My three court cases for access to universal credit and the court lies that over shadowed that of Carla Buey and Daniel Reynard and Anna Hill
Today I have mediation with the DWP and GLD, not the person that I sued. She Carla Buey is at home.
So while I wait by the phone between 2 and 4pm she is sunning herself. In this my third case to get universal credit, my two minders Niamh Sherwood and Alfie Giddings of the GLD lie in wait. Their job is to lie in court to delay my claim until the court finally throws it out. But no matter what they say, right or wrong the case it thrown out. That is the court's deal with the GLD, Government Legal Department.
Here is something that the Niamh Sherwood wrote in a reply to my email asking why is Alfie Giddings, misleading the court. I put that response below
Today is the 9 of July 2026, 4 days after the court should have served the claim form at Carla Buey's house, and her solicitors. My application was made in time on the 8 May 2026 to reserve the claim form at at her home. But this post is not about the court removing that application because it had too many pages, under PD5B. A minor error that no one is permitted to not take the claim, as it prejudices no one.
This post is about the court colluding with the DWP to remove claims that both do not want to deal with. You have to be crazy to get on the list. Which any judge can do. Usually, a judge will put "confused history" or something similar, like misconceived. From than on you are on the crazy list.
I would like to think that the court is trying some how to protect me by not dealing with my cases. But I fail to understand the lying. If I was cray, which is possible that I would open the support of the Official solicitor and public trustees, or the court would assign an advocate to the court, to make sure that I am being represented. And because none of this has happened and I am not that crazy, I geniune think the DWP tells that court to look the other way whilst we die.
The DWP has killed 150,000 people whilst they waited for complaints to be answered.
Why is this email from a solicitor wrong. And if they have done it to me they are doing it to you. I hope this helps to nip their nonsense in the bud.
Why the letter is nonsense quote by quote.
"I write further to my email of 13 May 2026. I have carefully considered your email and I have noted your comments." Rhetorical technique they never acknowledge or they change why you write. To keep you unhinged.
"As you are aware our client is DWP and we act upon DWP’s instructions." A client, DWP giving you orders does not limit your responsibility. The SRA confirms this: "The courts often accept that such cases have been pursued in accordance with a client's instructions. However, while solicitors are responsible for the strategy of their client's case, they cannot abrogate their responsibility to the court and to regulatory principles and codes, on the basis that they are acting on their client's instructions alone." ()
"(1) We acknowledge that you have sued Ms Buey in her (2) personal capacity. As you are aware, our client is DWP who have overall responsibility/duty of care to Ms Buey as her employer. DWP is the government department that administers the payment of benefits and we act upon DWP’s instruction." This does not make any legal or logical sense here is the breakdown:
- (1) Court rules do not all anyone to call themselves a defendant. But Niamh Sherwood is claiming that the DWP are a defendant. But this is the breach of the court's interpretation of who are the defendant and claimant CPR Part 2.1(1) "‘claimant’ means a person who makes a claim; ‘defendant’ means a person against whom a claim is made;"
- "As you are aware" , means you are stupid rhetorically. Like, you're blind, cant you see, this is obvious, clearly. But what is being said is the opposite.
- "Duty of care", is for negligence claims not claims under the Equality act such as the one I am in.
- "personal capacity.. to Ms Buey as her employer", is another spin on the DWP can be a defendant because you are stupid. But as Carla Buey is sued under equality act, a statutory tort, tort claims can be made against the employee, employer or both. Often called joint and severally liable.
This personal liability does not move to the employer liability as explained, in Baldwin v Cleves school 2024 [2024] ICR 1001, EAT . Which is to allow you to sue an employee, or employer or both. The judge is very clear you can sue either:
"20 The EqA then adopts a sophisticated and detailed system for attributing liability to employers and others. The two provisions central to this appeal are section 109 and section 110. The first concerns what acts are treated as done by an employer for the purpose of those provisions, such as section 39, which impose duties on it; the second provision places liability on employees or agents—what is usually referred to as personal liability. The sections state, so far as is material, as follows:
'109. Liability of employers and principals
(1) Anything done by a person (A) in the course of A’s employment must be treated as also done by the employer."
...
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).' "
- r negligence, is not the same liability as the cause of action for under the equality act 2010. liable does not mean actual liability putting someone name on the claim. Baldwin explains again:
"38 I therefore turn to the ET’s reasons at para 141 for not finding a contravention on the part of the second and third respondents. The ET said that the case was “essentially” one of vicarious liability and it was not suggested that the school was not liable for the acts of discrimination. But it 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: see section 110(1). If the ET meant that because the employer was not running the defence in section 109(4) and so was liable under section 109, this was a factor counting against liability on the part of the individual respondents, I consider that was a legal error, for the reasons I have given: 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."
Potentially liable, as everyone is before a claim is made against them, is not liability. liability is your name on the claim form.
