. This should include the email, all
attachments (including any documents embedded in another) and enough copies to
serve on required parties.
Please note that:
17. A
page is one side, so 50 pages equals 25 pieces of paper printed on both sides.
18. Do
not use more than one email to take any step in a case which requires a
document or documents to be filed.
DOCUMENTS FOR HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PD, 5B.2. FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE PD 5B
You have received an order to attend
court for a hearing.
It would greatly assist the court staff
if you could ensure documents you file into court have a hearing date endorsed
on the covering letter, paperwork, or email.
This will then enable the court staff
to identify the document is placed on file in readiness for the hearing.
Please note, if the court is unaware of
the pending hearing, when you file your documents, this may result in the
document not reaching the court file in time for the hearing.
Can processes that carry a fee be sent
by email?
In both Civil and Family cases court
processes that carry a fee can also be received by email and processed by court
staff. However the same conditions as above must apply and in addition the
party issuing the process must either quote a Fee Account number, or the party
who wants to pay has a valid credit or debit card. If you wish to pay using
this method, please say this on the
357,
email and include a contact number for
the Court to contact you to take payment.
What is Fee Account?
This is a Direct Debit function that is
quick, safe, and easy to use. It is available for solicitors and large
organisations. Once you have set up an account all you need is to provide your
fee account number within the body of the email. The fee will then be deducted
from your account. For more information and to apply for Fee Account please
visit www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees/payment-by-account.
Any document submitted that breaches
any of the above terms will remain unprocessed. This is in line with Court
Practice Directions 5BPD.1 - 5BPD.9.3.
When you email the court the subject
line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -
·
The claim numbers
·
The title of the claim (abbreviated if
necessary) **
·
The subject matter (e.g. defence)
·
If relating to a hearing the date and
time of hearing in bold black
·
The judge’s name, where the
correspondence/document is for their attention
**If your email is in relation to a
family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain the name,
telephone number and email address of the sender. Correspondence and
documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice
form, it must be sent in that form by attachment. The complete email (including
any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb.
The rest of this automated message
provides information that customers often find useful.
Edmonton County Court
The public counter services are
no longer available at this court.
Urgent applications and processes
that need to be dealt with in person will be through an appointment only
system. Users should contact the court on 0208 8846510 between 9.00 am and 5.00
pm Monday to Friday to make an appointment.
The main telephone number for
Civil and Family enquiries is 0208 884 6500 Gold fax 0870 3240314
Our address is The County Court
at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London, N18 2TN DX 136686
Edmonton 3
The court building is open
between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday.
We have a secure drop box located
in reception for personal deliveries to the court, which is opened once a day
at 9.00 am Monday to Friday.
Website links
Information on Court forms and fees can
be also be obtained from www.justice.gov.uk
Issuing a claim for Money or Possession of Property
- MCOL & PCOL
358,
If you would like to issue a
claim for money or property you can do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by
visiting: www.moneydaim.gov.uk
or www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.You will save money by issuing a claim for possession of property
or a money claim online rather than sending it to the court.
Legal Advice
If you are uncertain how to
proceed, the Civil Procedure Rules available on the Ministry of Justice website
-
http://www.justice.gov.uk - provide
details. On many occasions it is best for people to seek professional legal
advice from a solicitor, legal executive, legal advice agency or Citizens
Advice Bureau. You can also contact Civil Legal Advice on 0845 345 4 345 or via
their website.
For information on how HMCTS
uses personal data about you please see:
This e-mail and any attachments
are intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1.
1
Enquiries.
Edmonton. confield Council V Simon Cordell
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 359,360
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1. 1
Enquiries. Edmonton. confield Council V Simon Cordell
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 359,360
--
359,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
Sent: 17
June 2019 15:31
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Attachments: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell (12.1 KB)
Importance: High
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
360,
Read: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon
Cordell-> FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell (12.1 KB).msg
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 17
June 2019 15:31:16
Subject: Read:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell Your message
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries
Subject: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Sent: 17/06/2019
14:24
was read on 17/06/2019 14:30
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyondernfield
Council V Simon Cordell 2
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 361,362
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyondernfield
Council V Simon Cordell 2
17/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 361,362
--
361,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 17
June 2019 15:25
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email in the hope you
will be able to help me.
It is regarding case
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
The case was last in court on the
08/03/2019 when District Judge Davies heard the case and set out an order due
to my son's health please see attached court order dated 11/03/2019.
District Judge Davies ordered that
·
These proceedings are adjourned generally
with permission to restore in order for the parties to apply to the Official
Solicitor to consider whether he is prepared to act as Litigation Friend for
the Defendant. If no request to restore is made by 4pm on 08/06/2019, the claim
will stand "struck out without further order.
·
Costs reserved.
I have contacted the court and it would
seem Enfield Council submitted a letter to restore this case FOOED222, and so
far, nothing has been done with this.
But the issue I have is that Enfield
Council has done nothing they have not tried to work with Mr Cordell's Official
Solicitor they have not contacted them at all since the last hearing of the
08/03/2019, they also did not notify Mr Cordell's Solicitor that they had put
in to restore this case FOOED222, the only reason we know anything is due to me
contacting the court by telephone on the 10/06/2019 to see if the case had been
"struck out" which I was told it has not been due to the letter
Enfield Council had submitted to the court to restore it and move forward with
the case.
We do not know any details of this
letter Enfield Council has sent to the court to restore this case and under
what grounds and when it was sent to the court from Enfield Council.
This is not the 1st time Enfield
Council has not followed a court order, there is an outstanding court order
that has never been dealt with by Enfield Council in which Enfield Council
should have moved my son which they have never done anything about and then
submitted this new case FOOED222.for which is an abuse of court process .
This is not helping my son's health and
Enfield Council is very aware of this, I do not know what to do, all of these
entire court cases one after the other which Enfield Council has done since
2017 is having a very damaging effect deteriorating and impacting my son's
health.
It is Enfield Council that has chosen
not to communicate with me on behalf of my son, It is Enfield Council that has
not once asked to see proof that these alleged allegations are false, to be
able to address anything I would need Enfield Council to work with me, but they
will not and I have never been rude to anyone within Enfield Council for them
to not to want to communicate with me.
Could the court please tell us what is
going on with this court case as not knowing what is going on is making things
worse for my son not knowing if he is going to be made homeless.
362,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell (on behalf of Simon
Cordell)
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c2019_Re
Simon Cordell FOOED222 6
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 363,364,365,366,367, 368,367
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.c2019_Re
Simon Cordell FOOED222 6
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 363,364,365,366,367, 368,367
--
363,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 25
June 2019 15:34
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Attachments: 20190625093129269[20838].pdf
Good afternoon
Please see attached court order
received today.
We will wait a few weeks in case the
Claimants apply to set aside the attached order. If no further action is taken
by the Claimant in that time, I shall close this file.
Please also note that this Order does
not prevent a new claim being brought in the future.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday,
June 25, 2019 3:03:02 PM
To: Sean Shanmuganathan
Cc: Ronak Ahmed.
Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean
Thank you for the update, can I ask did
you get a final court order stating this and if you did can you email me a copy
of it for our records.
Regards
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:52, Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Lorraine
Edmonton County Court struck out
the Enfield council's possession claim on 18.6.19.
Thanks
Yours
D Shanmuganathan
364,
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
June 2019 13:01
To: Sean Shanmuganathan <sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean and Ronak
Can the below email please be
dealt with my son is suffering not knowing what to do the court has said the
file is going sitting there with nothing being done to it, this is unfair to my
son he does not know where he stands and has had Enfield council over his head
since 2016 this is not making his health any better. can you please contact the
court and find out what is going on and tell them Enfield council has not
contracted you at all in the last 3 months like they were meant to have done.
Can you please let me know what
is going on please.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 16:29
To:
'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak
How are they going to try and
take this forward when there is no Litigation Friend for my son. I am sure the
court stated last time in court that Enfield Council had to work alongside you
to see if you was willing to act as my son's Litigation Friend, but as we are
aware they have not contracted you at all.
I hope they don’t think they can
try and use me like they have in the past for this as I will not do it as I
have to work for my son not Enfield Council.
Also Enfield Council is still in
breach of the court order the court made which they should have moved my son, I
know you have stated you are not sure if you can bring this case up due to
legal aid but the legal aid was ordered by the court in this case, please see
attached order which I will highlight the section regarding legal aid.
It seems to me that Enfield Council
will do anything they can do to not help my son and only do everything to go
against him.
·
Case EOOED049
·
The order of the 12/06/2018 is where
legal aid is spoke about.
·
The
Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018 is the final outcome, which
Enfield Council has failed to do any part of it just lie to people as to the
reason they have done nothing.
My son is getting badly effected by
what Enfield Council is doing they have left this nearly 3 months to bring it
back into court this is not right.
Could you please write to the court and
say that Enfield Council has not contracted you once to even address what
365,
the court ordered on the 08/03/2019 as
Enfield Council clearly has not done anything within that order and I think
that the court needs to know this, I have enclosed the court order dated
08/03/2019.
Also could you please forward any
documents you get relating to this to this email so I can pass them on to my
son as right now this is the safest way to do this as any letters sent in the
post my son may not get due to his door and no access for the postman.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 16:10
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak
How are they going to try and take this
forward when there is no Litigation Friend for my son. I am sure the court
stated last time in court that Enfield Council had to work alongside you to see
if you was willing to act as my son's Litigation Friend, but as we are aware
they have not contracted you at all.
I hope they don’t think they can try
and use me like they have in the past for this as I will not do it as I have to
work for my son not Enfield Council.
Also Enfield Council is still in breach
of the court order the court made which they should have moved my son, I know
you have stated you are not sure if you can bring this case up due to legal aid
but the legal aid was ordered by the court in this case, please see attached order
which I will highlight the section regarding legal aid.
It seems to me that Enfield Council
will do anything they can do to not help my son and only do everything to go
against him.
·
Case EOOED049
·
The order of the 12/06/2018 is where
legal aid is spoke about.
·
The
Seal-Court-0rder-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018 is the final outcome, which
Enfield Council has failed to do any part of it just lie to people as to the
reason they have done nothing.
My son is getting badly effected by
what Enfield Council is doing they have left this nearly 3 months to bring it
back into court this is not right.
Regards
366,
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Mailto: ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:54
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
The London Borough of Enfield have
reverted to us just now to state that they have written to the Court asking to
take the matter forward. They have confirmed that we are on court record so all
correspondence will be sent to us.
Please wait for further contact from
us.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44 (0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:31
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
I have chased up London Borough of
Enfield as to what steps if any they have taken to restore the matter and will
revert to you once they reply. We are on court record so should be notified by
the Court Direct of any developments.
In the interim, it may be advisable to
set up a royal mail redirection service and have post sent elsewhere.
Not fool proof but worth considering.
Please do note that I am not a
full-time member of staff and am contracted to provide services to the Firm and
so may not be dealing with my cases every single working day. If you are ever
anxious about anything, please give the office a ring and speak to Sean who is
normally in.
Please try not to worry.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
367,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday,
June 12, 2019 1:40:16 PM
To: Sean Shanmuganathan; Ronak Ahmed
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean or Ronak
Can you please reply to the
below email as we are worried.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 10
June 2019 13:25
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
Today I called Enfield Country Court to
make sure FOOED222 had been struck out for my son Simon Cordell, but what I
have been told is Enfield Council has reopened it, the person at the court
would give me no other information as I am not listed on the court record that
I can been told anything.
My son has had no letters from the court
as of yet and there is a real issue that he will not get any letters because
his door was broken by the police and they had to put wood up so he has nowhere
for the postman to post his letters, we know from a long time now also that the
postman is just putting his letters in the hallway to his block and other
people are taking his letters so I am worry that the court have sent his
something but he had not had it, but I would have also through that seeing as
you are the acting solicitors for my son for this case the court would have
updated you I would have also through Enfield Council would have updated you
regarding what they wanted to do, I spoke to Sean today and he has not heard
anything at all.
Would it please be possible for you to
make contract with the court and find out what is going on as I think this
would be the better option to find out what Enfield Council is doing.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
368,
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the county Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: F00ED222
Date: 21 June 2019
Ref: LS/C/PB/159272
Ref:
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD If Claimant
SIMON
CORDELL
1st
Defendant
D.SHANMUGANATHAN
Before Deputy District Judge Hands
sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN, on
court's own motion to request to restore having been made by 8th June 2019 as
per Order of 8th March 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Claimant's
claim stands struck out.
Dated: 18 June
2019
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NI8 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 88846500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneydnim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by: D. Humphreys
N24 Gen era I Form of Judgment
or Order CJ R065 C
367,
Error Page!
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1.
1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_06.25.2019_Order
2
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 369,370
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1. 1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_06.25.2019_Order
2
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 369,370
--
369,
From: Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 25
June 2019 15:10
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Order
Attachments: 20190625113102374.pdf
Dear Lorraine
Please find attached the order
as you requested.
Kind Regards
D Shanmuganathan Partner
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2937
Email sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU11LY
Tel +44 (0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office. VAT REG No: 221 8088 78 SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
370,
Order:
20190625113102374.pdf
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: F00ED222
Date: 21 June 2019
Ref:
LS/C/PB/159272
THE MAYOR
AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
And
SIMON
CORDELL
1st
Defendant Ref
D. SH
ANMUG ANATHAN
Before Deputy District Judge
Harris sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18
2TN, on court's own motion to request to restore having been made by 8th June
2019 as per Order of 8th March 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Claimant's claim stands
struck out.
Dated 18 June 2019
The court office at the County Court
at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N1S 2TN. When corresponding wills the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.nlt to find out more.
N24 General Form of Judgment or
Order
Produced by: D.
Humphreys CJR065C
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1.
1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co2019_RE
Simon Cordell FOOED222 4
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 371,372, 373, 374,373
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1. 1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co2019_RE
Simon Cordell FOOED222 4
25/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 371,372, 373, 374,373
--
371,
From: Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 25
June 2019 09:53
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Ronak Ahmed; Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Lorraine
Edmonton County Court struck out
the Enfield council's possession claim on 18.6.19.
Thanks
Yours
D Shanmuganathan
From: Lorraine
Cordell [
Mailto:
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 17
June 2019 13:01
To: Sean Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean and Ronak
Can the below email please be dealt
with my son is suffering not knowing what to do the court has said the file is
going sitting there with nothing being done to it, this is unfair to my son he
does not know where he stands and has had Enfield council over his head since
2016 this is not making his health any better. can you please contact the court
and find out what is going on and tell them Enfield council has not contracted
you at all in the last 3 months like they were meant to have done.
Can you please let me know what
is going on please.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 16:29
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak
How are they going to try and take this
forward when there is no Litigation Friend for my son. I am sure the court
stated last time in court that Enfield Council had to work alongside you to see
if you was willing to act as my son's Litigation Friend, but as we are aware they
have not contracted you at all.
I hope they don’t think they can try
and use me like they have in the past for this as I will not do it as I have to
work for my son not Enfield Council.
Also Enfield Council is still in breach
of the court order the court made which they should have moved my son, I know
you have stated you are not sure if you can bring this case up due to legal aid
but the legal aid was ordered by the court in this case, please see attached
order which I will highlight the section regarding legal aid.
It seems to me that Enfield Council
will do anything they can do to not help my son and only do everything to go
against him.
372,
Case EOOED049
·
The order of the 12/06/2018 is where
legal aid is spoke about.
·
The
Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018 is the final outcome, which
Enfield Council has failed to do any part of it just lie to people as to the
reason they have done nothing.
My son is getting badly effected by
what Enfield Council is doing they have left this nearly 3 months to bring it
back into court this is not right.
Could you please write to the court and
say that Enfield Council has not contracted you once to even address what the
court ordered on the 08/03/2019 as Enfield Council clearly has not done
anything within that order and I think that the court needs to know this, I
have enclosed the court order dated 08/03/2019.
Also could you please forward any
documents you get relating to this to this email so I can pass them on to my
son as right now this is the safest way to do this as any letters sent in the
post my son may not get due to his door and no access for the postman.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 16:10
To: 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak
How are they going to try and take this
forward when there is no Litigation Friend for my son. I am sure the court
stated last time in court that Enfield Council had to work alongside you to see
if you was willing to act as my son's Litigation Friend, but as we are aware
they have not contracted you at all.
I hope they don’t think they can try
and use me like they have in the past for this as I will not do it as I have to
work for my son not Enfield Council.
Also Enfield Council is still in breach
of the court order the court made which they should have moved my son, I know
you have stated you are not sure if you can bring this case up due to legal aid
but the legal aid was ordered by the court in this case, please see attached
order which I will highlight the section regarding legal aid.
It seems to me that Enfield Council
will do anything they can do to not help my son and only do everything to go
against him.
·
Case EOOED049
·
The order of the 12/06/2018 is where
legal aid is spoke about.
373,
· The
Seal-Court-Order-09-08-2018-got-on-the-06-12-2018 is the final outcome, which
Enfield Council has failed to do any part of it just lie to people as to the
reason they have done nothing.
My son is getting badly effected by what
Enfield Council is doing they have left this nearly 3 months to bring it back
into court this is not right.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Mailto: ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:54
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
The London Borough of Enfield have
reverted to us just now to state that they have written to the Court asking to
take the matter forward. They have confirmed that we are on court record so all
correspondence will be sent to us.
Please wait for further contact from
us.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44 (0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Sent: 12
June 2019 14:31
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
I have chased up London Borough of
Enfield as to what steps if any they have taken to restore the matter and will
revert to you once they reply. We are on court record so should be notified by
the Court Direct of any developments.
In the interim, it may be advisable to
set up a royal mail redirection service and have post sent elsewhere. Not fool
proof but worth considering.
Please do note that I am not a
full-time member of staff and am contracted to provide services to the Firm and
so may not be dealing with my cases every single working day. If you are ever
anxious about anything, please give the office a ring and speak to Sean who is
normally in.
Please try not to worry.
374,
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:40:16 PM
To: Sean
Shanmuganathan; Ronak Ahmed
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Dear Sean or Ronak
Can you please reply to the
below email as we are worried.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent:10
June 2019 13:25
To:
'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE: Simon
Cordell FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
Today I called Enfield Country
Court to make sure FOOED222 had been struck out for my son Simon Cordell, but
what I have been told is Enfield Council has reopened it, the person at the
court would give me no other information as I am not listed on the court record
that I can been told anything.
My son has had no letters from
the court as of yet and there is a real issue that he will not get any letters
because his door was broken by the police and they had to put wood up so he has
nowhere for the postman to post his letters, we know from a long time now also
that the postman is just putting his letters in the hallway to his block and
other people are taking his letters so I am worry that the court have sent his
something but he had not had it, but I would have also through that seeing as
you are the acting solicitors for my son for this case the court would have
updated you I would have also through Enfield Council would have updated you
regarding what they wanted to do, I spoke to Sean today and he has not heard
anything at all.
Would it please be possible for
you to make contract with the court and find out what is going on as I think
this would be the better option to find out what Enfield Council is doing.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
373,
Blank Page!
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1.
1
Complaints
and inform at Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL] 3
27/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 375,376,377
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1. 1
Complaints and inform at Council
contact [SEC=OFFICIAL] 3
27/06/2019
/ Page Numbers: 375,376,377
--
375,
From: complaints and information <complaintsandmformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 27
June 2019 15:03
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Letter
regarding Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Cordell letter 27.06.19.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for
your attention regarding communications with the Council.
Yours sincerely Dionne Grant
Complaints and Information
Service Manager
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
376,
377,
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1.
1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co06.27.2019_Letter
from Enfield 2
27/06/2019/
Page
Numbers: 378,379
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1. 1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co06.27.2019_Letter
from Enfield 2
27/06/2019/
Page Numbers: 378,379
--
378,
From: Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 27
June 2019 10:06
To: Lorraine Cordell
Cc: Ronak Ahmed
Subject: Letter
from Enfield
Attachments: 20190627104617521.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell
Please find attached the letter
we received from Enfield Council.
Kind Regards
D Shanmuganathan Partner
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2937
Email sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU11LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership
under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to inspection at the
registered office. VAT REG No: 221 8088 78 SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
379,
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder
Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL 5
08/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 380,381,382,383,384
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder Council
contact [SEC=OFFICIAL 5
08/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 380,381,382,383,384
--
380,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 08
July 2019 17:58
To: 'complaints and information'
Subject: RE:
Letter regarding Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Reply to Enfield Councils Letter 27-06-2019.pdf
Dear Dionne Grant
Please see attached letter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: complaints
and information
Mailto:
complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 27
June 2019 15:03
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Letter
regarding Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for your attention
regarding communications with the Council.
Yours sincerely Dionne Grant
Complaints and Information Service
Manager
Enfield Council
Civic Centre
Silver Street, Enfield
EN13XA
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute
381,
or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
382,
RE:
Letter regarding Council contact [SEC=OFFICIAL]->Reply to Enfield
Councils Letter 27-06-2019.pdf
Miss Lorraine Cordell
08 July 2019
· Re:
Vexatious and Unreasonable Complaints
Dear Dionne Grant
I am writing this letter
regarding the email I received on the 27th June 2019 where it has been stated
that rules have been set out in regard to us contracting Enfield Council, and
that my correspondence has been deemed Vexatious and Unreasonable Complaints.
I have issues with what has been
said in your letter that has been sent to me.
You state in the letter
“The Council is of the view that
the aspects of your correspondence are deemed as being unreasonable complainant
behaviour. Unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complainants are those
complainants who, because of the nature or frequency of their contacts with an
organisation, hinder the organisation's consideration of their, or other
people's complaints.
· We have concluded your contact
is vexatious for the following reasons:
1. This
is not an exhaustive list but examples of unreasonable actions and behaviour
which can be deemed as vexatious: You have sent frequent and overlapping
correspondence on this same matter. Your contact is disproportionate and have
or are likely to cause an unjustified level of disruption, irritation, or
distress.
2. You
are making excessive demands on the time and resources of staff with lengthy
phone calls, emails to numerous council staff, or frequent emails / letters to
staff.
1
383,
3. Submitting
repeat contacts which have been addressed, essentially about the same issues,
with additions/variations which the complainant insists make these 'new'.
4. Refusing
to accept the decision; repeatedly arguing points with no new evidence.”
The issue I have with the above
is yes, I have sent letters and complaints, but we do not get any replies to
these or if we do get a reply it does not cover what we have asked.
The last time I wrote was I
believe 05/12/2018 with no reply, so I sent a few follow up emails in 2019
asking if there was any update which I never got a reply back, which since then
I have just given up due to the fact I know I will not get a reply, I do not
feel my letters are Vexatious and Unreasonable I am asking questions I would
like replies to, I do not just sit here each day spending all my time writing
to Enfield Council when I know I will not get a reply. The only reason I wrote
in 2018 was after the court case and that was to address things within the
court order, which Enfield Council failed to comply with.
The other letter I sent was for
a DSAR this was sent on 25/11/2018 which I did not really get what I asked for
on the 16/02/2019, there was some issues with some of the files that Enfield
Council had uploaded, I could not get and sent an email over which was
corrected so I could download the files, but once I opened them most of the
data was for 1997, I did write back asking why everything was missing and once
again got no reply regarding all the missing data.
In fact I am in the process of
drawing up a new DSAR in the hope this time I will get the data I am asking for
which so far Enfield Council has failed to do, should this be addressed to
yourself?
In fact from 2015 most of my
letters or emails have in fact gone without a reply and this can be proven. It
seems very strange this letter has been written and I wonder if it is only due
to the court action Enfield Council wants to take regarding my son.
I cannot understand your point
regarding the “volume of letters becomes reasonable” as I have not sent that
many emails as I know in fact I will hardly ever get a reply, it is for that
reason I do not take my time in writing to you in order to try and address
issues as it seems Enfield Council is unwilling to try and address anything.
2
384,
I did ask Enfield Council to
confirm in writing more than once, what stage my complaint was at due to no
replies, but I have never had a reply back to tell me what stage it was at.
I was not going to reply back to
this letter that was sent on the 27th June 2019 as I felt it was Enfield
Council that was being Vexatious and Unreasonable, I already know nothing will
be addressed but in the end I felt I had to say something.
Yours sincerely,
Miss L Cordell
3
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1.
2.
Mother
16-07-2019 -01-30
16/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 385,386
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1. 2.
Mother 16-07-2019 -01-30
16/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 385,386
--
385,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 16/07/2019 01:30:39 AM
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Attachments: 20190625093129269[20838].pdf
here
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Mailto:
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 25
June 2019 15:34
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Simon Cordell FOOED222
Good afternoon
Please see attached court order
received today.
We will wait a few weeks in case
the Claimants apply to set aside the attached order. If no further action is
taken by the Claimant in that time, I shall close this file.
Please also note that this Order
does not prevent a new claim being brought in the future.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
386,
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the county Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: F00ED222
Date:
21 June 2019
Ref LS/C/PB/159272
Ref
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD |its Claimant
SIMON
CORDELL
1st
Defendant
D.SHANMUGANATHAN
Before Deputy District Judge Hands
sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18 2TN, on
court's own motion to request to restore having been made by 8th June 2019 as
per Order of 8th March 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1.
Claimant's claim stands struck out.
Dated 18
June 2019
The court office at the County Court
at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, NI8 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number.
Tel: 020
88846500.
Check if you can issue your claim
online. It will save you time and money.
Go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
to find out more.
Produced by:
D, Humphreys
N24 Gen era I Form of Judgment or
Order CJ R065 C
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1.
1
Shelaine
@tyrerroxburggh of Enfield -v- Simon Cordell 3
17/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 387,388,389
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1. 1
Shelaine @tyrerroxburggh of
Enfield -v- Simon Cordell 3
17/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 387,388,389
--
387,
From: Shelaine
Stanley-Mitchell <Shelaine@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 17
July 2019 16:09
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
The London Borough of Enfield -v- Simon Cordell
Claim Number: F00ED222
Attachments: Court
Order 12.07.19.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Ms Cordell,
RE:
Housing Possession Matter
We write with regards to your
son’s housing possession matter. Further enclosing a Court Order received from
the court dated, 12th July 2019. Please read the enclosed Court Order
carefully.
Please do not hesitate to contact
Sean or Shelaine at our offices, with regards to this letter and the enclosed
Order.
Yours sincerely
Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Paralegal
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial +44
(0)20 8829 2950
Email
shelaine@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
Head Office:
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Luton Office:
Trend House Dallow Road Luton
LU1 1LY
Tel +44
(0)1582 726579
Please reply to our Head Office www.tvrerroxburah.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
first for family law
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
388,
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners •
Mukesh Badhan • D Shanmuganathan
389,
RE: The
London Borough of Enfield -v- Simon Cordell Claim Number; F00ED222 ->Court
Order 12.07.19.pdf:
General Form of Judgment or
Order
In the County Court at Edmonton
Claim Number: F00ED222
Date: 12 July 2019
Ref:
LS/C/PB/159272
Ref:
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
1st
Claimant
And
SIMON
CORDELL
1st
Defendant
D.SHANMUGANATHAN
Before Deputy District Judge
Harris sitting at the County Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, London, N18
2TN.
Upon court's
own motion and following consideration of Claimant's letter of 6 June and 26
June 2019, the letter of 6 June not having been before the court when it made
the order of 18 June 2019
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Order
of Deputy District Judge Harris dated 18 June 2019 be set aside and claim be
re-instated.
2. Matter
be listed for directions hearing only on 12 December 2019 at 14:00pm, time
estimate 20 minutes Dated 9 July 2019
The court office at the County
Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Sheet, London, N18 2TN. When corresponding with the
court, please address forms or letters to the Court Manager and quote the claim
number. Tel: 020 8884 6500. Check if you can issue your claim online. It
will save you time and money. Go to www.moneyclaim,gov.uk to find out more.
N24 General Form of Judgment or
Order
Produced by: A
ABIODUN CJR065C
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.ck_07.18.2019_Re
Your Son' Case 2
18/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 390,391
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.ck_07.18.2019_Re
Your Son' Case 2
18/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 390,391
--
390,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 18
July 2019 15:05
To: Lorraine Cordell; Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: Re:
Your Son' Case
Dear Ms Cordell Thank you for
your email.
We are somewhat constrained by
the regulations related to Legal Aid in that we can deal with the Claim for
possession only. This means we can take all necessary steps to deal with your
son's defence only.
In relation to the
correspondence, I have requested copies and will forward these on to you once
received.
In terms of the Litigation
Friend, the Official Solicitor will act only if there are no family members
involved and here it is likely to be the case that you will be proposed as the
litigation friend. If you refuse to act as such then the Official Solicitor
will get involved and provide instructions to your son's solicitors as to how
to proceed with your son's case. The London Borough of Enfield does not dictate
who the Litigation Friend appointed is. All the Official Solicitor does is
provide instructions on how to proceed with the case - which has been your role
so far. They do not run the legal case.
Hope that answers your queries
in relation to the Claim for Possession but if not either call or email back.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday,
July 18, 2019 1:51:48 PM
To: Ronak Ahmed; Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case
Dear Ronak and Sean
I have tried to call the office
today to find out what is our next steps I do not understand what Enfield
Council has done and what has been written in there letters to the court dated,
06/06/2019 10/06/2019 12/06/2019 and 26/06/2019, should we have not been
included in these letters so we had an understanding of what and how Enfield
Council wanted to process with this case?
Should we not be aware what
Enfield Council has done regarding the Official Solicitor to consider whether
he is prepared to act as Litigation Friend?
I am not sure what the Official
Solicitor does, and how Enfield Council can get a solicitor they choose I just
do not understand how this works and if Enfield Council has ever had contract
with this Official Solicitor, does this also mean you will not be acting for my
son and it will be this Official Solicitor Which would not be someone my son
has chosen to act for him.?
Could someone please get back to
me regarding this and can the letters that have been sent to the court via
Enfield Council be requested, I do believe we have a right to know what is
going on here and right now are we going to be left with not knowing anything
until the 12/12/2019?
Regards
391,
Lorraine Cordell
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto: ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sent: 18
July 2019 11:37
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
Son' Case
Good morning
Please see attached order received from
the Council today.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_07.18.2019_Your
Son' Case 2
18/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 392,393
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_07.18.2019_Your
Son' Case 2
18/07/2019
/ Page Numbers: 392,393
--
392,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 18
July 2019 11:37
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Your
Son' Case
Attachments: LBE-SV-PRN-002_PR-ECCBS-GPV59544-IRC5045_3382_001.pdf
Good morning
Please see attached order received from
the Council today.
Kind Regards
Ronak Ahmed
Consultant Solicitor
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP
393,
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.ck_08.04.2019_RE
Your Son' Case 4
04/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 394,395,396,397
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.ck_08.04.2019_RE
Your Son' Case 4
04/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 394,395,396,397
--
394,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 04
August 2019 19:42
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE: Your Son' Case
Attachments: 1101491.doc; 1113833.doc
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email of 1 August
2019; the Council's solicitors have provided the attached letters and have
stated that "there were no letters to the court on 10/6/2019 and
12/6/2019".
I confirm that the letters do
not contain anything of concern to our client.
Kind regards
Ronak Ahmed
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace London N22
7SJ DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0) 20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact us as soon as possible.
ft resolution
first for family law
Partners • Mukesh Badhan • D
Shanmuganathan
395,
396,
397,
for Director of Law and
Governance
PB /159272/ 01113833
Page 2
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1.
1
OS_Civil_Litigation@oov.uk_08.06.2019_Auto-response
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 398
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 1. 1
OS_Civil_Litigation@oov.uk_08.06.2019_Auto-response
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 398
--
398,
From: OS
Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
August 2019 12:10
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto-response
Your email has been received by the
Official Solicitor's Civil Litigation Team. If you wish to speak to someone by
telephone, please call 020 3681 2750.
If your enquiry is not about civil
proceedings, you will find the contact details for other teams at the end of
this auto response:
Request to the Official Solicitor to
act as litigation friend in civil proceedings:
The Official Solicitor's criteria
for acting as litigation friend in civil proceedings are:
1. undisputed
satisfactory evidence that the party lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings.
2. security
for the costs of legal representation (
3. last
resort (i.e. that there is no other person suitable and willing to act as
litigation friend).
If your email is urgent, please ring
the Civil Litigation enquiry line on 020 3681 2750 and speak to the Team
Leader. If your email is not urgent, we aim to respond within 10 working days.
Contact details for other teams within
the Official Solicitor's office:
public law family Tel: 020
3681 2755
private law family Tel: 020
3681 2754
COP healthcare & welfare
Tel: 020 3681 2751
COP property & affairs
Tel: 020 3681 2758
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1.
1
OS_Civil_Litigation@ok_08.06.2019_Auto-response_001
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 399
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1. 1
OS_Civil_Litigation@ok_08.06.2019_Auto-response_001
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 399
--
399,
From: OS
Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
August 2019 12:09
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto-response
Your email has been received by the Official
Solicitor's Civil Litigation Team. If you wish to speak to someone by
telephone, please call 020 3681 2750.
If your enquiry is not about civil
proceedings, you will find the contact details for other teams at the end of
this auto response:
Request to the Official Solicitor to
act as litigation friend in civil proceedings:
The Official Solicitor's criteria
for acting as litigation friend in civil proceedings are:
4. undisputed
satisfactory evidence that the party lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings.
5. security
for the costs of legal representation (
6. last
resort (i.e. that there is no other person suitable and willing to act as
litigation friend).
If your email is urgent, please ring the
Civil Litigation enquiry line on 020 3681 2750 and speak to the Team Leader. If
your email is not urgent, we aim to respond within 10 working days.
Contact details for other teams within
the Official Solicitor's office:
public law family Tel: 020
3681 2755
private law family Tel: 020
3681 2754
COP healthcare & welfare
Tel: 020 3681 2751
COP property & affairs
Tel: 020 3681 2758
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1.
1
OS_Civil_Litigation@ok_08.06.2019_Auto-response_002
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 400
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1. 1
OS_Civil_Litigation@ok_08.06.2019_Auto-response_002
1
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 400
--
400,
From: OS
Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
August 2019 11:55
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto-response
Your email has been received by the
Official Solicitor's Civil Litigation Team. If you wish to speak to someone by
telephone, please call 020 3681 2750.
If your enquiry is not about civil
proceedings, you will find the contact details for other teams at the end of
this auto response:
Request to the Official Solicitor to
act as litigation friend in civil proceedings:
The Official Solicitor's criteria
for acting as litigation friend in civil proceedings are:
7. undisputed
satisfactory evidence that the party lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings.
8. security
for the costs of legal representation (
9. last
resort (i.e. that there is no other person suitable and willing to act as
litigation friend).
If your email is urgent, please ring
the Civil Litigation enquiry line on 020 3681 2750 and speak to the Team
Leader. If your email is not urgent, we aim to respond within 10 working days.
Contact details for other teams within
the Official Solicitor's office:
public law family Tel: 020
3681 2755
private law family Tel: 020
3681 2754
COP healthcare & welfare
Tel: 020 3681 2751
COP property & affairs
Tel: 020 3681 2758
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1.
1
OS_Civil_Litigation@o9_RE Simon Cordell
information 4
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 401,402,403,404
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1. 1
OS_Civil_Litigation@o9_RE Simon Cordell
information 4
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 401,402,403,404
--
401,
From: OS
Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
August 2019 12:02
To: 'Lorraine Cordell'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell information
Lorraine,
Thank you for your email. Can you please
provide me with the contact details of Mr. Sean Shanmuganathan to enable me to
resolve this matter.
Kind regards,
Bina
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 06
August 2019 11:55
To: OS Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell information
Importance: High
Dear Bina
Thank you for the reply to my email I
am not sure why Mr Ronak Ahmed advised the Official Solicitor’s I would be
willing to act for my son as I clearly told Mr. Sean Shanmuganathan who was at
court acting for my son on the 08/03/2019 I could not do this.
There is good reason for me not being
able to act as litigation friend, which has been stated two times before in
court action that Enfield Council brought regarding my son, which I refused
these two times also.
Enfield Council has caused so much
damage to my son in what has been ongoing since late 2014, Enfield council has
never wanted to deal with my son nor me regarding issues which has happened and
have just allowed me to live in the home he lives going through hell with what
the neighbours have been doing to him, in fact there is a court order dated the
09/08/2018 in which Enfield Council should have moved my son, Enfield Council
has refused to do so, and then just started the possession proceedings against
my son, which is the case we are dealing with now.
Due to everything that has gone on my
son has no trust in anyone and our relationship has suffered badly due to
everything that is ongoing. I believe if I submitted to act as my son's
litigation friend our relationship could suffer beyond repair, and at this
point in time I feel everything that is going on is not helping my own health,
and I cannot afford my relationship with my son to break down any further than
it already is.
I am also very unwell myself and the
stress I am suffering is making my health worse, I have been told by my doctors
I need to have rest and at this point I am not doing that and the stress is not
helping me at all.
My Health problems are listed below:
19. Chronic
Kidney Disease Stage 3
20. Fibrillary
Glomerulonephritis (GN)
21. IGA
Nephropathy
22. Immune
system issues
402,
23. Fibromyalgia
24. Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
25. Chronic
Asthma
26. Possible
Lupus
27. Blood
Issues
28. Double
Incontinence (Sacral Nerve Implant)
29. Osteoarthritis
Spine
30. Nerve
Damage Spine
31. Spine
Disc Degeneration
32. Lumbar
Spondylosis
33. Osteophytic
Narrowing Foramina
34. Eye
Disease
35. Bile
Salt Malabsorption
36. Heart
murmur, fast and slow heartbeat
I am there for my son and always will be
but I cannot take on any more pressure due to my own health, and I cannot cause
my relationship to break down any more than it already has with my son and the
trust between me and my son to get worse.
Please can this email be kept
confidential as I do not want Enfield Council knowing my personal health issues
as I sure they would find a way to use it against my son, and also my son does
not know how bad my health really is and this is how I would like it to stay?
Could you please re-open the case file
for my son.
Best Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: OS
Civil Litigation [mailto:OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk]
Sent: 06
August 2019 07:42
To: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell information
Lorraine,
Thank you for your email.
It may help if I firstly, explain that
the Official Solicitor will only act as a litigation friend if:
8. nobody
else is suitable and willing to be litigation friend.
9. there's
money available to pay the Official Solicitor's costs, e.g. legal aid.
10. the
person's doctor or another medical professional, e.g. their psychiatrist,
confirms they lack capacity to manage the
case.
403,
The Official Solicitor was contacted on
30 April 2019 by Enfield Council regarding possession proceedings against your
son, Simon Cordell. However, after contacting the representatives for Simon,
Tyrer Roxburgh, the solicitor with conduct of this matter, Mr Ronak Ahmed
advised that you, Simon's mother, is willing and suitable to act as his litigation
friend in these proceeding and as such the Official Solicitor's last resort
criteria was not met. Consequently, Enfield Council were requested to contact
Mr Ronak Ahmed and were also notified that we would close our file.
I am sorry that you were misinformed.
This may have been because a search was not undertaken to check the closed
cases on the system. Please accept my apologises for this oversight.
I trust this clarifies the situation.
Regards,
Bina.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 05
August 2019 11:29
To: OS - Enquiries (OSPT) <Enquiries@ospt.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell information
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call I
made to your offices this morning where I was told no application had been made
regarding my son Mr Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981 address 109 Burncroft Avenue,
Enfield EN3 7JQ to act in court proceedings as a Litigation Friend for a Claim
for Possession of my son's home 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield EN3 7JQ by
Enfield Council.
On the 8 March 2019 the court ordered
that Enfield Council contract The Official Solicitor and ask if The Official
Solicitor to consider whether they are prepared to act as Litigation Friend for
the Defendant.
Enfield Council proceeded to restore
their Claim for Possession with Edmonton County Court on the 06 June 2019 which
was granted by the court on the grounds that The Official Solicitor had
responded to the request from Enfield Council.
Yesterday I received an email from my
son's acting solicitors with the letters sent to the court to restore by
Enfield Council and this is the reason I made the call to The Official
Solicitor this morning. I felt it very concerning that I have never been
contracted since the 8 March 2019 from The Official Solicitor or Enfield Council,
yet The Official Solicitor stated to Enfield Council that I could act as
Litigation Friend for my son.
This is what has been stated in the
letter to the court to restore the court proceedings from Enfield Council for
the Claim for Possession.
"We write to request that the
proceedings be now restored. The Official Solicitor has responded to the
request to act as Litigation Friend to the Defendant advising that they not so
act instead the Defendant mother Mrs Cordell will act as Litigation Friend to the
Defendant".
Could you please confirm via this
email, what was stated to me this morning on the phone call I made, that there
has never been any application to The Official Solicitor from Enfield Council
regarding my son Mr Simon Cordell to act as a Litigation Friend in court
proceedings for a Claim for Possession?
404,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1.
