Formal complaint to GLD DWP, SRA, and Cilex,

Formal complaint to GLD DWP, SRA, and Cilex,

Dated 12 June 2026

by email

 Encl

9 June 2025 DWP Submission to high court by GLD DWP stating that email cannot be used.

25 June 2025 Cambridge email identifying me by email

Dear GLD, SRA and Cilex

I am writing to complain about the GLD DWP staff interfering in my claim for disability access to Universal Credit. Ironically, to deny my access to UC, they are also denying me access to a court. As well as misleading me, they have misled DWP staff in jobcentres. This has likely led to deaths because the advice was woefully incorrect. My guess is that say whatever they want, because they have the court. This is based on a first-hand conversation from the court staff and the outrageous claims made. Expanded below, these quotes are wrong in law. PIP regulation 88 does not exist. They claim that the DWP is immune from the Equality Act 2010. And that because the DWP is an employer they can take over a case. Please log my GLD DWP complaint, SRA complaint, and CILEX complaint against these staff. My MP Daniel Ziechner is copied in and would like to hear about how the courts are rigged against his constituents in Cambridg, when they, make complaints, appeals, and court applications about benefits.

The Court staff, and GLD DWP staff know that they are lying about these cases. The court staff seem powerless to do anything. The GLD DWP staff, perhaps to pass the boredom of winning every case no matter what they say, say anything. I have selected quotes from my three cases below made or caused to be made by the staff. I have trying to resolve a dispute for more than a year. First Judicial REview, then two county court claims. In the first judicial review I was not successful. The judge, if they really was a judge, referred to paragraph 60 of the attached GLD DWP response:

"Conclusion
60. The Claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review should be refused. The Defendant has followed both the law and its lawful and reasonable policies in relation to both the Claimant's UC and PIP claims. The relief which the Claimant seeks would cause the Defendant to act unlawfully, in particular, contrary to provisions governing entitlement to UC in the 2012 Act and continuing entitlement to PIP in regulations 9 and 88 of the PIP Regulations."

Your team relies heavily on PIP Regulation 88:

"38. PIP is usually awarded to a claimant for a fixed term period, for example, 3 years from the date of claim: see regulation 88 of the PIP Regulations."

But pip regulation 88 does not exist. Pip regulations only go up to 32. see their table of contents here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/contents

There is also an issue with Pip regulation 9. Your team claimed that it does not permit a paper based assessment. Its "unlawful".  Your team explain it as, 

"52.In In any event, a legitimate expectation cannot arise contra legem: Rv. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ruddock [1987] 1 WLR 1482, 1497. Regulation 9 of the PIP Regulations provides for healthcare assessments in person, by telephone or video. There is no statutory authority for an email assessment."

But the DWP guidance looks at it differently. They believe that regulation 9 allows a paper based assessment.They say it here in PIP ADM P2.

You can download it here from DWP https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69e8ddcd20a498c16734ae39/admp2.pdf

That DWP policy ADM P2 says that a paper based assessment is available with PIP.. the opposite of the DWP submission to the court:

"P2006 The assessment will be in the form of either1
1. a face-to-face consultation or
2. a telephone consultation or
3. a paper based assessment or
4. a video consultation or
5. fast track if under the special rules for terminally ill persons or
6. a combination of any of 1. – 5.

...The DM at this point may also ask the HP for additional information if required, to

help the DM make their decision.
1 SS (PIP) Regs, reg 9(1)"

I have had two PIP paper based assessments. On 22 June 2025 and on 15 Aug 2025. So your staff are wrong. They could not be this wrong if they just Googled this. They deliberately wrote incorrect information to frustrate the judicial process. Because they own the court.

Regarding the inability to be identified by email, Your staff said,  "47. In any event, identity verification by email does not currently meet the Defendant’s Identity Policy and Standards.,..".  

This is false. I was identified on the 25 June 2025 by email and by my landlord. That email is attached,

 ""

But the actual regulation is Schedule 2 of the Claims and Payment Regulations. and C and P regulation 38.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/380/schedule/2/paragraph/1

"Use of electronic communications by the Secretary of State
1.  The Secretary of State may use an electronic communication in connection with claims for, and awards of, any benefit."

