|
Dear Minister
I attended an Information Tribunal 17th March
2008 regarding an appeal against Decision Notice FS500082420; the
appeal went against us. While HMRC and ICO lawyers decided on what
laws or rules had or had not been attended to, no mention was made
of the fraudulent acts against us.
We (my wife and I) claim that because the
initial fraudulent acts against us had not even been mentioned
within the Tribunal, we had been outmanoeuvred by deceit and
obstructive lawyers giving out public sector legalised injustice
that bears little or no resemblance to case law within the
Decision Notice, especially in paragraph 36. We think the D/Notice
along with the handling of our case should be investigated by a
higher legal authority, especially paragraph 36.
We have spent 5 years being abused by
governmental complaint procedures and realise it is common. This
public sector governmental abuse of complainants has to stop.
Democracy is being killed off!
I found myself listening to (and quite frankly
not understanding) legal issues that seemed to have little or no
bearing on the way our case had been fraudulently handled. The
Tribunal was controlled by legal definitions that prevented me
from speaking out against the Commissioners fraudulent (10)
references as to the authority's accountability within the
D/Notice.
This led me to mention to the Tribunal, how
members of the electorate complaining against a government dept,
such as the Inland Revenue, become entrapped when they allow
themselves to be controlled by the public sectors complaint
procedures. How my 5 years experience dealing with such
procedures, led me to believe that it would be more democratic for
members of the electorate having a complaint against a government
body, to have their own Courts.
These courts should be completely divorced from
public sectors chicanery thereby avoiding the abuse of government
power as used within these present complaint procedures that have
a cover-up culture in 'systematic denial' regarding complaints
against government departments.
I pointed out that it would have been a much
more democratic hearing if the miscreant and her inept management
who had treated us so badly were sitting opposite me, replacing
the Panzer division of public sector lawyers representing the HMRC
and the ICO.
At least, in our own courts, with government
lawyers out of the way; I would have been able to get to the
point about the fraudulent and corrupt way our case had been
handled. We would not be bogged down with dubious legalised
procedures that avoided the issue. At least in our case we would
have come face to face with the miscreant and her management who
had abused us by undemocratic means.
This would be a real wonderful opening up of
the complaint procedures destroyed by over-protective public
sector lawyers. It was argued by the ICO that the Commissioner
could not be responsible as to what might or might not have
happened within the VOA.
This led me to point out that Lord Nolan in his
attempts to clean up fraud and corruption within the public sector
stated that everyone must be 'active' in dealing with such
fraud and corruption. I suggested that included the Commissioner
and the Revenue executive being 'active', thus enabling them to
combat the fraud against us.
The fact that such public sector senior
officials were not 'active', means that the public sector cover up
culture and the 'old pals act' that Lord Nolan tried to clean up
remains intact - firmly entrenched within Whitehall etc. Such
government official's lack of 'active' response towards public
sector fraud nurture the status quo, enabling the 'systematic
entrenched public sector cover-up culture' to thrive.
I wanted to counter the Commissioners 10
references as to the Revenue or its staff as being' accountable'
within the Decision Notice. I was not allowed to.
From our own experience we consider the
National Audit Office to be more accurate than the Commissioner,
as when it reported on the HMRC; ' Weaknesses and
inconsistencies in HMRC process and operations, these include
inadequate management information and failure by staff to comply
consistently with departmental problems.' This NAO account is a
much more honest description of the HMRC internal squalor and
failure in its public service.
The Commissioners description of the HMRC
within the Decision Notice is biased. Such bias leads us to demand
that the machinations within the ICO network needs serious
investigation. We waited 2 years for a fumbling lengthy D/Notice
that gave unwarranted protection to the HMRC. Parliament should
have a problem with our case.
I was not allowed to point out within the
Tribunal, the Revenues fraudulent act of not answering my request
for vital information over some 7 months (2003). Not one letter
was answered! This HMRC abuse, inflicted upon us as
complainants the Commissioner purposely sees as being'
accountable'.