- "I note that you are a Litigant in Person and I recommend that you seek independent legal advice and the following links may be of assistance to you https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ and https://supportthroughcourt.org/." You are a litigant in person, therefore stupid. I will also add that this means, if you are stupid you deserve to die, deserve no respect. LIP's are poor, because you cannot afford a lawyer go to free help, because without a solicitor you do not deserve access to a court.
- "I note you disagree with how GLD are presenting the case." Disagree means that you do not have a legal argument, just an argument. Also sets the tone for not engaging with a legal argument in reply.
- "I do not agree that Alfie has misrepresented your case." Tone set. No legal reply needed.
- "We are following our client’s instructions regarding the matter and as you are aware we have asked the court to add or substitute DWP as a Defendant in this matter and to strike out the claim." Lets com back to this. She is confusing instructions, with a legal case. Solicitors can be sued but only in very rare circumstances. Instructions does not mean immunity from being sued.
By confusing or misdirecting the court, and filling £2000, one based on an hour call to the court waiting, this is unnecessary stress and expense. The SRA say that this is not okay, you cannot,
"5. Conducting excessive or aggressive litigation
This kind of conduct, whether in litigation or pre-action advice, can create disproportionate costs, cause distress and anxiety for the subjected parties and damage public trust and confidence in the profession"
This is exactly my experience over one year.
"It is now up to the court to decide how this case should progress, so we wait to hear from the court and a Judge who will consider both sides and come to a decision." She knows the court will rle in her favour about this DWP is the DEFENDANT nonsense.
I have my second claim struct out because the DWP were allowed to file in my claim. The court agreed that the DWP should be the correct defendant.
But the court on the 15 June 2026, in my third claim just called out this practice. They said agreeing with CPR Part 2, Rule 2.1(1) that the DWP were not the defendant.
But went on to do another lie. That somehow the DWP were allowed to file, because the GLD DWP were representing the defendant Carla Buey. But no notice of acting was filed for this under CPR Part 42, rule 42.1 . That meant that the court thought this, but could not prove it.
If the GLD DWP were representing Carla Buey, I would have had a notice:
(2) Where this rule applies, the party or his solicitor (where one is acting) must – (a) file notice of the change; and (b) serve notice of the change on every other party and, where paragraph (1)(a) or (c) applies, on the former solicitor.
(4) The notice filed at court must state that notice has been served as required by paragraph (2)(b)."
I then got notice on the 25 June 2026. But the court sais the GLD DWP were representing Carla Buey from 20 March 2026.
The GLD are now representing Carla Buey. Which I do not think is legal, or lawful (still learning). Basically parliament does not allow public, government funds to be spent on individuals. Think of how many forms and papers you have to fill out for benefits.
And then for legal aid. Now how is the government allowing the GLD to spend public money on defending my £3000 costs discrimination case.
It cannot be, public fund means public, and you cannot spend public funds on defending an employee, in a private case. Defend a minister maybe, overseas. Or defend the PM. But not when the government is not sued personally, like a private discrimination claim, without the DWP.
I hope this helps.
Here is The GLD full letter. I think I will publish more of these breakdowns.
Regards
Ryan Tremble-Niccolls
"Niamh Sherwood <Niamh.Sherwood@governmentlegal.gov.uk> 20 May 2026 at 15:46
To: "ryan.niccolls@gmail.com" <ryan.niccolls@gmail.com>
Dear Mr Tremble-Niccolls
I write further to my email of 13 May 2026. I have carefully considered your email and I have noted your comments.
As you are aware our client is DWP and we act upon DWP’s instructions. We acknowledge that you have sued Ms Buey in her personal capacity. As you are aware, our client is DWP who have overall responsibility/duty of care to Ms Buey as her employer. DWP is the government department that administers the payment of benefits and we act upon DWP’s instruction.
I note that you are a Litigant in Person and I recommend that you seek independent legal advice and the following links may be of assistance to you https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ and https://supportthroughcourt.org/.
I note you disagree with how GLD are presenting the case. I do not agree that Alfie has misrepresented your case. We are following our client’s instructions regarding the matter and as you are aware we have asked the court to add or substitute DWP as a Defendant in this matter and to strike out the claim.
It is now up to the court to decide how this case should progress, so we wait to hear from the court and a Judge who will consider both sides and come to a decision.
Please note that I now have conduct of this case going forward.
Kind regards
Niamh
Niamh Sherwood
Senior Lawyer, Welfare, Health and Transport Private Law Team
Defence and Security Division
Government Legal Department
102 Petty France, Westminster, London SW1H 9GL
T: +44 (0)20 7210 3010 | DX 123243 Westminster 12
Niamh.Sherwood@governmentlegal.gov.uk
Working Pattern Tuesday to Thursday 8am to 5pm"
Comments
Post a Comment