1
OS_
Civil_ Litigation @o Simon Cordell information_001 2
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 405,406
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1. 1
OS_ Civil_ Litigation @o Simon
Cordell information_001 2
06/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 405,406
--
405,
From: OS
Civil Litigation <OS_Civil_Litigation@ospt.gov.uk>
Sent: 06
August 2019 07:42
To: 'lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell information
Lorraine,
Thank you for your email.
It may help if I firstly, explain that
the Official Solicitor will only act as a litigation friend if:
37. nobody
else is suitable and willing to be litigation friend.
38. there's
money available to pay the Official Solicitor's costs, e.g. legal aid.
39. the
person's doctor or another medical professional, e.g. their psychiatrist,
confirms they lack capacity to manage the case.
The Official Solicitor was contacted on
30 April 2019 by Enfield Council regarding possession proceedings against your
son, Simon Cordell. However, after contacting the representatives for Simon,
Tyrer Roxburgh, the solicitor with conduct of this matter, Mr Ronak Ahmed
advised that you, Simon's mother, is willing and suitable to act as his
litigation friend in these proceeding and as such the Official Solicitor's last
resort criteria was not met. Consequently, Enfield Council were requested to
contact Mr Ronak Ahmed and were also notified that we would close our file.
I am sorry that you were misinformed.
This may have been because a search was not undertaken to check the closed
cases on the system. Please accept my apologises for this oversight.
I trust this clarifies the situation.
Regards,
Bina.
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 05
August 2019 11:29
To: OS - Enquiries (OSPT) <Enquiries@ospt.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Information
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after a call
I made to your offices this morning where I was told no application had been
made regarding my son Mr Simon Cordell DOB: 26/01/1981 address 109 Burncroft
Avenue, Enfield EN3 7JQ to act in court proceedings as a Litigation Friend for
a Claim for Possession of my son's home 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield EN3 7JQ
by Enfield Council.
On the 8 March 2019 the court
ordered that Enfield Council contract The Official Solicitor and ask if The
Official Solicitor to consider whether they are prepared to act as Litigation
Friend for the Defendant.
Enfield Council proceeded to
restore their Claim for Possession with Edmonton County Court on the 06 June
2019 which was granted by the court on the grounds that The Official Solicitor
had responded to the request from Enfield Council.
Yesterday I received an email
from my son's acting solicitors with the letters sent to the court to restore
by Enfield Council and this
406,
is the reason I made the call to
The Official Solicitor this morning. I felt it very concerning that I have
never been contracted since the 8 March 2019 from The Official Solicitor or
Enfield Council, yet The Official Solicitor stated to Enfield Council that I
could act as Litigation Friend for my son.
This is what has been stated in
the letter to the court to restore the court proceedings from Enfield Council
for the Claim for Possession.
• "We write to request that the
proceedings be now restored. The Official Solicitor has responded to the
request to act as Litigation Friend to the Defendant advising that they will not so act instead the Defendant mother Mrs Cordell
will act as Litigation Friend to the Defendant".
Could you please confirm via
this email, what was stated to me this morning on the phone call I made, that
there has never been any application to The Official Solicitor from Enfield
Council regarding my son Mr Simon Cordell to act as a Litigation Friend in
court proceedings for a Claim for Possession?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
This e-mail and any attachments
are intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1.
1
Nasir.
Uddin @enfield. G Alteration Form [SEC=OFFICIAL] 21
09/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1. 1
Nasir. Uddin @enfield. G
Alteration Form [SEC=OFFICIAL] 21
09/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 407,408
409,410,411,412,413,414
415,416,417,418,419,420
421,422,423,424,425,426
427
--
407,
From: Nasir
Uddin <Nasir.Uddin@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 09
August 2019 12:20
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Improvement
and Alteration Form [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Improvement and alterations form and policy.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Please complete and forward back to me.
Kind regards
Nasir Uddin Neighbourhood Officer
Housing Services Housing & Regeneration
Place Department Enfield Council the Edmonton Centre 36-44 South Mall Edmonton
Green N9 0TN
Email: nasir.uddin@enfield.gov.uk
Tel: 02083758008
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk
Protect the Environment - Think
Before You Print
'Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities'
We are consulting on our Housing
Strategy and our Homelessness Prevention Strategy - tell us what you think
THE RIGHT HOME FOR EVERYONE
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
408,
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
409,
410,
411,
412,
413,
414,
415,
416,
417,
418,
419,
420,
421,
422,
423,
424,
425,
426,
427,
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1.
2.
Mother
19-08-2019-10-09
19/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 428,429
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1. 2.
Mother 19-08-2019-10-09
19/08/2019
/ Page Numbers: 428,429
--
428,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
19/08/2019 10:09:24 PM
Subject: RE;
insurance
Attachments: public
liability insurance-2019.doc
here
429,
public liability
insurance-2019.doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 04/04/2019
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this Letter to
request the information relating to your public liability insurance, can you
please confirm the details of who your public liability insurance is held by
and the policy certificate details.
This would include all policy
certificate details held by for each year from 2014 to 2019. Could the
information please be sent via this email address?
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh.c Case - Withdrawal of the Case 3
22/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 430,431,432
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Case -
Withdrawal of the Case 3
22/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 430,431,432
--
430,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: LB
Enfield 21 Oct 2019.pdf
CL 22 Oct 2019.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell
I trust you are well.
I have good news in that the
Council have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent
incidents. Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter
dated 22 October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get
back to me with any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial
07515 121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2 t
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20
8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78 SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners -
Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
431,
432,
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1.
2.
Mother
23-10-2019-10-13
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 433,434,435
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1. 2.
Mother 23-10-2019-10-13
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 433,434,435
--
433,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 23/10/2019
10:13:56 AM
Subject: FW:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: LB Enfield 21 Oct 2019.pdf CL 22 Oct 2019.pdf
here is the email he has sent
you the letters in the post but please don't start calling Enfield Council as
that will just cause more problems you need this case to be dropped and it has
not been fully yet until you get a court letters to say it dropped.
mum
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case Dear Ms Cordell I trust you are well.
I have good news in that the
Council have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent
incidents. Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter
dated 22October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get
back to me with any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20
8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership
under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to inspection at the
registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by-mail
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners -
Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
434,
435,
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_001 5
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 436,437,438,439,440,441
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_001 5
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 436,437,438,439,440,441
--
436,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 23
October 2019 12:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ms Cordell
That is fine I can hold off
until Monday (the Council called me today requesting a response). However
legally as you have not been appointed as a litigation friend, yet by the
Court, if your son instructs us to refuse the offer we will need to comply (his
instructions override your instructions). Currently our instructions are to
refuse the offer.
Following on from this morning’s
telephone call, I am afraid that I have asked the office to not take calls from
your son any longer and to request anything to be put in writing from him. I
was unable to get through to your son and he began attacking me. Ordinarily we
would cease to act but we are aware of his underlying health issues.
Finally, I appreciate the
feeling of injustice but quite simply, the legal aid agency will only pay for a
case if there is a risk of eviction. Here there is no longer a risk of eviction
as the Council are offering to withdraw their case.
As an added precaution, the
consent order will need to be signed by your son - normally we would sign such
documents.
Please let me know next week or
over the weekend of your son's final instructions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
437,
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
October 23, 2019 12:34:47 PM
To: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: Re:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Hi Ronak
I do not think my son
understands fully can you hold off for a few days and let me speak to my son
please I have to do it in a way he understands.
Can you let me know please.
Regards
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Oct 2019, at 12:11, Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
wrote:
438,
Good afternoon
A consent order in this case
will say that the Councils case is dismissed. You will have a copy of this I’m
advance.
I have just spoken to your son on
the phone and had to terminate the call due to him shouting. Your son has said
he refuses to agree to the Councils offer and as he is the client, I will
follow through with this.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089 www.tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No:
221808878
SRA
No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
439,
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
October 23, 2019 11:26:24 AM
To: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ronak
Can you please explain what a
consent order is and what will be in this consent order, and can we be supplied
a copy of it before it goes to the court?
My son is really unhappy
regarding the way in which he has been treated by Enfield Council and the lies
in which they have told about him and the way in which they have made him
suffered and the fact that they could just start this backup at any time they want.
He said it seems funny that the
neighbours that caused all these issues and put in all the complaints and
Enfield Council believed 100% without once looking or seeing any evidence my
son had and we offered that many times but no Enfield Council just did what
they wanted and my son was suffering badly and had to deal with 4 cases against
him which Enfield Council took. It seems funny now that the neighbours got what
they wanted and was moved now Enfield Council does not have any complaints to
still want to take this to court.
Could it be maybe that Enfield
Council can't get them to come to court as witnesses now they have got what
they want. My son does not feel safe in that flat the court ordered them to
move my son on the 09/08/2019 yet Enfield Council done nothing and left him to
suffer and my son is still there.
Seems Enfield Council can just
get away with what they have done to my son, start a case when they want to and
end it will they want to is there a way that it can be asked at court that
Enfield Council cannot bring a new case with the same information in it as
what's in it now they have put the same information in 3 court cases and I
believe they should not be allowed to be able to use it again and again
whenever they want.
My son feels he should just go
to court and have this dealt with once and for all, but that could lead to my
son losing his home and that should not be allowed.
Regards
Lorraine
440,
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case Dear Ms Cordell I trust you are well.
I have good news in that the Council
have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent incidents.
Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter dated 22
October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get back to me with
any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515 121781
Office 0208 889
3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
441,
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh Badhan - D
Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
54.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_001 5
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 442,443,444,445,446
54.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
54. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_001 5
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 442,443,444,445,446
--
442,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 23
October 2019 12:15
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Your Son' Case – Withdrawal of the Case
I omitted to add that I advised
your son that the Legal Aid Agency will not fund a possession case where the
Landlord has offered to withdraw the case. You could decide to continue the
case, but it would be privately paid, and such costs easily amount to thousands
of pounds.
I will let the Council know
tomorrow that their offer to withdraw the case has been rejected. I will also
inform the Legal Aid Agency of the offer being made as I am duty bound.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No:
221808878
SRA No:
560748
443,
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
October 23, 2019 12:11:14 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Your
Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Good afternoon
A consent order in this case
will say that the Councils case is dismissed. You will have a copy of this I’m
advance.
I have just spoken to your son
on the phone and had to terminate the call due to him shouting. Your son has
said he refuses to agree to the Councils offer and as he is the client, I will
follow through with this.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
444,
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
October 23, 2019 11:26:24 AM
To: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ronak
Can you please explain what a
consent order is and what will be in this consent order, and can we be supplied
a copy of it before it goes to the court?
445,
My son is really unhappy
regarding the way in which he has been treated by Enfield Council and the lies
in which they have told about him and the way in which they have made him
suffered and the fact that they could just start this backup at any time they
want.
He said it seems funny that the
neighbours that caused all these issues and put in all the complaints and
Enfield Council believed 100% without once looking or seeing any evidence my
son had and we offered that many times but no Enfield Council just did what
they wanted and my son was suffering badly and had to deal with 4 cases against
him which Enfield Council took. It seems funny now that the neighbours got what
they wanted and was moved now Enfield Council does not have any complaints to
still want to take this to court.
Could it be maybe that Enfield
Council can't get them to come to court as witnesses now they have got what
they want. My son does not feel safe in that flat the court ordered them to
move my son on the 09/08/2019 yet Enfield Council done nothing and left him to
suffer and my son is still there.
Seems Enfield Council can just
get away with what they have done to my son, start a case when they want to and
end it will they want to is there a way that it can be asked at court that
Enfield Council cannot bring a new case with the same information in it as
what's in it now they have put the same information in 3 court cases and I
believe they should not be allowed to be able to use it again and again
whenever they want.
My son feels he should just go
to court and have this dealt with once and for all, but that could lead to my
son losing his home and that should not be allowed.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ms Cordell, I trust you are well.
I have good news in that the
Council have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent
incidents. Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter
dated 22 October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get
back to me with any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
446,
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221 8088 78 SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_002 3
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 447,448,449
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh. ce - Withdrawal of the Case_002 3
23/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 447,448,449
--
447,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 23
October 2019 12:11
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Re:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Good afternoon
A consent order in this case
will say that the Councils case is dismissed. You will have a copy of this I’m
advance.
I have just spoken to your son
on the phone and had to terminate the call due to him shouting. Your son has
said he refuses to agree to the Councils offer and as he is the client, I will
follow through with this.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Tel +44
(0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221808878
SRA No:
560748
448,
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
October 23, 2019 11:26:24 AM
To: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ronak
Can you please explain what a
consent order is and what will be in this consent order, and can we be supplied
a copy of it before it goes to the court?
My son is really unhappy
regarding the way in which he has been treated by Enfield Council and the lies
in which they have told about him and the way in which they have made him
suffered and the fact that they could just start this backup at any time they
want.
He said it seems funny that the
neighbours that caused all these issues and put in all the complaints and
Enfield Council believed 100% without once looking or seeing any evidence my
son had and we offered that many times but no Enfield Council just did what
they wanted and my son was suffering badly and had to deal with 4 cases against
him which Enfield Council took. It seems funny now that the neighbours got what
they wanted and was moved now Enfield Council does not have any complaints to
still want to take this to court.
Could it be maybe that Enfield
Council can't get them to come to court as witnesses now they have got what
they want. My son does not feel safe in that flat the court ordered them to
move my son on the 09/08/2019 yet Enfield Council done nothing and left him to
suffer and my son is still there.
Seems Enfield Council can just
get away with what they have done to my son, start a case when they want to and
end it will they want to is there a way that it can be asked at court that
Enfield Council cannot bring a new case with the same information in it as what's
in it now they have put the same information in 3 court cases and I believe
they should not be allowed to be able to use it again and again whenever they
want.
My son feels he should just go
to court and have this dealt with once and for all, but that could lead to my
son losing his home and that should not be allowed.
Regards
449,
Lorraine
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To: Lorraine
Cordell
Subject: RE: Your Son' Case -
Withdrawal of the Case Dear Ms Cordell I trust you are well.
I have good news in that the
Council have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent
incidents. Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter
dated 22 October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get
back to me with any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No:
221808878
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners -
Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1.
2.
Mother
24-10-2019 -12-22
24/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 450
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
56. 1. 2.
Mother 24-10-2019 -12-22
24/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 450
--
450,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 24/10/2019
12:22:24 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE:
MP3 Solicitor
You were not that bad but when
you started saying they have not done their job in so many ways that's what
done it. No solicitors will accept they are not working for your best interest.
(I told you this on the phone)
What you need to understand what
he is trying to say, which you just seem to think he is going against you is.
1. Enfield
Council started this case and it does not matter what you say Enfield Council
has the right to withdraw the case whenever they want, and for whatever reason
they want, and you cannot do anything about that.
2. Legal
Aid will see it you have chosen to carry on, and you was no longer at risk of
losing your home as Enfield Council was willing to withdraw the case, so they
are no longer legal bound to pay for you to carry on as at the stage Enfield
Council wanted to withdraw you did not wish to do so and by the withdrawal you
are no longer at risk, so you have chosen to carry on at the risk yourself of
losing your home and you did not care of the risk.
3. As I
tried to say to you yesterday you are better to allow them to withdraw and
allow your solicitors to get the case dismissed as that is what they were going
to address, Enfield Council had to dismiss there case against you which would
mean they did not have a case that would stand up which goes in your favour.
4. Once
this is done you would then have 3 cases that Enfield Council had dismissed
against you at the same court all for the same allegations, which would show
Enfield Council in bad light. Then you bring a case against Enfield Council for
what they have done the case is your case you don't have to pay for the
application to the court, and you can use the 3 cases that has been dismissed
which gives your case more grounds in your favour, also you would not be at
risk of losing your home as that will be off the table, so you are in a much
better place then Enfield Council would be, as it would not be there case but
yours. there is more to this, but I know you are not going to agree with
anything I am saying.
From: Rewired
[mailto: re_wired@ymail.com]
Sent: 23
October 2019 14:12
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: MP3
Solicitor
This is the only two times that I have
spoken to him. The 38 one is the newest and quickest to listen to.
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1.
1
Elections@enfield.gov9_RE
109 Burncroft Ave Enfield 2
28/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 451,452
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57. 1. 1
Elections@enfield.gov9_RE 109
Burncroft Ave Enfield 2
28/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 451,452
--
451,
From: Elections
<Elections@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 28
October 2019 11:38
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
109 Burncroft Ave Enfield
Good morning Lorraine,
Thank you for your email,
Unfortunately, the Household Enquiry
Form is dispatched to every address in the borough and address to 'The
Occupier' in case people have moved in/out. We would not be able to send this
or any other forms within the nature of electoral services to yourself in order
to complete for your son.
As you have confirmed he is the sole
occupant and I have managed to check this against local sources, I have now
taken the no change response and he will not be required to complete that form
and I can assure you he will not be fined.
Apologies for any distress caused,
Kind regards,
Stefanie Vales
Senior Electoral Services Officer Chief
Executives Department Electoral and Democratic Services Enfield Council
PO Box 50 Civic Centre Silver Street,
Enfield Middlesex, EN1 3ES
Direct Dial:
0208 379 3341
Main Office:
0208 379 8588
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 27
October 2019 12:14
To: Elections <Elections@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
109 Burncroft Ave Enfield
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email for my son Mr
Simon Cordell he lives at 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield EN3 7JQ.
Enfield Council knows my son has health
issues and everything that is sent to him should be sent to me so I can deal
with it, this is on Enfield Councils system, and I know he would have been sent
a form to register which he is meant to fill in or he can be fined.
I do not have the form in which to deal
with this and do not want my son to be fined due to not filling the form in.
452,
My son is the only person who
lives at the above address.
Could someone please get back to
me in order that I can deal with this for my son as soon as possible?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1.
1
Elections
@enfield.gov RE 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield 1
28/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 453
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
58. 1. 1
Elections @enfield.gov RE 109
Burncroft Ave Enfield 1
28/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 453
--
453,
From: Elections
<Elections@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 28
October 2019 11:34
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
RE: 109 Burncroft Ave Enfield
Importance: High
[Campaign] https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKENFIELD/subscriber/new?preferences=true
[Enfield]
http://www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
59.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh.c Case - Withdrawal of the Case 2
31/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 454,455
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Case -
Withdrawal of the Case 2
31/10/2019
/ Page Numbers: 454,455
--
454,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 31
October 2019 14:36
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email dated
28 October 2019. You state “But I do think this is wrong that Enfield Council
has put this on my son when Enfield Council know at this point no-one has been
appointed for Simon by the court to act in his best interest. Enfield Council
is well aware as it has been stated in their application that my son lacks
capacity to litigate and give appropriate instructions in his defence.”. We
cannot file a defence as the claim is being terminated. If the case had
continued, then we would have had to prepare and file a Defence after the
hearing in December 2019 - this is what I was expecting to occur.
I have let the Legal Aid Agency
know of the Council’s offer to discontinue the claim. I will telephone Simon
Cordell in the next day or so (unless you come back to me first) and ask again
if he has changed his mind. The Agency are likely to terminate funding given
the offer received. I will then let the Council’s lawyer know of the decision
of Simon. If the claim is not agreed to be terminated, then at the next hearing
the Judge will dismiss the Claim - as the Council want. So by Simon refusing to
agree to terminate, all that is occurring is that the Council is being forced
to attend the next hearing.
You also state in your above
email “If Enfield Council have instructed their solicitors to discontinue, they
should just do this, and not put costs first over welfare knowing no one has
been appointed for Simon by the court at this stage.” This is not correct - if
the Council wishes to end the Claim, they have to obtain the Defendant’s
consent or the permission of the Court (The Council cannot just end the Claim).
The latter option costs money as you can appreciate in court fees etc.
Therefore the Council wants an agreement to be reached without a court hearing
or having to ask the Court to end the claim- it is the cheaper option.
I would be grateful if you could
explain this point to Simon the best you can.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20
8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
455,
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us
as soon as possible.
Partners -
Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh.c Case - Withdrawal of the Case 4
05/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 456,457,458,459
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Case -
Withdrawal of the Case 4
05/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 456,457,458,459
--
456,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 05
November 2019 14:25
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: CL 5-nov 2019.pdf.
LB Enfield 5 Nov 2019.pdf
Good afternoon I trust you are well.
The lawyer for the Council telephoned
me again today and I explained the situation. I have today written a letter to
the Council which is attached and sent a copy to Simon Cordell also attached.
I think what will next happen is the
Legal Aid contact us and then seek to terminate the Public Funding.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
457,
RE: Your
Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case-CL 5-nov
2019.pdf
Family and Housing Law
Specialists
Mr Simon Cordell 4 Crompton Place
Enfield Middlesex EN3 6XS
Our Ref: RA/007034.01
Your Ref:
Partners
D. Shanmuganathan Ph.D. (Wales)
Solicitor-Advocate Mukesh Badhan*/** Vasoulla Constantinou**** Consultants Eleni
Nicolaou*** Philip Eldin-Taylor*** Solicitor-Advocate Ronak Ahmed Sally Goldman
Trainee Solicitor Nitu Johal Paralegal Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Date: 5 November 2019
Dear Mr Cordell
RE: Your Housing Possession Matter
Please find enclosed a letter dated 5
November 2019 sent to the London Borough of Enfield confirming that you do not
agree to their proposal to withdraw the claim. Additionally, we have informed
the Legal Aid Agency of the offer made by the Council and it is likely that
they will withdraw the Public Funding shortly as they will consider that
further costs are not justified.
We did leave a voicemail for you on 1 Nov
2019 at 16:16 to see if you had changed your mind after calming down but to
date you have not contacted us back. You may recall that the previous telephone
conversation was terminated abruptly due to your conduct.
Yours faithfully
rahmed
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL.B
LL.M Solicitor (Consultant)
1 St Michaels Terrace, London
N22 7SJ
Tel: 020
8889 3319
Fax: 020
8881 6089 DX: 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Email:
info@tvrerroxbureh.co.uk
Authority *PANEL CBE3
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
Authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited
liability partnership under SRA
no.560748. A list of the
members' names is open to inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
458,
RE: Your
Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case->LB Enfield 5
Nov 2019.pdf
Family and Housing Law
Specialists
Attention: Ms Kulwinder Johal Legal
Services, The London Borough of Enfield PO Box 50, Civic Centre Enfield EN1 3AA
Our Ref:
RA/007034.01
Your Ref:
LS/C/KJ/159272
Partners
D. Shanmuganathan Ph.D. (Wales)
Solicitor-Advocate Mukesh Badhan*/** Vasoulla Constantinou**** Consultants Eleni
Nicolaou*** Philip Eldin-Taylor*** Solicitor-Advocate Ronak Ahmed Sally Goldman
Trainee Solicitor Nitu Johal Paralegal Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Date: 05
November 2019
Dear Sirs
RE: LB Enfield v Simon Cordell CLAIM:
F00ED222
Further to recent telephone
conversations, we can confirm that we have conveyed the contents of your letter
dated 21 October 2019 to both our client and his mother. We remind you that our
client suffers from serious mental health issues and there is currently no
litigation friend appointed which places us in difficulties in relation to
disposing of this matter.
Our client has instructed us
that he does not agree to the terms as stipulated in your above letter. The
reason for this is that our client feels a great injustice has been inflicted
upon him due to the false allegations founding the current claim and by it
being discontinued, our Client is being deprived of his day in court.
As discussed, you may file a
notice of discontinuance to the Court immediately or wait until the hearing on
12 December 2019 and ask the Court to dismiss the Claim. Should Public Funding
be terminated, please note that we will not attend that hearing but is it
likely that our client will attend.
1 St Michaels Terrace, London
N22 7SJ
Tel: 020
8889 3319
Fax: 020
8881 6089
DX: 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Email:
info@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authority *PANEL CBE3
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
Authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited
liability partnership under SRA
no.560748. A list of the
members' names is open to inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
459,
We will of course, update you
should our instructions change but this is unlikely to be the case.
Yours faithfully
Rahmed
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208
889 3319
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1.
2.
Mother
08-11-2019 -11-48
08/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 460,461,462
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 1. 2.
Mother 08-11-2019 -11-48
08/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 460,461,462
--
460,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
08/11/2019 11:48:08 AM
Subject: FW:
A/C No. 13039124P Name Mr SIMON PAUL CORDELL Account in London North East
see here
From:
Ansen, Simone [mailto: Simone.Ansen@justice.gov.uk]
On Behalf Of NCESCCC
Sent: 08
November 2019 10:50
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: A/C
No. 13039124P Name Mr SIMON PAUL CORDELL Account in London North East Good
Morning,
Please see a breakdown of
payment below:
22/07/2013 |
TTPAY BD 19/08/2013 |
UE |
|
01/07/2014 |
TTPAY Ł20.00 MO 23/09/2014 |
MD |
|
26/09/2014 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
23/10/2014 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
24/11/2014 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
18/12/2014 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
22/12/2014 |
ACCOUNT CONSOLIDATED |
|
Ł0.00 |
14060821C IA TOTAL PAID |
|
CR |
|
22/12/2014 |
ACCOUNT CONSOLIDATED |
|
Ł0.00 |
14060824N IA TOTAL PAID |
|
CR |
|
15/01/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
12/02/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
27/02/2015 |
ACCOUNT CONSOLIDATED |
|
Ł0.00 |
15010349C VN TOTAL PAID |
|
CR |
|
27/02/2015 |
ACCOUNT CONSOLIDATED |
|
Ł0.00 |
15010360N VN TOTAL PAID |
|
CR |
|
13/03/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
10/04/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
08/05/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
05/06/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
03/07/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
04/08/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
26/08/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
DH |
Ł20.00 CR |
24/09/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
21/10/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
20/11/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
DH |
Ł20.00 CR |
17/12/2015 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
15/01/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
12/02/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
11/03/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
461,
08/04/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
06/05/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
03/06/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
30/06/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
27/07/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
24/08/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
21/09/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
WZ |
Ł20.00 CR |
24/10/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
WZ |
Ł20.00 CR |
21/11/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
14/12/2016 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
11/01/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
08/02/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
DH |
Ł20.00 CR |
09/03/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
05/04/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
FP |
Ł20.00 CR |
16/06/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
02/09/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
OB |
Ł20.00 CR |
04/01/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
OB |
Ł20.00 CR |
04/10/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
GS |
Ł20.00 CR |
24/10/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł10.00 CR |
16/11/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
13/12/2017 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
10/01/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
07/02/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
08/03/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
05/04/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
02/05/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
31/05/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
28/06/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
26/07/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
23/08/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
21/09/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
17/10/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
16/11/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
12/12/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
DP |
Ł20.00 CR |
462,
15/01/2019 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
KC |
Ł20.00 CR |
08/02/2019 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
DP |
Ł20.00 CR |
12/12/2018 |
PAYMNT CT |
|
DP |
Ł20.00 CR |
Thanks
Simone
HMCTS Enforcement Contact Centre
| HMCTS/GLITEM | Wales |
Phone: 01633
645112
Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts
For information on how HMCTS
uses personal data about you, please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-
courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter
This e-mail and any attachments
are intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
62.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1.
2.
Mother
12-11-2019-11-25
12/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 463,464,465,466,467,468,469
62.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1. 2.
Mother 12-11-2019-11-25
12/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 463,464,465,466,467,468,469
--
463,
From:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 12/11/2019
11:25:44 AM
Subject: RE;
DWP-Letter-30-10-2019-Rent-Statment-2019
Attachments: Simon-Rent-Account-2019.pdf
Simon-DWP-30-10-2019.pdf
Please see attached
464,
465,
466,
467,
468,
469,
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh.c Case - Withdrawal of the Case 4
20/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 470,471,472,473
63.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
63. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c Case -
Withdrawal of the Case 4
20/11/2019
/ Page Numbers: 470,471,472,473
--
470,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 20
November 2019 19:49
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: 23799436_15871692.PDF
CL20-nov-2019.pdf
Good afternoon I trust you are
well.
Please find attached a copy of a
letter sent to your son and a notification from the Legal Aid Agency dated 20
November 2019.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners -
Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
471,
RE: Your
Son’ Case - Withdrawal of the
Case->23799436_15871692.PDF
Legal Aid Agency
Legal Aid Agency
1
PO BOX 10619
Nottingham
NG66DX
DX 324205
Nottingham 59
Telephone: 0300
200 2020
TYRER ROXBURGH SOLICITORS LLP
Our Ref: 300000520852
Your Ref: RA/007034.02
Date:
20/11/2019
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: SIMON CORDELL
We refer to the client's Legal
Aid certificate, which was issued on 15/02/2019.
The certificate was placed under
review on 20/11/2019 for the following reasons:
· Your
case has been reviewed in the light of an offer to discontinue pursuit of the
claim by the claimant. It is therefore unreasonable for further funding to be
given by civil legal aid under the relevant Funding Code criteria or the
equivalent regulations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012.
You are entitled to reply to
this certificate embargo with your reasons as to why you feel legal aid funding
should continue. Please be advised that, if no reply is received within 21
days, a decision will be made as to whether the certificate should be
discharged.
Any work undertaken after the
review date will not be covered under your certificate, unless we decide that
this can continue.
If you think Legal Aid should
continue, please contact us within 14 days of the date of this letter to
provide full reasons. Please note that if you do not take the action required
within this time the certificate will be discharged.
We have written to the client
separately to advise them.
If you have any questions or
queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Details can be found at the top
of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
472,
Ms Jane E Harbottle
Head of Civil Case Management
473,
RE: Your
Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case->CL
20-nov-2019.pdf
Family and Housing Law
Specialists
Mr Simon Cordell 4 Crompton
Place Enfield Middlesex EN3 6XS
Our Ref: RA/007034.01
Your Ref:
Partners
D. Shanmuganathan Ph.D. (Wales)
Solicitor-Advocate Mukesh Badhan*/** Vasoulla Constantinou**** Consultants
Eleni Nicolaou*** Philip Eldin-Taylor*** Solicitor-Advocate Ronak Ahmed Sally
Goldman Trainee Solicitor Nitu Johal Paralegal Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Date: 20
November 2019
Dear Mr Cordell
RE: Your
Housing Possession Matter
Please find enclosed a letter
dated 20 November 2019 from the Legal Aid Agency which states that Public
Funding will be terminated as the Claimant has offered to withdraw the case.
Should Public Funding be terminated then we will close your case and you will
need to represent yourself.
If you wish to have Funding
continue then please contact the Legal Aid Agency on 0300 200 2020
Yours sincerely
rahmed
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
1 St Michaels Terrace, London
N22 7SJ
Tel: 020
8889 3319
Fax: 020
8881 6089
DX: 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Email:
info@tvrerroxbureh.co.uk
Authority *PANEL CBE3
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
Authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited
liability partnership under SRA no.560748. A list of the members' names is open
to inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 1.
2.
Mother
02-12-2019 -12-58
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 474,475,476
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 1. 2.
Mother 02-12-2019 -12-58
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 474,475,476
--
474,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
02/12/2019 12:58:17 PM
Subject: FW:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: LB Enfield 21 Oct
2019.pdf
CL-22 Oct 2019.pdf
see letters
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto: ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 22
October 2019 20:30
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE: Your
Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Dear Ms Cordell, I trust you are
well.
I have good news in that the
Council have decided to not pursue the case further due to a lack of recent
incidents. Please see attached their letter received recently and our letter
dated 22October 2019 sent to your son.
Please speak to your son and get
back to me with any questions.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by Email.
Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
475,
476,
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1.
2.
Mother
02-12-2019-12-51
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 477,478
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 1. 2.
Mother 02-12-2019-12-51
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 477,478
--
477,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
02/12/2019 12:51:02 PM
Subject: RE:
your sol letter
Attachments: CL 22 Oct 2019-si-sol-001.pdf
here look
478,
CL 22 Oct
2019-si-sol-001.pdf
Family and Housing Law
Specialists
Mr Simon Cordell 4 Crompton
Place Enfield Middlesex EN3 6XS
Our Ref: RA/007034.01
Your Ref:
Partners
D. Shanmuganathan Ph.D. (Wales) Solicitor-Advocate
Mukesh Badhan*/** Vasoulla Constantinou**** Consultants Eleni Nicolaou***
Philip Eldin-Taylor*** Solicitor-Advocate Ronak Ahmed Sally Goldman Trainee
Solicitor Nitu Johal Paralegal Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Date: 22
October 2019
Dear Mr Cordell
RE: Your
Housing Possession Matter
Please find enclosed a letter
dated 21 October 2019 from the London Borough of Enfield confirming that they
do not wish to proceed with the case to evict you. This is good news.
Please do bear in mind that a
new case can be started if the Council find that there are fresh complaints in
the future.
We will shortly begin
to agree terms of a consent order to formally terminate the case at the Courts.
Thereafter we shall close the case. If you have any questions, please get in
touch.
Yours faithfully
rahmed
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
1 St Michaels Terrace, London
N22 7SJ
Tel: 020
8889 3319
Fax: 020
8881 6089 DX: 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Email:
info@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authority *PANEL C1BB1
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
Authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited
liability partnership under SRA no.560748. A list of the members' names is open
to inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1.
2.
Mother
02-12-2019-12-56
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 479,480,481,482
66.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
66. 1. 2.
Mother 02-12-2019-12-56
02/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 479,480,481,482
--
479,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
02/12/2019 12:56:00 PM
Subject: FW:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case
Attachments: 23799436-15871692.PDF
CL 20-nov-2019.pdf
please see attached letters
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto: ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 20
November 2019 19:49
To:
Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Withdrawal of the Case Good afternoon I trust you are well.
Please find attached a copy of a
letter sent to your son and a notification from the Legal Aid Agency dated 20
November 2019.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889
3319
Email ronak@tvrerroxburah.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221808878
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain privileged
information and is only intended to be received by the person to whom it is
addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
480,
23799436-15871692.PDF
Legal Aid Agency
Legal Aid Agency
1 PO BOX 10619
Nottingham
NG66DX
DX
324205 Nottingham 59
Telephone: 0300
200 2020
TYRER ROXBURGH SOLICITORS LLP
Our Ref:
300000520852
Your Ref: RA/007034.02
Date: 20/11/2019
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: SIMON
CORDELL
We refer to the client's Legal
Aid certificate, which was issued on 15/02/2019.
The certificate was placed under
review on 20/11/2019 for the following reasons:
• Your case has been reviewed in
the light of an offer to discontinue pursuit of the claim by the claimant. It
is therefore unreasonable for further funding to be given by civil legal aid
under the relevant Funding Code criteria or the equivalent regulations under
the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
You are entitled to reply to
this certificate embargo with your reasons as to why you feel legal aid funding
should continue. Please be advised that, if no reply is received within 21
days, a decision will be made as to whether the certificate should be
discharged.
Any work undertaken after the
review date will not be covered under your certificate, unless we decide that
this can continue.
If you think Legal Aid should
continue, please contact us within 14 days of the date of this letter to
provide full reasons. Please note that if you do not take the action required
within this time the certificate will be discharged.
We have written to the client
separately to advise them.
If you have any questions or
queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Details can be found at the top
of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
481,
Ms Jane E Harbottle
Head of Civil Case Management
482,
CL 20-nov-2019.pdf
Family and Housing Law
Specialists
Mr Simon Cordell 4 Crompton
Place Enfield Middlesex EN3 6XS
Our Ref:
RA/007034.01
Your Ref:
Partners
D. Shanmuganathan Ph.D. (Wales)
Solicitor-Advocate Mukesh Badhan*/** Vasoulla Constantinou**** Consultants
Eleni Nicolaou*** Philip Eldin-Taylor*** Solicitor-Advocate Ronak Ahmed Sally
Goldman Trainee Solicitor Nitu Johal Paralegal Shelaine Stanley-Mitchell
Date: 20
November 2019
Dear Mr Cordell
RE: Your
Housing Possession Matter
Please find enclosed a letter dated
20 November 2019 from the Legal Aid Agency which states that Public Funding
will be terminated as the Claimant has offered to withdraw the case. Should
Public Funding be terminated then we will close your case and you will need to
represent yourself.
If you wish to have Funding
continue then please contact the Legal Aid Agency on 0300 200 2020
Yours sincerely
rahmed
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
1 St Michaels Terrace, London
N22 7SJ
Tel: 020
8889 3319
Fax: 020
8881 6089
DX: 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Email:
info@tvrerroxbureh.co.uk
Authority *PANEL C1BB1
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
Authorised and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited
liability partnership under SRA no.560748. A list of the members' names is open
to inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1.
1
Ronak
@tyrerroxburgh.c Termination of Public Funding 6
08/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 483,484,485,486,487,488
67.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
67. 1. 1
Ronak @tyrerroxburgh.c
Termination of Public Funding 6
08/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 483,484,485,486,487,488
--
483,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 08
December 2019 23:31
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: RE:
Your Son' Case - Termination of Public Funding
Attachments: Cert
Discharged-24094496-16073974.pdf
Dear Ms Cordell
Please find attached a letter
dated 5 December 2019 which confirms that your son’s case has no Legal Aid.
Therefore there is no funding to cover the Court hearing on 12 December 2019
and we shall not be attending.
I would be grateful if you could
speak to your son about this issue.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
TR TYRER ROXBURGH
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Authorised by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership
under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to inspection at the
registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail
Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
484,
RE: Your
Son’ Case - Termination of Public Funding->Cert
Discharged 24094496_16073974.pdf
Legal Aid Agency
Legal Aid Agency
1 PO BOX 10619
Nottingham
NG66DX
DX 324205
Nottingham 59
Telephone: 0300 200 2020
TYRER ROXBURGH SOLICITORS LLP
Our Ref: 300000520852
Your Ref:
RA/007034.02
Date: 05/12/2019
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: SIMON CORDELL
The above certificate, granted
on 15/02/2019, has been discharged with effect from 05/12/2019 for the
following reasons:
· This
certificate has been discharged, effective from the date of this letter, for
the reasons listed below.
Your case has been reviewed in
the light of an offer to discontinue pursuit of the claim by the claimant. It
is therefore unreasonable for further funding to be given by civil legal aid
under the relevant Funding Code criteria or the equivalent regulations under
the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
We have attached a copy of the
cancelled certificate.
Please note that if you continue
to work on this case on a private basis, you are obliged to report the outcome
to us when the matter concludes. You will also need to notify us of any monies
awarded to the client as a result of the proceedings, in accordance with
Regulation 49 of the CLS (Financial) Regulations 2000.
If you wish to request an
appeal/review in relation to the discharge of the above certificate, this will
need to be submitted online within 14 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any questions or
queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Details can be found at the top
of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Ms Jane E Harbottle
Head of Civil Case Management
485,
CIVIL LEGAL AID CERTIFICATE
Reference Number: 300000520852
Agency
Client Name |
SIMON
CORDELL |
|
Client
Address |
109,
Burncroft Avenue ENFIELD Middlesex EN3 7JQ |
|
Firm
Name |
TYRER
ROXBURGH SOLICITORS LLP |
|
Fee
Earner |
|
|
Provider
Internal Reference |
RA/007034.02 |
|
Office
Address |
1
ST MICHAELS TERRACE WOOD GREEN LONDON N22 7SJ |
|
Opponent
Details |
Guardian
Name |
Guardian
Address |
London
Borough of Enfield Council |
|
|
This
is to
certify that the status of the Certificate is as specified in the 'Certificate
Summary' box below. Its scope is specified in the 'Notice' overleaf. It covers
the proceedings listed overleaf and is subject to the limitations and
conditions listed overleaf.
The date and limitations on
substantive certificates issued on or after 13th October 2015 are effective
from the date of issue of the emergency (if an emergency has been issued).
Certificate Summary |
|
Substantive
Certificate Status: |
Discharged |
Effective
Date: |
15/02/2019 |
End
Date: |
05/12/2019 |
Reinstatement
Date: |
|
Cost
Limitation: |
Ł2,250.00 |
Cost
Limitation effective date: |
20/03/2019 |
Certificate
Limitation: |
N/A |
This
certificate imposes both scope and financial limitations on the work to be
done under it. |
|
Solicitors
should check the limitations imposed carefully and apply for an amendment
where appropriate. |
486,
Payment will not be made for
work undertaken outside the scope specified or
in excess of the costs limit.
487,
NOTICE
Proceeding(s)
CATEGORY OF LAW: Housing
Recover possession - tenant -
Housing |
Current
Status: |
|
to
be represented in an action for possession of property and/or demotion of
tenancy and, if appropriate, for arrears of rent and/or other remedies in the
same action. |
||
Date
work can commence on the above proceeding: |
15/02/2019 |
|
Proceeding
end date: |
|
|
Client
involvement type: |
Defendant/respondent |
|
Form
of Service: |
Full
Representation |
|
Date
current Form of Service effective: |
15/02/2019 |
|
Previous
Form of Service: |
|
|
Date
previous Form of Service effective: |
|
|
Limitation |
Effective
Date End Date |
|
Limited
to all steps up to and including the hearing on 8 March 2019 |
15/02/2019
12/04/2019 |
|
Limited
to all steps up to and including trial/final hearing and any action to
implement (but not enforce) the judgment or order. |
20/03/2019 |
|
488,
Legal Aid Agency
Address
PO BOX 10619 Nottingham NG66DX
Signed
Ms Jane E Harbottle
Head of Civil Case Management
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1.