The Commissioner (knowing of our case) was
negligent or worse in giving within the Decision Notice what might
be construed as a friendly propaganda statement in
claiming the seriously dysfunctional HMRC as being 'accountable'
on numerous occasions. There are other fraudulent or corrupt acts
against us, all comfortably by-passed within the Decision Notice
and the Tribunal hearing.
This D/Notice is a less than honest government
document alarmingly put out into the public domain by the ICO!
That's why we ask that our case and the Decision Notice especially
paragraph 36 be investigated by a higher legal authority.
I am an 80-year-old war pensioner, an ex
front-line soldier who like untold thousands of others put our
lives on the line for supposed democracy. I deserve better
treatment; a more honest approach to a democratic hearing, a
hearing divorced from this appalling public sector cover-up
culture with its powerful legal officials.
Within the Tribunal, I was to face 2
barristers and 2 lawyers (one did not attend) representing the
HMRC and the Commissioners Office.
This affront to democracy that many died for
led me to write in some anger to Rt. Hon. Minister Des Browne MOD
asking if he could get me on a House of Commons gravy train
in order to secure a barrister or two. We were isolated and
quashed by supposed legalities that confounded us, not being
lawyers we became sitting ducks.
We ask that the whole affair be investigated
because we feel there are issues/decisions raised within our case
that bore little or no resemblance to the'rule of law' or indeed
case law. That the earlier corrupt acts (2003/4) etc against us
had purposely been lost sight of by deceitful manoeuvres certainly
not mentioned by the Commissioner neither within the Decision
Notice nor within the Tribunal.
We think there were serious misjudgements
within the Tribunal as for instance; we were denied the chance to
speak out against the (1) ICO's claim that the authority or its
staff was accountable on some 10 occasions within the Decision
Notice. We claim the authority was not as accountable
as the Commissioner suggests.
Then (2) we were denied the chance to explain
or question the quality of the ICO investigation that allowed the
authority to dictate the pace of the FOI investigation. That the
Revenues freewheeling attitude and dragging of feet in relation to
its FOI commitments helped drag out the D/ Notice over some 2
years. (We enclose the report we were not allowed to reveal within
the Tribunal)
Because we had been severe critics of the
Revenues corrupt complaints procedures, we felt this may well have
led us to be'hung out to dry'. We also become critical of the
Commissioners handling of our FOI appeal. We again asked that a
higher authority study our case.
The D/Notice has been printed and is now in the
public domain. This Notice is in fact withholding information from
the public and academics regarding fraudulence and dragging of
feet in contempt for the FOI within the public sector complaint
procedures. We claim that this is of serious public interest and
indeed of public concern.
When studying the Commissioners Decision Notice one
is reminded of Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth' where covering-up for
bunglers was the order of the day.
The ICOs protective bias for the
oft-dysfunctional HMRC is given with effortless ease
that smack of the 'old pals act'. We would hope the Law
Society or the Law Lords would study paragraph 36 within the
Decision Notice.
We asked the Tribunal March 17, of paragraph
36; 'Was there such a piece of legislation passed that can be so
badly misrepresented, misinterpreted that can be so fraudulently
manipulated that it can give unwarranted legal protection to a
fraudulent dysfunctional government office?'. We feel the rule of
law was abandoned here and that there is little relevant public
sector case law that allows such abuse.
Paragraph 36 states; 'The
potential detriment to the third party (the employee who had given
us much aggro) through disclosure of information relating to
complaints made against them is a significant issue here. To
release the fact that a complaint made against an employee may
lead to assumptions being made about the employee's
competence. However, the complaint may be Unsubstantiated
or malicious'… (After 5 years of combating public sector
fraud and its cover-up culture we took exception to the
Commissioners atrocious put down of our efforts as being 'unsubstantiated
or malicious')
Regarding 'assumptions'
as indicated in para 36. We
have evidence, forced out of the authority, in condemnation of the
third party, (1) 'That her professional conduct and behaviour
towards you and your wife whilst handling your tax affairs was
less than satisfactory'.
