Mrs K of the Valuation Office Agency claimed our banding appeal
(March 2003) was out of time `too late`. It was a lie, a
contemptuous rejection. The VOA was negligent in handling our
appeal. Having failed to survey our area -and without any
evidence available to them as to whether we had a case or not,
Mrs K took an extraordinary belligerent stance against our simple
appeal without any proper authority!
We wrote opposing Mrs K's 'too late' rejection of our appeal, but
were IGNORED. Our plea went unanswered, so we asked for a report
of their findings. After being ignored for 6 weeks, and realising
our appeal was not being properly handled, we wrote asking the VOA
for a civil reply and a report.
In reply to our request for a report, Mrs K (June 2003) thanked
us for our letter asking for a report. She claimed the report had
been allocated to a 'Mrs Gupta' who will write to you! From
this statement we thought that our appeal was being properly
attended to. We could not have been more wrong!
Despite writing many times over many months, for a copy of the
'Gupta' report, our letters were ignored. ( That's why we were
astounded to learn some 18 months later that 'MRS GUPTA DID NOT
EXIST' that 'Mrs Gupta report' was a corrupt invention by a
civil servant trying to deceive us, a Mrs Gupta had never - ever
been involved with our case). So much for civil servants? We could
see this was a case of very deliberate public sector dishonesty,
to say the least. (This woman was to receive 'gold plated'
protection from the various fraudulent Complaint Procedures)
Mrs K had issued us with a 'Corrupt Statement' that had
surreptitiously, by stealth, deliberately invented 'Mrs Gupta'.
This fraudulent invention in effect bulldozed away our request for
a report. She had with determination set out to disengage and
damage our call for an appeal, something we had a right to.
We realised she was a very calculated uncivil servant who, being
free from proper managerial supervision, became a fearless 'loose
cannon'. One can see from the evidence she was guilty of corruptly
handling our case -yet later she was to receive gold plated
protection, especially from the Ombudsman who even manufactured
'porkies' in order to get Mrs K 'off the hook'
In retrospect one can see that from March to June 2003 our appeal
was being corruptly handled with some ease, as though by a
professional malefactor that one does not expect to find within
the civil service. It looks as though this belligerent civil
servant was dead-set against our appeal going through from its
beginning. One must ask why? Was she opposed to males who picked
up on her abominable deceits? It is difficult for us to understand
why our simple appeal, was being turned into a nightmare by a
fraudulent Listing Officer who was in a position of some
authority?
Fraudulent and corrupt acts that were to be bestowed upon us:
(1) Firstly Mrs K falsely claimed our appeal was 'too late.'
(2) She then falsely claimed our appeal was 'invalid'.
(3) After our request for a report, she invented a 'Mrs Gupta';
falsely claiming 'Mrs Gupta' would do a report and be in touch.
(4) By stealth she had bulldozed away our valid claim for an
appeal, something that the VOA and Mrs K successfully hid away
from us by not answering our mail.
(5) In a further attempt to destabilise our appeal she issued us
with 'Notice of Withdrawal Forms' asking us to sign and return
them. This fraudulent request would have in effect ended our
appeal.
(6) Being a war pensioner, who at this period was having a
particular rough time, I was particularly annoyed to be swamped by
this culture of experienced mendacity that was threatening our
honest appeal?
(7) The Ombudsman in 2006 added to the corruption by issuing
'porkies' designed to get Mrs K and the VOA 'off the hook'.
(8) We are both elderly I am often well below par, to be treated
so belligerently by a VOA civil servant who takes advantage of her
public sector protection racket is criminal. Especially as we have
no redress against such Machiavellian 'old pals acts'
There has to be something radically wrong with both the VOA's
negligent management and Mrs K's fraudulent actions where she
adopted a completely monstrous attitude towards us as complaining
clients! Her freewheeling unbridled corrupt attacks on our appeal
led us to write about her 'dysfunctional office' having much 'inner squalor'. These belligerent beginnings set us into a 4th
year of struggle against fraudulent bureaucracy and public sector
complaint procedures.
Mrs K's agency the VOA was in league with her, they did not 'let
on' that the 'Mrs Gupta report' was another Mrs K lie. They
allowed us honest taxpayers to stupidly write for months asking
for copies of this non-existent Gupta report.