The landlord part

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/380/regulation/38

"38- (6) The Secretary of State may require a landlord or a rent officer to supply information or evidence in connection with a claim for universal credit that may include in the calculation of an award an amount in respect of housing costs, and any information or evidence so requested must be supplied within one month of the request or such longer period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable."

The GLD DWP team lied in the 2nd county court claim, also. Then they used the same trick in my third county court claim. They claimed the DWP was the defendant. They applied to join the claim. They were successful. But the court did not change the defendant from the UC staff to the DWP. The court kept the DWP off the names in the court order.

This is because it is not legally possible for the DWP to swap employees. You have the full explanation in my other email. The GLD DWP has entered my case, as a non party and filed a defence. They are not defendants. They act for the DWP. But I have not made a claim against the DWP. However, the court has lodged their defence under Carla Buey. Attached is their defence claiming "sued as". There is no such thing in the CPR. 

And the DWP cannot represent the DWP; they are not defendants. CPR is Part 2, Interpretation:

Rule 2.3
(1) In these Rules –
‘claimant’ means a person who makes a claim...

‘defendant’ means a person against whom a claim is made;

But Alfie Giddings and Niamh Sher believe that as long as they are instructed by the DWP, they can take over the case. The SRA do not believe that to be correct. The conduct of a case and the strategy in by the solcitor.

The first thing is that the court says that Alfie is not representing Carla Buey. That Alfie represents the DWP, not Carla Buey. The court agent said it like this, "They're not yet. It looks like the GLD and DWP are working together as they believe the case should be handled by them on behalf of the defendant but right now technically the DWP are not on the case. That means Carla Buey is still the defendant. The defence by the DWP is attached. Which brings me to the next problem.

Samuel from Cambridge Jobcentre was advised incorrectly by GLD DWP. So because he and staff thought they were being tricked by me, they deliberately sanctioned My partner. This is how Samuel thought her was immune:

"We also need to be clear that DWP staff act on behalf of the Secretary of State and carry out their duties in accordance with legislation and departmental guidance. Individual members of staff cannot be held personally liable or pursued through legal action for decisions or actions taken in the course of their official duties. Any concerns about decisions should instead be addressed through the established processes, such as mandatory reconsideration or complaint procedures."

Here is why the GLD DWP advised him incorrectly. The crown is basically the government and ministers. And because the ministers employ staff, the staff are also the Crown. Therefore, because the Crown is immune, DWP staff are also immune. Correct. Wrong.

A famous judge called Lady Justice Hale explains how this crown immunity does not apply to the Equality Act. This makes staff liable for their actions. in *R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice* [2018] UKSC 55. Lady Hale stated at paragraphs 36–37:

"36. It is certainly open to this court to clarify the test... We can begin with some simple propositions:
.. (1) The Crown is not bound by a statutory provision except by express words or necessary implication."

Under Section 205(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010, Parliament has used express words to bind the Crown:

"(1) The following provisions of this Act bind the Crown—

(b) Part 3 (services and public functions), so far as relating to the exercise of public functions;."

Part 3 is section 29 of the equality act

Now that the Crown is liable for acts under the Equality Act, let show how employees do not get to leave a claim against staff under section s110 of the act. Reading this section actually shows that employees are liable for their own actions, not the actions of employers. So if your employer tells you to do something discriminatory, who gets in trouble: the employee, both, or just the employer? The claimant picks.

"110 Liability of employees and agents
(1) A person (A) contravenes this section if—
(a) A is an employee or agent,
(b) A does something which, by virtue of section 109(1) or (2), is treated as having been done by A's employer or principal (as the case may be), and (c) the doing of that thing by A amounts to a contravention of this Act by the employer or principal (as the case may be)."

This time, only a High Court judge  says that if an employee is liable, that liability is not transferred to the employer. The High Court in *Baldwin v Cleves School & Ors* [2024] EAT 29-37 confirmed that Section 110 is for employee liability, not employer liability.

"38 [I]t is a pre-condition of section 110 applying that the individual employee was acting in the course of employment, so that the employer is potentially liable...there is no discretion not to find a contravention of section 110(1) just because the employer is or is potentially liable under section 109."

This highlights Alfie's 6 May 2026 application for Joinder or substitution. The court has no discretion under s110 to remove an employee, and put the employer in their place. This also means no interest has passed to the DWP. Further it is not desirable to add the DWP, becuase they lie, and nothing is gained by their involvement. Only the employee can prove if what they were told by their employer was reasonable to believe.