And further condemnation (2) ' She was not
acting in accordance with tax procedures, and her customer service
fell below the standards expected of staff. The same third party
also claimed (3) our honest qualified appeal was 'invalid'. It
took us 16 months to get this fraudulent Revenue claim overturned
by a Tribunal.
These are not assumptions as declared in
paragraph 36 but are incriminating facts as to the third party's
unprofessionalism and belligerence against us as client
complainants.
These were the actions of an overprotected
Revenue employee who appeared in para 36 under false pretences,
where it is claimed by the Commissioner that she is/was in danger
of assumptions being made against her? We ask was this
fraudulent misuse of the DPA?
We were producing facts in denial of the
Commissioners assumptions. This did not carry any weight with the
Tribunal.
Minister, we are enclosing a separate copy of
our notes that we were not allowed to voice at the Tribunal, these
simple notes counter the ICO claim that the authority was
'accountable'.
We also send notes relating to the 2 year drawn
out Decision Notice as mentioned above where the dragging of feet
by the authority regarding its FOI commitment etc and poor
management of proceedings by the ICO was ever apparent and time
consuming.
Minister, because we have often written of what
we see as large public sector 'systematic denial' towards
governmental complainants, and have made this known to the public
and universties etc, we feel it necessary that parliamentary
committees etc know of the latest developments in our case.
Yours sincerely
AW &
I Tanner 2 enc. rec/del.cc PM, MP, parliamentary committees
Sent to
Minister Rt. Hon. Jack Straw. March 08
At the Tribunal 17th March 2008 we
wanted to counter/rebuff the Commissioners some 10 references
as to the 'HMRCs accountability' within the biased Decision Notice
but were not allowed to, we were being strangled by legalities
which we frankly, as laymen, did not understand. I was denied the
chance to point out the numerous historic HMRC gaffes.
I had prepared notes
from which I wanted to quote critical statements that would prove
the Commissioners claim that the Revenue being 'accountable'
was false. I wanted to quote from responsible parliamentary
bodies such as Parliamentary Accounts Committee and the NAO and
Chartered Accountants etc who had made serious criticisms and
allegations giving more honest indications as to the authority
being more dysfunctional than accountable.
I was not allowed to quote from Public figures
such as Vince Cable MP who indicated the HMRC had taken over from
the Home Office as the department 'most unfit for purpose'.
Also I could not quote from Baroness Noakes,
who in the House of Lords claimed she 'Had grave doubts about the
culture of the HMRC, she talked of its lack of awareness in its
obligations that go with public service.
We also wanted to quote from the Public
Accounts Committees report looking into the propriety of the HMRC
after Treasury figures showed that virtually half the fraud
across all government depts was taken by Revenue employees.
We wanted to quote from Accountancy Web who
stated; 'That what is needed is someone to weed out the
cultural incompetence that pervade the HMRC'.
We wanted to quote Treasury figures, obtained
by R. Bacon PAC that shows 190 cases of fraud were reported in the
HMRC in one year coming to almost £2m. The HMRC shows reluctance
to prosecute such cases, out of 190 cases only 15 cases were
prosecuted (Guardian).
We also wanted to mention at the Tribunal
Hearing what we saw as evidence of the HMRCs internal squalid
pervasive DNA. As when we read that MPs had called for the PAC to
launch an investigation into the Revenue & Customs Prosecution
Office, where the Chief Operating Officer was 'removed from
office' (old pals leniency act)) for gross misconduct. It
seems a matter of around £100,000 was involved.
In order to combat even further the
Commissioners claim as to the 'accountability' of the
authority within the D/Notice. We wanted to mention HM Inspector
of Constabulary Dennis O'Conner who, after lengthy investigations
concerning a high profile court case, where the trial judges were
extremely critical of the HMRC, he claimed that HMRC officers and
at least one senior HMRC lawyer were dishonest in their evidence.
