As promised, in an earlier email, I have now published the video of Daniel. The importance of this video is that omitting health from an assessment is a lie. This lie was material in that it is required by the court and the director to make an assessment, as per your income policy.
I will now continue to publish other documents from the DWP and the Council, that show the lies of the legal teams, DWP and 3C services in this claim.
The video of Daniel omitting my health from his report is here.
The social media post making the video live is here.
CC
Daniel Zeichner
ACON
DWP GLD
Dear Robert Pollock,
I have repeatedly tried and failed to resolve this matter personally. You and your team’s closed-mindedness refuses to accept that my disability, combined with Carla' unlawful refusal of a paper-based assessment, is the reason for the arrears. However, whether by policy or prejudice, your team views the arrears as the sole factor. For this and other reasons outlined below, the decision to send and continue the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) is flawed.
Your team prejudiced this NOSP by pre-approving it before it was even generated. Your policies act as a fetter on less intrusive means of resolving an arrears dispute. This means you have avoided using the discretion given to you to decide whether or not to seek an NOSP. Your focus on specific parts of the possession protocol has blinded you to the Equality Act, the Care Act, and other statutory and common law duties. Furthermore, the Income Team’s animosity towards me has coloured this NOSP with bad faith, improper motive, discrimination, and bias.
A policy of not interfering with the DWP, even if they lie, is a fetter on your discretion that makes this NOSP unlawful. This is an unpublished policy, but it is not the lack of publishing that makes it unlawful; it is the rigidity of the policy itself.
The bias of your Income Team was evident in smoothing the way to an NOSP. Daniel favoured and advocated for the DWP while trying to serve what he claimed was "just a warning." His behaviour following this—including sending the NOSP via 2nd class mail without the required 3-month statements attached, logging calls while ignoring requests to discuss the matter, and making sarcastic comments about using a different email address (knowing the suggested address has never responded to me)—demonstrates bias and an automatic dismissal of the decision-making process, and therefore renders the NOSP invalid.
Further, Daniel exclusion of my health details from the assessment was material to the decision to evict. This is a required step in your income policy before sending a case to the Director for approval. The removal of this information shows, at best, a prejudiced consultation.
Moreover, the removal of health information demonstrates a disregard for the statutory duties imposed on Cambridge City Council. As this practice seems to be endorsed by Anna Hill’s coverup, the tribunal cannot be said to be independent or impartial. She has abused the process of possession for social landlords and judicial review, including the Ombudsman complaints system, to ensure this NOSP was not disturbed. This is true corruption.
In addition to filing my application, I will now be publishing details of your conduct in this case, including but not limited to:
The video and documents showing Daniel omitting my medical evidence and failing to comply with your income policy regarding the service of the NOSP, as well as the Council’s collective behaviour in avoiding legal implications.
Your acceptance of the DWP officer, Carla, lying about making reasonable adjustments and claiming a judge had endorsed it.
The Legal Team’s conduct: specifically, not replying to these legal requests but applying to other matters that do not name Cambridge as a defendant.
Carla emails from 5 September claiming a judge agreed with her, and Anna Hill/Sue Amner’s response that she only takes arrears into account.
It appears there is collusion between the UC staff and the Income Team, though I cannot currently prove that. No effort was made to get UC to follow their own policies until they were sued, and no effort was made to review the veracity of Carla claims. The policy of "not interfering" seems to be part of a plan specifically directed at me.
You have not complied with any pre-action protocols or engaged in any discussions in good faith, which makes the entire process unlawful.
I remain available for ADR led by a Solicitor to resolve this matter, but today I am required to apply to the High Court and boost Daniel video, to pressure you to remove the NOSP.
I will also be publishing our email as promised.
https://youtu.be/u4w1MtAEKB0
Regards,
Ryan
Due to the level of arrears we will now be referring your case to the Council's Legal Services who will be applying to the County Court to repossess your home. If you are experiencing financial difficulty please fill in a budget planner at https://budget.entitledto.co.uk/cambridge so that we can assess your outgoings and see how we can support you. Please email the form to incometeam@cambridge.gov.uk as we may be able to help you increase your income, and prevent ubany further action. If you do not make contact and fill in the financial planner we will have no alternative but to seek possession of your home.
Comments
Post a Comment