This is quite different, if not the opposite, of what Samuel said about DWP staff not being liable in the course of thier employement. Samuel can say if they were told this by the GLD DWP without the GLD DWP.

The solicitors/lawyers involved in the same issue regarding not permitting a non-face-to-face interview: All interference is demonstrably false.

Judicial Review

Ms Rod Shah SRA

Ms Catherine Dodson SRA

First County Court claim

Ms Erin Haq Cilex

Mr Alfie Giddings Cilex

2nd county court claim

Mr Mather Bennett SRA

Mr Alfie Giddings Cilex

Ms Niamh Sherwood SRA

I encourage the GLD DWP to fix this mess. I have been without Universal Credit for over a year. And the best you can do is just add another lot of lies on top of the lie that I cannot be identified by email. That lie is in the court submissions. It is provable false by checking on the PIP website.  For this the GLD DWP tried to scare me with £6000 in court costs. Then the court reduced it.  From now on, I will be posting about this corruption. I have no other choice. You just keep lying with the court's help.

Encl

9 June 2025 DWP Submission to high court by GLD DWP that email cannot be used.

25 June 2025 Cambridge email identifying me by email

Conversation with court staff about the DWP lying as if they are in my case.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 at 11:17, Ryan  wrote:

Hi Alfie Giddings,

I understand that the GLD DWP are claiming that they are the representative of the DWP in my claim. You filed a claim on behalf of the DWP. But the CNBC says that you are not filing. I will publish your response publicly. Including to the SRA and Cilex. You have until 1pm today to respond. 

I have some questions:

Is the DWP a defendant in my claim form?

How does Cilex teach who the party in a claim form is?

Did you take the Level 6 Qualification?

In your own words tell me how the DWP is a party in my claim?

What is the difference between potential defendants and actual defendants?

Below is the transcript from the CNBC court on 26 May 2026. CNBC say that the DWP are not filing, and are not in this case. But you represent the DWP. So who are you filing for?

Transcript: Ryan and CNBC Civil National Business Centre

"Ryan
Yes, a properly completed notice of acting. But the DWP GLD are acting for the DWP not Carla Buey. It says so in there filling. "Department for Work and Pensions (sued as 'Ms Carla Buey')".

Agent
Where are you seeing this?

Agent
Looking at the emails alone, I can't see anything from the DWP or related

Ryan
page one of their n180 the heading. And in their notice of acting dated the 20 March 2026.

Agent
I see what you mean, Well I guess the issue is the court has yet to approve/update the change in defendant- it has been a while though so I can chase that internally for you if you'd like, or leave it up to the defendant to sort out. It's up to you.


Ryan
That's what I thought to be honest. But I read that only the court or claimant can change thee defendant.

Agent
Correct, the court can if they agree with the DWP being the correct substitution.

Ryan
Yes a part 19 claim was made in May by the DWP. But the court already is acting as if the DWP are already the defendant since 20 March 2026. So I wanted to know why are the DWP the defendant and Carla Buey at the same time?

Agent
On the actual court file they're not, all correspondence is going to the government legal department.

Ryan
A defence was filed by the DWP and recorded under Carla Buey. How do I correct the parties?

No order has been made yet

Agent
The defence was still filed by the government legal department in terms of they are the ones that sent it in. Although it has been filled out that way. That's why the court acceopted it.

Agent
As was the directions questionnaire. The DWP have yet to make direct contact with the court themselves as any correspondence from them would not be accepted as they are not on the court file yet.

Ryan
I agree the GLD filed and the court filed it under Carla Buey. But their is no order changing the parties. So how do I change it back until the order is made?

Agent
Change it back to what?
Agent
It was never changed in the first place from what I can see.
...
Agent
Is there anything else?

Ryan
I name Carla Buey as the Defendant. The GLD is not on file, but filed a defence. This defence is recorded on file for Carla Buey not the DWP. No order has been made about the DWP GLD being the defendant. how is it the DWP are in this claim.

Agent
They're not yet. It looks like the GLD and DWP are working together as they believe the case should be handled by them on behalf of the defendant but right now technically the DWP are not on the case.

Ryan
Can I have some record that proves the DWP GLD are not on the case as the defendant please?
[disconnected]"