Open letter to councillors of Cambridge City Council, Jenny Gawthrope Wood, Delowar Hossain, Martin Smart

 # Letter may be edited. Last edit

To:  

- Councillor Jenny Gawthrope Wood (Kings Hedges Ward)  

- Councillor Delowar Hossain (Kings Hedges Ward)  

- Councillor Martin Smart (Kings Hedges Ward)  

CC:  

- The Monitoring Officer, Cambridge City Council  

- Robert Pollock, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Cambridge City Council  

- The Head of Housing Services, Cambridge City Council  

---

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to complain about Daniel Reynard, Anna Hill, and Sarah Cafferkey before I apply for an injunction. The injunction will include Carla Buey. I am now publicly asking the councillors to help me with this, so I do not have to apply for an injunction. This is because it is your duty to put forward complaints and grievances to the council and advocate on my behalf. 

But last time I asked, councillors were told by Anna Hill not to help. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) states there was a duty to help resolve complaints. This is also in s5 of the Councils concitution. You were not the only ones whom Anna Hill persuaded to do nothing to help regarding the lies of Housing Officer Daniel Reynard. Anna Hill, Director of Housing, apparently also spoke to the CEO, Robert Pollock, the police, and the DWP. I had no legal redress available.

This grievance is that Anna Hill, Daniel Reynard, and Sarah Cafferkey, with the help of Carla Buey (Universal Credit), deliberately delayed identifying me to the council, and deliberately delayed so that rent arrears accrued, enabling Daniel Reynard to use this lie of mounting rent to come to my home unannounced and lie to evict me.

The refusal of access to Universal Credit by the UC and Cambridge teams exploited my fear of meetings. The DWP had already made adjustments, but all the staff needed to do was to keep insisting on a live meeting, and pretend that there was no way to identify me by email (which is what happened) and no way to provide rental payments in extenuating circumstances. Do I have to make a third claim for an injunction?

This is still going on now, as I recently received a hand-delivered letter from Daniel Reynard trying to evict me again. This time, the lie is his opinion that I will not have Universal Credit backdated. There is no evidence and no law; it is just his opinion read as fact. Meanwhile, Anna Hill pretends to contact the DWP after 13 months. Why she has not done so until now, I do not know.

What I know now is that Housing staff have withdrawn services. The clearest sign is that no housing officer emails have been responded to for 7 years. Another sign is taking 5 years to install a disability bathroom, with complaints repeatedly deleted. When it was finally installed in 2025, the tiles were peeling, covered in glue, and not laid in a pattern. I was also told I do not have a shed.

Other signs are more serious. In relieving my homelessness in August 2019, I was given a home without being told that it contained asbestos. This asbestos was in the ceiling, floor tiles, and parts of the bathroom. It stated that it was not to be disturbed, but the floor tiles were cracked. After two years, I found out about the asbestos from a report emailed to me by environmental health. This animosity has now escalated to lying to try to get me evicted.

I have held my secured tenancy since 19 August 2019, with no rent issues until Universal Credit began on 8 April 2025. In contrast, I have faced repeated unexplained hostility from the housing team.

I am asking you, as councillors, for your help to stop this, once again, before I apply for a restraining order against:

Anna Hill (Director of Housing, Cambridge City Council)

Daniel Reynard (Senior Housing Officer)

Sarah Cafferkey (Housing Officer, Cambridge City Council)

Carla Buey (Senior Work Coach, Universal Credit)

Below, I explain why the restraining order is needed before criminal complaints are finalised. It is clear from the contrast between their behaviour and the published guidance that they are deliberately choosing not to help at any stage.

# Statements Which may change as I update them.

The DWP knows of my fear of interviews that cause panic attacks. The DWP has made reasonable adjustments so that I can avoid interviews and still make claims for PIP. It is this that allowed the Housing and UC teams to construct a delay by refusing to provide the access that I need and that can be provided.

When I signed on to Universal Credit, I told the team of my adjustments with the DWP, and I asked for the same adjustments for my interviews with UC.

The team made fun of me by claiming that they have no policy for email. In contrast, there are JCP and DWP policies on email. Furthermore, Schedule 2 of the Claims and Payments Regulations (CP Regulations 2013) provides for electronic communication and signing, but the UC team continued to jeer.

# May 2025

On 8 May 2025, I made my Judicial Review (JR) application to the High Court. This was one day away from the 9 May 2025 claim closure deadline. Instead of an injunction, I received an agreement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) keeping my claim open. This order provides that my claim remains open and viable. Despite the fact that this is in the council's files, it was not referred to in Daniel Reynard's letter before action.

The JR claim was for email access to Universal Credit for my interview—the same interview that I do not have to attend for PIP.

Because the UC staff and Sarah Cafferkey claimed that they could not identify me, I had to make a JR application to get the interview moved to email.

The SSWP replied to my injunction application in my JR on 14 May 2025, claiming that my email did not exist and that the SSWP could not use email:

PIP     

"3. Paragraph 1 of the Claimant's draft order concerns PIP (pages A27 to A28, Claimant's bundle). Specifically, the Claimant seeks the following, which effectively amounts to requiring the court to issue a mandatory injunction against the Defendant: "Pending the final determination of this claim or further order, the Defendant must continue to provide assessment by email as agreed, and must not require the claimant to attend in person or telephone assessments"

"b. The Defendant does not consider that it has the legal powers to carry out a PIP assessment over email (see Regulation 9 of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013)."

This is obviously incorrect. This is a deliberate conflation of the wrong regulations. The correct regulation is "The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013" (also known as the Claims and Payments Regulations 2013).