Having failed to break our resistance with her fraudulence, Mrs K
then arrogantly proceeded to instruct us to sign and return the
oppressive` Notice of Withdrawal Forms' which in effect would have
meant our signing away our democratic right to appeal. We refused
to sign! - She sent more forms? She was a belligerent civil
servant determined to sink our claim! We refused to be bullied and
asked her to stop sending these forms.
When we wrote asking for copies of the Gupta report, we once
received a rare reply from the VOA who, still not 'letting on'
about the fraudulent 'Gupta lie' replied (20 Jan 04) 'This matter
is being dealt with by Mrs K who will contact you shortly?' She
failed to make contact for 4 months?
Her actions and belligerence against us were quite abnormal, and
the VOA's protective complicity in this fraudulent episode have to
be regarded as 'serious public sector collusive corruption' Once
we started challenging the VOA and pushing the question as to the
fraudulent/ corrupt handling of our case, we sensed an immediate 'closing of ranks'.
Because of our continuous complaints we were informed that a
'proper' VOA 'internal investigation' would take place. By now,
realising how fraudulent and dysfunctional Mrs K's office could
be, we objected to her being 'investigated' by her colleagues. By
now we did not trust them and would be without representation.
However, the 'proper' VOA investigation took place, as we
suspected it issued a fraudulent verdict claiming; Mrs K had acted
with the 'BEST OF INTENTION'???? This was institutionalised
corruption, because Mrs K had by this time already invented the
corrupt non-existent "GUPTA REPORT". Yet the VOA's fraudulent
'whitewash investigation' was corruptly shielding their malevolent
'loose cannon' by claiming she was acting with the Best of
Intentions?
Considering the fraudulence that had previously gone on in our
case, we realised that with this latest bit of VOA public sector
corruption, we were now enmeshed within a civil service cover-up
routine. At a later date, we asked the Ombudsman, as to who was
responsible for setting-up this corrupt VOA whitewash. There was
no reply?
Because we had gone through life with honest endeavour, such a
high level of ` public sector 'inner squalor`, lies and severe
incompetence often bemused us? Where had these supposedly
professional Executive managers been hiding, and why were they so
inattentive to their paid task? We feel this proves the VOA had
completely lost control of Mrs K's actions.
Regarding Mrs K's claim that our appeal was `'too late'` and her
constant claim that our appeal was `'invalid'` finally came to a
head. We faced each other before a VTS Tribunal. I put my case to
the Tribunal and she opposed it? The Tribunal found: 'THAT OUR
PROPOSAL WAS FOUND TO BE VALID' THE LISTING OFFICER (MRS K) SHOULD
HAVE TREATED OUR APPEAL AS VALID (in 2003) It took us about 16
months to nail these lies.
Who was responsible for allowing this VOA 'loose cannon' Mrs K to
treat our appeal so belligerently?. Who within the VOA were
unaware that a member of their staff, a 'loose cannon' was running
amok?
At one stage, in order to save the public from Mrs K's
belligerence and misuse of power, we asked the VOA if she could be
transferred to 'road sweeping'!
We realised early on, that the more we chased up Mrs K's lies the
more determined she became to stop our appeal. We felt that
because we had fought her lies from the very outset, and disclosed
them, this made her belligerent towards us. Having nailed her
lies, we were somewhat taken aback by 'Complaint Procedures' -The
Old Pals Act that stepped in to protect her with a false
'investigation', in an attempt to get her 'off the hook'
It was only after the Tribunal's decision against Mrs K, that the
dysfunctional VOA Executive suddenly came to life, becoming
disingenuous, they wrote rather late in the day (Feb 2005)); 'I
can see errors occurred quite early in your case, in fact from the
very start, when your letter of 23March 03 was incorrectly treated
as an Invalid Appeal'This sleepy docile VOA Executive were
conceding they were 'out of touch' and rather late in 'waking up' to their Agencies fraudulent public service. It was only after the
Tribunal's verdict in our favour, that the VOA began jumping on
the regulatory 'self-protective apologetic bandwagon'!
As a very old couple, we had been forced to struggle on in order
to establish that Mrs K's Office was 'somewhat dysfunctional'. We
struggled on to prove that our case had been corruptly handled by
Mrs K. We had to continually fight against their intransigence,
their abandonment of duty, their neglect etc, their failure to
answer letters and their various deceits. At times, because of our
health worries, our struggles became very wearying, almost too
much
We found the collusive `Old Boy Network' complaint procedures etc.
to be cancerous? The supposed high calibre citizen's protective
agencies, such as Ombudsman, virtually guarantee protection to
most, if not all, severely incompetent `'rogue'` civil servants
etc? They make a big issue about 'apologising' for their numerous
errors, we realised that their 'apologies' were all part of the
fraudulent 'excuse' routine!