1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_12.11.2019_
3
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 489,490,491
68.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
68. 1. 1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_12.11.2019_
3
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 489,490,491
--
489,
From: Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 11
December 2019 17:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Attachments: 20191211184453485.pdf
Dear Lorraine
Please see the attached the
order.
D Shanmuganathan Partner
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial
+44 (0)20 8829 2943
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704
WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44
(0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44
(0)20 8881 6089
Christmas Opening Hours
The office will close on Tuesday
24th December 2019 at 13:00pm- reopening at 09:00am on Thursday 2nd January
2020 at 9.00am We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability
partnership under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to
inspection at the registered office.
VAT REG No: 221
8088 78
SRA No: 560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid
Agency
We do not accept service of
documents or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain
privileged information and is only intended to be received by the person to
whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners P Mukesh Badhan D
Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
490,
'
491,
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1.
1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_12.11.2019__001
3
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 492,493,494
69.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
69. 1. 1
Sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_12.11.2019__001
3
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 492,493,494
--
492,
From: Sean
Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 11
December 2019 17:35
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Attachments: 20191211184453485.pdf
Dear Lorraine
Please see the attached the order.
D Shanmuganathan Partner
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Direct Dial
+44 (0)20 8829 2943
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089
Christmas Opening Hours
The office will close on Tuesday 24th
December 2019 at 13:00pm- reopening at 09:00am on Thursday 2nd January 2020 at
9.00am We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Authorised by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership
under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to inspection at the
registered office.
VAT REG No:
221 8088 78
SRA No:
560748
Contracted with the Legal Aid Agency
We do not accept service of documents or
other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain privileged
information and is only intended to be received by the person to whom it is
addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners P Mukesh Badhan D
Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
493,
494,
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder
Cordell Claim Number
FOOED222
1
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 495
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder Cordell
Claim Number
FOOED222 1
11/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 495
--
495,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with regard to
a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell solicitor,
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order dated
the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton Country
Court received a consent order at the court on the 5th
December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown
made a court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this consent
order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone agreed to it
or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been agreed upon or
signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
12.12.2019_Auto reply
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 496,497,498
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
12.12.2019_Auto reply
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 496,497,498
--
496,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:35
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto
reply
**
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS **
Thank you for your email, which has been
received by the court. Depending on the nature of your email you may receive a
response via email or post.
What documents can be sent by email?
You can send all letters and documents
relevant to the case including adoption cases. However, due to the sensitive
nature of adoption work the court will only send emails to secure email
accounts. If a hard copy of a document has been filed at court by DX or
Post, an electronic copy should not be sent. As yet please note that
court bundles are not part of this process and will not be printed.
For more information regarding e-mails
please go to the following http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/email-guidance
What is a secure email account?
An email account is considered secure
when security measures are in place to make sure the data in the email can’t be
accessed by users without the relevant approval. Any account that ends in the
following is considered secured: gsi, pnn, gsx, gcsx, gse, cjsm, and nhs.net.
What emails will HMCTS accept?
To make sure we operate this service as
efficiently and effectively as possible there are exemptions.
All Civil and Family process,
applications and documents will be accepted by email as long as when the entire
email is printed out it is not more than 50 pages. This should include the
email, all attachments (including any documents embedded in another) and enough
copies to serve on required parties.
Please note that:
40. A
page is one side, so 50 pages equals 25 pieces of paper printed on both sides.
41. Do
not use more than one email to take any step in a case which requires a
document or documents to be filed.
DOCUMENTS FOR HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PD, 5B.2. FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE PD 5B
You have received an order to attend
court for a hearing.
It would greatly assist the court staff
if you could ensure documents you file into court have a hearing date endorsed
on the covering letter, paperwork or email.
This will then enable the court staff
to identify the document is placed on file in readiness for the hearing.
Please note, if the court is unaware of
the pending hearing, when you file your documents, this may result in the
document not reaching the court file in time for the hearing.
Can processes that carry a fee be sent
by email?
In both Civil and Family cases court
processes that carry a fee can also be received by email and processed by court
staff. However the same conditions as above must apply and in addition the
party issuing the process must either quote a Fee Account number, or the party
who wants to pay has a valid credit or debit card. If you wish to pay using
this method, please say this on the
497,
email and include a contact number for
the Court to contact you to take payment.
What is Fee Account?
This is a Direct Debit function that is
quick, safe and easy to use. It is available for
solicitors and large organisations. Once you have set up an account all you
need is to provide your fee account number within the body of the email. The
fee will then be deducted from your account. For more information and to apply
for Fee Account please visit www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees/payment-by-account.
Any document submitted that breaches
any of the above terms will remain unprocessed. This is in line with Court
Practice Directions 5BPD.1 - 5BPD.9.3.
When you email the court the subject
line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -
42. The
claim numbers
43. The
title of the claim (abbreviated if necessary) **
44. The
subject matter (e.g. defence)
45. If
relating to a hearing the date and time of hearing in bold black
46. The
judge’s name, where the correspondence/document is for their attention
**If your email is in relation to a
family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain the name,
telephone number and email address of the sender. Correspondence and
documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice
form, it must be sent in that form by attachment. The complete email (including
any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb.
The rest of this automated message
provides information that customers often find useful.
Edmonton County Court
The public counter services are no
longer available at this court.
Urgent applications and processes that
need to be dealt with in person will be through an appointment only system.
Users should contact the court on 0208 8846510 between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm
Monday to Friday to make an appointment.
The main telephone number for Civil and
Family enquiries is 0208 884 6500 Gold fax 0870 3240314
Our address is The County Court at
Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London, N18 2TN DX 136686 Edmonton 3
The court building is open between 9.00
am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday.
We have a secure drop box located in
reception for personal deliveries to the court, which is opened once a day at
9.00 am Monday to Friday.
Website links
Information on Court forms and fees can
be also be obtained from www.justice.gov.uk Issuing
a claim for Money or Possession of Property - MCOL & PCOL
498,
If you would like to issue a claim for money
or property you can do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by visiting: www.moneydaim.gov.uk or
www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.You
will save money by issuing a claim for possession of property or a money claim
online rather than sending it to the court.
Legal Advice
If you are uncertain how to proceed,
the Civil Procedure Rules available on the Ministry of Justice website -
http://www.justice.gov.uk
- provide details. On many occasions it is best for
people to seek professional legal advice from a solicitor, legal executive,
legal advice agency or Citizens Advice Bureau. You can also contact Civil Legal
Advice on 0845 345 4 345 or via their website.
For information on how HMCTS uses
personal data about you please see:
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1. 1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
12.12.2019_Auto reply_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 499,500,501
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1. 1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
12.12.2019_Auto reply_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 499,500,501
--
499,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 00:00
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto
reply
**
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS **
Thank you for your email, which has
been received by the court. Depending on the nature of your email you may
receive a response via email or post.
What documents can be sent by email?
You can send all letters and documents
relevant to the case including adoption cases. However, due to the sensitive
nature of adoption work the court will only send emails to secure email
accounts. If a hard copy of a document has been filed at court by DX or
Post, an electronic copy should not be sent. As yet please note that
court bundles are not part of this process and will not be printed.
For more information regarding e-mails
please go to the following http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/email-guidance
What is a secure email account?
An email account is considered secure
when security measures are in place to make sure the data in the email can’t be
accessed by users without the relevant approval. Any account that ends in the
following is considered secured: gsi, pnn, gsx, gcsx, gse, cjsm, and nhs.net.
What emails will HMCTS accept?
To make sure we operate this service as
efficiently and effectively as possible there are exemptions.
All Civil and Family process,
applications and documents will be accepted by email as long as when the entire
email is printed out it is not more than 50 pages. This should include the
email, all attachments (including any documents embedded in another) and enough
copies to serve on required parties.
Please note that:
47. A
page is one side, so 50 pages equals 25 pieces of paper printed on both sides.
48. Do
not use more than one email to take any step in a case which requires a
document or documents to be filed.
DOCUMENTS FOR HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PD, 5B.2. FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE PD 5B
You have received an order to attend
court for a hearing.
It would greatly assist the court staff
if you could ensure documents you file into court have a hearing date endorsed
on the covering letter, paperwork, or email.
This will then enable the court staff
to identify the document is placed on file in readiness for the hearing.
Please note, if the court is unaware of
the pending hearing, when you file your documents, this may result in the document
not reaching the court file in time for the hearing.
Can processes that carry a fee be sent
by email?
In both Civil and Family cases court
processes that carry a fee can also be received by email and processed by court
staff. However the same conditions as above must apply and in addition the
party issuing the process must either quote a Fee Account number, or the party
who wants to pay has a valid credit or debit card. If you wish to pay using
this method, please say this on the
500,
email and include a contact number for
the Court to contact you to take payment.
What is Fee Account?
This is a Direct Debit function that is
quick, safe, and easy to use. It is available for solicitors and large
organisations. Once you have set up an account all you need is to provide your
fee account number within the body of the email. The fee will then be deducted
from your account. For more information and to apply for Fee Account please
visit www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees/payment-by-account.
Any document submitted that breaches
any of the above terms will remain unprocessed. This is in line with Court
Practice Directions 5BPD.1 - 5BPD.9.3.
When you email the court the subject
line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -
49. The
claim numbers
50. The
title of the claim (abbreviated if necessary) **
51. The
subject matter (e.g. defence)
52. If
relating to a hearing the date and time of hearing in bold black
53. The
judge’s name, where the correspondence/document is for their attention
**If your email is in relation to a
family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain the name,
telephone number and email address of the sender. Correspondence and
documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice
form, it must be sent in that form by attachment. The complete email (including
any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb.
The rest of this automated message
provides information that customers often find useful.
Edmonton County Court
The public counter services are no
longer available at this court.
Urgent applications and processes that need
to be dealt with in person will be through an appointment only system. Users
should contact the court on 0208 8846510 between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm Monday to
Friday to make an appointment.
The main telephone number for Civil and
Family enquiries is 0208 884 6500 Gold fax 0870 3240314
Our address is The County Court at
Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London, N18 2TN DX 136686 Edmonton 3
The court building is open between 9.00
am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday.
We have a secure drop box located in
reception for personal deliveries to the court, which is opened once a day at
9.00 am Monday to Friday.
Website links
Information on Court forms and fees can
be also be obtained from www.justice.gov.uk Issuing
a claim for Money or Possession of Property - MCOL & PCOL
501,
If you would like to issue a claim for
money or property you can do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by visiting: www.moneydaim.gov.uk or
www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.You
will save money by issuing a claim for possession of property or a money claim
online rather than sending it to the court.
Legal Advice
If you are uncertain how to proceed,
the Civil Procedure Rules available on the Ministry of Justice website -
http://www.justice.gov.uk
- provide details. On many occasions it is best for
people to seek professional legal advice from a solicitor, legal executive,
legal advice agency or Citizens Advice Bureau. You can also contact Civil Legal
Advice on 0845 345 4 345 or via their website.
For information on how HMCTS uses
personal data about you please see:
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1.
1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read
RE FOOED222
Enfield
Council V Simon Cordell
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 502,503
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1. 1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read RE FOOED222
Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 502,503
--
502,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
RE: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Attachments: Read: RE: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
(10.1KB)
Importance: High
This e-mail and any attachments are
intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use,
disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended
recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail. This e-mail
(whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded, and
retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking software may be
used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to
ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their
contents.
503,
Read: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell->Read_ RE_ FOOED222 Enfield Council
V Simon Cordell (10.1 KB).msg
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries [enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk]
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41:13
Subject: Read:
RE: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell Your message
To: Edmonton County, Enquiries
Subject: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Sent: 12/12/2019
00:00
was read on 12/12/2019 09:41
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1.
1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Automatic
reply RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FO
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 504
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1. 1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Automatic reply RE
Simon Cordell Claim Number FO
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 504
--
504,
From: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 20:11
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Automatic
reply: RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number:
FOOED222
I am on annual leave on 13, 16 and 17
December 2019. I shall return to the office on 18 December. During my absence I
will not have access to my emails until my return. If your matter is urgent
please refer to Antonia Makanjuola on Antonia.makanjuola@enfield.gov.uk
or
Jill Bayley on Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk.
Kind regards,
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring
in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for viruses, but we
cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient
should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication
from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient
and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in
relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and
malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an
innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and
more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in;
Security, archiving and compliance.
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1.
1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Author
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 505,506
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222 Author
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 505,506
--
505,
From: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number
FOOED222 Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails
this morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will
advise Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of Authority,
could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From:
Lorraine Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I
received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh
Solicitors.
506,
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards Lorraine Cordell
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1.
1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Auth
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 507,508
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 1. 1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222 Auth
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 507,508
--
507,
From: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:17
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Attachments: Read: RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number:
FOOED222 Authority (10.9 KB)
[Campaign]
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
508,
Read: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority->Read_ RE_ Simon Cordell Claim
Number FOOED222 Authority (10.9 KB).msg
From: Kulwinder
Johal [Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:16:36
Subject: Read:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Attachments: winmail.dat
(6 KB)
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1.
1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 509,510
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 1. 1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.12.2019_Read Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 509,510
--
509,
From: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 07:46
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Attachments: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 (10.7KB)
[Campaign]
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
510,
Read: Simon Cordell Claim Number
FOOED222-> Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 (10.7 KB).msg
From: Kulwinder
Johal [Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
To: Lorraine Cordell
Sent: 12
December 2019 07:45:30
Subject: Read:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Attachments: winmail.dat
(6 KB)
78.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_
RE FOOED222
Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518
78.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
78. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_
RE FOOED222 Enfield Council V
Simon Cordell
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518
--
511,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:34
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Attachments: Simon-Cordell-authority-Letter-Edmonton-Country-Court-11-12-2019.pdf.
Claim Number
FOOED22211-12-2019.pdf
20191211184453485.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached letter of complaint
and a court order dated the 06/12/2019 regarding claim number FOOED222.
I have resent this email as I forgot to
add the letter of authority. Please see attached documents.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Mr
Simon Cordell
512,
RE: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon
Cordell->Simon_Cordell_authority_Letter-Edmonton-Country-Court-11-12-2019.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 11/12/2019
RE: Letter of Authority for my mother
Miss Lorraine Cordell dated 11/12/2019
To whom it may concern:
I Mr Simon Paul Cordell of 109
Burncroft Ave, Enfield EN3 7JQ am writing this letter to confirm I give
authority for my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell to speak or send any data or
letters and for my mother to receive any information requested from Edmonton
Country Court, regarding Claim Number FOOED222. In addition,
any other court applications Enfield Council has submitted to Edmonton
Country Court against me Mr Simon Cordell
I also agree my mother can request to
see the complete files held via the court for any applications Enfield Council
has made against me.
I have the right to withdraw my
authority for my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell at any time I wish to do so.
Contact can be made to my mother Miss
Lorraine Cordell via the information below and you may speak to her or send
data what is being asked for on my behalf.
Phone: 07807 3335454
Email: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Letter: 23 Byron Terrace, Edmonton,
London N9 7DG
1
513,
Regards
Simon Cordell
2
514,
RE: FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon
Cordell->Claim Number FOOED222 11-12-2019.pdf
54. Complaint:
Fraudulent Consent Order in Claim
Number FOOED222:
55. 11th
December
2019
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after I got a
call from my son’s Mr Simon Cordell’s solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors at
around 17:20 hours on the 11thDecember 2019. The solicitors are no longer acting
due to legal aid being removed, which The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield are already aware of due to being told via my son’s
solicitors.
I was informed that they had received
a Court order today the 11th December 2019 regarding the hearing, which was
listed for 12th December 2019 at 2pm at the County
Court at Edmonton, under Claim Number FOOED222.
It would seem that The Mayor and
Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield has contacted the court via letter
and a court order has been made on their behalf via Deputy
District Judge Brown on the 06th December 2019.
Please see attached Court Order.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield sent a Consent Order received by the Court on
5th December 2019, and this is how Deputy District Judge Brown
made the court order on the 06th December 2019.
I am upset regarding this Court
Order, It is my believe a Consent Order would need to be signed and
agreed by all parties, in the Claim Number FOOED222,
this has not happened therefore I believe it is a Fraudulent Consent Order that
has been submitted to the court, which was never agreed to or signed.
I know my son Mr Simon Cordell also his
solicitor Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors have not signed and agreed to any Consent
Order for Claim Number FOOED222.
So how has, The
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield sent a Consent
Order to the court, which was received by the Court on 5th December 2019. Then
a court order made from this Consent Order when only one party has
signed it, no agreement made by the parties involved in
1
515,
this case. It is me believe it is the
rule of law that all parties have to agree and sign a Consent
Order for the court to be able to accept it.
Neither my son nor his solicitors Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors have seen this Consent Order so could the court please
forward it to this email as soon as possible.
Also within the Court order dated the
09th December 2019, Deputy District Judge Brown
has allowed the Claim Number FOOED222 to be adjourned
generally
with liberty to restore. There is no date set by the
court by which time The Mayor And Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield
would need to restore this case, so in fact no End date for this Claim
Number FOOED222 it would seem it is an unlimited case with no time limited set
by the court.
How can this be allowed so by no date
being placed on the court order, The Mayor And Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield can wait five or Ten years or a lifetime and then decide to
being this case back to court whenever they wish to do so.
This is not acceptable by any means,
and would never have been agreed, I do not understand how a court could allow
this.
My son is unwell which the court is
aware, and to have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life I
believe is unlawful and would make my son’s health worse, knowing whenever they
want they can bring this case up again for the rest of his life.
District Judge Das warned The Mayor
and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield about bring a Possession claim
on the 09/08/2018. Yet all The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield did was wait some months and then submitted the Possession claim to the
court. Moreover, failed to comply with District Judge Das court order dated
09/08/2018.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield acting solicitors wrote to my son’s solicitors Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors the letter was dated 21/10/2019. The Mayor and
Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield had instructed their
acting solicitors to discontinue the claim on the basis that each party
bears their own costs. In addition, that could my son’s
acting solicitors Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors contact
them as soon as possible so a suitable worded consent order maybe
agreed.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield would know my son is unwell and that someone should have
been placed to act in his best interest, this is listed on court orders, from
2
516,
the court. This was due to happen on
the 12thDecember 2019 hearing which Deputy District Judge
Brown has now vacated.
This is not the first time The Mayor
and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield has submitted a draft court
order, which was not agreed. The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield have had my son in the County Court at Edmonton
three times different Claim Numbers for the same said alleged allegations,
since 2017. The last case was dismissed, and The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield are in breach of that court order. The Mayor and Burgesses
of the London Borough of Enfield was meant to have moved my son yet have not;
District Judge Das made this court order on the 09/08/2018.
My son has had no input regarding
this court order dated 09th December 2019
that has been made, under a consent order via Deputy District Judge Brown.
Therefore, I am asking for the court
order dated the 09thDecember 2019
is Set Aside in Claim Number FOOED222.
The court will have on file I Miss Lorraine
Cordell has been trying to deal with cases for my son Mr Simon Cordell and this
will be on record at the court. Since legal Aid has been withdrawn and The
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield know this fact I have been left to write this letter and try to deal
with this serious matter.
I would also request to see the complete
file on demand in Claim Number FOOED222 and this is my demand. I will attend
the court as soon as a date is set to see the complete case file. This to be as
soon as possible as I believe this cannot wait. In addition, we have not agreed
to anything that The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield have
submitted to the court, and I would like this addressed.
I wait to hear from you regarding this
most serious matter.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Mr.
Simon Cordell
3
517,
518,
79.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_FW
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 519,520,521,522
79.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
79. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_FW RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 519,520,521,522
--
519,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:46
To: Jill.bayley@enfield.gov.uk
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number:
FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder
Johal is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr
Simon Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
520,
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it to
Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk as he does know about my son's case and
the letter can then be added to their file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will
not be able to deal with this until his return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and
Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal
Ronak Ahmed
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority,
which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been
confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem instructed
the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore this is far
from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto:Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222 Authority
521,
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails this
morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will advise
Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number:
FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with regard to
a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell solicitor,
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order dated
the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton Country
Court received a consent order at the court on the 5th
December 2019, and Deputy
522,
District Judge Brown
made a court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this consent
order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone agreed to it
or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been agreed upon or
signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
80.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_FW
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 523,524,525,526
80.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
80. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_FW RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 523,524,525,526
--
523,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:44
To: Jill.bayley@enfield.gov.uk
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding an
issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder Johal
is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr Simon
Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: Kulwinder Johal
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below
email so cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter
sent to the court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a
consent order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have
asked Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last
night to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office
on the 11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last
night.
I do not understand why you are
not sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to
be made up.
524,
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward
it to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk as he does know about
my son's case and the letter can then be added to their file, as Mr Ahmed is on
leave, he will not be able with this until his return. I have CC in both Mr
Ahmed and Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be
addressed as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal
Ronak Ahmed
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal
Aid funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your
letter dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue
the claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing
with this matter.
You have had the letter of
Authority, which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has
been confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter
that that has been sent to the court which the court received on the
05/12/2019, which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number
FOOED222. No consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand
how Edmonton Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent
order, which is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your
client Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will
state the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto:Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
525,
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails this
morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will advise
Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of Authority,
could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with regard to
a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell solicitor,
Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order dated
the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton Country
Court received a consent order at the court on the 5
th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown
made a court order on the 06/12/2019.
526,
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it?
As you will be aware, no consent
order has been agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent
order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
81.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 527,528,529,530,531,532
81.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
81. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE FOOED222 Enfield
Council V Simon Cordell_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 527,528,529,530,531,532
--
527,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 00:00
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell
Attachments: Claim
Number FOOED222 11-12-2019.pdf
20191211184453485.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom It May Concern:
Please see attached letter of complaint
and a court order dated the 06/12/2019 regarding claim number FOOED222.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
528,
RE:
FOOED222 Enfield Council V Simon Cordell->Claim
Number FOOED222 11-12-2019.pdf
· Complaint:
Fraudulent Consent Order in Claim Number FOOED222:
· 11th
December 2019
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this email after I got a
call from my son’s Mr Simon Cordell’s solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors at
around 17:20 hours on the 11thDecember 2019. The solicitors are no longer acting
due to legal aid being removed, which The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield are already aware of due to being told via my son’s
solicitors.
I was informed that they had received
a Court order today the 11th December 2019 regarding the hearing, which was
listed for 12th December 2019 at 2pm at the County
Court at Edmonton, under Claim Number FOOED222.
It would seem that The Mayor and
Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield has contacted the court via letter
and a court order has been made on their behalf via Deputy
District Judge Brown on the 06th December 2019.
Please see attached Court Order.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield sent a Consent Order received by the Court on
5th December 2019, and this is how Deputy District Judge Brown
made the court order on the 06th December 2019.
I am upset regarding this Court
Order, It is my believe a Consent Order would need to be signed and
agreed by all parties, in the Claim Number FOOED222,
this has not happened therefore I believe it is a Fraudulent Consent Order that
has been submitted to the court, which was never agreed to or signed.
I know my son Mr Simon Cordell also his
solicitor Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors have not signed and agreed to any Consent
Order for Claim Number FOOED222.
So how has, The
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield sent a Consent
Order to the court, which was received by the Court on 5th December 2019. Then
a court order made from this Consent Order when only one party has
signed it, no agreement made by the parties involved in
1
529,
this case. It is me believe it is the
rule of law that all parties have to agree and sign a Consent
Order for the court to be able to accept it.
Neither my son nor his solicitors Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors have seen this Consent Order so could the court please
forward it to this email as soon as possible.
Also within the Court order dated the
09th December 2019, Deputy District Judge Brown
has allowed the Claim Number FOOED222 to be adjourned
generally
with liberty to restore. There is no date set by the
court by which time The Mayor And Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield would need to restore this case, so in fact no End date for this Claim
Number FOOED222 it would seem it is an unlimited case with no time limited set
by the court.
How can this be allowed so by no date
being placed on the court order, The Mayor And Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield can wait five or Ten years or a lifetime and then decide to
being this case back to court whenever they wish to do so.
This is not acceptable by any means,
and would never have been agreed, I do not understand how a court could allow
this.
My son is unwell which the court is
aware, and to have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life I
believe is unlawful and would make my son’s health worse, knowing whenever they
want they can bring this case up again for the rest of his life.
District Judge Das warned The Mayor
and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield about bring a Possession claim
on the 09/08/2018. Yet all The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield did was wait some months and then submitted the Possession claim to the
court. Moreover, failed to comply with District Judge Das court order dated
09/08/2018.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield acting solicitors wrote to my son’s solicitors Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors the letter was dated 21/10/2019. The Mayor and
Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield had instructed there
acting solicitors to discontinue the claim on the basis that each party
bears their own costs. In addition, that could my son’s
acting solicitors Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors contact
them as soon as possible so a suitable worded consent order maybe
agreed.
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London
Borough of Enfield would know my son is unwell and that someone should have
been placed to act in his best interest, this is listed on court orders, from
2
530,
the court. This was due to
happen on the 12thDecember 2019 hearing which Deputy District Judge Brown has
now vacated.
This is not the first time The Mayor
and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield has submitted a draft court
order, which was not agreed. The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield have had my son in the County Court at Edmonton three times different
Claim Numbers for the same said alleged allegations, since 2017. The last case
was dismissed, and The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield are
in breach of that court order. The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of
Enfield was meant to have moved my son yet have not; District Judge Das made
this court order on the 09/08/2018.
My son has had no input
regarding this court order dated 09th December 2019 that has been made, under a
consent order via Deputy District Judge Brown.
Therefore, I am asking for the
court order dated the 09thDecember 2019 is Set Aside in Claim Number FOOED222.
The court will have on file I
Miss Lorraine Cordell has been trying to deal with cases for my son Mr Simon
Cordell and this will be on record at the court. Since legal Aid has been
withdrawn and The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield know
this fact, I have been left to write this letter and try to deal with this
serious matter.
I would also request to see the complete file
on demand in Claim Number FOOED222 and this is my demand. I will attend the
court as soon as a date is set to see the complete case file. This to be as
soon as possible as I believe this cannot wait. In addition, we have not agreed
to anything that The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield have
submitted to the court, and I would like this addressed.
I wait to hear from you regarding this
most serious matter.
Regards
Miss Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Mr.
Simon Cordell
3
531,
532,
82.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Author
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 533,534,535
82.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
82. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222 Author
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 533,534,535
--
533,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Attachments: Simon-Cordell-authority-Letter-Enfield-Council-11-12-2019.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with regard to
a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order dated the
09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton Country
Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th
December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a court order on the
06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this consent
order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone agreed to it
or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been agreed upon or
signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards Lorraine Cordell
534,
RE: RE: Simon
Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority-Simon_Cordell_authority-Letter-Enfield-Council-11-12-2019.pdf
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft Ave
Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 11/12/2019
RE: Letter of Authority for my mother
Miss Lorraine Cordell dated 11/12/2019
To whom it may concern:
I Mr Simon Paul Cordell of 109
Burncroft Ave, Enfield EN3 7JQ am writing this letter to confirm I give
authority for my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell to speak or send any data and for
my mother to receive any information requested from Enfield Council.
My authority for my mother Miss
Lorraine Cordell is already on Enfield Council systems and I do not understand
why it needs to be resent so many times.
I have the right to withdraw my
authority for my mother Miss Lorraine Cordell at any time I wish to do so.
Contact can be made to my mother Miss
Lorraine Cordell via the information below and you may speak to her or send
data what is being asked for on my behalf.
Phone:
07807
Email: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Letter: 23
Byron Terrace, Edmonton, London N9 7DG
1
535,
Regards
Simon Cordell
2
83.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Author_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 536,537,538
83.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
83. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222 Author_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 536,537,538
--
536,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority, which
you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been confirmed in
your below email. However, there has always been Authority on Enfield Councils
systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto: Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails this
morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will advise
Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed
537,
without expressed prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5th
December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a court order on the
06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
538,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
84.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 539,540,541,542,543
84.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
84. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 539,540,541,542,543
--
539,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 20:11
To: 'Jill.bayley@enfield.gov.uk';
'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean Shanmuganathan'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal and Jill Bayley
I do not understand why I am being
ignored well this is what it feels like and I can only ask why.
When I spoke to Kulwinder Johal today
on the phone, she told me that it was the court that had made an error and it
was not a consent order that was sent to the court, so the Judge that made the
order misread the letter Kulwinder Johal had sent the court and mistakenly approved
it as a consent order.
So can I ask if there is nothing being
hidden in the letter that was sent to the court why is Kulwinder Johal
withholding it, if it was the court that made an error there is nothing to hide
and it should be able to be corrected via the court?
It would seem only Kulwinder Johal and
the court has seen a letter that the Judge deemed as a consent order,
Do you not feel we have the right to see
the letter, if not can you please explain why? Also why would it have not been
sent to the solicitors that were acting for my son before Legal Aid was
withdrawn, why was it only to the court?
My son Mr Simon Cordell no longer has a
solicitor acting for him as legal aid was withdraw, which you will be aware of.
I have also stated this in emails that have been sent today, but I still feel I
am being ignored, and the only reason I can think of why I am being ignored is
something is written in the letter that has been sent to the court that you
don’t want us to see, or why would you withhold it?
Can this issue please be addressed as a
matter of urgency and a copy of the letter sent to the court forwarded via this
email?
I do feel we have a right to see what was
written to the court for them to make such an order and word it the way it has
been, moreover listed your letter as Consent Order approved.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:46
To: 'Jill.bayley@enfield.gov.uk';
'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean Shanmuganathan'
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
540,
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder
Johal is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr
Simon Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
541,
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@,tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
as he does know about my son's case and the letter can then be added to their
file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will not be able to deal with this until his
return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority,
which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been
confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto:Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails
this morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
542,
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will
advise Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with regard
to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it?
As you will be aware, no consent
order has been agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent
order by you?
543,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The
recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
85.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 544,545,546,547
85.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
85. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_
12.12.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222_001
12/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 544,545,546,547
--
544,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk as he does know about my son's case and
the letter can then be added to their file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will
not be able to deal with this until his return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and
Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority,
which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been
confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr
545,
Simon Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto:Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails this
morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will advise
Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate Team |
Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
546,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent:
11 December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
547,
Opinions expressed in this email
are those of the individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of
Enfield. This email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are
strictly confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may
contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
86.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
86. 1.
1
Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk_
12.13.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
13/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 548,549,550,551,552,553,554
86.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
86. 1. 1
Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk_
12.13.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
13/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 548,549,550,551,552,553,554
--
548,
From: Jill
Bayley <Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 13
December 2019 15:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan'
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Attachments: 1221485 - Letter to court and draft Court
Order.pdf
Dear Madam,
Further to your emails, please find
attached the letter sent to the court by Ms Johal as you request. This letter
was sent to Mr Cordell's solicitors, but they have since stopped acting for
him.
Yours faithfully
Jill Bayley
Jill Bayley
Principal
Lawyer, Safeguarding and Corporate Teams Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver
Street
Enfield EN1 3XY
Please note my new telephone
number 020 8132 1221
Telephone: 020
8132 1221
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this e-mail is
given on behalf of the Director of Law and Governance; it is subject to legal
professional privilege and should not be disclosed without authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:44
To: Jill Bayley
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder
Johal is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr
Simon Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
549,
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk as he does know about my son's case and
the letter can then be added to their file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will
not be able to deal with this until his return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and
Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto:lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
550,
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority,
which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been
confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal [mailto:Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails
this morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will
advise Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
551,
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5th December 2019,
and Deputy District Judge Brown made a court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
552,
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
553,
554,
87.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
87. 1.
1
Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk_
12.18.2019_RE
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 555,556,557,558,559,560,561
87.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
87. 1. 1
Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk_
12.18.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 555,556,557,558,559,560,561
--
555,
From: Jill
Bayley <Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 18
December 2019 16:07
To: Ronak Ahmed; Lorraine Cordell; Sean
Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number:
FOOED222
Dear Mr Ahmed,
Thank you for your email, the contents
of which are noted.
Yours sincerely Jill Bayley Jill Bayley
Principal Lawyer, Safeguarding and
Corporate Teams Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
Please
note my new telephone number 020 8132 1221
Telephone: 020
8132 1221
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this e-mail is
given on behalf of the Director of Law and Governance; it is subject to legal
professional privilege and should not be disclosed without authorisation.
From: Ronak
Ahmed
Sent: 18
December 2019 15:24
To: Jill Bayley
Lorraine Cordell
Sean Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Good afternoon
It is correct to say that we no longer
are on record as acting for the Defendant as Legal Aid has been terminated.
However, we can confirm receipt of the letter dated 4 December 2019 from the
Claimants to the Court requesting the December hearing be vacated. It does
appear that the most recent sealed court order was incorrect when it referred
to a "consent order” when it should have referred to the draft order that
was attached. No such consent order was agreed given the specific and direct
instructions from the Defendant, Mr Cordell. It appears that the court made an
order in accordance with the draft order provided by the
claimant.
It is also important to note that the
Claim is not struck out and the Claimant can apply for it to be reinstated.
Therefore the Claim is live but with no hearing date listed so if there are any
further allegations then the case is likely to be restored.
If Mr Cordell is unhappy about the
Court making any such order, he can apply using Form N244 to set it aside.
I am not proposing to engage in further
debate on this matter given we are not getting paid for our continued
556,
involvement.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Jill
Bayley [mailto: Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 13
December 2019 15:41
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder
Johal
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Dear Madam,
Further to your emails, please
find attached the letter sent to the court by Ms Johal as you request. This
letter was sent to Mr Cordell's solicitors, but they have since stopped acting
for him.
Yours faithfully
Jill Bayley
Jill Bayley
Principal Lawyer, Safeguarding
and Corporate Teams Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1
3XY
Please note my new telephone
number 020 8132 1221
Telephone: 020
8132 1221
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this e-mail is
given on behalf of the Director of Law and Governance; it is subject to legal
professional privilege and should not be disclosed without authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:44
To: Jill
Bayley
Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
557,
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder Johal
is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr Simon
Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
as he does know about my son's case and the letter can then be added to their
file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will not be able to deal with this until his
return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
558,
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell I~mailto:lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware Legal Aid
funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your letter
dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue the
claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing with
this matter.
You have had the letter of Authority,
which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has been
confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter that
that has been sent to the court which the court received on the 05/12/2019,
which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number FOOED222. No
consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand how Edmonton
Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent order, which
is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your client
Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will state
the court order is far from being discontinue as you have it would seem
instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore
this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal mailto: Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails
this morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will
advise Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
559,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of Authority,
could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
560,
Lorraine Cordell
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or acting in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
561,
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
88.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1.
1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.18.2019_Read
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 562
88.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
88. 1. 1
Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk_
12.18.2019_Read RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 562
--
562,
From: Kulwinder
Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 18
December 2019 07:48
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Read:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
[Campaign]
<https://enfield-council.msgfocus.eom/k/Enfield-Council/sign up>
www.enfield.gov.uk<http://www.enfield.gov.uk>
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for viruses, but we
cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient
should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication
from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the
recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking
action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and
malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an
innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and
more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in;
Security, archiving and compliance.
89.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1.
1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_
12.18.2019_Re
RE Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 563,564,565,566,567,568,569,570
89.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
89. 1. 1
Ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_
12.18.2019_Re RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 563,564,565,566,567,568,569,570
--
563,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 18
December 2019 16:36
To: Lorraine Cordell; Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: Re:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Attachments: image001.jpg
Dear Ms Cordell
You will need to call the office and
ask them. I am not sure what difference that makes. The most important issue is
that the case is still live.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M Solicitor
(Consultant)
Tel +44 (0) 20 8889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
1 St Michaels Terrace
London
N22 7SJ
DX 34704 WOOD GREEN 2
Tel +44 (0)20 8889 3319
Fax +44 (0)20 8881 6089 www.tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Authorised by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority. Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership
under the no.560748. A list of the members' names is open to inspection at the
registered office.
VAT REG No:
221 8088 78
SRA No:
560748
564,
Contracted with the Legal Aid Agency
We do not accept service of documents
or other process by e-mail Email us at lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain privileged
information and is only intended to be received by the person to whom it is
addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh
Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday,
December 18, 2019 4:31:40 PM
To: Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
May I ask on what date your office got
the letter dated the 04th December 2019 from the Claimants, was it sent via
post or email?
Did your office have the letter before
the court made the order or after? As we knew nothing about this letter until
the 11th December 2019, when Sean made a call to me, and sent the court order
via my email which he got in the office on the 11th December 2019 from the
court.
You state in your reply email below you
confirm receipt of the letter dated 4th December 2019 from the Claimants but
have not confirmed what date you received it.
It does seem it was delivered to the
court very fast; the letter is dated the 04th December 2019, the court got the
letter on the 05th December 2019, and the court made there ruling on the 06th
December 2019.
I await your reply.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
565,
From: Ronak
Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 18
December 2019 15:24
To: Jill Bayley; Lorraine Cordell; Sean
Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Good afternoon
It is correct to say that we no longer
are on record as acting for the Defendant as Legal Aid has been terminated. However,
we can confirm receipt of the letter dated 4 December 2019 from the Claimants
to the Court requesting the December hearing be vacated. It does appear that
the most recent sealed court order was incorrect when it referred to a
"consent order” when it should have referred to the draft order that was
attached. No such consent order was agreed given the specific and direct
instructions from the Defendant, Mr Cordell. It appears that the court made an
order in accordance with the draft order provided by the
claimant.
It is also important to note that the
Claim is not struck out and the Claimant can apply for it to be reinstated.
Therefore the Claim is live but with no hearing date listed so if there are any
further allegations then the case is likely to be restored.
If Mr
Cordell is unhappy about the Court making any such order, he can apply using
Form N244
to set it aside.
I am not proposing to engage in further
debate on this matter given we are not getting paid for our continued
involvement.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515
121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Jill
Bayley [mailto:Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 13
December 2019 15:41
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>; Ronak Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>;
Sean Shanmuganathan <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Cc: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Madam,
Further to your emails, please
find attached the letter sent to the court by Ms Johal as you request. This
letter was sent to Mr Cordell's solicitors, but they have since stopped acting
for him.
Yours faithfully
Jill Bayley
Jill Bayley
566,
Principal Lawyer, Safeguarding
and Corporate Teams Legal Services, Enfield Council Silver Street Enfield EN1
3XY
Please note my new telephone
number 020 8132 1221
Telephone: 020
8132 1221
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this e-mail is
given on behalf of the Director of Law and Governance; it is subject to legal
professional privilege and should not be disclosed without authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:44
To: Jill Bayley <Jill.Bavlev@enfield.gov.uk>:
'Ronak Ahmed' <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>: 'Sean Shanmuganathan' <sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder
Johal is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr
Simon Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
567,
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk as
he does know about my son's case and the letter can then be added to their
file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will not be able to deal with this until his
return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto:
lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number
FOOED222 Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware
Legal Aid funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in
your letter dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to
discontinue the claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no
longer dealing with this matter.
You have had the letter of
Authority, which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has
been confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter
that that has been sent to the court which the court received on the
05/12/2019, which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number
FOOED222. No consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand
how Edmonton Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent
order, which is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your
client Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will
state the court order is far
568,
from being discontinue as you have it
would seem instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with liberty
to restore this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal mailto: Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails this morning
(see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will advise you.
I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will advise
Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver Street,
Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
569,
From:
Lorraine Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11 December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
570,
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
90.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
90. 1. 1
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_
12.18.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell Claim
Number FOOED222_001
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 571,572,573,574,575,576
90.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
90. 1. 1
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk_
12.18.2019_RE RE Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222_001
18/12/2019
/ Page Numbers: 571,572,573,574,575,576
--
571,
From: Ronak
Ahmed <ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk>
Sent: 18
December 2019 15:24
To: Jill Bayley; Lorraine Cordell; Sean
Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Good afternoon
It is correct to say that we no
longer are on record as acting for the Defendant as Legal Aid has been
terminated. However, we can confirm receipt of the letter dated 4 December 2019
from the Claimants to the Court requesting the December hearing be vacated. It
does appear that the most recent sealed court order was incorrect when it
referred to a "consent order” when it should have referred to the draft
order that was attached. No such consent order was agreed given the specific
and direct instructions from the Defendant, Mr Cordell. It appears that the court
made an order in accordance with the draft order provided by the claimant.
It is also important to note
that the Claim is not struck out and the Claimant can apply for it to be
reinstated. Therefore the Claim is live but with no hearing date listed so if
there are any further allegations then the case is likely to be restored.