It is hoped/claimed
that errors and bad practice which so seriously damaged the
reputation and integrity of HMRC in the criminal courts will not
find there way into the Tribunal Service – we hope its not too
late. It is known that because of the
Revenues extreme incompetence, millions of taxpayers pay the wrong
amount of tax; some pay more than they should, others pay less.
Now there are many more Quotes that we could
have made in relation to the HMRCs unaccountability,
of its unawareness of its public duty as Baroness
Noaks pointed out in the HOUSE of LORDS. We also realise there
are hundreds of other fraudulent or severely incompetent HMRC acts
that have not yet come to the surface. No doubt many remain
buried beneath the entrenched public sector cover-up culture,
supported by the well-honed public sector 'old pals act'.
You will no doubt get the strength of my anger
when I wrote (as disclosed above) to the very Rt. Hon. Des
Browne Minister MOD. As a war pensioner who had put his life
on the line I asked him if I could be put on a House of Commons
gravy train in order to provide legal expenses to combat 2
barristers and 2 lawyers representing the HMRC and the ICO.
As a member of the electorate, a war pensioner
I was merely asking for a share of what appears to be easily
assessable taxpayer money to defend myself against the
overpowering HMRC legal department. As an ex front-line
soldier I was struggling against the legal power of the state –
its got something to do with the 'rule of law'.
AW&I Tanner
EXTRAORDINARY ICO EXTRAPOLATION; leading the
Commissioner to extrapolate from poor evidence and a convoluted
mix of dates and figures that the Revenue were accountable?
We urge that this peculiar over-friendly
extrapolation given in the authority's favour also needs
investigating.
The peculiar
extrapolation comes about like this; The HMRC refused to provide
us with proper relevant information in relation to a specific
employee (third party para 36) in relation to her fraudulent acts
against us in 2003. The authority instead of giving us the
requested information concerning this individual, later saw fit to
disclose in lieu, misinformation that they had some 45
complainants in the years 2005/6?
In the Decision Notice however, para 35 the
Commissioner claimed by a strange extrapolation that this
non-information concerning other complainants in 2005/6 indicates
that the authority had attempted to be'open and accountable'
within the restrictions of not wishing to disclose details of
complaints made about individual employees.
We ask, so what is the picture here? The HMRC
did not want to
disclose to us
details of the miscreant ( hidden third party in para 36) who gave
us much aggro in 2003. But because the deceitful HMRC
disclose red herring non- information about the number of other
complainants in 2005/6 that have no bearing on our case'
the ICO by some strange means of extrapolation, claim that this
erroneous mix of non-information and wrong years 2003 and 2005/6
is an indication that the Revenue is 'open and accountable'. They
published the result of this ridiculous extrapolation within the
Decision Notice.
The Commissioner refers to this red herring
non-information several times ad nausea in the D/Notice para 39 he
claims; ' It is also significant that the public authority has
demonstrated transparency through disclosure of the total number
of complaints received'. This non-informative red herring is also
put forward in para 41 as somehow proving the authority's
disclosure of non- information as being an 'accountable act'
The figures issued by the authority are for
2005/6 – our complaint was issued in 2003. We think the NAO, many
parliamentary committees such as the Public Accounts Committee,
the Treasury and Chartered Accountants etc would be appalled to
learn that such an extrapolation of convoluted mixture of
non-informative information, figures and dates, would give the
remotest indication that the world renown dysfunctional Inland
Revenue as being 'accountable' as proclaimed by the Commissioner
in his biased Decision Notice.
We repeat the National Audit Office statement
that wrote, 'of weaknesses and inconsistencies in HMRC process and
operations including inadequate management information and failure
by staff to comply consistently with departmental procedures.'
This is the authority we have unfortunately
known for many years, that has a 'systematic' dislike of critics
and has an inability to give a decent public service or be
accountable as civil servants!
AW&I Tanner
[Back to the top]
|