No one offered us justice? We are bemused by the fly-blown
governmental agencies jiggery-pokery investigations with their 'very convenient' all powerful antiquated agency rules that have a
severe strangle-hold on transparency?
For some reason that we could not fathom out, having been
successful with the first Tribunal, we were told we would have to
go back and attend another Tribunal? This meant facing more VOA
rigmarol and the dreaded Mrs K all over again? Why? Because of
this imposition and our weariness, we withdrew from this second
Tribunal because it clashed with my 7 weeks of radiotherapy for
cancer. Although we withdrew the appeal on grounds of illness, we
decided we would carry on and fight the corrupt way our appeal had
been handled by the VOA etc.
To appease us it was suggested by Enfield VO that, if we signed a
form our appeal would be backdated 10 years? We were suspicious of
them. We were perplexed, was this legal? Were they cooking the
books? Were we expected to take part in this sleaze? Because of
the VOA's past deceitful behaviour towards us, we did not trust
them-again we refused to sign VOA forms.
CURIOUSLY THE VOA EXECUTIVE, EVER MINDFUL OF SELF-PROTECTION,
STATED THAT 'THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THESE ACTS AGAINST US WERE
DELIBERATE' it was being disingenuous! We disagree with them
wholeheartedly!
We believe that when all these wilful acts of Mrs K's are put
together, they will give a much clearer picture of the deliberate
belligerence against us. It will also show the 'inner squalor' and
paucity of public service as handed out by the Valuation Office
Agency. Mrs K's numerous 'aggressive errors' against us could not
have been `accidental` or even `coincidental`. She acted with the
unswerving self-assurance of a contemptuous, untouchable, well
protected public sector 'loose cannon'. The lack of VOA
accountability allowed her to abuse both my wife and myself with
contemptuous ease.
It has to be remembered Mrs K was not a gauche school-leaver
making simple errors. Although she was an irresponsible aggressive
adult VOA Listing Officer - she knew the score -knew the ropes.
She was well aware of what she was doing.
I repeat I am a war pensioner also suffering from the effects of
cancer; I was a front line soldier with plenty of guts. I do not
deserve (neither does any one else) to be handled by such a
closeted corruptly entrenched cover-up system, that gives gold
plated protection to a miscreant VOA civil servant who, despite
her fraudulent actions against us, remains untouchable?
We had been through Stage 1 & 2 of VOA investigations and were
glad it was all over -we could search for justice?
It would appear that within these complaint procedures, every
avenue, every cog is cleverly geared to getting VOA employees 'off
the hook'? Even hiding the belligerent Mrs K's and the corrupt
handling of our case behind the Freedom of Information Act?
We applied to the Information Commissioners Office and asked had
other 'others' complained about Mrs K? It became complicated -we
are still waiting (Sept 2006)
We made contact with our MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Having studied the Ombudsman's booklet, it would appear from the
Ombudsman's rulings, that investigating individual civil servant
activities is not an option? The reason being, the Ombudsman does
not do 'personnel matters'. So that lets Mrs K and other miscreant
civil servants 'off the hook' It appears also that the Ombudsman
does not investigate charges laid against corrupt government
agencies? This is such a decrepit part of the open plan 'open
sewer' civil service protection racket. It simply stinks, and all
this within smelling distance of the supposedly 'Mother of
Parliament'! Have the members never smelled it? Considering the
Parliamentary Ombudsman operates within earshot of Parliament,
such fraudulent proceedings are a disgrace to MP's and a disgrace
to taxpaying victims seeking transparency and democracy
With these Ombudsman rule-book disclosures our final hope of
justice disappeared, we realised these protective Ombudsman
rulings, in favour of civil servants, and their agencies, were
capable of throttling transparency. The Old Pals Act and the
entrenched cover-up culture is evident, it swells the culture of
mendacity
March 2006 we received a Parliamentary Ombudsman report from James
Barker; this was a 'soft soap' appraisal of our case. We informed
him we were disappointed that the words 'fraud' and 'corrupt' had
not been used within his report, Also other important issues were
not mentioned. It was not an up front honest account of what had
gone on in our case, too many omissions. Mr Barker concluded his
authentic Report as follows; 'I do not see that there is anything
further the Ombudsman's continuing intervention could do for you'
About 4 months after receiving Mr Barker's final report, Ann
Abraham fraudulently claimed that Mr Barkers report was merely a
draft. An Ombudsman 'porky'! Such is this culture of mendacity, we
feel Mr Barker may well be forced to agree his genuine Report was
only a draft.