If Mr Cordell is unhappy about
the Court making any such order, he can apply using Form N244 to set it aside.
I am not proposing to engage in
further debate on this matter given we are not getting paid for our continued
involvement.
Kind regards
Mr. Ronak Ahmed LL. B, LL.M
Solicitor (Consultant)
Direct Dial 07515 121781
Office 0208 889 3319
Email
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
From: Jill
Bayley [mailto:Jill.Bayley@enfield.gov.uk]
Sent: 13
December 2019 15:41
To: Lorraine Cordell
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Madam,
Further to your emails, please
find attached the letter sent to the court by Ms Johal as you request. This
letter was sent to Mr Cordell's solicitors, but they have since stopped acting
for him.
Yours faithfully
Jill Bayley
Jill Bayley
Principal Lawyer, Safeguarding
and Corporate Teams
572,
Legal Services, Enfield Council
Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
Please note my new telephone
number 020 8132 1221
Telephone: 020
8132 1221
Fax: 020
8379 6492
Mobile: 07930
858193
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities.
Legal advice in this e-mail is
given on behalf of the Director of Law and Governance; it is subject to legal
professional privilege and should not be disclosed without authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 13:44
To: Jill Bayley
Ronak Ahmed
Sean Shanmuganathan
Subject: FW:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Jill Bayley
I have been given your email regarding
an issue I have, I believe you are the manager of Kulwinder Johal, Kulwinder Johal
is dealing with a case for Enfield Council which relates to my son Mr Simon
Cordell.
It would seem a letter which was deemed
by the court and Judge as a consent order was sent to the court by Kulwinder
Johal. I have requested that the letter be sent to me via this email as we have
never seen it.
I do have Authority to address things
for my son Simon Cordell, but it would seem I am being ignored, which my
request to be sent the letter that was sent to the court by Kulwinder Johal.
Please see below a list of emails sent
which there has only been one reply, with all the information for the case.
Could you please address this matter as
a matter of urgency?
I look forward to your reply to this
matter.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 11:44
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'; 'Sean
Shanmuganathan'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number: FOOED222
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
573,
I know you have read the below email so
cannot understand why you have not replied and sent over the letter sent to the
court which they received on the 05/12/2019 and deemed it to be a consent
order.
I have just made a call to Tyrer
Roxburgh Solicitors who are no longer dealing with this case as legal aid was
withdrawn which you will be aware of.
Mr Ahmed is on leave so I have asked
Sean Shanmuganathan to call me back, as he is the one who called me last night
to explain regarding the court order which was received in there office on the
11/12/2019 which he forwarded me the court order over via my email last night.
I do not understand why you are not
sending me the letter, which was sent to the court for this court order to be
made up.
Could you please forward me the letter
sent to the court. You did ask me on the phone call we had this morning you
would need an Authority letter which you have had so there is no reason the
letter cannot be sent to me, as you have had what you asked for.
In addition, can you please forward it
to Sean Shanmuganathan sean@tvrerroxburgh.co.uk as
he does know about my son's case and the letter can then be added to their
file, as Mr Ahmed is on leave, he will not be able to deal with this until his
return. I have CC in both Mr Ahmed and Sean Shanmuganathan all the emails.
Could this matter please be addressed
as a matter of urgency?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 10:10
To: 'Kulwinder Johal'; 'Ronak Ahmed'
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Dear Kulwinder Johal
As you will already be aware
Legal Aid funding has been withdrawn from this case, as you stated in your in your
letter dated the 21/10/2019 to Mr Ahmed, you had been instructed to discontinue
the claim from your clients Enfield Council, so Mr Ahmed is no longer dealing
with this matter.
You have had the letter of
Authority, which you asked for on the phone today and received this, which has
been confirmed in your below email. However, there has always been Authority on
Enfield Councils systems for me to address matters for my son, Mr Simon
Cordell.
I would like to see the letter
that that has been sent to the court which the court received on the
05/12/2019, which the court has deemed as a consent order for claim number
FOOED222. No consent order has been agreed or signed, so I cannot understand
how Edmonton Country Court, more so a judge has deemed you letter as a consent
order, which is stated in the court order dated 06/12/2019.
Also there is a large issue your
client Enfield Council instructed you for this claim to be discontinue, I will
state the court order is far
574,
from being discontinue as you
have it would seem instructed the court for it to be adjourned generally with
liberty to restore this is far from what your clients asked to be done on this
case.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
From: Kulwinder
Johal mailto: Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:41
To: Lorraine Cordell; ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Dear Ms Cordell and Mr Ahmed,
Further to Ms Cordell's emails
this morning (see below) I am writing to refer the matter to Mr Ahmed, who will
advise you. I have included Mr Ahmed into this email for completeness.
Mr Ahmed - I trust that you will
advise Ms Cordell.
Yours sincerely,
Kulwinder Johal
Litigation Lawyer |Corporate
Team | Legal Services On behalf of the Director of Law and Governance
PO Box 50, Civic Centre, Silver
Street, Enfield EN1 3XA
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.
Legal advice in this email is
given on behalf of the Assistant Director of Legal Services; it is subject to
legal professional privilege and should not be disclosed without expressed
prior authorisation.
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Sent: 12
December 2019 09:12
To: Kulwinder Johal <Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Authority
Importance: High
Dear Kulwinder Johal
Please see attached letter of
Authority, could you please send me over the letters, which have been sent to
the court.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of
Simon Cordell
575,
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 11
December 2019 23:41
To: 'Kulwinder.Johal@enfield.gov.uk'
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Kulwinder Johal
I am writing this email with
regard to a telephone call that I received tonight from my son Mr Simon Cordell
solicitor, Tyrer Roxburgh Solicitors.
I was forwarded a court order
dated the 09/12/2019 from Edmonton Country Court, heard on the 06/12/2019.
It would seem that Edmonton
Country Court received a consent order at the court on the 5 th December 2019, and Deputy District Judge Brown made a
court order on the 06/12/2019.
Can you please forward this
consent order over via this email ASAP as we have never seen it yet alone
agreed to it or signed it? As you will be aware, no consent order has been
agreed upon or signed, so how has the court been sent a consent order by you?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient
and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication
in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
576,
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual
and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Headers
2020
1.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_01.02.2020_
Auto
reply
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 1,2,3
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.1
enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk_01.02.2020_
Auto reply
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 1,2,3
--
1,
From: Edmonton
County, Enquiries <enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
January 2020 10:55
To: Lorraine Cordell
Subject: Auto
reply
** IMPORTANT NOTICE ON EMAIL
COMMUNICATIONS **
Thank you for your email, which has been
received by the court. Depending on the nature of your email you may receive a
response via email or post.
What documents can be sent by email?
You can send all letters and documents
relevant to the case including adoption cases. However, due to the sensitive
nature of adoption work the court will only send emails to secure email
accounts. If a hard copy of a document has been filed at court by DX or
Post, an electronic copy should not be sent. As yet please note that
court bundles are not part of this process and will not be printed.
For more information regarding e-mails
please go to the following http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/email-guidance
What is a secure email account?
An email account is considered secure
when security measures are in place to make sure the data in the email can’t be
accessed by users without the relevant approval. Any account that ends in the
following is considered secured: gsi, pnn, gsx, gcsx, gse, cjsm, and nhs.net.
What emails will HMCTS accept?
To make sure we operate this service as
efficiently and effectively as possible there are exemptions.
All Civil and Family process,
applications and documents will be accepted by email as long as when the entire
email is printed out it is not more than 50 pages. This should include the
email, all attachments (including any documents embedded in another) and enough
copies to serve on required parties.
Please note that:
56. A
page is one side, so 50 pages equals 25 pieces of paper printed on both sides.
57. Do
not use more than one email to take any step in a case which requires a
document or documents to be filed.
DOCUMENTS FOR HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES PD, 5B.2. FAMILY
PROCEDURE RULE PD 5B
You have received an order to
attend court for a hearing.
It would greatly assist the
court staff if you could ensure documents you file into court have a hearing
date endorsed on the covering letter, paperwork, or email.
This will then enable the court
staff to identify the document is placed on file in readiness for the hearing.
Please note, if the court is
unaware of the pending hearing, when you file your documents, this may result
in the document not reaching the court file in time for the hearing.
Can processes that carry a fee
be sent by email?
In both Civil and Family cases
court processes that carry a fee can also be received by email and processed by
court staff. However the same conditions as above must apply and in addition
the party issuing the process must either quote a Fee Account number, or the
party who wants to pay has a valid credit or debit card. If you wish to pay
using this method, please say this on the
2,
email and include a contact number for
the Court to contact you to take payment.
What is Fee Account?
This is a Direct Debit function that is
quick, safe and easy to use. It is available for
solicitors and large organisations. Once you have set up an account all you
need is to provide your fee account number within the body of the email. The
fee will then be deducted from your account. For more information and to apply
for Fee Account please visit www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees/payment-by-account.
Any document submitted that breaches
any of the above terms will remain unprocessed. This is in line with Court
Practice Directions 5BPD.1 - 5BPD.9.3.
When you email the court the subject
line of your mail must contain (in the following order): -
58. The
claim numbers
59. The
title of the claim (abbreviated if necessary) **
60. The
subject matter (e.g. defence)
61. If
relating to a hearing the date and time of hearing in bold black
62. The
judge’s name, where the correspondence/document is for their attention
**If your email is in relation to a
family matter, please refer to the initials only.
Your message should also contain
the name, telephone number and email address of the sender. Correspondence and
documents may be sent as either text or attachments. Where there is a practice
form, it must be sent in that form by attachment. The complete email (including
any attachment(s)) must not exceed 10Mb.
The rest of this automated
message provides information that customers often find useful.
Edmonton County Court
The public counter services are
no longer available at this court.
Urgent applications and
processes that need to be dealt with in person will be through an appointment
only system. Users should contact the court on 0208 8846510 between 9.00 am and
5.00 pm Monday to Friday to make an appointment.
The main telephone number for
Civil and Family enquiries is 0208 884 6500 Gold fax 0870 3240314
Our address is The County Court
at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London, N18 2TN DX 136686
Edmonton 3
The court building is open
between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday.
We have a secure drop box
located in reception for personal deliveries to the court, which is opened once
a day at 9.00 am Monday to Friday.
Website links
Information on Court forms and
fees can be also be obtained from www.justice.gov.uk Issuing a claim for Money or
Possession of Property - MCOL & PCOL
3,
If you would like to issue a
claim for money or property you can do so 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by
visiting: www.moneydaim.gov.uk
or www.possessionclaim.gov.uk.You will save money by
issuing a claim for possession of property or a money claim online rather than
sending it to the court.
Legal Advice
If you are uncertain how to
proceed, the Civil Procedure Rules available on the Ministry of Justice website
- http://www.justice.gov.uk -
provide details. On many occasions it is best for people to seek professional
legal advice from a solicitor, legal executive, legal advice agency or Citizens
Advice Bureau. You can also contact Civil Legal Advice on 0845 345 4 345 or via
their website.
For information on how HMCTS
uses personal data about you please see:
This e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its
unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, or copying is not permitted. If you are
not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
return e-mail. Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this
message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind
when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded, and retained by the Ministry of Justice. Monitoring / blocking
software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a
responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding
e-mails and their contents.
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.2
replies@optic.justice.gov.uk_01.02.2020_Complaint
(ref 1560887)
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 4,5
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.2
replies@optic.justice.gov.uk_01.02.2020_Complaint
(ref 1560887)
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 4,5
--
4,
From: HM
Courts and Tribunals Service <replies@optic.justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 02
January 2020 09:02
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Complaint
(ref: 1560887)
Dear Miss Cordell
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
-v-
SIMON
CORDELL
Thank you for your email of 12 December
2019. I am sorry you have had cause to complain about the service you have
received from the Court. It is my role in accordance with HMCTS complaints
procedure to investigate your complaint.
I have fully investigated the
matter. The order of 6 December 2019 has been incorrectly drawn. The claimant
had sent to the Court a draft order which was referred to a Judge and approved.
I have sent by Royal Mail a copy of the amended order for your records.
Your request to view the Court
file was referred to a Judge who has made the following comments:
'Defendant is entitled only to
copies of orders and statements of cash, plus other documents as listed in
Civil Procedure Rules Practise Direction 5.A 4.2A (page 264 of 2019 Green
Book).'
If you ask the court to make
copies of documents or provide a copy of a document already provided there will
be a Court fee applicable. Please refer to the EX 50 Civil and Family Court
Fees booklet for further information.
Please highlight the documents
you require from the Court file and we will inform you of the Court fee due.
Please accept my apologies for
the administrative error and for any inconvenience this has caused. I hope that
this is a satisfactory conclusion to your complaint.
If you are unhappy with my
reply, you are entitled to escalate your complaint and request a review by
writing to Ms J Billyack, Operations
Manager, at The Civil and Family Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton,
London N18 2TN.
Yours sincerely,
Mr A Mustafa Customer Services
Edmonton County, HM Courts and
Tribunals Service | HMCTS | 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, N18 2TN
5,
Phone: 0208
884 6500
HM Courts & Tribunals
Service
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.3
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.02.2020_FW Complaint (ref
1560887)
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 6,7,8,9
3.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.3
lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk_01.02.2020_FW
Complaint (ref 1560887)
02/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 6,7,8,9
--
6,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 02
January 2020 10:55
To: 'Edmonton County, Enquiries'
Subject: FW:
Complaint (ref: 1560887)
Attachments: LB
Enfield 21 Oct 2019 (2).pdf
Importance: High
Please see below email
From: Lorraine
Cordell [mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 02
January 2020 10:44
To: 'HM Courts and Tribunals Service'
Subject: RE:
Complaint (ref: 1560887)
Importance: High
Dear Mr, A Mustafa
Thank you for the below reply
regarding the complaint submitted.
I do feel some points have not
been addressed, which I will list within this email.
The draft order, which the
claimant had drawn up for the court to seal, was incorrect, where is stated the
(The claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore)
The letter my son's acting
solicitors received from the claimant regarding the case was stated they had
been instructed to discontinue the claim, not what the draft order sent to the
court stated, the claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore.
I will enclose a full copy of
the letter sent by the claimant acting solicitors, to my son's solicitors,
which was then forwarded to my son and me.
It would see that the claimant
waited for legal aid to be removed from my son's acting solicitors and then
drafted a court order that was completely different from what had been stated
in their letter. Now the claimant's case is a live case for however long they
want it to be, and not discontinued they had stated in their letter. Unless the
Judge has changed that within the amended order that you have sent in the royal
mail to me.
I did ask in my complaint for
the order to be set aside, as I do not feel that the claimant's case should be
allowed to stay a live case for however long they want with no end date
attached to the court order.
Can you please update me
regarding this issue as soon as possible if the wording on the court order is
still with (The claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore)
Please see attached letter.
Case Ref: FOOED222
Regards
7,
Lorraine Cordell
From: HM
Courts and Tribunals Service
mailto:
replies@optic.justice.gov.uk
Sent: 02
January 2020 09:02
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Complaint
(ref: 1560887)
Dear Miss Cordell
THE
MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
-v-
SIMON
CORDELL
Thank you for your
email of 12 December 2019. I am sorry you have had cause to complain about the
service you have received from the Court. It is my role in accordance
with HMCTS complaints procedure to investigate your complaint.
I have fully investigated the
matter. The order of 6 December 2019 has been incorrectly drawn. The claimant
had sent to the Court a draft order which was referred to a Judge and approved.
I have sent by Royal Mail a copy of the amended order for your records.
Your request to view the Court
file was referred to a Judge who has made the following comments:
'Defendant is entitled only to
copies of orders and statements of his case plus other documents as listed in
Civil Procedure Rules Practise Direction 5.A 4.2A (page 264 of 2019 Green
Book).'
If you ask the court to make
copies of documents or provide a copy of a document already provided there will
be a Court fee applicable. Please refer to the EX 50 Civil and Family Court
Fees booklet for further information.
Please highlight the documents
you require from the Court file and we will inform you of the Court fee due.
Please accept my apologies for
the administrative error and for any inconvenience this has caused. I hope that
this is a satisfactory conclusion to your complaint.
If
you are unhappy with my reply, you are entitled to escalate your complaint and
request a review by writing to Ms J Billyack, Operations Manager, at The
Civil and Family Court at Edmonton, 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, London
N18 2TN.
Yours sincerely
8,
Mr A Mustafa Customer Services
Edmonton County, HM Courts and
Tribunals Service | HMCTS | 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, N18 2TN Phone: 0208 884 6500
HM Courts & Tribunals
Service
9,
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.4
replies@optic.justice.gov.uk_01.07.2020_Complaint
(ref 1560887)
07/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 10,11,12
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.4
replies@optic.justice.gov.uk_01.07.2020_Complaint
(ref 1560887)
07/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 10,11,12
--
10,
From: HM
Courts and Tribunals Service <replies@optic.justice.gov.uk>
Sent: 07
January 2020 13:30
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Complaint
(ref: 1560887)
Attachments: Letter.doc
Dear Miss Cordell
Please find attached the response to your
request for review.
Kind regards
Miss L Frost Team Leader
Edmonton County, HM Courts and
Tribunals Service | HMCTS | 59 Fore Street, Edmonton, N18 2TN
Phone: 0208 884 6500
HM Courts &
Tribunals Service
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject
line when replying to this email.
11,
Complaint (ref:
1560887)->Letter.doc
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Lorraine Cordell on behalf of Simon
Cordell
7 January 2020
Dear Miss Cordell
Edmonton County Court
59 Fore Street Upper Edmonton London
N182TN
DX 136686 Edmonton 3
020 8884 6500
Fax 020 8803 0564
enquiries@edmonton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk
Minicom VII 0191
478 1476 (Helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing)
Our ref: OPTIC
1560887
Case Number F00ED222
F00ED222 L B ENFIELD - V - CORDELL
Thank you for your email
received via resolver, I am sorry to hear that you remain dissatisfied with the
service you have received from the court in relation to this case.
I should explain that this
letter represents the second stage of the complaints process.
If you are not satisfied with my
reply, you can write to HMCTS Correspondence and Customer Service Team for
review.
I have now undertaken a review
of your case, and all correspondence relating to your complaint on the
information held by The Civil and Family Court at Edmonton and concluded no
administrative error was made by the court staff at Edmonton County Court in
the handling of your case.
I am unable to offer you any
payment of costs in the matter as explained below: -
The circumstances under which
HMCTS can offer financial compensation. It should first be established that
there has been a maladministration by court staff.
Maladministration
Meaning generally that an error
has been made in the performance of our administrative duties which has
resulted in a loss.
I note that you feel my
colleague’s Mr Mustafa’s email dated 2 January 2020 still did not address your
concerns. It would also seem you are not happy with the way the District Judge
has dealt with your case. Though you may feel unhappy with the conduct of the
judge’s decision, you cannot use HMCTS complaints procedure to complain on the
handling of a case by a Judge or to challenge a Judicial Decision.
12,
I have nothing further to add to
Mr Mustafa’s letter. As Operation Manager, I am unable to comment or intervene
in matters that have been subject to judicial decision. The judiciary are
independent, and it is important that I do nothing to undermine this.
Please be assured that your
comments are appreciated. We understand the importance of excellent customer
service and your views are invaluable in helping us to continue to improve the
service we provide.
Once again, I apologise for the
inconvenience you have experienced and trust that further dealings you may have
with The Civil and Family Court at Edmonton will be of a higher standard and
without delay.
J Billyack
Operations Manager
In the Civil and Family Court at
Barnet, Edmonton, and Willesden.
If you are not satisfied with my
reply, you can write to: -
HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th
Floor, 102 Petty France, and London SW19 9AJ or email customerinvestigations@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk.
The team will respond within 15
working days.
Judicial decision
We only handle the
administration for courts and tribunals. We are always impartial, and we do not
have any influence over a Judge’s decision. We cannot comment or review their
decision for you
Appeal Judge’s decision
If you are complaining about the
conduct of the judiciary you can write to Judicial Conduct Investigation
Office.
5.
· Additional Email
Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2.
K and Me-03-02-2020 15-09
03/02/2020
/ Page Numbers: 13,14,15
5.
Additional Email
Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2.
K and Me-03-02-2020
15-09
03/02/2020
/ Page Numbers: 13,14,15
--
13,
14,
15,
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.
5
Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk_02.19.2020_FW Simon Cordell Update
19/02/2020
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18,19,20,21,22
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1.
5
Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk_02.19.2020_FW Simon Cordell Update
19/02/2020
/ Page Numbers: 16,17,18,19,20,21,22
--
16,
From: Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
Sent: 19
February 2020 22:27
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: FW:
Simon Cordell Update
Hi Lorraine,
Please see the below email which
sent to you on the 30/12/2019 with the decision regarding SIMONS case.
Many thanks,
PC Alex DAVIS 2669NA ERT C
Great Cambridge Industrial
Estate Patrol Base (YB)
Units 17 to 19 Lincoln Road
Enfield London EN1 1SH Radio no: 480504
From: Davis
Alex H - NA-CU
Sent: 30
December 2019 10:13
To: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Update
Hi Lorraine,
A decision has been made
regarding Simon and no further action will be taken.
I appreciate yours and Simons
patience with regards to the investigation.
Much appreciated,
PC Alex DAVIS 2669NA ERT C
Great Cambridge Industrial
Estate Patrol Base (YB)
Units 17 to 19 Lincoln Road
Enfield London EN1 1SH PR: 480504
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 28
December 2019 10:00
To: Davis Alex H - NA-CU <Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Update
Dear Alexander Davis
I am writing this email to see if there
are any updates, I did send an email on the 23/12/2019 and have not have a
reply. Could you please let me have an update on the case for my son Simon
Cordell, I know the last time you emailed me on the 29/09/2019 you stated you
was looking at an NFA outcome with your supervisor, but have had no update
since this date.
17,
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 23
December 2019 12:41
To: Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Dear Alexander Davis
I was wondering if there was any update
the last time, I heard you stated you were looking at an NFA outcome this was
on the 29/09/2019, I have not heard anything since this. Could you please give
me an update as to what is going on now with this case please has it been NFA?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
mailto:
Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
Sent: 29 September 2019
10:57
To: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Hi Lorraine,
Apologies firstly for the
delayed response.
The case is still awaiting a
decision however, I am in discussion with my supervisor regarding a no further
action outcome. As soon as I have any updates, I will be sure to let you know.
Kind regards,
PC Alex DAVIS 2669NA ERT C
Great Cambridge Industrial
Estate Patrol Base (YB)
Units 17 to 19 Lincoln Road
Enfield London EN1 1SH Radio no: 480504
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 19
September 2019 11:46
To: Davis Alex H - NA-CU <Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Dear Alexander Davis
I was wondering if there are any
updates regarding my son Simon Cordell Can you let me have a full update please
18,
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From: Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk mailto:Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
Sent: 28
June 2019 02:37
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Hi Lorraine,
The case papers are created and
managed on an electronic online system. For some reason when this was sent to
the CPS the case papers have not all correctly sent over. The reason it has
taken a little while is because I have not had a chance to properly review the
papers until now due to the daily demand of answering 999 calls and
investigating numerous other crimes.
I apologise for any
inconvenience caused and I appreciate yours and Simons cooperation. I am on
annual leave until 12/07/2019 and will be in touch as soon as I have any case
updates.
Kind regards,
PC Alex DAVIS 2669NA ERT C
Great Cambridge Industrial
Estate Patrol Base (YB)
Units 17 to 19 Lincoln Road
Enfield London EN1 1SH PR: 480504
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk
Sent: 25
June 2019 09:36
To: Davis Alex H - NA-CU <Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Dear PC Alex DAVIS
I am just replying to your below email
as something is worrying me.
When my son was arrested on the
26/05/2019 he was then interviewed in the early hours of the 27/05/2019, at
that point after interview the file was sent to the CPS for a decision, around
10:30 hours me and my son's solicitors attended again for a next interview for
something else and when we asked for an update regarding the 1st interview we
were told by PC Law that there was something wrong with the servers and that
the CPS did not get the file to make the decision and that the file had to be
sent over to the CPS via email due to the issue with the server and it was
going to be done on that date.
We had the interview and as I was
leaving I asked if a decision was going to be made in time due to the 24 hours
nearly going to be ended, which I was told yes, but on the way home I got a
call to come back to the police station due to my son being released on bail as
it would have taken too long to get a decision and the time would have run out,
again I was told the file would be sent to the CPS, and my son was released on
a 28 day bail to return so yesterday when we came to the police station with
Simon I was shocked when you called and said Simon was going to be released
under investigation as the case needs to be sent back up to the CPS for a
decision.
19,
May I ask at this point why the file
has not been sent to the CPS already and a decision made?
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk mailto:
Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk
Sent: 24
June 2019 14:47
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Hi Lorraine,
As discussed on the phone Simon
is now released under investigation as the case needs to be sent back up to the
CPS for a decision which means he is not required to attend the police station
until requested by me once a decision has been made.
I want to thank you and Simon
once again for your cooperation and patience.
Kind regards,
PC Alex DAVIS 2669NA ERT C
Great Cambridge Industrial
Estate Patrol Base (YB)
Units 17 to 19 Lincoln Road
Enfield London EN1 1SH PR: 480504
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 24
June 2019 10:45
To: Davis Alex H - NA-CU
<Alexander.Davis2@met.police.uk>: Law Jeff A - NA-CU Jeff.Law2@met.police.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Dear PC Davis
I am writing this email as I have not
heard from you regarding the bail to return today for my son Simon Cordell,
When my son was released from the police station we was told by PS NICOLAOU and
PC Law in custody my son would not need to return today, that if my son was
charged he would get a letter before this date to go to court, or if it was NFA
we would also be told before this date. I also asked which was confirmed I
would be updated of the outcome via this email or a phone call.
Over the last days I have sent emails
and PC Law did reply to me and told me that you was the officer in charge, and
you would get back to me, I know you have been given the messages and she told
me that she would pass them over to you, but I have had no replies I also know
my son's solicitors have contracted you also getting no reply.
The police are well aware my son does
not leave his home and finds it very hard to do so.
Could you please get back to me
regarding this issue via this email or my phone number is 07807 333545 or could
you contract
20,
Mr Cordell's solicitors and let them
know the outcome, if my son is to be charged all we need to know is the court
date that he will need to attend court, I do not see why my son would need to
attend the police station to be told this which would cause him more stress.
Regards Lorraine Cordell
From: Lorraine
Cordell mailto: lorraine32@bluevonder.co.ukl
Sent: 23
June 2019 09:07
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM Dear PC Davis
I am writing this email in regard to
the bail to return for my son Mr. Simon Cordell on 24/06/2019 at 2:00 hours to
wood Green Police station.
I know we spoke about me getting an
update due to Simon mail issues, but I have not heard anything from you
regarding the outcome of the bail to return, and I was expecting I would have
known by now the outcome.
I am not sure if Simon will need to
attend the police station on the 24/06/2019 as it was stated he will not need
to attend and we would have the outcome before this date, and I would be
contracted to be informed so I knew what was going on.
Could you please get back to me as soon
as possible regarding this matter, you can email me on this email and let me
know the information I need please.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
From: Jeff.Law2@met.police.uk
mailto: Jeff.Law2@met.police.uk
Sent: 23
June 2019 07:11
To: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Good morning Lorraine
The OIC in this case is pc Alex
DAVIS and he will be in contact shortly
Kind regards
From: Lorraine
Cordell
mailto: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: 21
June 2019 16:47
To: Law Jeff A - NA-CU
<Jeff.Law2@met.police.uk>
Subject: RE:
Simon Cordell Bail to return 24-06-2019 at 2:00PM
Dear PC Law
I am writing this email in
regard to the bail to return for my son Mr. Simon Cordell on 24/06/2019 at 2:00
hours to wood Green Police station.
I know we spoke about me getting
an update due to Simon mail issues, but I have not heard anything from you
regarding the outcome of the bail to return, and I was expecting I would have
known by now the outcome.
21,
I am not sure if Simon will need
to attend the police station on the 24/06/2019 as it was stated he will not
need to attend, and we would have the outcome before this date.
Could you please get back to me
as soon as possible regarding this matter, you can email me on this email, and
I know you took my phone number also so should have this.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be
confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy
or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment without
the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) communication
systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by email and no
responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached with other
personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses
are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be
guaranteed.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be
confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy
or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment
without the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any
email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified
personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by
email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached
with other personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no
viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments
cannot be guaranteed.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be
confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy
or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment
without the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any
email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified
personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by
email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached
with other personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no
viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments
cannot be guaranteed.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be
confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy, or disclose the
information contained in this email or in any attachment without the permission
of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) communication systems are
monitored to
22,
the extent permitted by law and any
email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified
personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by
email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached
with other personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no
viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments
cannot be guaranteed.
NOTICE - This
email and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may be
confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify the
sender and delete it from your system. Do not use, copy
or disclose the information contained in this email or in any attachment
without the permission of the sender. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)
communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law and any
email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified
personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on behalf of the MPS by
email and no responsibility is accepted for unauthorised agreements reached
with other personnel. While reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no
viruses are present in this email, its security and that of any attachments
cannot be guaranteed.
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -21-03-2020 08-22
21/03/2020
/ Page Numbers: 23,24
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -21-03-2020
08-22
21/03/2020
/ Page Numbers: 23,24
--
23,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
21/03/2020 08:22:28 AM
Subject: Resources
to help you stay open during COVID-19.
Need help?
Contact us.
Customer Number: 37486337
Dear GoDaddy Customers,
As COVID-19 continues to spread,
there's nothing more important to us than the well-being of our customers and
employees.
To help you keep your venture going,
we've pulled together free products, resources and
tools from trusted sources.
You'll find videos and articles specific
to your challenges and a community of small businessowners to support you with
creative solutions that are working.
You can find everything here,
including Fogue Studios & Gallery's great example of adapting its business
to continue to sell fine art.
Our GoDaddy Guides continue to answer
the phones and chat, 24/7. No
question is off-topic or too small
(though there may be increased wait times since they're working from home, and
you might hear kids and dogs). Call us if you need help. We're here for you.
Our services are up and running so your
online business can remain open — so you can reach your customers and
they can connect with you.
Lastly, please take good care of
yourself and your loved ones. Stay safe. Stay healthy. Be patient and kind. There
is no better time to strengthen our bonds, to stand together (digitally), to
help each other through this storm, and come out the other side stronger.
Together, we will.
P.S. We appreciate your input.
Tell us how we can help.
24,
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3487168395
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1.
2.
Too
Smooth DPR Wholesalers -24-03-2020 19-48
24/03/2020
/ Page Numbers: 25,26
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1. 2.
Too Smooth DPR Wholesalers
-24-03-2020 19-48
24/03/2020
/ Page Numbers: 25,26
--
25,
From: DPR Wholesalers
<sales@dprwholesalers.com>
Sent time: 24/03/2020 07:48:19 PM
Subject: COVID-19
Safety and Changes at DPR Wholesalers
COVID-19 Operating Procedures
and Safety
Wholesalers
COVID-19 Safety and Changes at DPR
Wholesalers
As a Home & Hardware business,
government advice is that we are able to continue to trade. However, we take
the health & safety of our team, customers, and the wider community very
seriously. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic we have taken the difficult decision to
TEMPORARILY CLOSE our store.
We will be closed on Saturday 28th
March 2020 - UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. We will keep you updated via email,
twitter and our website regarding our re-opening and operating procedures.
Operating procedures until Friday
27th March 2020
In the meantime we will be open as usual
but have made some changes to the way we work to try and minimise the risk of
transmission:
Ř We ask
that if you feel unwell or are displaying any of the symptoms of COVID-19 such
as a temperature of 37.8 degrees or higher, a sore throat or cough you stay
away from the premises for a minimum of two weeks after these symptoms have
passed.
Ř All
customers that wish to enter the premises must wear protective gloves and masks
provided upon entry and keep them on until they leave.
Ř We
will allow only one-person entry per registered account.
Ř We ask
that you complete your visit as quickly and efficiently as possible, if
customers fail to do this, we may need to restrict the number of people we
allow inside the premises at one time.
Ř Please
keep conversations with our staff and other customers to a minimum.
Ř All
customers must stay at least 2 meters away from our staff and each other at all
times.
Ř Failure
to comply with above will mean we cannot serve you and you will need to leave
the premises immediately.
We thank you for your understanding
and patience during these uncertain times. DPR Wholesalers Ltd
26,
For more offers, news
and information,
follow us on Twitter
and
also please visit our website www.DPRWholesalers.com.
020 3583 5200
This email was sent to re_wired@ymail.com
because you registered with us in store or on-line. Copyright © 2016 DPR
Wholesalers Ltd. All rights reserved. Our mailing address is DPR Wholesalers
Ltd., 17 Suez Road, Off Mollison Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 7SN,
UK.
Sales@DPRWholesalers.com
| 020 8583 5200
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -14-04-2020 14-47
14/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 27,28,29,30,31,32
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -14-04-2020
14-47
14/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 27,28,29,30,31,32
--
27,
From: Pro
Writing Aid <noreplys@prowritingaid.com>
Sent time: 14/04/2020 02:47:18 PM
Subject: Master
the Plot Points that Matter
Master the Plot Points that
Matter.
Pro Writing Aid
Improve your writing
View this email in your browser
Master the Plot Points that
Matter
What comes easiest to you when
working on your novel? For me, it's writing specific scenes. I often have a
clear vision for what I want my characters to say and do in a certain moment.
Mapping out an overarching plot, on the other hand? Not my strong suit.
Speaking to some of my writer
friends, I know that others feel differently. Some writers love thinking about
the plot of their story. But executing the mechanics of that plot on a
scene-by-scene basis isn't nearly as fun for them.
In this newsletter, we're
talking all about plot. We have articles about everything from the four plot
mistakes you might be making to the difference between plot, story, and
structure... and why that difference matters.
Plus, at the end, we have an
invitation to our next Pro Writing Aid Write-In. Join us as we work on
mastering suspense together, live.
Read on!
28,
Paid for so I could complete the
repot and case files!
29,30,31,32,
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare - 21-04-2020 09-05
21/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 33,34
10.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare - 21-04-2020 09-05
21/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 33,34
--
33,
From: GoDaddy
Blog <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 21/04/2020 09:05:34 AM
Subject: Simple
tips to make you more productive + 30% off GoDaddy products.
Productivity tips.
How to be more productive.
Unusual times can mean you work
in unusual ways, in unusual places. These simple tips can help you work more
productively, even if things are different.
The story behind Clap For Our Carers.
Discover the story behind the
inspirational Clap for Our Carers event, as told by the person who came up with
the idea.
Boost your SEO with keyword research.
Keyword research is one of the building
blocks of good search engine optimization. Find out how to identify the right
keywords for your website.
34,
GoDaddy UK Blog Editor
P.S. Grab a 30% discount* on
GoDaddy products by using the code blogsmbuk at
checkout when making your next purchase.
We Stand with small business.
During these tough times we have
free resources to help you keep your business open, even if your doors are
closed.
Get Free Resources
See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3578639854
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1.
2.
Car - Go
Compare -22-04-2020 16-36
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 35,36
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -22-04-2020
16-36
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 35,36
--
35,
From:
GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 22/04/2020 04:36:11 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell: Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
GoDaddy
24/7 Support: 020 7084 1810
Simon Cordell
Customer Number:
Your domains are about to auto
renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
Manage Your Renewals
Auto-renews on
22/05/2020
Term: 1
Year toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
Domain Renewal Ł11.99
Auto-renews on
22/05/2020 |
Term: 1 Year
toosmoothentertainment.com
+ .COM Domain Renewal Ł15.99**
UK domains need to be renewed 15
days before they cancel. Learn more > We participate in account update
services. As part of Visa® and MasterCard® programs, banks may notify us of
updated credit card expiration date(s) and/or card number(s), which will automatically
update your payment information in our system and allow us to attempt to renew
your product(s) as scheduled. If paying with American Express, autorenewal on
an expired/re-assigned card may be automatically billed by American Express
using the new expiration date and/or card number without notification to us.
Similar services may be supported by other card brands. If attempts to bill
your credit card are unsuccessful, your
36,
product(s) will expire. To
update your credit card information, or to change your automatic renewal
status, please log in to your account.
We will automatically renew the
above product(s) on the renewal date and charge the credit card you have
associated with each product. If the credit card associated with each product
has expired or been closed, we cannot automatically renew the product and your
product(s) will expire. We may be notified by banks of updates to your
expiration date and/or card number, allowing for successful product renewal.
Some card brands may automatically bill the new credit card without
notification to us. To update your credit card information, or to change your
automatic renewal status, please log in to your account.
NOTE: Our free product credit policy has been updated - see Section 9
of our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that the
Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free product
will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until cancelled. To
review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account.
If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the
Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel,
please learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic
renewal service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically
charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no
further action on your part.
If you do not wish to continue
using our automatic renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
*Plus ICANN fee of Ł0.11 per
domain name per year. Domains automatically renew at original registration
length.
Prices are current as of
22/04/2020 and may be changed without notice. All domain name registrations and
renewals are non-refundable and are subject to the terms and conditions of our
Registration Agreement. Certain domains will be billed up to 30 days prior to
the renewal date.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3583046637
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work -Re to web-22-04-2020 15-11 (2)
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 37
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work -Re to
web-22-04-2020 15-11 (2)
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 37
--
37,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 22/04/2020 03:11:41 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Don't recognise this account?
Google
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-22-04-2020 15-11
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 38
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-22-04-2020 15-11
22/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 38
--
38,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 22/04/2020 03:11:23 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Google
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-23-04-2020 16-15
23/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 39
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-23-04-2020 16-15
23/04/2020
/ Page Numbers: 39
--
39,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 23/04/2020 04:15:26 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Google
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
15.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -14-05-2020 22-23 (1)
14/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 40,41
15.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
15. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -14-05-2020
22-23 (1)
14/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 40,41
--
40,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 14/05/2020 10:23:33 PM
Subject: Simon,
your May account summary is inside.
Need help? Contact us.
Customer Number:
May Account Summary for Simon.
Pro tips, just for you:
What's your domain worth? Find
out now.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step
verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
Here's a sweet discount on your
next new order.
Get 30%* off.
Shop Now _»
Use promo code RPACC20DA at
checkout.
What's in your account:
41,
DOMAINS
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
t-s-enterprises.com
toosmooth.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.com
Manage your domains —»
GODADDY MOBILE APP
All the tools and help you need
to succeed online — all on your phone.
Register a domain, build your website and manage your account on the fly.
Launch your business or share
your passion with. club.
Available at Ł15.14 Ł0.99
Ł19.14
Ł34.47
Ł1.78*
Ł19.14
Ł9.99*
See offer terms, conditions, and
legal policies.
Note: If you are the domain administrator of more than one GoDaddy
domain account, you may receive this notice multiple times.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3656975909
16.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -17-05-2020 13-44
17/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 42,43
16.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
16. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -17-05-2020
13-44
17/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 42,43
--
42,
From:
GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 17/05/2020 01:44:57 PM
Subject: Simon Cordell:
Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
You qualify for 20% off any new
order of Ł32.12 or more. *
Use promo code tff1964d5 at
checkout.
24/7 Support: 020 7084
1810 Simon Cordell — Customer Number:37486337
Your domains are about to auto
renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
Auto-renews on 22/05/2020
toosmoothentertainment.com
+ .COM
Domain Renewal Ł15.99
/ 1 Year **
Auto-renews on
22/05/2020 toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
+ .UK (. CO.UK)
Domain Renewal
Ł11.99 / 1 Year
UK domains need to be renewed 15
days before they cancel. Learn more >
We participate in account update
services. As part of Visa® and MasterCard® programs, banks may notify us of
updated credit card expiration date(s) and/or card number(s), which will
automatically update your payment information in our system and allow us to
attempt to renew your product(s) as scheduled. If paying with American Express,
autorenewal on an expired/re-assigned card may be automatically billed by
American Express using the new expiration date and/or card number without
notification to us. Similar services may be supported by other card brands.
If attempts to bill your credit card are unsuccessful, your
43,
product(s) will expire. To
update your credit card information, or to change your automatic renewal
status, please log in to your account.
We will automatically renew the
above product(s) on the renewal date and charge the credit card you have
associated with each product. If the credit card associated with each product
has expired or been closed, we cannot automatically renew the product and your
product(s) will expire. We may be notified by banks of updates to your
expiration date and/or card number, allowing for successful product renewal.
Some card brands may automatically bill the new credit card without
notification to us. To update your credit card information, or to change your
automatic renewal status, please log in to your account.
NOTE: Our free product credit policy has been updated - see
Section 9 of our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that
the Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free
product will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until
cancelled. To review billing or to update your payment information, log in to
your account. If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel,
please learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic
renewal service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically
charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no
further action on your part.
If you do not wish to continue
using our automatic renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
*Plus ICANN fee of Ł0.15 per
domain name per year. Domains automatically renew at original registration
length.
