Jeff Lampert’s submission to challenge the Upper Tribunal`s decision of 14th of February 2019
GIA/3422/2016
I wish to challenge the Upper Tribunal’s decision of 1st of March 2019 (ref.: GIA/3422/2016) by raising "some important point, principle and practice" and there are "some other compelling reason".
The tribunal has always been aware that the FCA not being a business is a gateway to receiving the documents. The Tribunal has also been aware that by the below finding I am denied access to information I would otherwise be entitled to, which would confirm the alleged perjury of SCB.
Receiving the documents has always been the reason for this litigation, and that has been recognised by the Tribunal ("...if you win on the business point, you are home and dry. If you lose on the business point then we have to consider what we call gateway points." Judge Lloyd-Davies, 7 March 2017) Even though, the Tribunal, later on, decided not to give permission on any other grounds other than the "business"-point; it appears from the way the respected Judge expressed this point, I might be able to refer to the gateways following to the UT decision.
This article (https://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2018/september/high-court-rejects-privilege-claim/) raises the question of whether public bodies like the ICO benefits from special privileges reserved for regulators, while they also fit the definition of the word "business". The FCA repeatedly describes itself as a Regulator on its website. I can find nowhere where it describes itself as a business. If this judgment is allowed to stand every regulator can hide behind it, and describe itself as a business, which will stand in the way of transparency, and impede the function of the ICO. The ICO having discretion as a responsible for both the DPA and the FOIA I submit would have been Parliament's wish. It was never their intention to allow the FCA to interfere with this discretion, as they are now doing, by refusing the ICO permission to share these documents with me, under the pretence of being a business.
I also request this Tribunal to continue with the investigation into the Witness Statement of Joel Scott. This has been suggested by the FCA's Complaint's department (as per Evidence 31 in the submitted bundle for the hearing on the 24 January 2019).
The Commissioner’s very firm original letter to the FCA seeking permission to release the requested documents to me, as clearly the Commissioner acting in the public interest. Has the Commissioner changed her mind? It appears that since the powerful original letter by the Commissioner (8th of November 2013) the public interest has enormously increased in this area. The Commissioner claims in the most recent letter to have considered a public interest. She does not explain any basis for her very important decision as quoted in the letter sent to me by Richard Bailey on 28th of March 2019. I can bring several hundred thousand people who will disagree with that decision. (as per Evidence 15 starting on page 100 in the submitted bundle for the hearing on the 24 January 2019)
"Legislators and policy makers recognise that the public interest will change over time and according to the circumstances of each situation." https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/publications/unit-publications/134.pdf
On what basis did the ICO decide which Public Interest weighs more in this case, especially, when we take the change of time and circumstances into account (as per the study above)? Have they consulted with someone like Anthony Stansfeld, Police Crime Commissioner, or considered equity?
I am convinced the documents requested refer to perjury by SCB. The CoA decision in 1998, as a result of that perjury, has become an integral part of the "the largest theft, anywhere, ever” (Clive Lewis MP, MP for South Norwich, 26 Jan 2018).
This CoA decision resulting from that perjury allows the banks to proceed against the guarantor without having to proceed against the borrower. This decision also allows the banks to call on loans within 2 banking hours. The combination is toxic for all Guarantors. The best estimation is hundreds of thousands of people have been affected by this. (as per Evidence 5 starting on page 45 in the submitted bundle for the hearing on the 24 January 2019)
My submission is based on that this important point or principle is whether regulation, of the FOIA and the DPA, should be allowed to suppress criminality, such as an alleged perjured affidavit.
The regulation is this decision, that the FCA is a business, and I am therefore denied access to documents relating to the perjured value of recoveries at Heritage plc. The case which set the precedent that has caused pain and anguish to guarantors of SMEs, such as PTSD.
The criminality being the alleged perjured affidavit of SCB (formerly?) of Lloyds Bank. The perjury case rests with DJ Cooper. Currently, DJ Cooper is awaiting the outcome of a suggested police investigation. (as per Evidence 18 starting on page 150 in the submitted bundle for the hearing on the 24 January 2019)
We have asked Trevor Melheam to initiate a police investigation through his connection at the local Crime Commissioner level.
I believe Joel Scott of the FCA statement misled Briggs J which prevented the documents being available under normal disclosure rules (CPR 31.7). This is yet another example of the FCA abusing, misleading, and making the judicial system look foolish. (as per Evidence 26 & Evidence 29 in the submitted bundle for the hearing on the 24 January 2019)
We believe granting access to these documents will support the process and save huge amounts of time for the court and the police which has always been a priority for me. The compelling reason to provide this information is I have been advised of the requirement to win my case first by Kay Linnell. Kay is not only the expert witness who has looked at my case, but has previously been MD of the Joint Insolvency Monitoring Unit and is an acknowledged expert in this field. The correspondence between the ICO and the FSA/FSA demonstrate how hard the ICO tried to get the information to me in 2013 & 2015. I was only prevented from seeing it by the instructions of the FSA/FCA.
This recent judgment – that is currently being appealed - has confirmed that whether or not I get the documents needs to be a decision of the ICO, not the FCA. Reference to the correspondence (between 8 November 2013 and 27 July 2015) demonstrate the extent to which the FCA have put pressure on the ICO to continue concealing the document. This is demeaning to the ICO and therefore it cannot be in the public interest.
Once I have won my litigation and proven the perjury, it is my intention to seek reversal of the decision. Many thousands of people who have suffered from what was described in Parliament as the “the largest theft, anywhere, ever” may be able to benefit from the questioning of what is an integral part of that theft.
More details about the case: https://www.diylaw.co/personal-guarantee-campaign/2019/3/19/public-interest-submission
Jeff Lampert
29 March 2019
Previous correspondence:
The First Tier Tribunal`s decision in this matter.
The Upper Tribunal`s decision in this matter.
Note to the ICO dated 14th of March 2019 at 12:37.
Response to the ICO dated 19th of March 2019
This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.