This spurious claim that Mr Barkers Ombudsman Report was merely a
draft meant that Ann Abraham could usurp Mr Barker's position and
produce her own new slanted Ombudsman's Report. This usurpation
allowed her to interfere with our claim that Mrs K had fabricated
the 'Mrs Gupta report'. Ann Abraham produced another protective 'porky'statement, claiming that Mrs X's corrupt invention the
'Mrs Gupta report lie' was born out of 'Agency internal jargon'
(You could not make it up?)
The Ombudsman claimed the word report did not mean report but
something different other than report? She was claiming the
English meaning of the word 'report' was corrupted by 'office
jargon'. We had asked several times in 2003 for a 'report'. We had
no ambiguity about the word. We were entitled to a report, we
asked for a report.
Because we asked for a report, Mrs K promised a report! However,
having promised a report she corruptly invented 'Mrs Gupta' who
did not exist. This corrupt statement forced us to think that the
report we had asked for was on its way? Can any public sector
statement be more corrupt? We were corruptly deceived -even more
corrupt -this miscreant was to receive unlimited protection! Can
the service, the taxpaying public rightly expects from civil
servants, be more deliberately tainted with such monstrous lies -we fear the worst from such a protected governmental agency
regime!
This is why Ann Abraham was trying to move goalposts! She was
producing her own brand of 'porkies' just to protect her corrupt
public sector colleague who invented/fabricated the 'MRS GUPTA
LIE'! 'Porkies' seem to be the favourite deceit within
governmental investigative circles.
What makes matters worse as a complainant, in the Ombudsman's
Report she is purposely protective of Mrs K and makes no mention
Mrs K's corrupt invention of 'Mrs Gupta' that it was just a
corrupt VOA charade! She does not see the humiliation caused us as
taxpayers in being allowed to ask for months on end for copies of
this non-existent report -without reply.
The Ombudsman fails to see the corruption of public service
responsibilities whereby the VOA allowed us, with utter contempt,
to continue writing for months asking for the non-existent Gupta
report. The Ombudsman is purposely blind to our struggle as public
sector victims - yet overtly friendly and protective towards this
corrupt public sector act by the VOA and Mrs K.
It is quite revealing that no investigator, during our 4 years of
struggle against fraudulent complaints procedures, thought up this
deceitful 'report' 'wheeze'. No other investigator indicated that
the word 'report' meant something other than its original English
meaning? It was only the Ombudsman who invented the 'Internal
jargon'lie in 2006 in order to get the fabricators 'off the
hook'.
And what about public sector victims? The Ombudsman's actions
against us are decidedly outrageous!
CONSIDERING THE OMBUDSMAN IS CHARGED WITH REPRESENTING THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC BY INVESTIGATING AND ADDRESSING COMPLAINTS
REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS. HER 'OVER THE TOP' CAPACITY TO
DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC OF HONEST ACCOUNTABLE INVESTIGATION, BY
REPLACING IT WITH BLATANT BIAS, IS INDEFENSIBLE!
Someone who well understands governmental graft and corruption
recently wrote, I quote 'Transparency and accountability are
indissolubly stitched together. Lack of transparency means people cannot be held
to account for their actions. (Evidence being often twisted or purposely
omitted) But our culture of secrecy is so ingrained that people in official
positions can still deploy the most sanctimonious excuses to avoid public
scrutiny'
The unscrupulous gold plated protection afforded Mrs K and her
like, is criminal. She is over-protected by the VOA, and the ICO
is dragging its feet in investigating her. The Ombudsman is
prepared to manufacture 'porkies' in her defence.
The duty of public sector complaint procedures, including the
Ombudsman's Office, is firstly, above all else, to provide an
honest service to the public. It is a crime against the state for
the Ombudsman's Office to provide a protective cover-up racket
shielding miscreant public servants
We have been disenfranchised, we have no recourse to law, do not
qualify for legal aid and cannot afford lawyers. The Ombudsman's
Office, whom we naively looked to for a democratic appraisal of
our case, fabricates evidence against us.
