Skip to main content

Cambridge City Council Income Team continue eviction despite high court order

Not only a I facing corrupt DWP officers I am also facing a corrupt Cambridge City Council.
Daniel Reynard Income officer from Cambridge pretending to bring a gift.

He the lies and goes back to his office and lies again.
In the youtube attached there are several lies:

1. he wants to know what happened. But he already knows really he is there to start the eviction process rolling.
2. He is there to honestly assess me. No he does not even say that. 
3. He is going to report my health accurately. But does not.


The reason health matters, is the same reason he did not write it down properly.
No health mean he can evict me faster and it is more painful to challenge.

Daniel Reynard was defended by
Anna Hill
Sue Amna 






Daniel Reynard (Income Officer): On 11 September 2025, omitted the claimant's disclosed disabilities (ADHD, dyslexia, depression, anxiety, potential autism) from his report; assessed only physical presentation ("stood for around 10-15 minutes unaided") which is irrelevant to cognitive disabilities per Woodspring DC v Taylor [1982]. On 17 September 2025, signed and issued the NOSP. On 29 October 2025, directed claimant to non-responsive email address when questioned about the discrepancy.
Sue Amner (Income Manager): Provided contradictory justifications - on 11 November 2025 stated EqA issues were "not connected" to NOSP; on 4 December 2025 claimed "all known disabilities" had been considered. Failed to address discrepancy between Daniel's report and claimant's actual health conditions.

Anna Hill: On 3 October 2025 at 10:40am, funnelled the claimant's PAP for JR dated 2 October 2025 into the corporate complaints process, despite acknowledging the claimant was "threaten[ing] to take legal action against us." This denied the claimant a proper legal response as required by the JR Pre-Action Protocol.

Steven Nolan (Solicitor) and Felicity Goldsbrough (Barrister): On 24 October 2025, filed strike-out application based on false assertions: (i) that an LBA was sent by email on 9 October 2025 (no such email exists despite five requests between 24 October and 10 November 2025); (ii) that Cambridge City Council was the correct defendant (Gareth Coelho personally liable under s110 EqA 2010); (iii) that particulars had not been filed (they were attached to Anna Hill's email of 3 October 2025).

Council's Decision-Making Process: On 4 September 2025, Sarah Cafferkey correctly identified adjustments available under ADM J1007. On 5 September 2025, Carla Buey responded with false statements. On 11 September 2025, Daniel visited but omitted disabilities from report. On 17 September 2025, NOSP issued - 6 days after visit, 12 days after Carla's false statements, without verification or consultation with claimant. Failed to consider relevant matters under Woodspring DC v Taylor [1982]. Applied unpublished "non-interference" policy that contradicts published Income Management Policy.
CCC - Discrimination Arising from Disability (s15 Equality Act 2010)

The claimant received an NOSP on 20 September 2025 because of circumstances arising from his disability: rent unpaid because UC not paid because claimant commitment not signed because claimant's disabilities prevent live interviews. The Council knew of the claimant's disabilities (from 2019 homelessness application, PIP award, council tax exemption) and the causal chain but proceeded regardless.

CCC - Bias and Breach of Natural Justice
Daniel Reynard's decision is automatically unfair: on 11 September 2025 he assessed the claimant; on 17 September 2025 he issued the NOSP based on his own assessment; on 29 October 2025 and 5 November 2025 when questioned, he directed the claimant elsewhere and refused to explain. No independent oversight of the discrepancy between his report and the claimant's disclosed disabilities.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

25 Oct 2025 Ryan v SSWP or Ryan v Cambridge City Council.

I have a dilemma I have only so many spoons. Do I make another High Court Claim for CCC or SSWP or do I just report Carla B to the police? You have my permission to use AI to read this post. I have decided to put a criminal case together for Carla B, the Customer Service Team Leader in the Cambridge Job Centre. I have never done criminal law before. But I do know if two white police officers from Parkside come to your home, to hand deliver a letter, and read it to you (perhaps because you are dyslexic) so that the can personally tell you  that they will not investigate the racist comments made that you  recorded. This is because they asked them and they sad they did not say that. But importantly the police officers have their cameras on, without telling you for their protection (without telling you) which is very criminal. So you smile and show them your partner watching on the IPAD, and later ask for the Video via GDPR. That sort of crime is obvious because is it is very...
Post a Comment
Read more

The litigation campaign for Cambridge and UC Cambridge to treat me fairly is live

Press Release: Official Statement from Ryan FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 27 December 2025 "They Deleted My Health to Evict Me": Ryan Releases Video Evidence of Alleged Council and DWP Deception CAMBRIDGE, UK — I am Ryan, a disabled resident of Cambridge for six years. This press release marks the start of a legal campaign against Cambridge and DWP. The first on has a High Court order holding my claim open until UC finish. I know need second one to get UC to accept my evidence, and Cambridge to stop their possession order. The Campaign This new campaign is necessary because of the lies. First UC lied they could not ID me by email. Now they lie they the cannot accept my evidence in writing. Thus again holding up my rent payment being released. But instead of Canbridge backing my need for UC to make reasonable adjustments, they blame a non interference policy, and then faked a report. The evidence that the report is a lie, is the difference between the report and meeting recorded. The...
Post a Comment
Read more

Watch failure - Cambridge Jobcentre Plus delays easy fix to housing

The Hidden Scandal: How Cambridge Jobcentre Ignored a Three-Month Mistake Welcome back to Universal Credit hell. Today, we are unpacking another lawless failure from my partner's journal—a simple mistake that Cambridge Jobcentre Plus allowed to cause three months of financial hardship, and a legal request they chose to ignore. The Problem: A Lie Written into the System The situation was straightforward. My partner lives in a shared house with three flatmates. But when Universal Credit calculated her housing costs, they didn't see flatmates. They saw "family members." This wasn't just a clerical error. It was a lie written into the system. It meant that because she was out of work, the DWP's calculation wrongly assumed her "family" would pay her share. Her flatmates were now financially responsible for her in the eyes of the DWP. A bigger problem is that nothing we said could make the Cambridge team understand this basic reality. The Inactio...
Post a Comment
Read more