Prices are current as of
17/05/2020 and may be changed without notice. All domain name registrations and
renewals are non-refundable and are subject to the terms and conditions of our
Registration Agreement. Certain domains will be billed up to 30 days prior to
the renewal date.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3665331102
17.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -19-05-2020 09-06
19/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 44,45
17.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
17. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -19-05-2020
09-06
19/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 44,45
--
44,
From: GoDaddy Blog <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 19/05/2020 09:06:09 AM
Subject: Uncertain
times: Is your business adapting?
45,
Sales!
18.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1.
2.
Car - Go
Compare -22-05-2020 18-37
22/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 46
18.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
18. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -22-05-2020
18-37
22/05/2020
/ Page Numbers: 46
--
46,
From:
GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 22/05/2020 06:37:33 PM
Subject: Renewal
receipt for order #1689957128.
Customer #: 374
Thanks!
Your items have been renewed.
.UK (. CO.UK)
1 Domain 1 Year Ł11.99
Domain Renewal
toosmoothentertainmen.co.uk
Subtotal:
Ł11.99
Tax: Ł2.40
Total: Ł14.39
We have billed your PayPal
agreement ending with the last two digits: 0V for the amount of Ł14.39. To
review all your products and services, sign into your account.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel,
please learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic
renewal service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically
charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no
further action on your part. If you do not wish to continue using our automatic
renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by visiting the Renewals and
Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
Note: Our free product credit policy was updated — see Section 9 of
our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that the credit
is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free product will
automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until cancelled. To
review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account.
If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the
Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
19.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-01-06-2020 00-53
01/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 47
19.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
19. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-01-06-2020 00-53
01/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 47
--
47,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 31/05/2020 11:53:23 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Don't recognise this account?
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
20.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-01-06-2020 02-16
01/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 48
20.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
20. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-01-06-2020 02-16
01/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 48
--
48,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 01/06/2020 01:16:47 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Don't recognise this account?
Speed Uploader for Drive was
granted access to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
21.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -16-06-2020 03-12
16/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 49,50
21.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
21. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -16-06-2020
03-12
16/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 49,50
--
49,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 16/06/2020 03:12:07 AM
Subject: Simon,
your June account summary is inside.
Customer Number: 37486337
June Account Summary for Simon.
Pro tips, just for you:
What's your domain worth? Find
out now.
This is a great time to ensure your
account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step verification
protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
What's in your account:
50,
DOMAINS
Log in to make changes, like pointing
them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
toosmoothentertainment.com
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
toosmooth.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.com
Manage your domains —»
GODADDY MOBILE
APP
All the tools and help you need to
succeed online — all on your phone.
Register a domain, build your website and manage your account on the fly.
Get recognized with .co. Available at Ł26.99
Ł9.99
Search
now >
Ł12.10
Ł0.94*
Ł28.14
0-site
Ł0.99*
.shop
Ł36.03
Ł2.53*
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Note: If you are the domain administrator of more than one GoDaddy domain
account, you may receive this notice multiple times.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3760342788
22.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-23-06-2020 20-01
23/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 51
22.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
22. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-23-06-2020 20-01
23/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 51
--
51,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 23/06/2020 07:01:41 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com. Don't recognise this account?
Drive to Web was granted access to your
linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you should
check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let you know
about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020 Google LLC,
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
23.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 2.
Letter
regarding contact Enfield Council-24-06-2020 18-03
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 52,53
23.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
23. 2.
Letter regarding contact Enfield
Council-24-06-2020 18-03
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 52,53
--
52,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time:
24/06/2020 08:18:03 PM
To: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW:
Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
This is what I have asked her
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 20:09
To: ' complaints and information' <complamtsandmfonriation@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Karen Hale
I was wondering if you sent a copy of
this to my son via his address. Or has it just been sent to me?
If you could also, please send me a
list of dates and times my son has called for the past year I would be grateful.
Regards
Lorraine
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 15:33
To: 'Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk' <Lorraine32@bluevonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for
your attention regarding communications with the Council. Yours sincerely
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information
Service Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient
53,
should perform their own virus
checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
24.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1.
1
Complaints
and information act with Enfield Council [SEC
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 54,55,56,57,58
24.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
24. 1. 1
Complaints and information act
with Enfield Council [SEC
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 54,55,56,57,58
--
54,
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandmformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 15:33
To: Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Cordell letter 24.6.2020.pdf; Cordell letter
27.06.19.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for
your attention regarding communications with the Council. Yours sincerely
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information
Service Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfieldgov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
55,
56,
57,
58,
25.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonderg
contact with Enfield Council
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 59,60
25.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
25. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonderg contact
with Enfield Council
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 59,60
--
59,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 23:19
To: complaints and information
Subject: RE:
Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Dear Karen Hale
I was wondering if you sent a copy of
this to my son via his home address and if so on what date? Or has it just been
sent to me?
If you could also please send me a list
of all dates and times my son has called and for what reason he has called for
the past year, highlighting dates where you state he has been Vexatious and
Unreasonable I would be most grateful.
Also I am sorry for the updated email
the reason is due to me reading the letter fully what you have written, can you
also please supply me with dates in the last year I have contracted the council
for my son regarding the issues listed in the letter dated the 23/06/2020,
again highlighting all dates and times you state I have been Vexatious and
Unreasonable.
·
I believe I contracted the council
named officer once after the letter dated 27/06/2020 which I had no reply to.
·
The other contract I had was due to an
ongoing court cases, which most of the time my son’s solicitors was contracting
the council towards the end of the case, I had to address the council directly
as my son no longer had a solicitor acting for him.
·
The only other time I had contract was
when the MP was addressing issues regarding a court order which the court made
which the council did not comply with.
·
And the only other time I have had
contact is due to repairs that needed doing to my sons flat.
Could you therefore supply me with the
above information as soon as possible so this can be addressed in a timely
manner.
Regards
Lorraine
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 15:33
To: 'Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk' <Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for your
attention regarding communications with the Council.
Yours sincerely
60,
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information
Service Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged
and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and
receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in
any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
26.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonderg
contact with Enfield Council
03/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 61,62,63
26.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
26. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonderg contact
with Enfield Council
03/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 61,62,63
--
61,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 03
July 2020 12:09
To: complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: FW: Letter regarding contact with
Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Dear Karen Hale
I have not had a reply from the below
email dated the 24/06/2020, which I would like a reply to or at least a reply
to state you will not reply to me.
My son has also tried to have contract
with you, and you have not replied back to him, we have been given you as a
single point of contact, yet there is no contract from you.
There is major issue with the letter
that has been sent via Jeremy Chambers dated the 24/06/2020 and I am very
concerned regarding its content.
We would also like to appeal against
the decision to restrict contact dated the 24/06/2020, but before I can summit
my appeal in full I need the information below as the letter states we have 28
days in which to appeal so if my request can be dealt with as soon as possible
I would be grateful.
But I am making you aware an appeal is
going to be submitted, there could you please reply.
Regards
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 23:19
To: 'complaints and information' <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject:
RE: Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Dear Karen Hale
I was wondering if you sent a copy of
this to my son via his home address and if so on what date? Or has it just been
sent to me?
If you could also please send me a list
of all dates and times my son has called and for what reason he has called for
the past year, highlighting dates where you state he has been Vexatious and
Unreasonable I would be most grateful.
Also I am sorry for the updated email
the reason is due to me reading the letter fully what you have written, can you
also please supply me with dates in the last year I have contracted the council
for my son regarding the issues listed in the letter dated the 23/06/2020,
again highlighting all dates and times you state I have been Vexatious and
Unreasonable.
·
I believe I contracted the council
named officer once after the letter dated 27/06/2020 which I had no reply to.
·
The other contract I had was due to an ongoing
court cases, which most of the time my son’s solicitors was contracting the
council towards the end of the case, I had to address the council directly as
my son no longer had a solicitor acting for him.
62,
·
The only other time I had contract was
when the MP was addressing issues regarding a court order which the court made
which the council did not comply with.
·
And the only other time I have had
contact is due to repairs that needed doing to my sons flat.
Could you therefore supply me with the
above information as soon as possible so this can be addressed in a timely
manner.
Regards
Lorraine
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent:
24 June 2020 15:33
To: 'Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
<Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for
your attention regarding communications with the Council. Yours sincerely
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information
Service Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the latest
Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to serving
the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong
communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government
63,
Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
27.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -11-07-2020 12-56
11/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 64,65,66,67,68
27.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
27. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -11-07-2020
12-56
11/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 64,65,66,67,68
--
64,
Corrupt File!
65,
Corrupt File!
66,67,68,
28.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -14-07-2020 22-12
14/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 69,70
28.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
28. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -14-07-2020
22-12
14/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 69,70
--
69,
From:
GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 14/07/2020 10:12:40 PM
Subject: Simon,
your July account summary is inside.
Customer Number: 37486337
July Account Summary for Simon.
Pro tips, just for you:
What's your domain worth? Find
out now.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step
verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab under
"Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
Here's a sweet discount on your
next new order.
What's in your account:
70,
DOMAINS
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
toosmooth.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.com
toosmoothentertainment.com
Manage your domains —»
GODADDY MOBILE APP
All the tools and help you need
to succeed online — all on your phone.
Register a domain, build your website and manage your account on the fly.
Do good with a .org domain.
Available at Ł26.00 Ł0.99 Search now >
store
Ł64.14
Ł2.50*
.VIP
Ł17.66
Ł5.72*
.place Ł16.07*
*See offer terms, conditions,
and legal policies.
Note: If you are the domain administrator of more than one GoDaddy
domain account, you may receive this notice multiple times.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3854773854
29.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -16-07-2020 10-06
16/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 71,72
29.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
29. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -16-07-2020
10-06
16/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 71,72
--
71,
Does your website pass this
Google test?
Find out why you should test
your website with Google Lighthouse and what you should do if your site
Get business leads with
Facebook.
Learn how you can drive more
leads to your website using Facebook.
From: GoDaddy Blog <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 16/07/2020 10:06:36 AM
Subject: Could
you attract more local customers? + 30% off GoDaddy products.
GoDaddy:
16/07/2020
Discover how to attract more
local customers to your business with these simple tips.
72,
doesn't pass.
Will
GoDaddy UK Blog Editor
P.S. Grab a 30% discount* on
GoDaddy products by using the code blogs mbuk at
checkout when making your next purchase.
Open We Stand with small
business.
During these tough times we have
free resources to help you keep your business open, even if your doors are
closed.
Get Free Resources
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3860943953
30.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1.
1
lorraine32@blueyonderg
contact with Enfield Council
17/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 73,74,75
30.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
30. 1. 1
lorraine32@blueyonderg contact
with Enfield Council
17/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 73,74,75
--
73,
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 17
July 2020 19:03
To: complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Karen Hale
I have written the 2 below emails and
had no reply I would like to appeal against the decision to restrict contact
dated the 24/06/2020, you are the named contract by, yet I have not had one
reply.
Can you please update to me what is
going on.
If you cannot update me with anything
can you, please confirm what level this is at so I can deal with this issue.
Regards
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 03
July 2020 12:09
To: complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
<complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: FW:
Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
Dear Karen Hale
I have not had a reply from the below
email dated the 24/06/2020, which I would like a reply to or at least a reply
to state you will not reply to me.
My son has also tried to have contract
with you, and you have not replied back to him, we have been given you as a
single point of contact, yet there is no contract from you.
There is major issue with the letter
that has been sent via Jeremy Chambers dated the 24/06/2020 and I am very
concerned regarding its content.
We would also like to appeal against
the decision to restrict contact dated the 24/06/2020, but before I can summit
my appeal in full I need the information below as the letter states we have 28
days in which to appeal so if my request can be dealt with as soon as possible
I would be grateful.
But I am making you aware an appeal is
going to be submitted, there could you please reply.
Regards
From: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 23:19
To: 'complaints and information' <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: RE:
Letter regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Importance: High
74,
Dear Karen Hale
I was wondering if you sent a copy of
this to my son via his home address and if so on what date? Or has it just been
sent to me?
If you could also please send me a list
of all dates and times my son has called and for what reason he has called for
the past year, highlighting dates where you state he has been Vexatious and
Unreasonable I would be most grateful.
Also I am sorry for the updated email
the reason is due to me reading the letter fully what you have written, can you
also please supply me with dates in the last year I have contracted the council
for my son regarding the issues listed in the letter dated the 23/06/2020,
again highlighting all dates and times you state I have been Vexatious and
Unreasonable.
·
I believe I contracted the council
named officer once after the letter dated 27/06/2020 which I had no reply to.
·
The other contract I had was due to an ongoing
court cases, which most of the time my son’s solicitors was contracting the
council towards the end of the case, I had to address the council directly as
my son no longer had a solicitor acting for him.
·
The only other time I had contract was
when the MP was addressing issues regarding a court order which the court made
which the council did not comply with.
·
And the only other time I have had
contact is due to repairs that needed doing to my sons flat.
Could you therefore supply me with the
above information as soon as possible so this can be addressed in a timely
manner.
Regards
Lorraine
From: complaints
and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 15:33
To: 'Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk'
<Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for your
attention regarding communications with the Council. Yours sincerely
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information Service
Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
75,
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Follow us
on Facebook Twitter www.enfield.gov.uk
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
31.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -22-07-2020 09-06
22/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 76,77
31.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
31. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -22-07-2020
09-06
22/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 76,77
--
76,
Does your website pass this
Google test?
Why you should test your website
with Google Lighthouse and what to do if your site doesn't pass.
Your WordPress maintenance
checklist.
Keep your WordPress sites
running smoothly by following this maintenance checklist.
From: GoDaddy Blog <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 22/07/2020 09:06:22 AM
Subject: Get more leads with Facebook.
GoDaddy: 22/07/2020
77,
Will
GoDaddy UK Blog Editor
P.S. You can learn how to attract
more clients in your local area here.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3878315084
32.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-25-07-2020 11-15
25/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 78
32.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
32. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-25-07-2020 11-15
25/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 78
--
78,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 25/07/2020 10:15:34 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
33.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-26-07-2020 09-59
26/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 79
33.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
33. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-26-07-2020 09-59
26/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 79
--
79,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 26/07/2020 08:59:26 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
34.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
34. 1.
2.
Legal Defence
Work - Drive to web-28-07-2020 21-11
28/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 80
34.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-28-07-2020 21-11
28/07/2020
/ Page Numbers: 80
--
80,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 28/07/2020 08:11:19 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let you
know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020 Google
LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
35.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -07-08-2020 11-51
07/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 81,82
35.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
35. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -07-08-2020
11-51
07/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 81,82
--
81,
From: GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 07/08/2020 11:51:25 AM
Subject: Simon
Cordell: Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
You qualify for 20% off any new
order of Ł29.84 or more. *
Use promo code tfg1964d30 at
checkout.
24/7 Support: 020 7084
1810 Simon Cordell
Customer Number:374
Your domains are about to auto
renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
Auto-renews on 06/09/2020
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
+ .UK (. CO.UK)
Domain Renewal:
Ł11.99 / 1 Year
Auto-renews on 06/09/2020
t-s-enterprises.com
+ .COM
Domain Renewal:
Ł15.99 / 1 Year **
UK domains need to be renewed 15
days before they cancel. Learn more >
We participate in account update
services. As part of Visa® and MasterCard® programs, banks may notify us of
updated credit card expiration date(s) and/or card number(s), which will
automatically update your payment information in our system and allow us to
attempt to renew your product(s) as scheduled. If paying with American Express,
autorenewal on an expired/re-assigned card may be automatically billed by
American Express using the new expiration date and/or card number without
notification to us. Similar services may be supported by other card brands. If
attempts to bill your credit card are unsuccessful, your
82,
product(s) will expire. To
update your credit card information, or to change your automatic renewal
status, please log in to your account.
We will automatically renew the
above product(s) on the renewal date and charge the credit card you have
associated with each product. If the credit card associated with each product
has expired or been closed, we cannot automatically renew the product and your
product(s) will expire. We may be notified by banks of updates to your
expiration date and/or card number, allowing for successful product renewal.
Some card brands may automatically bill the new credit card without
notification to us. To update your credit card information, or to change your
automatic renewal status, please log in to your account.
NOTE: Our free product credit policy has been updated - see
Section 9 of our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that
the Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free
product will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until
cancelled. To review billing or to update your payment information, log in to
your account. If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
NOTE: This message confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms
of Service Agreement, Privacy Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your
use of these products is governed by the terms of these agreements and
policies. If you wish to cancel, please learn more about our Refund Policy.
This message also confirms that during the checkout process you agreed to enrol
your products in our automatic renewal service. This keeps your products up and
running, automatically charging then-current renewal fees to your payment
method on file, with no further action on your part.
If you do not wish to continue
using our automatic renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
**Plus ICANN fee of Ł0.15 per
domain name per year. Domains automatically renew at original registration
length.
Prices are current as of
07/08/2020 and may be changed without notice. All domain name registrations and
renewals are non-refundable and are subject to the terms and conditions of our
Registration Agreement. Certain domains will be billed up to 30 days prior to
the renewal date.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3930420781
36.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-09-08-2020 22-19
09/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 83
36.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
36. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-09-08-2020 22-19
09/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 83
--
83,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 09/08/2020 09:19:25 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Fast.io was granted access to
your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
37.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -11-08-2020 09-06
11/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 84,85
37.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
37. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -11-08-2020
09-06
11/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 84,85
--
84,
11/08/2020
Join our virtual roadshow.
The GoDaddy Back to Business
virtual roadshow is packed full of
Get a social media strategy.
Discover why a strategy should
be the foundation of your social media
From: GoDaddy Blog <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 11/08/2020 09:06:27 AM
Subject: How
are you getting back to business?
Getting back to business.
Ideas to help you get back to
business.
Looking to get back to business?
Here are some ideas to inspire you in the face of uncertainty.
85,
expert advice to help you
succeed in 2020 and beyond. Take a look at the agenda then book your spot.
GoDaddy UK Blog Editor
Open We Stand with small
business.
During these tough times we have
free resources to help you keep your business open, even if your doors are
closed.
Get Free Resources
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Click here to unsubscribe or manage
your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3940771762
38.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1.
2.
Kay
Osborne-11-08-2020 13-09
11/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 86,87
38.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
38. 1. 2.
Kay Osborne-11-08-2020 13-09
11/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 86,87
--
86,
From: Kay Osborne <Kay.Osborne@Enfield.gov.uk>
Sent time: 11/08/2020 01:09:55 PM
Subject: FW: Kay
Osborne letter asked for [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Simon-Insurance-Letter-10-08-2020.pdf
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell
Many thanks for your attached
letter.
Unfortunately as you are making
a claim against the Council neither I or our Insurers
are able to assist you in documenting your evidence against the Council.
In order that I can forward your
claim to Insurers please confirm what you are claiming for and why you consider
the Council to be at fault.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
Kay Osborne Dip CII
Insurance Manager Audit &
Risk Management London Borough of Enfield Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XF
insurance@enfield.gov.uk
020 8379 3003
Kav.osborne@enfield.gov.uk
020 8379 1476
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 10
August 2020 14:19
To: Insurance
<insurance@enfield.gov.uk>;
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Kay
Osborne letter asked for
Dear Kay Osborne
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me by phone last week please see attached letter you asked me to send
to you.
Regards
Simon
Classification: OFFICIAL
87,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
39.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1.
2.
kay
Osborne 12-08-2020 17-36
12/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119
39.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
39. 1. 2.
kay Osborne 12-08-2020 17-36
12/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 88,89,90
91,92,93,94,95,96
97,98,99,100,101,102
103,104,105,106,107,108
109,110,111,112,113,114
115,116,117,118,119
--
88,
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/08/2020 05:36:14 PM
To:
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Take a
look at this
Attachments: Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
You should start to update it
and I will keep working at the bottom end and you can
use the diary to check the page numbers if you chose to
89,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
Mr Simon Cordell 109 Burncroft
Ave Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 07/08/2020
Objective 1: Complete
Claim.
Objective 2: Be
successful in accomplishing the claim.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter
regarding a call that was made on the date of the 06/08/2020, I have been asked
to send this letter over to explain that I have been preparing the official
documentation that will be forwarded to the relevant departments as part of my
claim against the Enfield Council / The Enfield Neighbourhood team including
others E.g. Police and Doctors.
Due to the large amount of
documentation that is involved to complete the listed objectives and myself
being just one person this has taken a massive amount of my time and is still
in possess.
To aid in a speedier claim I
have invited the Enfield Council and Insurance companies involved to help me
document my evidence on a numerous number of different days, which the lack of
support from officials involved has led myself to completing the claim on my
own as of so far.
My evidence does show case
already the actions that have been taken against me wrongly and saving time is
why I have tried to arrange prior meetings.
90,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
I would like this letter dated
the 10/08/2020 to be registered as the start of my claim and would explain that
I need further time form the date of this letter for my documents and evidence
to be completed and put in order.
Once all my documents and evidence
are completed, I am asking yet again if a meeting can be set up for the
documents and evidence to be looked at due to the very large amount that will
come with this claim, with my mother and myself present as I am the victim and
would like to explain my evidence in person to another’s.
Yours faithfully
Mr Simon Cordell - 07/08/2020
This is not a conclusive summery
I Mr. Simon Cordell have gotten
asked to clarify why I am lodging a claim against the listed.
Listed
1. The
Enfield Council
2. The Enfield
Neighbourhood team
3. Police
4. Doctors
The named and listed companies
within this document have acted in joint circular thought the years of 2013
till date of this letter and must be able to be held legally liable to
prosecution for their misplace actions and/or wrong doings.
I have sustained Personal and
Property damage to no fault of my own as a result of failures caused by the
Listed 1,2,3,4, running companies activities faults.
The Local Authority’s listed
above have caused me to suffer by way of Negligence, Gross Misconduct and
Criminal Offences and my sufferings have gotten caused by a failure of care on
their part.
I can prove the Listed 1,2,3,4,
companies’ staff have acted
1. Bios
and unreasonable while taking on running companies’ activities in the public
domain.
91,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
2. Them
involved staff have caused and are causing a Poor reaction times to public
concerns.
3. Negligence
4. Gross
Misconduct
5. Criminal
Offences
And in a knock-on effect their reckless
behaviour has caused me to suffer by ways such as;
General damages =
General
damages relate to the impact on my life referring to such issues as:
1. Pain
and suffering caused by the Listed 1,2,3,4,
2. Forced
changes to my lifestyle.
3. Mental
trauma.
Special damages =
Special
damages relate to the impact on my life referring to such issues as:
1. Loss
of earnings.
2. My
future loss of earnings.
3. Medical
treatment.
4. Future
medical treatment.
5. Transport
expenses relating to forged court case
6. Changes
to my living environment.
The listed local authorities
have a legal duty of care to me and their other customers and have failed to
maintain this duty of care for myself.
A legal liability can be
established by the burden of evidence that I hold regarding these damages that
does prove fault that has gotten caused by Negligence, Gross Misconduct and/or
Criminal Activities with intent.
A) Asbo
The Asbo’s Important Details
1. At no
point of time did I organise any of the events in the Asbo
2. The
Asbo was created on the date of.
3. And
the sentence for the Asbo ended on the date of 04/08/220
4. Total
Time Served for the Asbo 7 years.
5. The
ASBO was a STAND ALONE Asbo and not a CBO Asbo
6. The
Asbo accused me of the organisation of Illegal Raves, yet I have never been
arrested
7. The
Asbo contained a Curfew what is a form of punishment and a standalone Asbo
cannot be a form of punishment
8. The
Maximum sentence if there was enough evidence for criminal conviction to which
there was not is 6 months and the offender would have to do 3 months in prison
with the chance of early release with tag.
92,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
·
The Asbo got created by Steve Elsmore
who is / was Police Officer 206372 I am a police officer attached
to the Anti- Social Behaviour Team as part of the Community
Safety Unit, Based at Enfield Civic Centre. Dated
11/08/2014
·
Every page in the Asbo was created by
Steven Elsmore at it is was his working company’s logging from the Enfield
Council he used.
·
The Asbo got signed when getting created
in the Enfield Civic centre as it had to be by law as stated on page 000 by the
supported certificates
·
The Asbo contains 10 different
incidents which out of the 8 incidents 1 of them equals to 2 incidents
“Progress Way / Crown Rd.”
Crown Road must not be in the Asbo
application.
Date Order
1. Canary
Wharf 12/01/2013
2. Sunday
Going Out on Motor Bikes 07/04/2013
3. Hyde
Park, Alan Browne 20/04/2014
4. Ponders
End Police Station Christopher Jackson Ye 24/05/2014
5. White
Hart Lane Steve Hoodless 25/05/2014
6. Progress
Way 07/06/2014
7. 1
Falcon Park Pc Haworth 20/06/2014
8. Carpet
right 19/07/2014
9. Alma
Road 24/07/2014
10. Mill
Marsh lane 1 27/07/2014
12.11.
URN Order
37 |
CRIMINT report PKRT00056539 Hyde Park Alan Browne |
Event Date: 20/04/2014 Created: 27/04/2014 Updated: 28/04/2014 |
Event Date: 688 Created: 695 Updated 696 |
Mag 2 -136,137,138 Mag 1) Response: 101,102,103 Appeal - 124,125,126 |
N/a |
|
36 |
CRIMINT report YERT00323197 White Hart
Lane Steve Hoodless (YR) CAD9720/25May14 |
Event Date: 25/05/2014 Created: 26/05/2014 Updated: 19/06/2014 |
Event Date: 723 Created: 724 Updated 748 |
Mag 2 -133,134,135 Mag 1) Response: 98,99,100 Appeal - 121,122,123 |
CAD 9720 / 25May14 |
|
93,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
38 |
CRIMINT report YERT00360430 Ponders
End Police Station Christopher Jackson Ye |
Event Date: 24/05/2014 Created: 24/05/2014 Updated: 03/06/2014 |
Event Date: 722 Created: 722 Updated 732 |
Mag 2 -139,140,141,142 Mag 1) Response: 104,105,106,107 Appeal - 127,128,129,130 |
N/a |
35 |
CRIMINT report YERT00374531 Enfield
Southbury Road Cad 1047/07/14 Not Progress Way Really Crown road Cad 1047/07/14 |
Event Date: 07/06/2014 Created: 07/06/2014 Updated: 10/06/2014 |
Event Date: 736 Created: 736 Updated 737 |
Mag 2 - 130,131,132 Mag 1) Response: 95,96,97 Appeal -118,119,120 |
Cad 1047 /07 Jun 14 |
|
CRIMINT report YERT00376024 Southbury
Doug
Skinner (RG) |
Event Date: 19/07/2014 Created: 21/07/2014 Updated: 22/07/2014 |
Event Date: 778 Created: 780 Updated 781 |
Mag 2 - 108,109,110 Mag 1) Response: 74,75,76: Appeal - 99,100,101 |
Cad 10635 /19 July 14 |
31 |
CRIMINT report YERT00376227 Mill Marsh
Lane Richard Chandler Ye |
Event Date: 27/07/2014 Created: 27/07/2014 Updated: 27/07/2014 |
Event Date: 786 Created: 786 Updated 786 |
Mag 2 -101,102,103,104 Mag 1) Response: 67,68,69,70 Appeal - 92,93,94,95 |
|
|
CRIMINT report YERT00376229 Jamie
Edgoose Ye Alma Rd
|
Event
Date:
24/07/2014
Created:
27/07/2014
Updated:
31/07/2014
|
Event
Date:
783
Created:
786
Updated
790
|
Mag 2 - 105,106,107 Mag 1) Response:71,72,73, Appeal - 96,97,98
|
|
94,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
30 |
CRIMINT report YERT00376728 Mill
Marsh Lane Aaron King |
Event Date: 27/07/2014 Created: 10/08/2014 Updated: 12/08/2014 |
Event Date: 786 Created: 800 Updated 802 |
Mag 2 - 97,98,99,100 Mag 1) Response: 63,64,65,66 Appeal - 88,89,90,91 |
|
|
Steven Elesmore Crimint
HTR00376798 Event Date 12/01/13 Created 16/01/13 Update 18/01/13 Canary Wharf 1st” |
Event Date 12/01/13 Created 16/01/13 Update 18/01/13 |
|
Mag 2 - 175,176,177 Mag 1) Response: 137,138,139 Appeal - 161,162,163 |
N/a |
--
13. The
organisation of Illegal Raves
A.
The Asbo’s Simulated History
Just to stipulate a small part of what I
can prove has taken place to myself due to no fault of my own is:
1.
When the Asbo got created it was after
the date of 00/00/2014 the day after an accused incident took
place on a second occasion at Mill Mash Lane.
2.
Just prior to Mill Mash Lane Another
Incident is accused to have taken place at Progress way Enfield on the dates of
the 06&07&08/06/2014
What can be proved about Progress Way
in relation to my claim is.
I had been on police curfew alongside
other harsh bail conditions at my home address from the dates of 00/00/2013
till I won the case on the 00/00/2014.
The Metropolitan Police Force and my
local Council both understood about my bail conditions, as I had been working
with them both doing local events in my surrounding parks, while I had taken on
the keys from my local community hall and was managing
95,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
the local community’s & facility’s,
The Enfield Council and police both attended while I
was at work.
At the same time, I had been working
with other charity’s and committing my time to my own dreams of building g a
large-scale event.
On the dates of 06&07&08/06/2014,
another person named as (A) who I had not seen for over a year prior due to
the police curfew and other bail conditions that I had been placed on had gotten
spoken to by a police officer named (B) about not putting on an event in
Hertfordshire.
police officer named (B) served a
dispersal order / notice on person named as (A) while also informing
Metropolitan police of the possibility of a after event taking place in London.
I was aware of none of the following until after served the Asbo application
and requesting such information.
In the early hours of the morning of
the 07/06/2014 at the time of around 1300 hours I received a phone call of a
young male friend named as (C), at the time I had been having a family drink in
the pub/hall with my cousin as it was his leaving party.
My friend named as (C), invited me to
come and visit them at where they were residing what was close to my location
in my local borough as they were having a celebration. This was the first point
of time when I understood that my friends were next to where I live. I agreed
to go and visit this friend for the first time in other 1 year.
I drove my car to go and see my friends
and took my partner of the time with me.
When we arrived at the secured
premises, the police were present at the gates and asked me if I had organised
any of the then and there present. Me and my partner both explained no and gave
our reason for attendance Progress way and that was to see friends, and this
was allowed.
On the same industry site as progress
way, in fact next doors to progress way was a new building that I did not know
was a police patrol centre that had just been built.
What can get proved from the Asbo
application is on the 07/06/2014 the first cad of the day is missing CAD 943,
and this is Crown road Cad 1012 was next
Cad 1047 is the 3rd call made to Bow
call centre “MetCCC.” The person who made this telephone call to the emergency
services was a police officer with name of Pc Shinick while on duty and this
cad becomes the main cad linked to Progress Way.
Bow call centre “MetCCC” arranges for
police officers to attend the location after the time of 01:59, while asking Pc
Shinick while on duty if he has contacted the Enfield Civic Centre regarding
this matter. All communication after this was done by way of text.
Police Officer
206372
a Steve Elsmore who was attached to the Anti- Social Behaviour Team as
part of the Community Safety Unit, Based at Enfield Civic
Centre. Had prior to these dates of the 06&07&08/06/2014
Progress Way had been receiving a lot of phone call as so had the
Metropolitan police about other premises that they oversaw named as the
Man Building on Southbury rd.
96,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
My mother also put a subject access
request into the council in purist of information about the Man Building on
Southbury rd.
As noted in the Asbo CAD 0000
the Man Building had a fragile roof, meaning that the police and the Enfield
Council could not go into the building in all the moths that it had been
squatted due to health and safety reasons and this took place while I was on
curfew.
Eventually, I have gone home and had no
problems with the police and /or the council on the 07/
A) The Man Building on Southbury rd.
1
• My 1st Asbo Response Bundle/ pub
Book Issue: 1!
MEDIA ARTICLES RE COMPLAINTS AT CROWN
ROAD/
Page Numbers: 297,298,299,300,301,302
1
My 1st Asbo Response Bundle/ pub Book
Issue: 1!
MEDIA ARTICLES RE COMPLAINTS AT CROWN
ROAD/
Page Numbers: 297,298,299,300,301,302
Enfield INDEPENDENT
Enfield Neighbours’ anger over 15-hour
rave in Southbury Road
Charlie Peat / Friday 25April 2014 /
News Follow @ Enfield Andy Chaz
Ravers took over abandoned business
building for more than 15 hours,
The former HAN building in Crown Road,
on the junction with Southbury Road, was the venue for an illegal party that began
on Saturday night.
According to residents in Anglesey
Road, adjacent to crown road, the loud noise and disturbance continued until
3pm the next day.
One resident, who wanted to remain
anonymous, said that the 15-hour rave was "ridiculously loud/'
He said: "It was so loud the whole
house was shaking like an earthquake was happening. There are no clubs or bars
near us, so this was quite a shock. We understand that sometimes it could be
loud late at night but for it to continue until 3pm the next day Is not right.
"I walked along to check out what was going on, it was ridiculously loud.
Things were getting smashed up in the building and people were spray painting
everywhere." Police say they attended late on Saturday evening and
returned the following day and music was still being played.
TOTAL POLICING COME AND TALK TO THE
COMMISSIONER WHAT WOULD YOU ASK? We are inviting you to meet the
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.
DATE: Wednesday 14th October 2015
TIME:
6.30pm -7.30pm
(doors open at 6.00pm for refreshments!
LOCATION: Aylward Academy, Windmill
Road.
298,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
10/9/2015
Enfield INDEPENDENT
Rave in disused office went on for 15
hours (From Enfield Independent) experience.
Kate Laird, also of Anglesey Road said:
We are furious that nothing was done at the time, I have children and we
couldn't sleep all night. 0ne of our neighbours saw police show up but they did
not do anything.
299,
09/09/2014
Enfield INDEPENDENT
The Man Building, Enfield, wrecked by
graffiti
300,
Anna Slater, Chief Reporter - north
London / Tuesday 9 September 2014/ News Follow @AnnaTimesSeries 1,663
followers
301,
Listed building ’wrecked' by graffiti
(From Enfield Independent)
Vandals have “completely wrecked” an
abandoned building by painting graffiti on the front and squatting inside.
The NAN building, in Crown Road, on the
junction with Southbury Road, Enfield, has also been used for illegal raves and
parties in the last few months.
Formerly used as a car factory, the
Grade II listed building closed down more than a year ago and Enfield
Borough Council is now looking for a new owner.
David Cockle, the chairman of the
Enfield Society, has been left concerned by the way the way the building has
fallen into disrepair.
He said: ‘It once had a very nice,
manicured garden - but now it’s just been completely wrecked. It’s a huge
shame.
“I recently discovered that squatters
have been on site and It’s generally in a deplorable state, ft doesn’t give a
good impression to people visiting the area for the first time.
“It’s such a high-profile site and one
we should be proud of, but now it just looks awful.1’
Earlier this year, people in nearby
Anglesey Road, said their houses were “shaking like an
The party included loud music and
continued until 3pm the next afternoon - a total of 15 hours.
Graffiti tags have now been emblazoned
on the front of the building, which has been boarded up.
Mr. |
added: “For a listed building to be left like that, it's terrible
“The plants and shrubs are overgrown
too - it’s sad to see it so run down.
“It used to be such an attractive
building. 1M
The Enfield Independent is awaiting
comment from Enfield Borough Council 302
“Na Page”
1) As prior mentioned when the Asbo got
created it was after the date of 00/00/2014 the day after an
accused incident took place, on a second occasion at Mill Mash Lane.
97,
Si-Email-insurance-2020 (1).doc
Police Officer
206372
Steve Elsmore created the Asbo application on the date of the 00/00/2014 and
when he done this in the police NPCADS that is in connection to the council’s
neighbourhood team and themselves.
He got a Unic
reference number for the second incident in the Asbo that is accused to have
taken place at Mill Marsh Lane.
Steve Elsmore continued to search the
NCS and went to the year of 2010. He found two pieces of police intelligence
that had been No Further Actioned, in fact I have never been arrested for any
of the following two Crimit/Cads/Reports.
Crimit/Cads/Reports
1. 12.1. Canary
Wharf 12/01/2013
Crimit/Cads/Reports
2. Rays Nightclub 2010
Because Steven Elsmore understood what he
was going to do when creating the Asbo application that got put against me was
a criminal activity, he took caution in covering up his tracks.
He took the information / context out
of the Crimit of Crimit/Cads/Reports
63. Cannery
Wolf 2010
and placed in into a fresh unicq Crimit that he took out of the national police
computed aid dispatch system 50 after creating Mill Mash Lanes Cad that he used
to create the Asbo and he also changed the police officers name and other
related details to names of his pleasure.
The reasons for him to do this was to
protect the original police officers who are not attached to the boroughs of
North London and to keep these illegal activities to a minimum of people
involved.
The Crimit/Cads/Reports
64. Rays
Nightclub 2010
Was never used in the Asbo application.
The illegal activities never stopped at
this point, Steven Elsmore continued to search the NPCADS for more intelligence
that he could manipulate to his and his colleague’s own advantages. Steven
Elsmore continued his frenzy of eager sensation
He imputed into the Asbo application
out of the police national computer aid dispatch system some of the cads
related to the prior week of Progress Way that were in relation to
1. Illegal Raves
2. The Man Building that is on Crown Road.
This can be checked by going to the last cad on the 07/06/2014 and checking the
Linked Cads on the First and second pages as showed below.