Why did the corrupt handling of our case take place? One can see
we were being treated with contempt by the VOA in 2003. The
Ombudsman fabrication of evidence 'porkies' trying to alleviate
the Mrs K's 'Gupta lie' shows the same contempt towards us in
2006. We are beginning to think that both the Ombudsman and Mrs K
have a severe dislike of men, especially of male complainants who
have caught them out?
We are astounded by the Ombudsman's arrogance and her gross
failure to be impartial. This attitude of hers is obviously
ingrained-she is clearly unfit for the job of honest mediator. We
have endured years of contempt and corruption, despite this, the
VOA with enormous blasé arrogance asked us to draw a line under
their public sector sewage!
The Ombudsman claims 'she sees no evidence of fraud or corruption'
We are left wondering as to Ann Abraham's 'Don Quixote' style
kamikaze attempt to rescue this fraudulent civil servant Ms K? Is
she a member of the Ombudsman's family? Is she her favourite
niece, or are they just exceedingly good friends? Whatever the
reason, one must ask why has this severely disrespectful public
serving miscreant, Ms K, been given such a high dose of
undemocratic protection from this corrupt public sector cover-up
culture?
Recap; ….Mrs K claimed our appeal was out of time 'too late', A
LIE. She claimed our appeal was 'invalid', ANOTHER LIE. In answer
to our request for a report she corruptly 'invented' the 'Mrs
Gupta report saga' this is a much more serious lie, corrupt in
fact, ANOTHER LIE. She then tried to 'hustle' us into signing away
our appeal. We were treated to a fraudulent 'proper investigation'
that declared Mrs K's actions were done with 'Best of Intentions'?
ANOTHER LIE The Ombudsman sees no evidence of fraud or corruption?
ANOTHER LIE. The Ombudsman produced 'porkies' in order to
protected Mrs K the fabricator of the corrupt 'Gupta' saga. EVEN
MORE LIES!
Another fraudulent aspect we discovered within these public sector
complaint procedures is that their face-saving 'apology routine'
is part parcel of the corrupt complaints system. With great aplomb
the Ombudsman disrespectfully pointed out to us, that all the
various fraudulent misdeeds committed against us had been
satisfactory attended to with apologies.
Making continuous apologies becomes a pretty innocuous defence,
and because of her obvious bias, it is criminal that the Ombudsman
is allowed to act as judge and jury! We see this 'apology routine'
as a well worked-out public sector deceit, an elaborate ploy, that
attempts to destabilise the complainants case, and at the same
time helps get fraudulent, and incompetent civil servants 'off the
hook'.
It is seriously undemocratic, that dysfunctional civil service
acts against the public, can be grotesquely protected, vanquished
even by the deceitful waving of the Ombudsman's magic 'apology'
wand.
We are coming up to our 4th year of civil service chicanery and
face-saving apologies We have battled long against such a
'couldn't care less' governmental cover-up culture. We are
overwhelmed by these one-sided injudicious acts against us
There is serious need for Parliament to investigate the
fraudulence to be found within the Ombudsman's Office. The problem
as we see is this, despite the Ombudsman's fraudulent Office, she
will have many powerful fraudulent friends and she, like the
corrupt VOA member will remain untouchable. Such is the depth of
public sector "inner squalor'.
We wrote about governmental public complaints procedure on the
following lines: 'The public are hugely let down by governmental
complaints procedures where the biggest civil service miscreant
gets gold-plated protection. The Home Office, Immigration
Services, Inland Revenue, Local Authorities, Police etc. all have
more than their fair share of incompetents, fraud and corruption.
Ombudsman by and large pays lip service to this gross incompetence
within these government bodies. This severe lack of public duty
enables the fruition of an enormous dung-heap of public sector
garbage and deceit, allowed by the Ombudsman's intransigence to
over-spill, choke and often deliberately submerge much
transparency and democracy. We claimed the Ombudsman's Office a 'public danger to good order and the State, and should be closed
down'.
For Ann Abraham, in the guise of Parliamentary Ombudsman, to
fabricate evidence in favour of corrupt public sector miscreants
is a crime against the State, Parliament and the British people.
She is unfit for purpose!
AW & I Tanner Copies; Universities Media MPs Parliamentary
Committees, all persons, and bodies interested in fraudulent
complaint procedures and Ombudsman corruption. (18)
[Back to the top]
|
|
|
|