98,
All Cad
numbers got taken from Cad 10967 07/06/2014
Linked: explicitly to: |
|||
Linked: implicitly to: |
|||
943:07JUN14 3274:01JUN14
2141:07JUN14 2456:07JUN14 2672:07JUN14 2906:07JUN14 3326:07JUN14 4015:07JUN14 4809:07JUN14 8931:07JUN14 10471:07JUN14 10844:07JUN14 10742:07JUN14 340:08JUN14 930:08JUN14 1646:08J0N14 2456:08JUN14 2766:08JUN14 2904:08JUN14 3151:08JUN14 3319:08JUN14 |
1571:07JU14
8528:01JUN14
2255:07JUN14 2525:07JUN14 2757:07JUN14 3005:07JUN14 3436:07JUN14 4322:07JUN14 5206:07JUN14 10311:07JUN14 10481:07JUN14 10967:07JUN14 10506:07JUN14 625:08JUN14 1667:08JUN14 2608:08JUN14 2796:08JUN14 2942:08JUN14 3179:08JUN14 3350:08JUN14 3515:08JUN14 3946:08JUN14 |
3190:01JUN14
1047:07JUN14 1608:07JUN14 1380:07JUN14 2271:07JUN14 2601:07JUN14 2354:07JUN14 3037:07JUN14 3838:07JUN14 4323.07JUN14 5571:07JUN14 10393:07JUN14 47:08JUN14 749:08JUN14 1206:08JUN14 1768:08JUN14 2654:08JUN14 2845:08JUN14 2948:08JUN14 3194:08JUN14 5644:08JUN14 |
3754:01JUN14
1722:07JUN14 1816:07JUN14 2291:07JUN14 1323:07JUN14 2637:07JUN14 2904:07JUN14 3252:07JUN14 3986:07JUN14 4598:07JUN14 8841:07JUN14 10462:07JUN14 169:08JUN14 793:08JUN14 1631:08JUN14 2410:08JUN14 2764:08JUN14 2890:08JUN14 3132:08JUN14 3260:08JUN14 1341:09JUN14 |
99,
100,
101,
All CAD’s For 1st June 2014
All Cad
numbers got taken from Cad 10967 07/06/2014
CAD |
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
Cad 1 of the day |
2649 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 2 of the day |
2989 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 3 of the day |
3190 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 4 of the day |
3274 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 5 of the day |
3754 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 6 of the day |
5586 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 7 of the day |
7983 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 8 of the day |
8528 |
Missing CAD |
|
01/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
102,
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
|
Time |
Page |
|
CAD |
Cad 1 of the day |
6851 |
Missing CAD |
|
02/06/2014 |
|
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
All Cad
numbers got taken from Cad 10967 07/06/2014
CAD |
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
Time |
Page |
Cad 1 of the day |
1081 |
Missing CAD |
|
03/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
|
CAD |
Cad 2 of the day |
5897 |
|
|
03/06/2014 |
|
Page Mag 2 – |
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
Time |
Page |
|
CAD |
Cad 1 of the day |
943 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 2 of the day |
1012 |
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress Way / |
07/06/2014 |
01:53 |
Page Mag 2 – 178,179,180,181 |
CAD |
Cad 3 of the day |
1047 |
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513 main cad
police Insp Hillmill sent to location progress |
Progress Way / |
07/06/2014 |
01:59 |
Page Mag 2 – 209,210,211,212,213 |
CAD |
Cad 4 of the day |
1323 |
(Lincoln Way grid 534657,195453) |
Lincoln Rd Lumina Way Enfield / |
07/06/2014 |
02:41 |
Page Mag 2 – 182,183,184,185,186 |
Cad 5 of the day |
1380 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
|
CAD |
Cad 6 of the day |
1571 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 7 of the day |
1608 |
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress Way Great Cambridge |
07/06/2014 |
03:34 |
Page Mag 2 – 219,220,221 |
CAD |
Cad 8 of the day |
1722 |
(Orchard Terrance Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513) |
Blocked Out / |
07/06/2014 |
03:58 |
Page Mag 2 – 187,188,189 |
CAD |
Cad 9 of the day |
1816 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
04:15 |
Page Mag 2
– 190,191,192,193,194 |
CAD |
Cad 10 of the day |
2141 |
(Hardy Way
Grid Ref 531438, 197711 miles away Gorden Hill) |
Hardy Way |
07/06/2014 |
05:50 |
Page Mag 2
– 195,196,197,198,199 |
103,
CAD |
Cad 11 of the day |
2255 |
(Leighton
Road Grid Ref 534144,195627 Bush Hill Park) |
Leighton
Rd Bush Hill Park / |
07/06/2014 |
06:24 |
Page Mag 2
– 200,201,202, 203,204 |
CAD |
Cad 12 of the day |
2291 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 13 of the day |
2271 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
06:27 |
Page Mag 2
– 205,206,207, 208 |
CAD |
Cad 14 of the day |
2456 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 15 of the day |
2525 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 16 of the day |
2601 |
(Ayley
Croft Grid Ref 534219,195697) |
Great
Cambridge Rd /Aley Croft / |
07/06/2014 |
08:09 |
Page Mag 2
– 222,223,224, 225 |
CAD |
Cad 17 of the
day |
2637 |
(1st Time Laps 08:18) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page Mag 2 – 226,227,228, 229,230 |
CAD |
Cad 18 of the
day |
2672 |
(1st Time Laps 08:16) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page Mag 2 – 231,232,233 |
CAD |
Cad 19 of the day |
2757 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 20 of the day |
2854 |
(In Progress
Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
08:56 |
Page Mag 2
– 234,235,236, 237 |
CAD |
Cad 21 of the day |
2904 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 22 of the day |
2906 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 23 of the
day |
3005 |
(2nd Time Laps 09:22) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page Mag 2 – 238,239,240 |
CAD |
Cad 24 of the
day |
3037 |
(2nd Time Laps 09:20) (Tynemouth Drive miles away Grid Ref
534375,198125) |
Enfield
Safe Store |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page Mag 2 – 214,215,216, 217,218 |
CAD |
Cad 25 of the day |
3252 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
10:07 |
Page Mag 2
– 241,242,243, 244 |
104,
CAD |
Cad 26 of the day |
3326 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 27 of the day |
3436 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 28 of the day |
3838 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 29 of the day |
3986 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
11:47 |
Page Mag 2
– 245,246,247,248 |
CAD |
Cad 30 of the day |
4015 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 31 of the day |
4322 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 32 of the day |
4323 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
12:25 |
Page Mag 2
– 249,250,251,252 |
CAD |
Cad 33 of the day |
4598 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 34 of the day |
4809 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 35 of the day |
5206 |
(no grid
or Att location) |
Blocked
Out / |
07/06/2014 |
13:57 |
Page Mag 2
– 253,254,255 |
CAD |
Cad 36 of the day |
5571 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 37 of the day |
8841 |
(In
Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
20:07 |
Page Mag 2
– 256,257,258,259 |
CAD |
Cad 38 of the day |
8931 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 39 of the day |
10311 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 40 of the day |
10393 |
(Great Cambridge
road miles away Grid Ref 534396, 197692 Carter hatch Lane but states behind
tops tiles) |
Great
Cambridge Rd / Tops Tiles / |
07/06/2014 |
22:38 |
Page Mag 2
– 260,261,262,263, 264,265,266 |
105,
CAD |
Cad 41 of the day |
10462 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 42 of the day |
10471 |
(In Progress Way grid ref
534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
22:45 |
Page Mag 2
– 277,278,279,280 |
Statement
off: Eric Baker Police
Officer 219382 Dated
19/08/2014 He is a police officer in London Borough of
Enfield and has been tasked to contact residents of the Borough who had
called police to inform them of an illegal rave that took place over Friday
7th June 2014 and Saturday 8th June 2014, in a warehouse in Progress Way Enfield On Tuesday 19th August 2014 I contacted the
caller of the CAD 10471/07June 2014 by telephone that was happy to
give an impact statement regarding how illegal rave affected her and her
husband over the above dates mentioned. The caller wishes to remain anonymous. I will
refer to her as complainant "A" The original notes taken from the
below statement are present in my pocketbook serial 370/14, page 1. Complainant "a" said it was a warm
evening and we had to keep the windows shut because of the noise. The next
day we could not even go out into the garden because of the noise. It kept me
and my husband up all night and made us very anxious the next day. The
illegal rave totally ruined our weakened" This concluded what
complainant 'A" said regarding this matter. Mr Simon
Cordell will state; “that at no point did he take part in any form
of Anti Social behaviour and he did not organize or hire
any equipment to this private house party neither was he attending a rave on
the 6th 7th 8th June 2014th. Witness
Statement A/Inspector
Hamill 201566 Friday 6th
June 2014 Progress Way A/Insp
Hamill 201566 states; "I have had a CAD created reference 10471
7June dispatched officers to the location to access numbers, crowd dynamics
and gather information around times the event is likely to run until ----and
also to make contact or identify the potential organiser. Officers have
reported back that Tyrone Benjamin and Simon Cordell where at location and to
be the believed the event organisers, there were approximately 200 people in
attendance, the event was covered by security officers who had stated that
they were volunteers and not licensed through SIA. Officers have spoken with
staff to confirm that all fire escapes where clear, that there were
sufficient fire extinguishers in place and that there were first aid kits
available." |
|||||||
CAD |
Cad 43 of the
day |
10481 |
(3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44) (Wood stock Cres grid Ref 534657,195453) |
Blocked
Out / |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page Mag 2 – 268,269,270,271,272 |
CAD |
Cad 44 of the
day |
10506 |
(3rd Time Laps 22:47 to 22:44) (In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress
Way / |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page Mag 2 – 273,274,275,276 |
CAD |
Cad 45 of the day |
10742 |
(Lincoln
Way grid 534657,195453) |
Lincoln Rd
/ |
07/06/2014 |
23:01 |
Page Mag 2
– 281,282,283,284 |
106,
CAD |
Cad 46 of the day |
10844 |
Missing CAD |
|
07/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
|
CAD |
Cad 47 of the day |
(In Albury Walk Miles Away grid ref 535375.
202125 Cheshunt) https://gridreferencefinder.com/ |
A10 Great
Cambridge Rd / |
07/06/2014 |
23:25 |
Page Mag 2
– 285,286,287,288,289 |
There
are 37 CAD/ Incident numbers for the 8th June 2014, to which there is only 7 in
the ASBO application and only Cad Number 47 represents Progress Way, the rest
represent 32 Crown RD other premises being occupied under section 144 lazppo 10 minutes away from progress way.
By
the statistics, the call centre receives on the 8th June 2014, 300 people call
per hour.
CAD |
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
Cad 1 of
the day |
47 |
(In Progress Way grid ref 534380,195513) |
Progress Way Enfield /Safe Hal Unit / |
08/06/2014 |
00:00 |
Page Mag 2
– 290,291,292,293,294 |
CAD |
Cad 2 of
the day |
167 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 3 of
the day |
340 |
Blocked
Out Page |
Blocked Out / |
08/06/2014 |
00:29 |
Page Mag 2
– 295,296,297,298 |
CAD |
Cad 4 of
the day |
625 |
Lincoln
Road, Bush Hill Park, Southbury, London Borough of Enfield, London, 534152,195940 To Far |
Lincoln Rd
/ |
08/06/2014 |
00:54 |
Page Mag 2
-56,57,58,59 |
CAD |
Cad 5 of
the day |
749 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 6 of
the day |
793 |
Reason 1 Is Crown Rd and this can get proved because of the Linked in cad on page 3 at the top line “Re
Linked cad 1380” What must be the 07/06/2014 due to their only
being 793 calls as of this Cad? Cad 1380 would be the 5th cad inputted inside of
the Asbo folder for the 7th and it was given this place meant because only Pc
Shnick call while on duty was above other than cads 943 & 1012, Cad 943 was never place fully inside of the
Asbo and belongs to Crown Rd. While Cad 1012 got linked to cad 943 allowing
all calls regarding crown rd. to get blamed on Progress Way. Reason 2 Another piece of evidence is that in Cad 793 on
page 1 at the bottom and page 2 at the top there is a list of Linked: explicitly to: & Linked:
implicitly to: Cads and if you take note to the “Linked: explicitly to:” you will notice cad 2456 and if you look at the “Linked: implicitly to:” and take a note of cads 2649:01Jun14 2989:01Jun14 3274:01Jun14 3754:01Jun14 Page 2 5586:01Jun14 7983:01Jun14 8190:01Jun14 8528:01Jun14 6851:02Jun14 Reason 3 Time Laps If Cads 793 is the seven
hundred and nighty third call of the day at the time of And Cads 2410 is the Also, Cad
3151 is the Cad 2410 Cad 3151 Caller is 3 HOURS: 25 Minutes, should equal 741 callers the same as Cads 793 to On average there would have been 168 999
emergency 999 calls made to the call centre. |
Blocked
Out / |
08/06/2014 |
01:10 |
Page Mag 2 -60,61,62,63,64 |
107,
CAD |
Cad 7 of
the day |
930 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 8 of
the day |
1081 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 9 of
the day |
1206 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 10 of
the day |
1631 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 11 of
the day |
1646 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 12 of
the day |
1667 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 13 of
the day |
1768 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 14 of
the day |
2410 |
Blocked
out 4-page top
line = A&J cars Crown Road |
Blocked
Out / |
08/06/2014 |
05:35 |
Page Mag 2 – 65,66,67,68,69 |
CAD |
Cad 15 of
the day |
2456 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 16 of
the day |
2608 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 17 of the
day |
2654 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 18 of
the day |
2764 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
108,
CAD |
Cad 19 of the day |
2766 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 20 of the day |
2796 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 21 of the day |
2845 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 22 of the day |
2890 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 23 of the day |
2904 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 24 of the day |
2942 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 25 of the day |
2948 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 26 of the day |
3132 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 27 of the day |
3151 |
(In Crown Road grid ref 534960,196240 |
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd / |
08/06/2014 |
09:08 |
Page Mag 2 – 70,71,72,73,74 |
CAD |
Cad 28 of the day |
3179 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 29 of the day |
3194 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 30 of the day |
3260 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 31 of the day |
3319 |
(In Crown Road grid ref 534960,196240 |
Southbury Rd / Crown Rd / |
08/06/2014 |
09:39 |
Page Mag 2 – 75,76,77,78 |
CAD |
Cad 32 of the day |
3350 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
CAD |
Cad 33 of the day |
3515 |
Missing CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2 – |
109,
CAD |
Cad 34 of
the day |
3946 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing
CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 35 of
the day |
5644 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing
CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
CAD |
Cad 36 of
the day |
5897 |
Missing
CAD |
|
08/06/2014 |
Missing
CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
All
CAD’s For 9th June 2014
CAD |
|
Num |
|
|
Date |
Time |
Page |
CAD |
Cad 1 of the day |
1341 |
Missing CAD |
|
09/06/2014 |
Missing CAD |
Page Mag 2
– |
He imputed into the Asbo application out of the police
national computer aid dispatch system some of the cads related to the prior
week of Progress Way that were in relation to
Made Progress Way cads up and got the time stamps
wrong when imputing the forged paperwork into the Asbo application that he was
the developer of.
CAD |
Number |
Date |
Time |
Mag 1 Page |
|
CAD |
2637 |
07/06/2014 |
08:18 |
Page 191 to 195 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! CAD 2637 7JUN Progress Way / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 226,227,228,229.230 Mag 1) Response:
191,192,193,194,195 Appeal - 212,213,214,215,216 07/06/2014 |
CAD |
2672 |
07/06/2014 |
08:16 |
Page 196 to 198 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! CAD 2672 7JUN Progress Way / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 231,232,233 Mag 1) Response:
196,197,198 Appeal - 217,218,219 07/06/2014 |
CAD |
3005 |
07/06/2014 |
09:22 |
Page 203 to 205 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! CAD 3005 7JUN Progress Way / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 238,239,240 Mag 1) Response:
203,204,205 Appeal - 224,225,226 07/06/2014 |
CAD |
3037 |
07/06/2014 |
09:20 |
Page 179 to 183 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! CAD 3037 7JUN Enfield Safe Store / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 214,215,216,217,218 Mag 1) Response:
179,180,181,182,183 Appeal - 200,201,202,203,204 07/06/2014 |
CAD |
10481 |
07/06/2014 |
22:47 |
Page 233 to 237 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! AD 10481 7JUN Blocked Out / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 268,269,270,271,272 Mag 1) Response:
233,234,235,236,237 Appeal – 254,255,256,257,258 07/06/2014 |
CAD |
10506 |
07/06/2014 |
22:44 |
Page 238 to 241 |
The 1st Asbo Folder / pub
Book Issue: 1! CAD 10506 7JUN Progress Way / Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 273,274,275,276 Mag 1) Response:
238,239,240,241 Appeal - 259,260,261,262 07/06/2014 |
Steven was not remorseful in his actions and knew
that he would need witness statements to make the Asbo application look
correctly intact.
·
The 1st Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: - PC McMillan /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 26
Appeal – 59
14/08/2014
·
The 1st Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: - PC
McMillan /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 27
Appeal – 60
14/08/2014
·
The 1st Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC Donald
McMillan /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 37,38
Appeal – 61,62
19/08/2014
·
The 1st Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 39
Appeal -64
20/08/2014
·
The 1st Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC John
Anderson /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 40
Appeal – 65
19/08/2014
·
The 1st Asbo Folder
/ pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake: Resident Statements of: -
PC Eric Barker /
Page Numbers: Mag 2 – 41
Appeal - 63
20/08/2014
The Distance in
latitude
12.2. Sunday
Going Out on Motor Bikes 07/04/2013
12.3. Hyde Park,
Alan Browne 20/04/2014
12.4. Ponders End
Police Station Christopher Jackson Ye 24/05/2014
12.5. White Hart
Lane Steve Hoodless 25/05/2014
12.6. Progress
Way 07/06/2014
12.7. 1 Falcon
Park Pc Haworth 20/06/2014
12.8. Carpet
right 19/07/2014
12.9. Alma Road
24/07/2014
110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,
12.10. Mill Marsh
lane 1. 27/07/2014
12.11. Mill Marsh
lane 2.
A)
The Asbo folders context shows that;
Extra
in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Anti-social behaviour order on application, Threats Made out of my Asbo Condition’s in page
18 2nd Folder by Police!
Page Numbers: 18
04/08/2015
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS
STATEMENT of hearsay evidence, I have spoken to A/DS Val TANNER
Page Numbers: 37,38
26/06/2015
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
WITNESS STATEMENT, Every Decibel Matters
Page Numbers: 39,40
04/03/2015
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
PC Sophie
Theodoulou Police Officer who Lied and said that she Served me the First Asbo Folder!
Page Numbers: 57,58
12/09/2014
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder
/ pub Book Issue: 1!
Fake:
Resident Statements of: - PC McMillan
Page Numbers: 65,66
21/08/2014
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Anonymous witness statement, who is unable
to attend court to give live evidence because the witness is fearful of
reprisals should he/she attend court to give evidence
Page Numbers: 72,73,74
21/08/2014
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo Folder
/ pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness
Statement of Steve Elsmore dated 11/08/2016 and Canary Wharf Group Incident Report No. 74507
Page Numbers: 326,327,328,329,330,331,332
11/08/2016
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Witness
Statement of Steve Elsmore
Page Numbers: 336,337
24/09/2016
Extra in Second
Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files!
·
The 2nd Asbo
Folder / pub Book Issue: 1!
Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order upon complaint, section 1D Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, ON THE COMPLAINT of PC Steve Elsmore on behalf of the
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Page Numbers: 16,17
05/11/2014
Extra in Second Asbo Folder 1 of 8 Files! = 9
A)
The Asbo’s Regulation’s, Standard’s, Guidance and
Laws that have gotten breached
Lead up to other applications |
Old Ruff notes need to check for use |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
First contact from neighbours to council about
me. 06/07/2016 Stain “Corridor situation” 27 days later I started my motor bike up case happened
with Carron Dunno and also Lemmy
started to work for Enfield council 1 month after 01/08/2016 August 2016 Lemmy started work for Enfield
council Mother was sending emails to Dawn Allan and team
at the time Lemmy started work and beforehand. Her first email is dated:
What is 16 months before Lemmy started work for
the company 12/08/2016 I started my
bike up and Carron got abusive towards me from out of her window 2 days
after I stared my bike 14/08/2016 I got arrested because of Carron case that got
made up with stain Taken to st Ann’s
hospital “not interviewed at police station or told claimants name” 28/08/2016 I got released from st
Ann’s Hospital Went home to 109 burn croft Ave waiting for bail 05/10/2016 Re bailed to go back to the police station Carron
and Stain setting me up Date of bail 05/10/2016 but George set me up on
stead in the morning banging at me when I was in the Barth Accused Motor bike incident interviewed for both
cases first time I found out about who said I threatened children was this
day in interview “Carron” Bailed to Stay at my Mothers 0 4/10/2016 Till 17/11/2016 But never went back to Burncroft Avenue
till 03/12/2016 17/10/2016 Council received a letter of
Mathiyalagans backdated till the 06/08/2016 Sarah Fleches Sarah Fletchers meeting dated 11/11/2016 Sarah Fletchers “Tel-Call” dated 22/11/2016 Mathiyalagans On the 02/02/2017 a total of 7 Months after Lemmy
started work he got involved in my case And started to Force a meeting in regard to satins case dated the
06/07/2016 Which Stains alleged case happened 1 month before Lemmy even worked for
the company and I won the case against stain at court of the date of: Evidence Meeting stage at civic centre Lemmy first contact#
5 months 17 days latter Of no meeting at the civic centre over Sarah Flechers forged work that Lemmy had been case handler to
afterwards so, Lemmy got upset and put a possession order in against me. And copied and pasted 31 incidents into it. Contents Stains
case Georges Case Carron’s Case Sarah Fletchers meeting dated 11/11/2016 When I was staying at my mother house
3 months I wanted the statements of the so-called victims So Lemmy created an injunction order He met Mathiyalagans for the 1st time 02/08/2017 Math met him 8 Day’s latter Injunction Order 10/08/2017 Said to have got served the Lemmy 1st Injunction
Order The only reason that this website is up (Live
Now) is because the doctors tried to take me away again under the Mental
Health Act, when I never done anything wrong or in other words, I showed no
signs of a Mental Illness. “I had to put the website up while being detained
in Chase Farm Hospital.” I am free now and still without any illness. The Website is still in deep development and will
be completed soon! 1)
I have built this website while only on my mobile
phone’s internet. 2)
This website has been built while I have been
held against my free will, on a curfew because of fraudulent claims and
attacked by members of the public and official public servants. 3)
One set of notes prior now 2nd set Si
Note: Lemmy
started work 10th 2016 RE: Formal Complaint dated 24/11 /2016 Both cases for the 14/08/2016 and the 04/10/2016
were dropped by the CPS this was done on the 15/11/2016 with no case to answer towards my son, yet my
son was victimised and had false accusations put against his name and
arrested. My son is scared to go home due to what the
neighbours are doing and saying and putting false allegations into the
police, it seems they really don't want him to live there and will do
anything they can to get him out. From: Geoffrey Mann
[Geoffrey.Mann@enfield.gov.uk] Sent: 22/12/2016 - 17:45 We
note your comment that your son has been a tenant for many years and that
there have been no complaints about him until the publication of the ASBO
against him on 4th August 2015. However, our records show that since your
son’s tenancy began on 14th August 2006, there has been at least one previous
complaint against your son from another neighbour prior to the ASBO. --- Sent: 06/02/2017 I have asked for the dates these complaints were
put in and yet have had nothing about the dates and times. Could you please forward me a list of dates and
times these complaints were put in, and list them in an order like this so we
know if more complaints have been put in by one person. Complaint from A on d Mothers
subject access request got on the: Sent: 10/02/2017 - 16:01 To: 'Mother' lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Anti-Social Behaviour Allegations against Mr
Simon Cordell [SEC=OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Ms Cordell, Please see below as requested the details of
recent allegations made against Mr Simon Cordell. I have listed the
complainants as Complainant A, B and C. Sent: 10/02/2017 - 16:01 On 11/11/2016 the Neighbourhood Officer met with Complainant A
to discuss his allegations against Mr Cordell. He stated that some of the
recent incidents happened on 6/8/16 at 6pm, 27 /9/16 at 11.45pm and
28/9/16 at 5.30pm. He stated that the incidents include, threatening
behaviour, intimidation and aggressively demanding
money. He alleged that Mr Cordell has physically threatened him in the past
with a piece of wood. He also alleged that Mr Cordell has a big dog that
always barks when someone comes into the block. He complained that Mr Cordell
has a camera in the internal communal door facing the main entrance door to
the block. He stated that he believes that Mr Cordell is using the camera to
monitor when people come in or out of the block and that it makes him very
uncomfortable and requested for the camera to be removed. On 06/08/2016 Complainant A reported
that Simon Cordell, his neighbour at flat 109 is threatening him and his wife
and aggressively demanding money from him. He alleged that Mr Cordell called
his wife 'a bitch' and tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his
flat. He also alleged that in July 2016, someone used a knife to
puncture his tyres, all 4 of them, that he believes that the tyres were
slashed by Simon, that although he did not see Simon do it but he was quite
certain that it was him. He also alleged that Mr Cordell damaged the lock to
his electric cupboard and removed his fuse box resulting in no electricity. On
08/12/2016 Complainant A reported that Mr Cordell came and banged on his
front door, shouted abuse and threats at him and
accused him of making noise. On
23/12/2016 Complainant A
reported that his wife was at home alone with their child between 3.45pm
when Mr Cordell came and knocked on his front door, started to shout abuse
and asked his wife to go in the bathroom and turn off the tap. He also
alleged that Mr Cordell later removed his electricity fuse thereby cutting
their power supply. On 10/01/2017 Complainant A telephoned to report that on 26/12/2016
at about 12 to l pm he was going out with his family when Mr Cordell
ran up the stairs with a towel round his waist and started shouting abuse and
threats at him and his wife. He alleged that Mr Cordell accused him of
tampering with his water supply and tried to stop them from leaving the
block. He also stated that on 03/01/2017 at 10.47pm, he was coming
back from a family outing and as soon as they entered the block, Mr Cordell
came out of his flat and started shouting abuse and threats at him. On 23/01/2017
Complainant A reported an
incident that occurred at 6.24pm on 21/1/17. He alleged that his wife
was at home with their child when Mr Cordell come and started banging on his
front door, shouted abuse and threats and accused them of making noise. On 15/02/2017
Complainant A reported an incident that occurred at 5:10pm on
31/1/17. He alleged that his wife was alone with his child
at home when Mr Cordell came and banged on his door and started shouting
abuse and threats and accused them of banging on the floor. Foi
mum O.1 10/01/2017: Copy of the letter sent to Mr Cordell giving him
until 25/11/2016
to remove the CCTV he installed on the internal communal door attached. P.1 10/01/2017: Joint home visit conducted
with Lemmy. Mr Curtis said that he has had no further problems from Sent:
10/02/2017 - 16:01 On 05/10/2016 Complainant B reported that Mr Cordell has been
harassing him for a while in relation to alleged noise disturbances from his
flat. He alleged that the previous day on 04/10/2016 Simon was banging on his ceiling and later came
upstairs and started kicking his door and shouting aggressively. He alleged
that Simon then went downstairs dragged his motorbike from where he parked it
and started smashing it up. He then called the police. He also stated that Mr
Cordell had previously slashed his motorbike tyres with a knife, that he did
not report it as he did not see him do it. On 12/01/2016 Complainant B reported
that on 11/12/16, Mr Cordell came and banged on his front door on
three different occasions and accused him of banging on the pipes. He alleged
that he also shouted abuse and threats at him. Sent: 10/02/2017 - 16:01 On 31/10/2016 telephone call received from another resident on
behalf of Complainant C. He alleged that Complainant C's neighbour, Simon was
using threatening, abusive and insulting words
towards Complainant C. He stated that he witnessed an incident that happened
in September 2016 outside the block when Simon shouted abuse at
Complainant C and made threats towards him. On 04/11/2016 met with
Complainant C to discuss his concerns following the report from another resident.
He stated the first incident happened sometime in July 2016, that he
cannot remember the exact date. He alleged that he was approached by Mr
Cordell as he came out of his front door and he started shouting abuse at him
and threatened to burn down his flat. He alleged that the second incident
happened in September 2016. He stated that he was on his way to meet a friend
when Mr Cordell came at him 'ranting and raving' and said to him 'I can get
you over at the park, I know you go for a walk'. He stated that two other
neighbours witnessed the incident and that one of them told Mr Cordell to
leave him alone. Complainant C also complained that Mr Cordell have installed
a CCTV on the internal communal door and that he believes that he is
monitoring his every move. He asked that the camera be removed as it is
making him to feel very nervous, vulnerable and uncomfortable
and is an invasion of his privacy. On 14/12/2016 Complainant C reported
that one of his neighbours visited him and as she rang his doorbell Mr
Cordell came out of his flat and started shouting abuse at her. He also
alleged that Mr Cordell shouted that he would take some action when his ASBO
expires. Sent: 10/02/2017 - 16:01 I will write to Mr Cordell next week to arrange
for him to meet with me and another colleague at the Civic Centre to discuss
the allegations made against him. Kind Regards Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti-Social Behaviour Team Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety B Block North Civic Centre Enfield ENl 3XA Tel: 020 8379 5354 16/02/2017 - Date: 19/07/2017 Dear Mr
Cordell, Notice of Seeking
Possession - without prejudice ------ Q. 03/08/2017 stain Q 03/08/2017: “Blank Space” did have it scheduled for Witness Service
Citizens Advice 0300 332 1000 contactcentre@citizensadvice.orq.uk In
relation to the above matter, please find a copy of the injunction
application and court order Hearing on 21/08/2017 at Edmonton County
Court ·
Since: 09/08/2017 (1st injunction order) The
Defendant’s anti-social behaviour has ceased towards the neighbors
and no complaints have not been received from them. Stated by council
solicitor on the: 03/01/2018 Si Note: ·
Since: 09/08/2017 The
Defendant’s anti-social behaviour has ceased towards the neighbors
and no complaints have not been received from them. Stated by council
solicitor on the: 03/01/2018 In Report 09/01/2018 x2 12/01/2018 email to mother and
solicitor In Diary 19/09/2018 neighbours
from 117 called police to report the subject for knocking on their door
repeatedly 16/10/2018 = report to 44 from 31 + 31’s are different |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
B)
Possession Order 1
93 |
NOSP - Simon Cordell |
19/06/2017 |
N/a |
1846 |
|
94 |
Lemmy Nwabuisi Re Notice of Seeking
Possession |
19/06/2017 |
16:46 |
1846 |
|
95 |
Mother RE Mr Cordell Notice of
Seeking Possession |
26/06/2017 |
00:49 |
1853 |
|
96 |
Lemmy Nwabuisi RE Simon Cordell
Notice of Seeking Possession |
28/07/2017 |
13:53 |
1885 |
|
97 |
Lemmy Nwabuisi RE Simon Cordell
Notice of Seeking Possession |
28/07/2017 |
15:42 |
1885 |
|
“From
Council History”
19/07/2017
served on Mr. Cordell today at 4.05pm
with Enfield Highway DWOs, copy attachment
ENFIELD COUNCIL V Mr. Simon Cordell The Enfield
Gov / Email’s Issue: 04 NOSP - Simon Cordell / Page
Numbers: 3279,3280, |
||
I never got told: -- I did ask my mother to write to the council. The reason that I asked my mother to write to the
Enfield Council was due to members of my neighbours attacking me while I
illegally get held in my flat by the Enfield Council and the Edmonton Police
officials on a curfew and to me this is getting tortured against my own free
will Even low I had asked my mother to help me stop theses illegal attacks
against my person, I never did get told by my mother that she was sending
emails And this was while I was on Bail conditions not
to go back to my own home! This copy of the possession order against me has 25 incidents that I
got accused of, but there was also another copy that did get served and
processed on the same day which is contained in the email book at page
numbers: New Email Book: Old Email Book: 944 And this accounts for 31 incidents that I am getting accused off. |
||
Anti‐Social Behaviour Team Community Safety Unit Environmental & Community Safety B Block North Civic Centre Enfield EN1 3XA |
||
Lemmy Nwabuisi Anti‐Social Behaviour Team Tel: 020 8379 5354 Mob: 07583115576 |
||
Mr.
Simon Cordell |
||
Home
address: 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield Post Code EN3 7JQ |
||
Dear Ms Cordell, Please find attached copy of a Notice of Seeking Possession that was
posted through Mr Cordell’s letterbox this afternoon at 4.05pm. The notice is served as a result of reports
of anti‐social behaviour made against Mr Cordell by some of his neighbours and Enfield Council members of
staff. We will advise Mr Cordell to seek independent legal advice from a
solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau in respect of this notice. Kind Regards Lemmy Nwabuisi |
||
The
Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue: NOSP - Simon Cordell Possession /
Page Numbers: 3267,3268,3269,3270,3271,3272,3273,3274,3275,3276,3277,3278, |
||
ENFIELD Council If you need this document in another language or format, contact the
service using the details above. Ian Davis Chief Executive Enfield Council Civic Centre, Silver Street Enfield EN13XY Website: www.enfield.gov.uk EQUALITY FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXCELLENT Mr Simon Cordell Please reply to: Lemmy Nwabuisi 109 Burncroft Avenue Anti-Social Behaviour Team Enfield Community Safety Unit EN3 7Jq B Block North Civic centre Enfield EN1 3XA E-mail: lemmy.nwabuisi@enfield.gov.uk My Ref: Your Ref: Date: 19th July 2017
Dear Mr Cordell, |
||
Notice of Seeking Possession -
without prejudice |
||
It has come to our attention that you have breached several terms and
conditions of your tenancy by causing nuisance, harassment and anti-social
behaviour to your neighbours and Enfield Council employees. Enfield Council takes all acts of anti-social behaviour very
seriously. Consequently, we have no alternative but to serve you with the
enclosed Notice of Seeking Possession. You have breached your tenancy agreement by committing an act of
anti-social behaviour. The Notice is the first step towards repossessing your home. It is
valid for twelve months and Enfield Council will commence legal action to
repossess your home any time within this period if further substantiated
allegation of breach of your tenancy conditions is made against you. You may wish to seek legal advice from a solicitor or your local
Citizens Advice Bureau for free and confidential advice from an organisation
that is completely independent from Enfield Council. ENFIELD Connected Please contact me on that above telephone number if you wish to
discuss this further. Yours Sincerely Lemmy Nwabuisi ASB Team IMPORTANT - Enfield residents
should register for an online Enfield Connected account. Enfield Connected
puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your payments and saves
you time - to set up your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected |
||
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD NOTICE OF SEEKING POSSESSION HOUSING ACT 1985 - SECTION 83 THIS NOTICE IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS
REQUIRING YOU TO GIVE UP POSSESSION OF YOUR DWELLING. YOU
SHOULD READ IT AND ALL THE NOTES VERY CAREFULLY. |
||
Housing Department P O. Box No. 60, Civic Centre, Enfield |
||
1. To: Mr. Simon Cordell NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 1 If you need advice about this Notice, and what you should do about it,
take it as quickly as possible to a Citizens’ Advice Bureau, a Housing Aid
Centre, or a Law Centre, or to a Solicitor. You may be able to receive Legal
Aid, but this will depend on your personal circumstances. The Landlord, the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield
intends to apply to the Court for an order requiring you to give up
possession of: 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 7JQ |
||
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 2 If you are a secure tenant under the Housing Act 1985, you can only be
required to leave your dwelling if your landlord obtains an order for
possession from the Court. The order must be based on one of the Grounds,
which are set out in the 1985 Act (see paragraphs 3 and 4 below). 1 If you are willing to give up possession without a Court order, you
should notify the person who signed this Notice as soon as possible and say
when you would leave. Possession will be sought on Grounds 1 & 2 of Schedule 2 to the
Housing Act 1985, which read: |
||
“POSSESSTION ORDER -
GROUNDS” |
||
Num |
Grounds for the Decision |
RESPONSE |
1 |
Ground 1 Rent lawfully due from the tenant has no? been paid or an obligation
of the tenancy has been broken or not performed. |
1. Ground 1 Reply: |
Num |
Grounds for the Decision |
RESPONSE |
2 |
Ground 2 The tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling-house has been
guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to
a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in
unlawful activity in the locality, or (aa) has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or
annoyance to the landlord of the dwelling-house, or a person employed
(whether or not by the landlord) in connection with the landlord’s housing
management functions, and that is directly or indirectly related to or
affects those functions, or has been convicted of— using the dwelling-house or allowing it to be used for immoral or
illegal purposes, or an indictable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the
dwelling-house. |
1. Ground 2 Reply: 2. Ground 2 Reply: 3. Ground 2 Reply: |
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 3 Whatever Grounds for possession are set out in paragraph 3 of this
Notice, the Court may allow any of the other Grounds to be added at a later
stage. If this is done, you will be told about it so you can argue at the
hearing in Court about the new Ground, as well as the Grounds set out in
paragraph 3, if you want to. |
||
Reasons |
||
4. The reasons for taking this action are: - You have failed to comply with the following obligations of your tenancy
agreement which commenced on 14th August 2006. The relevant conditions of the tenancy agreement are as follows: |
||
|
As to Ground 2 Condition 9 You, the tenant, are responsible for the behaviour of anyone,
including your children, living in or visiting your
home. This means That you must ensure that they must not act in breach of any
of these conditions Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way.
This applies in the property, in communal and surrounding areas, any property
belonging to the council and or/ anywhere within Enfield borough.” |
1. Condition 9 Reply: 2. Condition
9 Reply: 3. Condition
9 Reply: |
|
Condition 10 “You must not act in any way which causes, or is likely k) cause, a
nuisance or annoyance or is anti-social.” |
1. Condition 10 Reply: 2. Condition
10 Reply: 3. Condition
10 Reply: |
|
Condition 21 “You must not abuse, harass, make offensive comments and/or malicious
allegations, use or threaten to use violence against any of our officers or
agents, or against a councillor. This applies at any time and in any place.
We may report the matter to the Police.” |
1. Condition 21 Reply: 2. Condition
21 Reply: |
As to Ground 1 |
||
|
Condition 31 “You must take care not to cause damage to your property or the
property of your neighbours.” |
1. Condition 31 Reply: |
|
Condition 33 “You must keep the inside of your property clean and in reasonable
decorative order." |
1. Condition 33 Reply: |
|
Condition 34 “You must not use the property in any way that may cause a health or
safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or pests (for example, by hoarding
items. inappropriately).” |
1. Condition 34 Reply: |
|
Condition 44 “You must obtain our prior written permission before carrying out any alterations,
Improvements or structural work to the property. You may need to obtain other
permissions such as planning permission or building regulations approval.” |
1. Condition 44 Reply: 2. Condition
44 Reply: |
|
Condition 53 “You must keep the inside of the property, the fixtures and fittings
and all glass in the property in good repair during the tenancy.” |
1. Condition 53 Reply: 2. Condition
53 Reply: |
|
Condition 57 “You must allow our employees, representatives and contractors to come
into your property to service any electrical and gas supplies and appliance,
that we are responsible for maintaining.” |
1. Condition 57 Reply: |
|
Condition 69 “You must not interfere with the electric or gas supply.” |
1. Condition 69 Reply: |
|
Condition 76 “You have the right to keep one pet, or animal such as a cat, a dog, small
bird, fish, non-poisonous insect, spider, small snake or lizard, rabbit
hamster, guinea pig, mouse, gerbil or domestic rat as long as they do not
cause damage to the property, or nuisance or annoyance to anyone in your
locality.” |
1. Condition 76 Reply: 2. Condition
76 Reply: |
|
Condition 79 “You must always keep your dog{s) on a lead in communal areas and on
our land.” |
1. Condition 79 Reply: |
Particulars of Breaches |
||
|
(1) We received a report that on 6th July 2016 you approached an elderly neighbour as he came out of his
flat and started to shout abuse and swear at him and threatened to burn down
his flat. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (1) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (1) Reply: The 1st Injunction Order Stain Curtis Council History Page
Numbers: 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, Complaint Made A: 06/07/2016 An Associate of Stains call for a free cab to
take stain to court Updated B: 31/10/2016 Case dropped Info C: 16/11/2016 3. Particulars
of Breaches (1) Reply: |
|
(2) We received a report that sometime in July 2016 you damaged the lock of a neighbour’s electric cupboard and removed
his fuse box resulting in no electricity to his flat. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (2) Reply: 2. Particulars of Breaches (2) Reply: The 1st Injunction Order Waltham Forest states no prior
info dated 17 /10/2016! Page Numbers: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 3. Particulars of Breaches (2) Reply: |
|
(3) We received a report that on 6th August 2016 you threatened one of your neighbours and his wife and
aggressively demanded money from him. It is also alleged that you repeatedly
swore and shouted abuse at him and his wife and called his wife a ‘bitch’ and
tried to stop him from going up the stairs to his flat by standing in front
of him. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (3) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (3) Reply: The 1st Injunction Order Page Numbers: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 3. Particulars of Breaches (3) Reply: “My Note: This lie got made up as a fake / forged allegation against
myself while I was staying at my mother’s house due to police & court
bail conditions A letter first got sent by the
Mathiyalagan family to the Enfield Council a whole 2 weeks after I got placed
on bail “first complaint stating that I was a drug addict, then on afterwards
followed by 3 times telephone calls made to the council. Soon afterwards a
meeting got held at the civic centre including Miss Sarah Flexure.
and then after a meeting between
Sarah Fletcher and the Mathiyalagans took place on the 11/11/2016” While I was staying at my
mother’s on bail conditions. None of the names mentioned
realised that I was on bail conditions until the 22/11/2016 when I made a phone call to Miss Sarah Flexure from my
mother’s house. |
|
(4) Sometime in September 2016
it is alleged that you confronted an elderly neighbour outside your block of
flats, 109-119 Burncroft Avenue as he was going to the local park with
another resident and started to shout abuse and threats at him and said to
him ‘I can get you over at the park, I know you go for a walk’. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (4) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (4) Reply: The 1st Injunction Order Stain Curtis Council History Page Numbers: 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, Complaint Made A: 06/07/2016 An Associate of Stains call for a
free cab to take stain to court Updated B: 31/10/2016 Case dropped Info C: 16/11/2016 X 2 This is the same as the Stain
Case dated 06/07/2016 but with a
different date! |
|
(5) We received a report that on 27th September 2016 you confronted one your neighbours as I was returned to his flat
with his family arc* threatened and swore a! him and demanded money from-him.
It is also alleged that you later banged on his door, shouted further abuse
and - swear words at him and accused him of making noise inside his flat. – |
1. Particulars of Breaches (5) Reply: “My Note: This was said in the meeting between Sarah Fletcher and the
Mathiyalagans on the 11/11/2016” While I was staying at my mother’s
on bail conditions. There are three times dates that
never got included in the possession Order dated the 17/07/2016, created by Lemmy Nwabusi and
the reason for this is that were they were all made up on the 11/11/2016 in a meeting with Sarah
Fletcher, before Lemmy was a case handler for these on goings. The three missing dates make the
fact of malicious prosses more obvious! Missing dates are E4: 08/08/2016: I believe this date was too
close to the 06/08/2016 & the
12/08/2016 to look real! E5: 16/10/2016: on this date I was at my mother’s
house on bail and could not have done as accused! Bail from the 04/10/2016 till the 03/12/2016! E6: 12/08/2016: I believe this date was too
close to the 06/08/2016 & the
08/08/2016 to look real! 2. Particulars of Breaches (5) Reply: |
|
(6) We received a report that on 28th September 2016 you aggressively- banged on a neighbour’s door and
threatened and shouted verbal abuse ' and swear words at L.dm. It is also
alleged that you aggressively demanded money from him. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (6) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (6) Reply: “My Note: This was said in the meeting between Sarah Fletcher and the
Mathiyalagans on the 11/11/2016” While I was staying at my mother’s
on bail conditions. |
|
(7) We received a report that on 4th October 2016 you aggressively banged on your ceiling and accused one of
your neighbours of making noise, it is - alleged that you then went to your
neighbour’s flat and started kicking and ' banging on his front door aggressively,
accused him of banging on the floor and was swearing and shouting abuse at
him. It is also alleged that you later went downstairs, dragged your
neighbour’s motorbike from where it was parked and started to hit it with a
piece of wood thereby causing some damage to the motorbike. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (7) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (7) Reply: The 1st Injunction Order Page Number: 223 Claim Number: D02ED073 – “WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR LEMMY NWABUISI”
– Dated: 07/08/2017 The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue: 04 Page Numbers: 702,703,704,705 RE: Formal Complaint dated 24/11 /2016 To Whom It May Concern: And my diary Re bailed to find out the truth Carron Dunno! Arrest Arrest/Summons Ref: 16/01YE/01/3890G Name Charged: CORDELL, SIMON Date of Birth: 26/01/81 Fingerprint Status: CONFIRMED 01FP 05/10/16 DNA Status: NOT TAKEN Process Stage: ARRESTED ON 04/10/16 13:07 Arresting Officer: 01YE 05/10/16 / CAMPBELL/PC/205732 Report Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE) Prosecuting Agent: CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS) Last Updated: N/a Description: REMANDED ON BAIL ON 05/10/16 At: AT NORTH LONDON MAGISTRATES To Appear At: NEXT APPEARING ON 17/11/16 At: AT NORTH LONDON MAGISTRATES Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE) Bail Address: BAIL ADDRESS: 23 BYRON TERRACE
LONDON N9 7DG Last Updated: N/a Condition 1: NOT TO CONTACT DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY Carron Dunno OR Burncroft Avenue Tenants Condition 2: EXCLUSION: NOT TO ENTER BURNCROFT
AVENUE EN3 Condition 3: RESIDENCE: LIVE AND SLEEP EACH NIGHT AT 23 BYRON TERRACE N9 7DG 04/10/16: Arrested! 17/11/16: Court won the case! |
|
(8) On 22nd November 2016
during a telephone conversation between you, Mrs Cordell your mother and Ms
Sarah Fletcher, neighbourhood officer, Ms. Fletcher reported that she
overheard you threaten her by saying ‘I’m goanna do her over’ and then ‘I’m
goanna take her job just for fun’. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (8) Reply: |
2. Particulars
of Breaches (8) Reply: Sarah
Fletcher neighbourhood officer from the council claims that on 22nd
November 2016 during
a telephone conversation between her, myself and
mother that she overheard me threaten her by saying 'I'm going to do her
over' and then 'I'm going to take her job just for fun'. This
is not true The
reason that it is not true is because what has now been stated to have
occurred is more than just misinterpreted information of the so called Mid –
day event. The
Council’s memo of a telephone call on that day: Is
forged and therefore incorrect and is not supported by self and mother to be
true facts that have been documented with a fair prosses by the statement maker.
The context contained within side the statement had been fabricated so to
support the claimants claim. While
also set out to avoid displinary action for the
statement makers and hardworking colleague’s incompetence leading to
negligence and gross misconduct, set out against myself and then on
afterwards having a negative effect also within my loved one’s life’s. All
what has been achieved by the Enfield Council since the start of my official
complaint to themselves has gotten managed with criminal intention to put I
in harm’s way From
the of start of themselves handling my case load of an official workload. Sarah
Fletcher as mentioned whom once was a neighbourhood officer who did work in
collaboration with the Enfield Council, states that she received a call from
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell Whom
is an Enfield secure resident within his housing tenancy that is attached to the
address of 109 Burncroft Avenue at around the time of Mid – Day: 01:20Pm? The
time that Sarah Fletcher states she received the phone call is incorrect but
not by far even low it is still 100% incorrect. I and my Mother am sure of
this as we cared very much so when deciding to make the phone call to my
housing officer that we both documented down all relevant information
accurately. When
doing so we noted down the precise time of 01:04Pm I
did get transferred by customer services when making
the phone call to my housing officer about the way I was getting victimised,
this did not take too long. Once
on the phone to Sarah Fletcher I started to explain to her a shorted down
list of emergency issues that I was having wile renting my home. 1. That my mother had been contacting her and
her team, while also contacting other official persons with relevance since
the date of 00/00/2015 And
this had continued up a till date and without any fair follow up’s as company
protocol states is mandatory. And
due to this lack of concern I had continued to suffer for a much further time
frame than ever would have been if her and other persons jobs were followed
correctly. 2. 3. 4. 5. .
1.20pm. The
call was transferred by the customer services team
informing me that Mr. Cordell wished to discuss his housing option show to
move. I
took the call- he sounded agitated and said that he had a few things that he
wished to discuss with me. He
said he was calling in response to a letter that I had sent him requesting
the removal of a CCTV camera that he had installed on the inner communal/fire
door on the ground floor of the block. He
informed me that he would not be removing the camera as he believed he was
legally allowed to have the camera as the communal area was his. I
explained that he was in breach of his tenancy conditions as permission had
not been sought or granted for the installation and he could not install
anything in the communal area as these belonged to the Council. He
maintained that his neighbour in another block had a camera and had taken the
Council to court about it and won the case, I responded that I could not
comment on other cases, but
my position remains as per the letter I sent: That the camera was in breach
of tenancy conditions, was invasive of the privacy of other residents in the
block as it points at the outer communal door and should be removed by Friday
25th November or the Council will remove it and charge him for the cost of
doing so. He
then said that the camera was fake, so it didn't need to be removed. I
responded that it did still need to be removed. His
voice was raised throughout the exchange and I had to ask him to calm down
and lower his voice more than once. He
then said that he wanted to move on to finding out about moving to another
address. He
proceeded to give me a full history of his experiences with the police and
previous housing management and alleged that 'Jackie', who had previously
lived above him and 'Stan', his immediate neighbour on the ground floor, had
victimised him over a long period of time and that he had done nothing wrong.
This history was very full, and it was difficult to get a word in because he
was so worked up so, I let him relay the information to me as it seemed like
he wanted to get it off of his chest. He
was very derogatory about the police and previous housing staff who had
signed a request for an Asbo application against him. I
told him that I could not comment about the previous action taken. He
then came on to more recent events and stated that there had been an incident
between him and another resident where she had shouted at him out of her
window because of him starting up a scrambler bike in his garden. He
maintained that he was courteous during the exchange, but the police came and
arrested him because she told them that he had threatened to kill her and
that he had been put in the mental hospital, had won his case in court and
was able to go home as of today. He
said that he wanted me to give him 'points' so that he could move. I
explained that his best means of moving would be through a mutual exchange,
but he was adamant that he did not want to do this and wanted to be moved in
the same way that he moved into this property 1 l yrs. ago by being given
points. I
explained that a transfer
was unlikely based on what he had told me so far but that I could look into
the position for him. He
said a lot about his perceived victimisation by his neighbours and expressed
that he felt that I should I have a duty to protect him. I
explained that I had a responsibility to all residents living at Burncroft
Avenue and took the opportunity to mention that I had received some reports
about antisocial behaviour by him that I would need to discuss with him but suggested
that we leave that for today. He
then put his mother on the line (she had been trying to interject throughout
the conversation) who said she wanted to know why I had not responded to her
messages to call her. I
apologised for this and explained that I have been very busy, but that I
needed to know whether we had written permission from Mr. Cordell for us to
speak to her - she said that there was a written note recorded on our files
in 2015 Mr.
Cordell asked her what I was asking her and when she replied that I was
querying permission I clearly heard Mr. Cordell say angrily and aggressively
"I am goanna do her over" and then "I am goanna take her job
just for fun". I
informed Mrs Cordell that I had overheard these remarks and that I was ending
the call. She
said that her son had now left the room and she was talking to me. I
repeated that I would be ending the call and that she should put what she
wanted to say in writing to me. Sarah
Fletcher Neighbourhood Officer. |
||
|
(9) We received a report that on 8th December 2016 you aggressively banged on one of your neighbour’s front
door, shouted abuse and threats and accused him of making noise. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (9) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (9) Reply: |
|
(10) We received a report that on 11th December 2016 you aggressively banged on your neighbour’s door several
times and accused them of banging on pipes. It is also alleged that you
shouted abuse and threats at them. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (10) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (10) Reply: |
|
(11) We received a report that on 14th December 2016 you were verbally abusive towards a woman who was visiting
one of your neighbours as she knocked on your neighbour’s door. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (11) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (11) Reply: |
|
(12) We received a report that on 23rd December 201 you banged on a
neighbour’s front door, shouted abuse at them and asked them to turn their
tap off. It is also alleged that you then removed their electricity fuse
thereby cutting off their power supply |
1. Particulars of Breaches (12) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (12) Reply: |
|
(13) We received a report that on 26th December 2016 you ran up the communal stairs to the first floor and
confronted one of your neighbours as he was going out with his family and
started to shout abuse and threats at him and his wife and accused him of
tampering with your water supply, you also attempted to stop him from leaving
the block. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (13) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (13) Reply: |
|
(14) We received a report that on 3rd January 2017 you confronted
one of your neighbours as he returned to the block with his wife and
two-year-old daughter and started shouting abuse and threats at them. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (14) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (14) Reply: |
|
(15) We received a report that on 21st January 2017 you aggressively
banged on your neighbour’s door, swore and shouted
abuse and threats at them and accused them of making noise. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (15) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (15) Reply: |
|
(16) We received a report that on 31st January 2017 you aggressively
banged on one of your neighbour’s door, shouted abuse
and threats at them and accused them of banging on the floor. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (16) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (16) Reply: |
|
(17) We received a report that on 7th February 2017 you approached
the leaseholder of 117 Burncroft Avenue and his plumber outside the block as
they were attempting to resolve the problem causing low water pressure in the
flat. You said to the leaseholder that there were problems between you and
his tenants but did not give any specific details. The leaseholder explained
to you that his tenants were experiencing low water pressure in the flat and
you said to him ‘you will not solve the problem as I am restricting their
water supply’. The leaseholder later knocked on your door and asked whether
you would increase the water pressure and you stated
‘I cannot do anything at the moment, I will sort it out later’. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (17) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (17) Reply: |
|
(18) On 24th February 2017 Sarah Fletcher (Neighbourhood Officer)
and Steve, Stirk (Maintenance Surveyor) attended your property at flat 109
Burncroft Avenue to inspect the property following reports of low water
pressure from flats 113 and 117 Burncroft Avenue. While inside your flat,
they observed that you have installed an iron security gate inside your front
door. It also appeared to them that the wall between your kitchen and living
room seemed to have been removed thereby creating an open plan effect. Much
of the property was taken up industrial type printers, boxes and folders and
there were dog faeces in your back garden. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (18) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (18) Reply: |
You, the tenant, are responsible for the behaviour of anyone,
including your children, living in or visiting your
home. This means That you must ensure that they must not act in breach of any
of these conditions Also, you must not encourage them to act in such a way.
This applies in the property, in communal and surrounding areas, any property
belonging to the council and or/ anywhere within Enfield borough.” |
||
|
Condition 10 “You must not act in any way which causes, or is likely k) cause, a
nuisance or annoyance or is anti-social.” |
1. Condition 10 Reply: 2. Condition
10 Reply: |
|
Condition 21 “You must not abuse, harass, make offensive comments and/or malicious allegations,
use or threaten to use violence against any of our officers or agents, or
against a councillor. This applies at any time and in any place. We may
report the matter to the Police.” |
1. Condition 21 Reply: 2. Condition
21 Reply: |
As to Ground 1 |
||
|
Condition 31 “You must take care not to cause damage to your property or the
property of your neighbours.” |
1. Condition 31 Reply: 2. Condition
31 Reply: |
|
Condition 33 “You must keep the inside of your property clean and in reasonable
decorative order." |
1. Condition 33 Reply: 2. Condition
33 Reply: |
|
Condition 34 “You must not use the property in any way that may cause a health or
safety hazard or encourage vermin and/or pests (for example, by hoarding
items. inappropriately).” |
1. Condition 34 Reply: 2. Condition
34 Reply: |
|
Condition 44 “You must obtain our prior written permission before carrying out any
alterations, Improvements or structural work to the property. You may need to
obtain other permissions such as planning permission or building regulations
approval.” |
1. Condition 44 Reply: 2. Condition
44 Reply: |
|
Condition 53 “You must keep the inside of the property, the fixtures and fittings
and all glass in the property in good repair during the tenancy.” |
1. Condition 53 Reply: 2. Condition
53 Reply: |
Particulars
of Breaches |
||
|
(19) On 16th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is reported that you
confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to our
building and said to her that you had her bank details and personal details
such as date of birth and said to her that you wanted her and her husband to
pay you some money. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (19) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (19) Reply: |
|
(20) On 18th June 2017 at 11:55hrs it is reported that you
confronted one of your neighbours as she was exiting the main entrance to
your building and said to her that you knew what time she went out and what
time she returned and to tell her husband that you would like to speak to
him. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (20) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (20) Reply: |
|
(21) On 23rd June 2017 at 23:35hrs it is reported that you came out of
your flat with your dog without a lead and attacked one of your neighbours as
he returned from work by punching him twice on the chest. You tried to push
him out of the block and snatched his phone as he brought took it out of his
pocket to record the incident. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (21) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (21) Reply: |
|
(22) On 28th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is reported that you
confronted your neighbour as she was leaving the block. You swore and shouted
abuse at her and accused her of making noise inside her flat. You told her
that you know all her personal details and that of her husband including
their full names, phone numbers, date of birth and banking details. You
demanded that they pay you some money and asked her to tell her husband to
come and see you. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (22) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (22) Reply: |
|
(23) On 30th June 2017 at 11:45hrs it is reported that you confronted
your neighbour as she was leaving the block and accused her of slamming the
door. She denied slamming the door and called her a liar and proceeded to
swear and shout abuse at her. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (23) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (23) Reply: |
|
(24) On 2nd July 2017 at 17:18hrs it is reported that you confronted
your neighbour as he was going out with his family with your dog barking and
without a lead and asked him when he was going to hand over the money. It is
also alleged that as they left the block, you ran after them swearing and
shouting abuse at your neighbour and demanding that he must pay you some
money if he wants you to leave him alone. You also said to him that you have
all their personal details including their dates of birth and bank details. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (24) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (24) Reply: |
|
(25) On 12th July 2017 an Enfield Council Surveyor attended your
flat to investigate reports of low water pressure to flats above yours but
you refused him access the Surveyor attended your flat again in the evening
of the same day following further reports that the water supply to die
affected flats had completely ceased and you refused him access. You then
followed him to his car swearing and shouting abuse at him and prevented him
from driving his car. He then called the police. |
1. Particulars of Breaches (25) Reply: 2. Particulars
of Breaches (25) Reply: |
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 4. Before the Court will grant-an order on any of the Grounds 1 to 8 or
12 to 16, it must be satisfied that it is reasonable to require you to leave.
This means that, if one of these Grounds is set out in paragraph 3 to this
Notice, you will be able to argue at the hearing in Court that it is not
reasonable that you should have to leave, even if you accept that the Ground
applies. Before the court grants an order on any of the Grounds 9 to 16, it
must be satisfied that there will be suitable alternative accommodation for
you when you have to leave. This means that the Court will have to decide
that, in its opinion, there will be other accommodation which is reasonably
suitable for the needs of you and your family, taking into particular account
various factors such as the nearness of your place of work, and the sort of
housing that other people with similar needs are offered. Your new home will
have to be let to you on another secure tenancy or a private tenancy under
the Rent Act of a kind that will give you similar security. There is no requirement for suitable alternative accommodation where
Grounds 1 to 8 apply. If your landlord is not a local authority, and the local authority
gives a certificate that it will provide you with suitable accommodation, the
Court has to accept the certificate. One of the requirements of Ground 10A is that the landlord must have
approval for the redevelopment scheme from the Secretary of State (or, in the
case of a housing association landlord, the Housing Corporation). The landlord
must have consulted all secure tenants affected by the proposed redevelopment
scheme. 5. Court proceedings for possession of the dwelling-house can be begun
immediately. The date by which the tenant is to give up possession of the
dwelling-house is Monday the 24th of August 2017. |
||
NOTES TO PARAGRAPH 5 Court proceedings cannot be begun until after this date, which cannot
he earlier than the date when your tenancy or license could have been brought
to an end. This means that if you have a weekly or Fortnightly tenancy, there
should at least 4 weeks between the date this Notice is given and the date in
this paragraph. After this date, court proceedings may be begun at once or at any time
during the following twelve months. Once the twelve months are up this Notice
will lapse, and a new Notice must be served before possession can be sought. Signed Anti-Social Behaviour Manager Date On behalf of Enfield Council Housing Address: The Edmonton Centre,
36-44 South Mall London N9 0TN |
||
End: |
--
C)
Injunction Order 1
--
100 |
Lemmy first Injunction Order
09_08_2017-page 1 |
09/08/2017 |
N/a |
--
D)
Injunction Order 2
--
E)
Possession Order 2
--
F)
Allowed their clients to make fake allegations
against my person
--
G)
Allowed their clients to attack myself home and
possessions
--
A large list of criminal offences has taken place
against me since the year of 2013 till date by members of the public who are
Enfield councils Clients and that also of Enfield Councils Employees
I have contacted the Metropolitan Police and the
Enfield Council who are my local authority’s in respect of dealing with the
criminal offences that I
40.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1.
2.
kay
Osborne 12-08-2020 21-06
12/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 120
40.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
40. 1. 2.
kay Osborne 12-08-2020 21-06
12/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 120
--
120,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 12/08/2020 09:06:15 PM
To: Lorraine
Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Mother
this is an update of parts that can be used and memorable bits
Attachments: UTF-8bU2ktRW1haWwtaW5zdXJhbmNlLTIwMjAgKDEpLmRvYw=
41.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41.1
1. 2.
Kay
Osborne letter- 13-08-2020 13-18
13/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128
41.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
41.1 1. 2.
Kay Osborne letter- 13-08-2020
13-18
13/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128
--
121,
From: Kay
Osborne <Kay.Osborne@Enfield.gov.uk>
Sent time: 13/08/2020 01:41:45 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Kay
Osborne letter asked for [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell
Many thanks for your email.
I note the contents and look
forward to receiving a letter/email from you as what you are claiming for and
why you consider the Council to be at fault.
Kind regards
Kay Osborne Dip CII
Insurance Manager Audit &
Risk Management London Borough of Enfield Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XF
insurance@enfield.gov.uk
020 8379 3003
Kay.osborne@enfield.gov.uk 020
8379 1476
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 13
August 2020 13:18
To: Kay Osborne <Kay.Osborne@Enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Kay Osborne
letter asked for [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Dear Kay Osborne
Thank you for the reply to my
letter.
You have asked me for more
information, which at this time I am dealing with, but may take me around a
week in order to get the information you are asking for.
Regards
Simon
On Tuesday, 11 August 2020,
13:10:02 BST, Kay Osborne <kay.osborne@.enfield.gov.uk>
wrote:
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell
Many thanks for your attached
letter.
122,
Unfortunately as you are making
a claim against the Council neither I or our Insurers
are able to assist you in documenting your evidence against the Council.
In order that I can forward your
claim to Insurers please confirm what you are claiming for and why you consider
the Council to be at fault.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
Kay Osborne Dip CII
Insurance Manager Audit &
Risk Management London Borough of Enfield Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XF
insurance@enfield.gov.uk
020 8379 3003
Kav.osborne@enfield.gov.uk
020 8379 1476
From: Rewired <re wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 10 August 2020
14:19
To: Insurance <insurance@.enfield.gov.uk>: Lorraine Cordell
<lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Kay Osborne letter asked for
Dear Kay Osborne
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me by phone last week please see attached letter you asked me to send
to you.
Regards
123,
Simon
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance. To find out more
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email
and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive
it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any
other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be
subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
124,
Extra Page: Error!
125,
Extra Page: Error!
126,
Extra Page: Error!
127,
Extra Page: Error!
128,
Extra Page: Error!
42.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -14-08-2020 22-44
14/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 129,130
42.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
42. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -14-08-2020
22-44
14/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 129,130
--
129,
What's in your account
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 14/08/2020 10:44:44 PM
Subject: Simon,
your August account summary is inside.
Customer Number: 374
August Account Summary for
Simon.
Pro tips, just for you:
What's your domain worth? Find
out now.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step
verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
Here's a sweet discount on your
next new order.
What's in your account:
130,
DOMAINS
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
toosmooth.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.com
toosmoothentertainment.com
GODADDY MOBILE APP
All the tools and help you need to
succeed online — all on your phone.
Register a domain, build your website and manage your account on the fly.
GET IT ON
Google Play
online
Opening new businesses for 5 years!
Start your online business now. Available at Ł40.14 Ł0.99
Ł13.99
Ł1.99*
WTTiiTI
Ł19.14
Ł2.99*
Ł21.57
.agency
Ł3.97*
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Note: If you are the domain administrator of more than one GoDaddy
domain account, you may receive this notice multiple times.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3959414390
43.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -21-08-2020 11-44
21/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 131,132,133,134
43.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
43. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -21-08-2020
11-44
21/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 131,132,133,134
-
131,
No Good for Report!
132,
No Good for Report!
133,
No Good for Report!
134,
No Good for Report!
44.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 2.
Van
-Renewals at Confused -26-08-2020 10-00
26/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 135,136
44.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
44. 2.
Van -Renewals at Confused
-26-08-2020 10-00
26/08/2020
/ Page Numbers: 135,136
--
135,
Hello Simon
Your Motor Trade Insurance
Policy is due
to renew!
Renewal date: 08/09/2020 Reference Number: 156
Get a Quick Quote
It's that time again and we have
on file from previous years that your renewal is
due on the 08/09/2020.
As you have used us before to
find cheap traders’ insurance, we thought we may remind you of your upcoming
renewal and see if you would like to use us again.
You can get a quote by pressing
the big green button above OR by calling us
From: Total Insurance <info@total-insurance.co.uk>
Sent time: 26/08/2020 10:00:31 AM
Subject: Simon,
Your Motor Trade Insurance is due to renew
total insurance motor
trade header
136,
dedicated call centre on 0203
876 5050 and quoting your reference number
located above.
reviews
This e-mail has been sent to re_wired@ymail.com,
45.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -01-09-2020 13-41
01/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 137,138
45.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
45. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -01-09-2020
13-41
01/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 137,138
--
137,
From:
GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 01/09/2020 01:41:16 PM
Subject: Simon
Cordell: Your GoDaddy Renewal Notice
You qualify for 20% off any new
order of Ł29.84 or more. *
Use promo code tfh1964d5 at
checkout.
24/7 Support: 020 7084
1810 Simon Cordell —
Customer Number:374
Your domains are about to auto
renew.
Smart choice. As long as your
payment info is still up to date, you can keep doing your thing. Not sure it's
right? No problem. Just sign into your account and find out.
.UK (. CO.UK)
Domain Renewal
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
Auto-renews on
06/09/2020 Ł11.99 / 1 Year **
COM Domain Renewal
t-s-enterprises.com
Auto-renews on
06/09/2020 Ł15.99 / 1 Year **
UK domains need to be renewed 15
days before they cancel. Learn more >
We participate in account update
services. As part of Visa® and MasterCard® programs, banks may notify us of
updated credit card expiration date(s) and/or card number(s), which will
automatically update your payment information in our system and allow us to
attempt to renew your product(s) as scheduled. If paying with American Express,
autorenewal on an expired/re-assigned card may be automatically billed by
American Express using the new expiration date and/or card number without
notification to us. Similar services may be supported by another card
138,
brands. If attempts to bill your
credit card are unsuccessful, your product(s) will expire. To update your
credit card information, or to change your automatic renewal status, please log
in to your account.
We will automatically renew the
above product(s) on the renewal date and charge the credit card you have
associated with each product. If the credit card associated with each product
has expired or been closed, we cannot automatically renew the product and your
product(s) will expire. We may be notified by banks of updates to your
expiration date and/or card number, allowing for successful product renewal.
Some card brands may automatically bill the new credit card without
notification to us. To update your credit card information, or to change your
automatic renewal status, please log in to your account.
NOTE: Our free product credit policy has been updated - see Section 9
of our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that the
Credit is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free product
will automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until cancelled. To
review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account.
If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the
Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel,
please learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic
renewal service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically
charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no
further action on your part.
If you do not wish to continue
using our automatic renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by
visiting the Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
**Plus ICANN fee of Ł0.15 per
domain name per year. Domains automatically renew at original registration
length.
Prices are current as of
01/09/2020 and may be changed without notice. All domain name registrations and
renewals are non-refundable and are subject to the terms and conditions of our
Registration Agreement. Certain domains will be billed up to 30 days prior to
the renewal date.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
4011833610
46.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -06-09-2020 19-42
06/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 139,140
46.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
46. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -06-09-2020
19-42
06/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 139,140
--
139,
From: GoDaddy
Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 06/09/2020 07:42:53 PM
Subject: Renewal
receipt for order #1743
Customer: 374
Your items have been renewed.
.UK (. CO.UK)
1 Domain
1 Year Ł11.99
Domain Renewal
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
Subtotal: Ł11.99
Tax: Ł2.40
Total: Ł14.39
We have billed your PayPal
agreement ending with the last two digits: 0V for the amount of Ł14.39. To
review all your products and services, sign into your account.
If your products are on a
1-month subscription term, they will automatically renew next month at the same
price listed here, unless otherwise indicated.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is
governed by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel,
please learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that
during the checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic
renewal service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically
charging then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no
further action on your part. If you do not wish to continue using our automatic
renewal service, you can cancel automatic renewal by visiting the Renewals and
Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
Note: Our free product credit policy was updated — see Section 9 of
our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that the credit
is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free product will
automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until cancelled. To
review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account.
If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the
Renewals and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
140,
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
4030224371
47.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -07-09-2020 20-36
07/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 141,142
47.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
47. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -07-09-2020
20-36
07/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 141,142
--
141,
From: GoDaddy Renewals <renewals@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 07/09/2020 08:36:35 PM
Subject: Renewal
receipt for order #174
Customer:
37486337
Your items have been renewed.
.COM Domain
1 Domain
1 Year Ł16.14
Renewal
t-s-enterprises.com
Subtotal:
Ł16.14
Tax: Ł3.23
Total:
Ł19.37
We have billed your PayPal agreement
ending with the last two digits: 0V for the amount of Ł19.37. To review all
your products and services, sign into your account.
If your products are on a
1-month subscription term, they will automatically renew next month at the same
price listed here, unless otherwise indicated.
NOTE: This message confirms that during the checkout process you
agreed to the Terms in GoDaddy's Universal Terms of Service Agreement, Privacy
Policy, and any other applicable agreements. Your use of these products is governed
by the terms of these agreements and policies. If you wish to cancel, please
learn more about our Refund Policy. This message also confirms that during the
checkout process you agreed to enrol your products in our automatic renewal
service. This keeps your products up and running, automatically charging
then-current renewal fees to your payment method on file, with no further
action on your part. If you do not wish to continue using our automatic renewal
service, you can cancel automatic renewal by visiting the Renewals and Billing
page in your GoDaddy account.
Note: Our free product credit policy was updated — see Section 9 of
our Universal Terms of Service for more details. In the event that the credit
is redeemed, after the initial free one-year period, the free product will
automatically renew at the then-current renewal price until cancelled. To
review billing or to update your payment information, log in to your account.
If you do not wish to renew, you can cancel this product by visiting the Renewals
and Billing page in your GoDaddy account.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
142,
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
4032014626
48.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1.
2.
Car -
Go Compare -08-092-020 09-06
08/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 143,144
48.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
48. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -08-092-020
09-06
08/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 143,144
--
143,
No Good for Report!
144,
No Good for Report!
49.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-13-09-2020 21-29
13/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 145
49.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
49. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-13-09-2020 21-29
13/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 145
--
145,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 13/09/2020 08:29:10 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
50.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-14-09-2020 02-24
14/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 146
50.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
50. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-14-09-2020 02-24
14/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 146
--
146,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 14/09/2020 01:24:05 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
51.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - InfinityFree-15-09-2020 21-54
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 147
51.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
51. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work -
InfinityFree-15-09-2020 21-54
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 147
--
147,
From: Infinity
Free <noreply@infimtyfree.net>
Sent time: 15/09/2020 09:54:35 PM
Subject: Verify
Email Address
Infinity Free
Hello!
Please click the button below to
verify your email address.
If you did not create an
account, no further action is required.
Regards,
Infinity Free
If you're having trouble
clicking the "Verify Email Address" button, copy and paste the URL
below into your web browser: https://app.infinitvfree.net/email/verifv/2293563/e463cf5b5ef927b779bd6bf6cdb9e16732d916b7?email=rewired%40ymail.com&expires=1600206875&signature=106cd56101d23c5a68858c30d5f946ff74e
38fe3ca20f9358dbe61e5c28ac3e3
© 2020 Infinity Free. All rights
reserved.
52.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - InfinityFree-15-09-2020 22-11
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 148
52.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
52. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work -
InfinityFree-15-09-2020 22-11
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 148
--
148,
From: Infinity
Free <noreply@infinityfree.net>
Sent time: 15/09/2020 10:11:35 PM
Subject: Your new Infinity Free account has been created
Thank you for signing up with Infinity Free! Your
hosting account will now be setup over the next few minutes and this email
contains all the information you will need in order to begin using your
account.
Here are the details of your new hosting account:
Hosting Account Details
Username:
epiz_26750706
Password: (can be found in your client area)
Label: digital-boy-live-newspaper great-sit...
Domain: digital-boy-live-newspaper.great-site.net
Please note that it takes up to 72 hours for your
domain name to start working. This is caused by DNS caching, and depends on many factors (your internet settings
being the most important one). Learn more about
this.
What to do now?
The first thing to do now is to login to your
control panel. Go to your client area, find the account
and click Control Panel.
From there you will be able to install scripts,
create databases, add additional domains and more.
You can also upload your website with FTP. Please
make sure you have logged into the Control Panel once first to enable FTP
access.
Get Support
Do you need help in getting started or would you
like to know more about what you can do with our hosting? Check out our knowledge base for the
answers to many common questions and issues!
Are you unable to find your answer there, or would
you like to talk to someone, please check our community forum as well!
Regards
Infinity Free
53.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
53. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-15-09-2020 13-16
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 149
53.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
53. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-15-09-2020 13-16
15/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 149
--
149,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 15/09/2020 12:16:46 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
54.
Blank
55.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-17-09-2020 16-58
17/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 150
55.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-17-09-2020 16-58
17/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 150
--
150,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 16/09/2020 01:31:24 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
56.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-17-09-2020 16-58
17/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 151
56.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
55. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-17-09-2020 16-58
17/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 151
--
151,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 18/09/2020 10:53:54 AM
To: Hosting
Activation <noreply@hostmessage.info>
Subject: Re: Your
new hostfree.pw hosting account
On Friday, 18 September 2020,
10:30:10 BST, Hosting Activation <noreply@hostmessage.info>
wrote:
Dear Client,
Thank you for registering at
HostFree.pw. We are delighted to inform you that your application epree_2676
has been successful! Your account has been activated and you should be able to
login to the Control Panel now.
For Unlimited Premium Web
Hosting at affordable price visit at https://www.hostafirm.com
Take careful note of your login
details below and consider printing them for your own records.
C panel
Username: epree_2676
C panel
Password: ****
Your URL: http://horrific.hostfree.pw
FTP Server: ftp.hostfree.pw
FTP Login: epee _
FTP
Password: ****
MySQL Database Name: CREATE INSIDE CONTROL PANEL
MySQL Username: epree_2676
MySQL Password: ****
MySQL Server: SEE
INSIDE CONTROL PANEL
Control Panel URL: http://cpanel.vhostfull.com
Once you have logged into your
Control Panel, you can change your password if required.
For Unlimited Premium Web
Hosting at affordable price visit at
https://www.hostafirm.com
Thank you for choosing HostFree.pw,
enjoy your free hosting account!
Best Regards,
HostFree.pw
http://www.hostfree.pw
57.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-18-09-2020 12-54
18/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 152
57.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-18-09-2020 12-54
18/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 152
--
152,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 18/09/2020 11:54:11 AM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
58.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-18-09-2020 12-54
18/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 153
58.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
57 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-18-09-2020 12-54
18/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 153
--
153,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 23/09/2020 04:52:09 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let you
know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020 Google
LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
59.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 2.
Legal Defence
Work - Drive to web-24-09-2020 18-36
24/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 154
59.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
59. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-24-09-2020 18-36
24/09/2020
/ Page Numbers: 154
--
154,
From: Google
<no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 24/09/2020 05:36:06 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
crompton098765@gmail.com
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
60.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 2.
Van
-Renewals at Confused -12-10-2020 15-16
12/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 155,156
60.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
60. 2.
Van -Renewals at Confused
-12-10-2020 15-16
12/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 155,156
--
155,
From: Renewals
at Confused.com <Reminder@reminders.confused.com>
Sent time: 12/10/2020 03:16:14 PM
Subject: [REMINDER]
Your van insurance renewal for your is due soon!
Confused. ®
Your van insurance renewal is
due in 5 days!
Hi Simon,
We can see from your last van
insurance quote that your renewal is due in 5 days.
Your time is precious, and so is
your van. So tick your insurance renewal off
your to-do list in just a few minutes with Confused.com.
Compare quotes from over 30+ van
insurers to make sure you're getting a great price!
Already sorted your insurance. Stop any more reminders.
GET A QUOTE
Not the right time to renew.
Select a month and we'll send
you a van insurance reminder ahead of time, so you don't have
to rush when getting a quote.
156,
Car Insurance
Van Insurance
Car Finance
Running Your Car Home
& More
Don't be confused. Be
Confused.com
Listings are provided by
Inspop.com Ltd on a non-advised basis. This means that no advice is given or
implied and you are solely responsible for deciding whether the product is
suitable for your needs. If you are not sure which is the right product for
you, you should seek advice. Inspop.com Ltd is acting as a credit broker, not a
lender. You will not be charged a fee for using this service, but you should
check with your chosen provider to find out what fees may be applicable.
Inspop.com Ltd may receive a payment from the product provider you select in
the table.
© Copyright 2020 Confused.com.
All rights reserved.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of Inspop.com Limited trading as Confused.com. Inspop.com Limited
registered in England and Wales at 3rd Floor, Greyfriars House, Greyfriars
Road, Cardiff CF10 3AL (Reg. No. 03857130). Inspop.com Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Firm reference number:
310635).
We will never conduct any
business face-to-face. If anybody knocks on your door posing as Confused.com,
please do not give them any personal details. Make sure to report the incident
to your local police force by calling 101 and please also let us know by
contacting us at communications@confused.com.
Unsubscribe
We're sending you this email
based on when you told us your renewal was. You can update your Confused.com
contact preferences
61.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 2.
Van
-Renewals at Confused -17-10-2020 15-32
17/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 157,158
61.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
61. 2.
Van -Renewals at Confused
-17-10-2020 15-32
17/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 157,158
--
157,
From: Renewals
at Confused.com <Reminder@reminders.confused.com>
Sent time: 17/10/2020 03:32:05 PM
Subject: Simon,
your van insurance renewal is due soon!
Confused. ®
Your van insurance renewal is
due in 5 days!
Hi Simon,
We can see from your last van
insurance quote that your renewal is due in 5 days.
Your time is precious, and so is
your van. So tick your insurance renewal off
your to-do list in just a few minutes with Confused.com.
Compare quotes from over 30+ van
insurers to make sure you're getting a great price!
Already sorted your insurance. Stop any more reminders.
GET A QUOTE
Not the right time to renew.
Select a month and we'll send
you a van insurance reminder ahead of time, so you don't have
to rush when getting a quote.
158,
Car Insurance
Van Insurance
Car Finance
Running Your Car Home
& More
Don't be confused. Be
Confused.com
Listings are provided by
Inspop.com Ltd on a non-advised basis. This means that no advice is given or
implied and you are solely responsible for deciding whether the product is
suitable for your needs. If you are not sure which is the right product for
you, you should seek advice. Inspop.com Ltd is acting as a credit broker, not a
lender. You will not be charged a fee for using this service, but you should
check with your chosen provider to find out what fees may be applicable.
Inspop.com Ltd may receive a payment from the product provider you select in
the table.
© Copyright 2020 Confused.com.
All rights reserved.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of Inspop.com Limited trading as Confused.com. Inspop.com Limited
registered in England and Wales at 3rd Floor, Greyfriars House, Greyfriars
Road, Cardiff CF10 3AL (Reg. No. 03857130). Inspop.com Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Firm reference number:
310635).
We will never conduct any
business face-to-face. If anybody knocks on your door posing as Confused.com,
please do not give them any personal details. Make sure to report the incident
to your local police force by calling 101 and please also let us know by
contacting us at communications@confused.com.
Unsubscribe
We're sending you this email
based on when you told us your renewal was. You can update your Confused.com
contact preferences
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -22-10-2020 11-02
22/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 159,160
62.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
62. 1. 2.
Car - Go Compare -22-10-2020
11-02
22/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 159,160
--
159,
From: GoDaddy
<donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time: 22/10/2020 11:02:24 AM
Subject:
GoDaddy presents: Back to Business - join this
exclusive webinar and learn how to grow your online business.
Need help? Contact us.
Customer Number: 3748
FREE W E B I N A R | 3 November,
10am - 12pm
Register Now _>
You are invited to GoDaddy presents:
Back to Business, an exclusive virtual event for micro-business owners to
help you bounce back from COVID-19 and learn how to make the most of your
online presence.
On Tuesday 3rd November, GoDaddy
presents: Back to Business is
reaching entrepreneurial hotspots
across the UK, sharing knowledge, expertise and support while also shining a
light on small business heroes in your area.
Interested? Click here to
register.
2020 has put extraordinary
pressure on small businesses. Your ability to thrive will drive forward the
UK's economic recovery - and as a long-standing supporter of small business, we
want to help. As part of our global #OpenWeStand
programme, GoDaddy presents: Back to Business - a virtual roadshow which
will provide UK entrepreneurs with tools, resources
and connections
to help you rebuild and
thrive.
Whether your business is new to
the world of online, or you simply want to hear more about how to get back on track
- we have something for everyone. Click here to see the full agenda.
In addition to advice and
resources you will have access to a network of other small business owners in
your which you can share experiences with. GoDaddy is here to help you and your
business succeed. Are you ready to boost your online
business?
Join us on Tuesday 3rd November
from 10am - 12pm to be part of the action.
160,
Interested? Click below to
register.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
4171346950
63.
Blank
64.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 2.
Legal
Defence Work - Drive to web-28-10-2020 15-40
28/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 161
64.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
64. 2.
Legal Defence Work - Drive to
web-28-10-2020 15-40
28/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 161
--
161,
From:
Google <no-reply@accounts.google.com>
Sent time: 28/10/2020 03:40:12 PM
Subject: Security
alert for your linked Google Account
Your account Re_wired@ymail.com
is listed as the recovery email for crompton098765@gmail.com.
Drive to Web was granted access
to your linked Google account
If you did not grant access, you
should check this activity and secure your account.
You received this email to let
you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2020
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
65.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 2.
Van
-Renewals at Confused -30-10-2020 15-45
30/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 162,163
65.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
65. 2.
Van -Renewals at Confused
-30-10-2020 15-45
30/10/2020
/ Page Numbers: 162,163
--
162,
From: Renewals
at Confused.com <Reminder@reminders.confused.com>
Sent time: 30/10/2020 03:45:22 PM
Subject: Simon,
your van insurance renewal is due in 5 days!
Save on van insurance with
Confused.com
Confused. ®
Your van insurance renewal is
due in 5 days!
Hi Simon,
We can see from your last van
insurance quote that your renewal is due in 5 days.
Your time is precious, and so is
your van. So tick your insurance renewal off
your to-do list in just a few minutes with Confused.com.
Compare quotes from over 30+ van
insurers to make sure you're getting a great price!
Already sorted your insurance. Stop any more reminders.
GET A QUOTE
Not the right time to renew.
Select a month and we'll send you
a van insurance reminder ahead of time, so you don't have
to rush when getting a quote.
163,
Car Insurance
Van Insurance
Car Finance
Running Your Car Home
& More
Don't be confused. Be
Confused.com
Listings are provided by
Inspop.com Ltd on a non-advised basis. This means that no advice is given or
implied and you are solely responsible for deciding whether the product is
suitable for your needs. If you are not sure which is the right product for
you, you should seek advice. Inspop.com Ltd is acting as a credit broker, not a
lender. You will not be charged a fee for using this service, but you should
check with your chosen provider to find out what fees may be applicable.
Inspop.com Ltd may receive a payment from the product provider you select in
the table.
© Copyright 2020 Confused.com.
All rights reserved.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of Inspop.com Limited trading as Confused.com. Inspop.com Limited
registered in England and Wales at 3rd Floor, Greyfriars House, Greyfriars
Road, Cardiff CF10 3AL (Reg. No. 03857130). Inspop.com Limited is authorised
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (Firm reference number:
310635).
We will never conduct any
business face-to-face. If anybody knocks on your door posing as Confused.com,
please do not give them any personal details. Make sure to report the incident
to your local police force by calling 101 and please also let us know by
contacting us at communications@confused.com.
Unsubscribe
We're sending you this email
based on when you told us your renewal was. You can update your Confused.com
contact preferences
66.
Blank
00/00/2020
67.
Blank
00/00/2020
68.
Blank
00/02/2020
69.
Blank
00/00/2020
70.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1.
2.
Legal Defence
Work - GoDaddy -17-11-2020 01-57
17/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 164,165
70.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
70. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - GoDaddy
-17-11-2020 01-57
17/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 164,165
--
164,
From: GoDaddy <donotreply@godaddy.com>
Sent time:
17/11/2020 01:57:50 AM
Subject: Simon,
your November account summary is inside.
Customer Number:
3748
November Account
Summary for Simon.
Get important account and product
alerts sent to your mobile device.
What's your domain worth? Find
out now.
This is a great time to ensure
your account is secure. Update your password and add or review two-step
verification protection.
Make sure you aren't missing out
on special offers. Visit My Account and look for the Contact Preferences tab
under "Settings" to opt-in to offers related to your purchase.
165,
Shop Now
Use promo code RPACCA20DA at
checkout.
What's in your account:
DOMAINS
Log in to make changes, like
pointing them to your Facebook or Twitter page.
toosmooth.co.uk
toosmoothentertainment.com
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.com
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
<E33
Unleash
your inner rebel. Available at Ł11.51 Ł0.90 Search
now >
Ł19.14
Ł7.99*
Ł16.82
Ł5.45*
Ł19.99
Ł6.99*
*See offer terms, conditions and legal policies.
Note: If you are the domain administrator of more than one GoDaddy
domain account, you may receive this notice multiple times.
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
4252064877
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - No ip-22-11-2020
00-46 (2)
22/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 166,167
71.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
71. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - No
ip-22-11-2020 00-46 (2)
22/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 166,167
--
166,
From: No-IP
Notices <noreply-31766937@noip.com>
Sent time: 22/11/2020 12:46:50 AM
Subject: Welcome
to No-IP
No Ip
We have two options to help get
your new account configured; you can do it on your own, or we can help you.
Follow the steps below to configure your account, or configure your device now
using our Device Configuration Assistant.
If you need additional help, please open a support ticket , or give us a call,
1-775853-1883. Our Customer Success Team is here to help!
Dynamic DNS Account
Configuration
Login to your
No-IP account.
Create a hostname (example: yourname.ddns.net)
This hostname will be the URL
you will use to connect to your device from anywhere.
Download and Install the Dynamic Update Client (DUC) .
This software is only needed if
your router or device does not have No-IP as an integrated Dynamic DNS
provider. ( What is an integrated Dynamic
DNS provider ?)
After installation, you will
need to login to the DUC and configure it to update the hostname you added in
Step 2. Windows DUC Instructions ,
Mac DUC link
Instructions , & Linux DUC Instructions
)
167,
If you are behind a router or
firewall, you will need to open and forward the correct ports for the services
you wish to run.
Port Forwarding
Guides
Not sure which ports to forward?
Check out this list of common ports and
what they are used for.
Device Configuration Assistant
Not sure how to set up your
account or your hostname on your own?
Our Device Configuration
Assistant will walk you through device configuration and port forwarding to
help ensure your hostname and network are properly configured from the start.
Go to the Device
Configuration Assistant now to begin the configuration process.
Need Help?
Our
Getting Started Guide is a great resource for additional
configuration assistance. If you still need help, please open a support ticket, or
give us a call, 775-853-1883. Our In-House Customer Support Team is here to
help.
Vitalwerks Internet Solutions,
LLC c/o No-IP.com 425 Maestro Dr. Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89511 USA +1
775-853-1883
72.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - No ip-22-11-2020 00-46
22/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 168
72.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
72. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - No
ip-22-11-2020 00-46
22/11/2020
/ Page Numbers: 168
--
168,
From: No-IP
Notices <noreply-31766937@noip.com>
Sent time: 22/11/2020 12:46:29 AM
Subject: Confirm
Your No-IP Account
Confirm Your No-IP Account
Thanks for creating a No-IP
account. We are happy you found us. To confirm your account, please click the
button below.
Need help? Open a Support Ticket now.
Thank you for choosing No-IP! We
hope that you enjoy our rock-solid services that we have been offering since
1999 to millions of users.
Vitalwerks Internet Solutions,
LLC c/o No-IP.com 425 Maestro Dr. Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89511 USA +1
775-853-1883
© 1999-2020 Vitalwerks Internet
Solutions, LLC.
73.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1.
2.
Legal
Defence Work - No ip-10-12-2020 19-55
10/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 169
73.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
73. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work - No
ip-10-12-2020 19-55
10/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 169
--
169,
From: No-IP
Password Reset <noreply-31766937@noip.com>
Sent time: 10/12/2020 07:55:24 PM
To: Simon
Cordell <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Password
reset on No-IP.com
Password reset requested
Simon, there was recently a request
to change the password on your account. Click below to confirm this change:
Didn't ask to reset your
password? If you didn't ask for your password, it's likely that another user
entered your username or email address by mistake while trying to reset their
password. If that's the case, you don't need to take any further action and can
safely disregard this email.
Vitalwerks Internet Solutions,
LLC c/o No-IP.com 425 Maestro Dr. Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89511 USA +1
775-853-1883
© 1999-2020 Vitalwerks Internet
Solutions, LLC.
74.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1.
2.
kay
Osborne 15-12-2020 18-32
15/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 170,171
74.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
74. 1. 2.
kay Osborne 15-12-2020 18-32
15/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 170,171
--
170,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 15/12/2020 06:32:48 PM
To: Kay
Osborne <Kay.Osborne@Enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim
Dear Miss Kay Osborne
I have received your email and
will be doing my best to comply with your request in as short of a time scale
as possible.
This will include the following.
1) To provide you with the relevant
documentation by my chosen method. "Website Links" regarding my
claim.
As explained I hope to be able
to provide you and others with the associated web links within the next couple
of following days, as of today's date but due to the complexity and size of the
claim doing so, is a hard job to complete in all aspects, but I will endeavour
to do my utmost best and hope to be back in contact with you soon.
Many thanks Mr. Simon Cordell
On Tuesday, 15 December 2020,
18:06:49 GMT, Kay Osborne <kay.osborne@enfield.gov.uk>
wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
I am writing to confirm that we had
a telephone conversation this afternoon, in which you provided a detailed
background regarding the circumstances of your claim. We agreed that you would
provide confirmation to me that the documents were available to be viewed by
our Insurers and their representatives.
Once you have checked that all
the documents are accessible please can you confirm in an email, with details
of where our Insurers and their representatives can locate said documents.
I look forward to hearing from
you in due course.
Kind regards
Kay Osborne Dip CII
Insurance Manager London Borough
of Enfield Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XY
020 8379 3003 insurance@enfield.gov.uk
Direct dial 020
8379 1476
Direct email kav.osborne@enfield.gov.uk
171,
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged
and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient and
receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in
any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet
may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
75.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1.
2.
Legal Defence
Work - Hopto-15-12-2020 12-07
15/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 172,173
75.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
75. 1. 2.
Legal Defence Work -
Hopto-15-12-2020 12-07
15/12/2020
/ Page Numbers: 172,173
--
172,
From: No-IP
Notices <notice-31766937@noip.com>
Sent time: 15/12/2020 12:07:08 PM
To: Simon
Cordell <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: ACTION
REQUIRED: serverone.hopto.org is Expiring Soon
serverone.hopto.org is expiring
soon
Please confirm your hostname
now. Inactive hostnames are removed from our system if they are not confirmed
every 30 days. This policy helps keep only active hostnames on our network.
Click the button above to
confirm your hostname, or copy/paste the following link into your browser:
https://www.noip.com/confirm-host?n=7Nv9XLI9wvQJC0Xj2wq
This message only goes out to
Free Dynamic DNS accounts. Upgrade to Enhanced Dynamic DNS today!
Benefits of Upgrading Include
·
Removes 30-day account confirmation
·
Hostnames don't get deleted every 30
days
·
Allows you to create up to 25 hostnames
·
Removes advertisements on redirects
·
Advanced records like SRV, TXT records
and domain keys
·
Need Help? Awesome Phone Support
Upgrade to Enhanced Dynamic DNS
now and SAVE $3 Coupon Code: 3OFFEXP
To learn more about this, please check out this article in
our Knowledge Base Why is my hostname expiring?
173,
Vitalwerks Internet Solutions,
LLC c/o No-IP.com 425 Maestro Dr. Suite 200 Reno, Nevada 89511 USA +1
775-853-1883
© 1999-2020 Vitalwerks Internet
Solutions, LLC.
76.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 2.
Legal
Defence Work - GoDaddy-1-4778
14/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 174,175
76.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
76. 2.
Legal Defence Work -
GoDaddy-1-4778
14/01/2020
/ Page Numbers: 174,175
--
174,
Jordan
GoDaddy Guide Call us 4
Your Products
A Cherry on Top
Domains
toosmoothentertainment.com
toosmooth.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.co.uk
t-s-enterprises.com
toosmoothentertainment.co.uk
View My Account
Tyson + GoDaddy
Science may be saving the world,
but creativity's not sitting on the side-lines. See how Tyson is solving one of
the earth's newest problems with his innovative use of one humanity's oldest
technologies.
Make the world you want
Get Inspired
January Account Summary
175,
Shop Now
Keep your store open 24/7.
Available at Ł64.10 Ł2.50.
Ł20.10
Ł7.10*
Me
Ł13.99
Ł2.99*
buzz
Ł38.60
Ł0.87*
Click here to unsubscribe or
manage your email preferences.
Please do not reply to this
email. Emails sent to this address will not be answered.
Copyright © 1999-2020 GoDaddy
Operating Company, LLC. 14455 N. Hayden Rd, Ste. 219,
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA. All rights reserved.
3279691080
77.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 2.
Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council-1-21487
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 176,177,178,179,180
77.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
77. 2.
Letter regarding contact with
Enfield Council-1-21487
24/06/2020
/ Page Numbers: 176,177,178,179,180
--
176,
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent time: 24/06/2020 07:53:31 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: FW: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Attachments: Cordell letter
24.6.2020.pdf
Cordell letter
27.06.19.pdf
Here are the letters they sent
today
From: complaints
and information <complamtsandmfonriation@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent: 24
June 2020 15:33
To: 'Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk' <Lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Letter
regarding contact with Enfield Council [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Please find attached letter for
your attention regarding communications with the Council.
Yours sincerely
Karen Hale
Complaints and Information
Service Manager Complaints and Information Team Enfield Council
Classification: OFFICIAL
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual
and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and any
attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and intended
solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and confidential
information and if you are not the intended recipient and receive it in error
you must not copy, distribute, or use the communication in any other way. All
traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject to
recording/and or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
177,
178,
179,
180,
Headers
2021
1.
· Additional
Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE Nigel Adams -22-01-2021 12-05
22/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 1
1.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
1. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE Nigel Adams
-22-01-2021 12-05
22/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 1
1.
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 22/01/2021 12:05:08 PM
To: niadams@dacbeachcroft.com;
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Information you asked for
21/01/2021
Dear Nigel Adams
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me today on the phone.
I spoke to Kay Osborne today
from Enfield Council and was told DAC Beachcroft is dealing with the claim I am
bringing against Enfield Council; I was told by Kay Osborne a letter had been
sent to me on the 22/12/2020
which as of today’s date
22/01/2021 I have not received, could this please be forwarded to me via this
email, Kay Osborne did say she would get this addressed today and get the
letter sent to me via email.
As I have only found out today
DAC Beachcroft is dealing with this claim would it please be possible to obtain
an update.
Would is also please be possible
to include in all correspondence my mother by way of email: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Kind Regards S Cordell
Address: 109 Burncroft Ave,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ
2.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1.
2.
DAC Beachcroft
4 LBE you asked for 22-01-2021 13-05
22/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 2
2.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
2. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE you asked
for 22-01-2021 13-05
22/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 2
2.
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 22/01/2021 12:05:08 PM
To: niadams@dacbeachcroft.com;
Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: RE:
Information you asked for
21/01/2021
Dear Nigel Adams
Thank you for taking the time to
speak to me today on the phone.
I spoke to Kay Osborne today from
Enfield Council and was told DAC Beachcroft is dealing with the claim I am
bringing against Enfield Council; I was told by Kay Osborne a letter had been
sent to me on the 22/12/2020
which as of today’s date
22/01/2021 I have not received, could this please be forwarded to me via this
email, Kay Osborne did say she would get this addressed today and get the
letter sent to me via email.
As I have only found out today
DAC Beachcroft is dealing with this claim would it please be possible to obtain
an update.
Would is also please be possible
to include in all correspondence my mother by way of email: lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk
Kind Regards S Cordell
Address: 109 Burncroft Ave,
Enfield, EN3 7JQ
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB Enfield 25-01-2021 11-01
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 3,4
3.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
3. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 25-01-2021 11-01
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 3,4
--
3,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 10:01:08 AM
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
daknapp@.dacbeachcroft.com
4,
Following the Government’s measures
aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working from
home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall
Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note
that we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice. Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy
policy at
Brexit: We hahttp://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicy.ve amended our Standard Terms and Conditions and our
Standard Basis of Relationship to cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent
amendments have been proposed for clients with non-standard terms and
conditions. The amendments relate to limited changes to the data protection
provisions. Please click here for full details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
4.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB Enfield 25-01-2021 13-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 5,6, 7
4.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
4. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 25-01-2021 13-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 5,6, 7
5,
From: Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 12:02:24 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DAC Beachcroft
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government's measures
aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working from
home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of the
case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you to
contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January 2021,09:18:40
GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
6,
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please
7,
note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note
that we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended our
Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
5.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1.
2.
DAC Beachcroft
4 LBE v LB Enfield 25-01-2021 13-48
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 8,9,10,11
5.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
5. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 25-01-2021 13-48
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 8,9,10,11
8,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 12:48:56 PM
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr David Knapp
As Enfield Council understands I
have problems writing so much in an email due to the years that I have been
forced to suffer. My mother does help me when writing to people but not even
she can explain what I have been put through in detail as she does not live
with me.
It is impractical for me to
start to explain the breaches of my Human Rights that have occurred over the
last Eight Years by email to which I am claiming for and all the dates involved
to each offence that has taken place let alone the corruption and criminal
offences that I have been forced to undergo.
I do not intend to make all
communication to you by phone alone but to balance the weight of the scenario
to which we are both trying to resolving. so, both phone and email would be
best and or a meeting to take place.
I have built a website that
documents most of what I am claiming about and I have put the files under
Simon's Cases under the menu bar at.
Website: Horrificcorruption.com
You can take a look there if you
wish to / Audio and Diary are a good place to start.
As you may have noticed I am
using a Yahoo email account I also have a Hotmail account and both are limited
to the amount of documentation that any person can send and these limits make
using emails useless as I have collected a lot of evidence to support my claim
that I believe would be mandatory for you to receive.
When using my website, I am
allowed to send campaigns that have no limit to what can be sent by email and
my intentions are for me to soon upload the last stages of my defence that is
labelled as "Report Years" this is where the general public will be
able to interact with what has happened to me illegally and unmorally. I hope
to have the Report years section completed by latter today. Once this is finished I can send to you and all other who were or should
be involved the documents that you and they require. I believe the general
public will help me pinpoint out more than what I can do alone.
I have already won all the
case's brought against me at court and will not except the Enfield Council's
wrong doings to myself. especially in the magnitude to which they have
committed.
I wish to speak to you on the
phone today so I can direct you to some of the relevant parts contained within
the website Horrificcorruption.com
before I go public for the first time in the hope of other options arising.
As asked earlier will you please
call me by phone
From a civilian at home Mr. S.P.
Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,12:02:35 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
9,
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document please
contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we will
accept service by email.
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25 January 2021
10:01
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
10,
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on behalf
of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note
that we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
11
registered in England and Wales
(registered number 04218278) regulated and authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is available for inspection at
our registered office: Portwall
Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that
we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
6.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB Enfield 25-01-2021 13-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 12,13,14
6.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
6. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 25-01-2021 13-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 12,13,14
12,
From: Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 12:02:24 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DAC BEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government's
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of the
case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you to
contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January 2021,09:18:40
GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
13,
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please
14,
note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note
that we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended our
Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
7.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1.
2.
DAC Beachcroft
4 LBE v LB Enfield 25-01-2021 15-14
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 15,16,17,18,19
7.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
7. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 25-01-2021 15-14
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 15,16,17,18,19
15,
From: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 02:14:12 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. I am
afraid that I am not prepared to discuss the claim without you putting in an
email what your allegations are. I do not require a lot of documentation with
your email, just a few core documents will suffice.
I strongly advise you however to
seek independent legal advice. The Law Society will be able to recommend
lawyers local to you. Your claim appears to be complex and, more importantly,
some or all of it may be time barred as a consequence of the operation of limitation.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DAC BEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government's
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 12:49
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr David Knapp
As Enfield Council understands I
have problems writing so much in an email due to the years that I have been
forced to suffer. My mother does help me when writing to people but not even
she can explain what I have been put through in detail as she does not live
with me.
It is impractical for me to
start to explain the breaches of my Human Rights that have occurred over the
last Eight Years by email to which I am claiming for and all the dates involved
to each offence that has taken place let alone the corruption and criminal
offences that I have been forced to undergo.
I do not intend to make all
communication to you by phone alone but to balance the weight of the scenario
to which we are both trying to resolving. so, both phone and email would be
best and or a meeting to take place.
I have built a website that
documents most of what I am claiming about and I have put the files under
Simon's Cases under the menu bar at.
Website: Horrificcorruption.com
You can take a look there if you
wish to / Audio and Diary are a good place to start.
As you may have noticed I am
using a Yahoo email account I also have a Hotmail account and both are limited
to the amount of documentation that any person can send and these limits make
using emails useless as I have collected a lot of evidence to support my claim
that I believe would be mandatory for you to receive.
When using my website, I am
allowed to send campaigns that have no limit to what can be sent by email and
my intentions are for me to soon upload the last stages of my defence that is
labelled as "Report Years" this is where the general public will be
able to interact with what has happened to me illegally and unmorally. I hope
to have the Report years section completed by latter today. Once this is finished I can send to you and all other who were or should
be involved the documents that you and they require. I believe the general
public will help me pinpoint out more than what I can do alone.
I have already won all the
case's brought against me at court and will not except the Enfield Council's
wrong doings to myself. especially in the magnitude to which they have
committed.
I wish to speak to you on the
phone today so I can direct you to some of the relevant parts contained within
the website Horrificcorruption.com before I go public
for the first time in the hope of other options arising.
As asked earlier will you please
call me by phone
16,
From a civilian at home Mr. S.P.
Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,12:02:35 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
daknapp@.dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired re_wired@ymail.com
Sent: 25 January 2021 10:01
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re:
Your Claim v LB Enfield
17,
CAUTION
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10 August
2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers. However, for
the future, could you please send all communications in this matter to me.
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
18,
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and
delete it. Any legal advice in the message may be privileged and not
disclosable in any court action. We have tried to ensure this email does not
contain any viruses, but please check this before opening any attachments, as
we cannot accept any responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note
that we may intercept, monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring
compliance with law, our policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the
email. DAC Beachcroft cannot
take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer of funds or
disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
19,
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on behalf
of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/Drivacvoolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
8.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp -25-01-2021 10-01
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 20,21
8.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
8. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp
-25-01-2021 10-01
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 20,21
20,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 10:01:08 AM
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I have
been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10 August
2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers. However, for
the future, could you please send all communications in this matter to me.
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
daknapp@.dacbeachcroft.com
21,
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicy.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
9.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp -25-01-2021 12-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 22,23,24
9.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
9. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp
-25-01-2021 12-02
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 22,23,24
22,
From: Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 12:02:24 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DAC BEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government's measures
aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working from
home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
23,
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government’s measures
aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working from
home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose,
copy, or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any
legal advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please
24,
note that we may intercept, monitor, and store
emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our policies and for
audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly targeting
law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred to a
different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If you
receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have been
sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links, open
any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it. Instead,
please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
10.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1.
2.
DAC
Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp -25-01-2021 12-48
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 25,26,27,28
10.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
10. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp
-25-01-2021 12-48
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 25,26,27,28
25,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 12:48:56 PM
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr David Knapp
As Enfield Council understands I
have problems writing so much in an email due to the years that I have been
forced to suffer. My mother does help me when writing to people but not even
she can explain what I have been put through in detail as she does not live
with me.
It is impractical for me to
start to explain the breaches of my Human Rights that have occurred over the
last Eight Years by email to which I am claiming for and all the dates involved
to each offence that has taken place let alone the corruption and criminal
offences that I have been forced to undergo.
I do not intend to make all
communication to you by phone alone but to balance the weight of the scenario
to which we are both trying to resolving. so, both phone and email would be
best and or a meeting to take place.
I have built a website that
documents most of what I am claiming about and I have put the files under
Simon's Cases under the menu bar at.
Website: Horrificcorruption.com
You can take a look there if you
wish to / Audio and Diary are a good place to start.
As you may have noticed I am
using a Yahoo email account I also have a Hotmail account and both are limited
to the amount of documentation that any person can send and these limits make
using emails useless as I have collected a lot of evidence to support my claim
that I believe would be mandatory for you to receive.
When using my website, I am
allowed to send campaigns that have no limit to what can be sent by email and
my intentions are for me to soon upload the last stages of my defence that is
labelled as "Report Years" this is where the general public will be
able to interact with what has happened to me illegally and unmorally. I hope
to have the Report years section completed by latter today. Once this is finished,
I can send to you and all other who were or should be involved the documents
that you and they require. I believe the general public will help me pinpoint
out more than what I can do alone.
I have already won all the
case's brought against me at court and will not except the Enfield Council's
wrong doings to myself. especially in the magnitude to which they have
committed.
I wish to speak to you on the
phone today so I can direct you to some of the relevant parts contained within
the website Horrificcorruption.com
before I go public for the first time in the hope of other options arising.
As asked earlier will you please
call me by phone
From a civilian at home Mr. S.P.
Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,12:02:35 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your
claim against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your
claim is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get
clarity at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
26,
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re:
Your Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
27,
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
28,
registered in England and Wales
(registered number 04218278) regulated and authorised by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is available for inspection at
our registered office: Portwall
Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeaehcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
11.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1.
2.
DAC Beachcroft
4 LBE David Knapp -25-01-2021 14-14
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 29,30,31,32,33
11.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
11. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE David Knapp
-25-01-2021 14-14
25/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 29,30,31,32,33
29,
From: Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Sent time: 25/01/2021 02:14:12 PM
To:
Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: RE: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. I am
afraid that I am not prepared to discuss the claim without you putting in an
email what your allegations are. I do not require a lot of documentation with
your email, just a few core documents will suffice.
I strongly advise you however to
seek independent legal advice. The Law Society will be able to recommend
lawyers local to you. Your claim appears to be complex and, more importantly,
some or all of it may be time barred as a consequence of the operation of
limitation.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DAC BEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government's
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 12:49
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This Message
originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr David Knapp
As Enfield Council understands I
have problems writing so much in an email due to the years that I have been
forced to suffer. My mother does help me when writing to people but not even
she can explain what I have been put through in detail as she does not live
with me.
It is impractical for me to
start to explain the breaches of my Human Rights that have occurred over the
last Eight Years by email to which I am claiming for and all the dates involved
to each offence that has taken place let alone the corruption and criminal
offences that I have been forced to undergo.
I do not intend to make all
communication to you by phone alone but to balance the weight of the scenario
to which we are both trying to resolving. so, both phone and email would be
best and or a meeting to take place.
I have built a website that
documents most of what I am claiming about and I have put the files under
Simon's Cases under the menu bar at.
Website: Horrificcorruption.com
You can take a look there if you
wish to / Audio and Diary are a good place to start.
As you may have noticed I am
using a Yahoo email account I also have a Hotmail account and both are limited
to the amount of documentation that any person can send and these limits make
using emails useless as I have collected a lot of evidence to support my claim
that I believe would be mandatory for you to receive.
When using my website, I am
allowed to send campaigns that have no limit to what can be sent by email and
my intentions are for me to soon upload the last stages of my defence that is
labelled as "Report Years" this is where the general public will be
able to interact with what has happened to me illegally and unmorally. I hope
to have the Report years section completed by latter today. Once this is finished,
I can send to you and all other who were or should be involved the documents
that you and they require. I believe the general public will help me pinpoint
out more than what I can do alone.
I have already won all the
case's brought against me at court and will not except the Enfield Council's
wrong doings to myself. especially in the magnitude to which they have
committed.
I wish to speak to you on the
phone today so I can direct you to some of the relevant parts contained within
the website Horrificcorruption.com
before I go public for the first time in the hope of other options arising.
As asked earlier will you please
call me by phone
30,
From a civilian at home Mr. S.P.
Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,12:02:35 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than
by telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your claim
against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your claim
is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get clarity
at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s measures
aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working from
home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please communicate
with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
Re
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
31,
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This
Message originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,09:18:40 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
32,
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the
email. DAC Beachcroft cannot
take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer of funds or
disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
33,
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/oaaes/Drivacvoolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
12.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1.
2.
DAC Beachcroft
4 LBE v LB Enfield 27-01-2021 12-21
27/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 34,35,36,37,38
12.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
12. 1. 2.
DAC Beachcroft 4 LBE v LB
Enfield 27-01-2021 12-21
27/01/2021
/ Page Numbers: 34,35,36,37,38
34,
From: Rewired <re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 27/01/2021 11:21:57 AM
To:
Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
On Monday, 25 January
2021,14:14:18 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. I am afraid
that I am not prepared to discuss the claim without you putting in an email
what your allegations are. I do not require a lot of documentation with your
email, just a few core documents will suffice.
I strongly advise you however to
seek independent legal advice. The Law Society will be able to recommend
lawyers local to you. Your claim appears to be complex and, more importantly,
some or all of it may be time barred as a consequence of the operation of
limitation.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44
(0)7917 557012
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 12:49
To: Knapp,
David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This Message
originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr David Knapp
As Enfield Council understands I
have problems writing so much in an email due to the years that I have been
forced to suffer. My mother does help me when writing to people but not even
she can explain what I have been put through in detail as she does not live
with me.
It is impractical for me to
start to explain the breaches of my Human Rights that have occurred over the
last Eight Years by email to which I am claiming for and all the dates involved
to each offence that has taken place let alone the corruption and criminal
offences that I have been forced to undergo.
I do not intend to make all
communication to you by phone alone but to balance the weight of the scenario
to which we are both trying to resolving. so, both phone and email would be
best and or a meeting to take place.
I have built a website that
documents most of what I am claiming about and I have put the files under
Simon's Cases under the menu
35,
bar at.
Website: Horrificcorruption.com
You can take a look there if you
wish to / Audio and Diary are a good place to start.
As you may have noticed I am
using a Yahoo email account I also have a Hotmail account and both are limited
to the amount of documentation that any person can send and these limits make
using emails useless as I have collected a lot of evidence to support my claim
that I believe would be mandatory for you to receive.
When using my website, I am
allowed to send campaigns that have no limit to what can be sent by email and
my intentions are for me to soon upload the last stages of my defence that is
labelled as "Report Years" this is where the general public will be
able to interact with what has happened to me illegally and unmorally. I hope
to have the Report years section completed by latter today. Once this is finished,
I can send to you and all other who were or should be involved the documents
that you and they require. I believe the general public will help me pinpoint
out more than what I can do alone.
I have already won all the
case's brought against me at court and will not except the Enfield Council's
wrong doings to myself. especially in the magnitude to which they have
committed.
I wish to speak to you on the
phone today so I can direct you to some of the relevant parts contained within
the website Horrificcorruption.com
before I go public for the first time in the hope of other options arising.
As asked earlier will you please
call me by phone
From a civilian at home Mr. S.P.
Cordell
On Monday, 25 January
2021,12:02:35 GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Thank you for your email. As I
stated in my earlier email, I would rather communicate in writing rather than by
telephone. Please therefore can you supply by email to me details of your claim
against my client. I cannot usefully say anything until I know what your claim
is about. I am sorry but experience tells me that it is better to get clarity
at an early stage in any claim.
I look forward to hearing from
you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF T: +44 (0)207 894 6358 M: +44 (0)7917 557012 daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent: 25
January 2021 10:01
To: Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com>
Subject: Re: Your
Claim v LB Enfield
CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL: This Message
originated outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello and I hope all is well.
I am Mr Simon Cordell and as you
are aware off, I have been in contact with the Enfield Council in regard to
making a claim against them and others government bodies involved in my
mistreatment, such a police officer’s and the NHS
I Personally would prefer to
have some form of contact by way of telephone with yourself due to the size of
the case and to aid in a speedy claim. So, would it please be possible for you
to contact me today as of the 25/01/2021 on the following telephone number as a
matter of urgency.
36,
Tel: 07864
217519
kind regards Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Monday, 25 January 2021,09:18:40
GMT, Knapp, David <daknapp@dacbeachcroft.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Cordell
Would you kindly note that I
have been instructed by the LB Enfield as a consequence of your letter of 10
August 2020. Your recent conversation with Kay Osborne at Enfield refers.
However, for the future, could you please send all communications in this
matter to me.
Firstly, an apology. I was
instructed in mid-December and having spoken with my client drafted a letter to
you that was to be sent in hard copy form from my office confirming my
instruction. That letter was due to go out on 23 December but unfortunately was
not printed and sent out (I currently work remotely) to you. My apologies for
the delay therefore which was Covid and Christmas related. I hope that all
further communications can be by email.
Turning to your claim itself I
note that in your letter you referred to documentation and evidence being
completed, presumably that means collated by you. I assume you will then send a
Letter of Claim setting out in detail the basis of what I assume is a claim for
compensation. Can you please confirm and give me a timescale as to when the
Letter is likely to be received by me? Once received, I can consider with my
client the way forward.
I anticipate this will be a
complex matter and my preferred method of communication is by email to ensure
clarity of expression and provide a record of what our respective positions and
understandings may be.
I hope you might agree that this
is the best way forward and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
David Knapp
Partner - Claims Solutions Group
DAC Beachcroft Claims Ltd
DACBEACHCROFT
The Walbrook Building, 25
Walbrook, London EC4N 8AF
T: +44
(0)207 894 6358
M: +44 (0)7917
557012
daknapp@.dacbeachcroft.com
Following the Government’s
measures aimed at preventing the spread of Covid-19, our colleagues are working
from home and are well equipped to work remotely. Where possible, please
communicate with us by email or phone, so that we can respond to you
efficiently.
If you need to serve a document
please contact us directly, unless we have previously confirmed to you that we
will accept service by email.
37,
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Dages/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full
details of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav postcode:
BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended our
Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to cover
the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for clients
with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to limited
changes to the data protection provisions. Please click here for full details
of the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
This email is sent for and on
behalf of DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited which is a wholly owned subsidiary of DAC Beachcroft LLP. It is a limited company
registered in England and Wales (registered number 04218278) regulated and
authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of the directors is
available for inspection at our registered office: Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 9HS, UK (Sat Nav
postcode: BS1 6NA).
This email (and any attachments)
is confidential. If it is not addressed to you, please do not read, disclose, copy,
or forward it on, but notify the sender immediately and delete it. Any legal
advice in the message may be privileged and not disclosable in any court
action. We have tried to ensure this email does not contain any viruses, but
please check this before opening any attachments, as we cannot accept any
responsibility for damage caused by a virus. Please note that we may intercept,
monitor, and store emails for the purposes of ensuring compliance with law, our
policies and for audit purposes.
For further details please go to
http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/leaal-notice.
Please also read our DAC Beachcroft Group privacy policy at http://www.dacbeachcroft.com/Daaes/DrivacvDolicv.
Brexit: We have amended
our Standard Terms and Conditions and our Standard Basis of Relationship to
cover the UK leaving the EU. Equivalent amendments have been proposed for
clients with non-standard terms and conditions. The amendments relate to
limited changes to the data protection provisions.
Please
38,
click here for full details of
the amendments.
Fraudsters are increasingly
targeting law firms and their clients often requesting funds to be transferred
to a different bank account or seeking to obtain confidential information. If
you receive a suspicious or unexpected email from us, or purporting to have
been sent on our behalf, please do not reply to the email, click on any links,
open any attachments, or comply with any instructions contained within it.
Instead, please telephone your DAC Beachcroft contact to verify the email. DAC
Beachcroft cannot take responsibility for any losses arising from your transfer
of funds or disclosure of confidential information.
13.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1.
2.
LBE
Insurance receipt 03-03-2021 -03-03-2021 16-46
03/03/2021
/ Page Numbers: 39
13.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
13. 1. 2.
LBE Insurance receipt 03-03-2021
-03-03-2021 16-46
03/03/2021
/ Page Numbers: 39
39
From: Insurance
<insurance@enfield.gov.uk>
Sent time: 03/03/2021 04:46:39 PM
To: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Subject: Automatic
reply: Re Insurance Claim Disclosure
We acknowledge receipt of your
email, which will be allocated to an Officer in the Insurance Team for
consideration.
Whilst all correspondence is
processed in strict ‘date received' order, we aim to consider new claims notified
to us in line with timescales stipulated in the relevant Civil Procedure Rules
- Pre-Action Protocols, details of which can be found using the link
http://www.iustice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol
For all other correspondence,
our aim is to process these within 10 working days.
Please note that this
acknowledgement is automatically generated. If you wish to make further contact
by phone, please feel free to call 0208 379 (3003) or (4657) or (3413).
For the purpose of detecting and
preventing fraud, information provided to us may be passed to others such as,
but not limited to, the Claims and Underwriting Exchange Register (CUE) run by
Insurance Database Services Ltd (IDSL) and the Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud and
Theft Register, run by the Association of British Insurers (ABI).
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for viruses,
but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware. The
recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.
14.
· Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1.
2.
16-03-2021
Enfield Insurance FOI -16-03-2021 20-55
16/03/2021
14.
Additional Email Attachments & Emails / Issue:
14. 1. 2.
16-03-2021 Enfield Insurance FOI
-16-03-2021 20-55
16/03/2021
/ Page Numbers: 40,41,42
40,
From: Rewired
<re_wired@ymail.com>
Sent time: 16/03/2021 08:55:47 PM
To: complaints and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
Subject: Re:
CRM FOI 9499 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
Ps. Sorry for the extra reply but I never
added the weblinks to the Insurance documents that the Enfield Council have
supplied me with already and they are as follows: -
·
Enfield Letter 27.08.19 Insurance
details and claim process MR S CORDELL
· Enfield Insurance Incident
report form 2013 - 2020
https://serverone.hopto.org/Enfield%20Insurance%20Incident%20report%20form%202013%20-%202020/
Many thanks Mr. S. P. Cordell
On Tuesday, 16 March 2021, 20:44:08
GMT, rewired <re_wired@ymail.com> wrote:
Hello & thank you for your reply.
In respect of the definition of,
"underwriting" I believe the correct terminology of what I request
is: -The insurance policy's the contracts between you and the insurance
companies comprehensively for the years of 2013 till 2021 as of today’s date.
These insurance policies that I request are to cover the Enfield Council for
indemnity that Coverers employers and public liability or any other insurance
policies that got taken out by the Enfield Council within 2013 till 16/03/2021
for business purposes that may be relevant towards my insurance claim as a
member of the public and or client as a secure housing tenant.
To my understanding this will include.
1. The
Insurance policies.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_policy”
“The insurance policy is a contract
between the insurer and the policyholder, which determines the claims which the
insurer is legally required to pay. In exchange for an initial payment, known
as the premium, the insurer promises to pay for loss caused by perils covered
under the policy language”
2. The
Insurance schedules.
"A Policy Schedule is an outline
of the cover provided under the policy, it will show details of the
policyholder, what the policyholder does, and the cover given and the relevant
limits, sums insured and excess. ”
3. The
Insurance Policies endorsements
Forms added to an insurance policy, to
modify its terms. “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement”
And also, that of: -
4. The
Insurance certificates: as they all should be read as if they
are one document per Insurance contract.
"A certificate of insurance (COI)
is issued by an insurance company or broker and verifies the existence of an
insurance policy.”
5. A
Basic Example
The Metropolitan Police Force 2012
1. Police
policy 2012
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20policy%202012/
2. Police
PL Primary summary 2012
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20PL%20Primary%20Summary%202012/
3. Police
PL Excess layer Swiss 2012
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20PL%20Excess%20layer%20Swiss%202012/
4. Published
items
https://wwwmetpolice.uk/foi-ai/af'accessing-information/published-items/?q=insurance
5. Published
items
Personal Insurance Indemnity - Policy
https://serverone.hopto.org/Police%20Zurich%20personal-insurance-indemnity—policy/
6. Published
items
Information Rights Unit MPS Insurance
2019
https://serverone.hopto.org/Information%20Rights%20Unit%20Mps%20Insurance%202019/
If I can be of any more assistance, please
don’t hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Mr. Simon Paul Cordell
On Tuesday, 16 March 2021, 11:17:40
GMT, complaints and information <complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk>
wrote:
Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Cordell,
Thank you for your email where you
requested information about Insurance policy of indemnity that covers employers
and public liability.
41,
Request
Please may you provide me with:
·
The Insurance policy of indemnity that
Coverer employers and public liability or any other insurance taken out by the
Enfield Council for business purposes that may be relevant towards my insurance
claim in Criminal and civil law against the Enfield Council following the years
of 2013 till the present date of the 03/03/2021. This is to be inclusive of all
underwriting made for the policies.
·
I have requested this information
before, and it was agreed for me to be able to receive such information but
sadly I only received the information in part and not complete due to the lack
of underwriting missing.
·
I do not believe DAC Beachcroft has the
legal authority to refuse the Enfield Councils Insurance details
·
It is mandatory of persons or companies
to disclose insurance details when requested to do so in respect to a claim
taking place
Please provide the information
in this document / form that I have requested within the timescale of 20
working days of this letter.
If it is not possible to provide
the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of
compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and
assistance, under the Section 16 obligations of the Act, as to how I can refine
my request.
If you can identify any ways
that my request could be refined, I would be grateful for any further advice
and assistance.
If you have any queries please
don’t hesitate to contact me via email or phone and I will be very happy to
clarify what I am asking for and discuss the request, my details are outlined
below.
Thank you for your time and I
look forward to your response.
From our preliminary assessment,
it is clear that we will not be able to answer your request without further
clarification.
The Council requires further
information in order to identify and locate the information you have asked for.
In particular, it would be useful to know:
1.
Please can you confirm exactly what
documents and information you require as we are unclear what you mean by
“insurance policy underwriting” and “This is to be inclusive of all
underwriting made for the policies”
2.
Could you also confirm what
information you previously requested and what did you receive so we can check
if any documents are missing.
Once you have clarified your
request, I will be able to begin to process your request. If I do not receive
clarification within three months your request will be considered to have
lapsed. (Under section 1 (3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a public
authority need not comply with a request unless any further information
reasonably required to locate the information is supplied).
I also note that you have
directed your request to Kay Osborne and the insurance team, in addition to the
Complaints and Information Team mailbox, which is outside of the arrangement we
have in place for you regarding contact with the Council, as per the letter
sent to you in June 2020. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to
remind you of the process that we have in place to manage your contact. Should
you continue to contact officers outside of this, the Council will have to
consider further restrictive measures.
If you are dissatisfied with the
handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review.
Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of
receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:
Complaints and Access to
Information Team Email - complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.
If you are not content with the
outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water
Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
PLEASE NOTE: As most staff are working from home, please e-mail all
correspondence to us, rather than posting it, as there is likely to be delay in
responding to correspondence arriving by post.
Kind regards,
Taz Anastassi
Complaints and
Information Co-ordinator
Complaints and
Information Team
Chief Executive
Department
Enfield Council
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XY
complaintsandinformation@enfield.gov.uk
Protect
the Environment - Think Before You Print.
"Enfield Council is
committed to serving the whole borough, fairly, delivering excellent services
and building strong communities."
42
Classification: OFFICIAL
Be the first to receive the
latest Council news straight to your inbox
SIGN UP ONLINE NOW
www.enfield.gov.uk/enewsletters
Enfield Council is committed to
serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities. Opinions expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This
email and any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly
confidential and intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient and receive it in error you must not copy, distribute, or use the
communication in any other way. All traffic handled by the Government Connect
Secure Extranet may be subject to recording/and or monitoring in accordance
with relevant legislation.
This email has been scanned for
viruses, but we cannot guarantee that it will be free of viruses or malware.
The recipient should perform their own virus checks.
Disclaimer
The information contained in
this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for
viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd,
an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer
and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security,
archiving and compliance.