You can see in the title that it includes PIP! Below, you can see that the regulation allows for email:

"“appropriate office” means— ... in the case of a person who is authorised or required by these Regulations to use an electronic communication for any purpose, an address to which such communications may be sent in accordance with Schedule 2;"

The court ruled that I could not have an injunction for PIP. For Universal Credit, they also declined the injunction but agreed that the SSWP would keep my claim open until the conclusion of the case.

Cite May 2025 order.

# June 2025

Desperate for help, I contacted the housing team, but Daniel Reynard and Sarah Cafferkey deliberately delayed my Universal Credit claim.

I received no answer from the housing officer email, which has been the case for 7 years. I had to complain to the council each time to get a response, and this time was no different. Daniel Reynard forwarded the request to Sarah Cafferkey, stating by email that he had never heard of landlord identification.

This was unreasonable. Daniel Reynard worked for the DWP during COVID-19 and was now a housing officer for the council, my landlord. The DWP guidance explicitly states that landlords can identify Universal Credit claimants, and it also states that councils do not need permission.

The contrast between the guidance and the actions of Sarah Cafferkey and Daniel Reynard shows that they were deliberately delaying identifying me for the purposes of my Universal Credit claim.

It is obvious that from April 2025 to the present, there have been ways to identify me, verify rent, and make the reasonable adjustments I require. However, these methods are not used—even when they are directly shown to them.

Sarah Cafferkey blamed everyone but herself for the delay. She claimed that the UC team would not let her help. Then, when I provided the DWP guidance to her, she suddenly insisted on having a meeting.

Once persuaded not to have the meeting and to accept permission to be my representative, there was silence from the UC team from my posting on 6 June 2025 until 10 June 2025, when Carla Buey, Customer Service Team Leader, stated that she would ignore the guidance:

"10 Jun 2025 at 12:20pm: Hi Ryan, In response to your complaint. To progress your Third Party Verification request, DWP requires you to complete, sign, and return the forms via the return envelope supplied. Whilst email may be your preferred option, this will not be accepted as confirmation of your consent or to verify your identity. Once DWP has been able to verify your identity, you will be able to access the advance function. If you have decided you would like your identity verified using the alternative options offered—of either a face-to-face appointment, a phone appointment with biographical questions, or a home visit—we would be happy to arrange this. Regards, Carla, Customer Service Leader"

I provided the guidance again and asked her if she had read it. I wanted to make sure she was aware that she was lying, but she knew that was the plan. Her response was not just to ignore the DWP guidance; she invented new rules to bypass the genuine guidance:

"11 Jun 2025 at 11:12am: Hi Ryan, Thank you for your message in relation to consent for verifying your identity to access Universal Credit. DWP requires you to complete, sign, and return the document for our retention. If you would prefer to come into the office to complete and sign the forms, this can be arranged. Sarah and Cambridge Jobcentre are not delaying your ability to access benefits and have given you opportunities to reduce delays which you have chosen to decline. Please be aware explicit consent can be used once a claimant has had their identity verified and has a live Universal Credit claim; at this stage you do not, as you have not had your identity verified. Regards, Carla, Customer Service Leader"

This was all done to delay my claim. It was now two months since I registered for Universal Credit, and the UC team was employing numerous gatekeeping tactics—from using the wrong name to delaying their responses for days.

I could now see that the UC team and Carla Buey were lying, so I sued them. A claim was filed through Money Claim Online (MCOL) against the UC staff on 20 June 2025. Within days, they identified me by email and through my landlord.

This contradicted what the SSWP told the High Court, what Carla Buey told me, and what Sarah Cafferkey was saying. Ultimately, it was Sarah Cafferkey and Wendy Beldin (defendant) who actually identified me on 25 June.

"On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 12:28, Sarah Cafferkey <Sarah.Cafferkey@cambridge.gov.uk> wrote:

    1. Dear Ryan, I can confirm that I have just received an email from UC asking me to verify your identification by confirming your tenancy details below. I have just responded and agreed with their statement.

       1. Hi Sarah, All I need to confirm is that the landlord has been reported as Cambridge City Council (City Homes) – do you represent them? If so, are you able to confirm the statements below for me please? If you can get back to me urgently, I would really appreciate it.

       2. Your rent is £108.64 per week. Your service charges are £5.62 per week. You moved to your current address on 12/08/2019. Your current address is 3 Caledon Way, Cambridge, CB4 2UT. [Sent by Wendy, Complex Needs Manager, identified later in an email from Sarah]

    2. Kind regards, Sarah Cafferkey

    3. Universal Credit Support Officer, Communities, Cambridge City Council | sarah.cafferkey@cambridge.gov.uk | 01223 458349 | cambridge.gov.uk | facebook.com/camcitco | twitter.com/camcitco

    My normal working days are Tue, Wed, Thurs and Friday. Let us know how we did! Click here to leave feedback."

Carla Buey responded with a condescending post in my journal. She gaslit me about the two-month wait, the two court claims, and my account almost being closed. I suspect the delay was intended to enable UC to close my account. Even though I required adjustments, Carla Buey took it upon herself to make none:

"25 Jun 2025 at 4:52pm:

Hi Ryan, Your identity has been verified using the Third Party Verification process as you requested. You can apply for a change of circumstances advance via your account and by calling the Service Centre. Please be aware you are required to attend a Gateway appointment as you have declared you are self-employed. This can either be conducted face-to-face in the Jobcentre or via a video appointment. I can also arrange for this to take place at Huntingdon Jobcentre if you would prefer. Please confirm your preferred option for an appointment and at which location. Please be aware your Universal Credit payments will not be calculated and released until you have completed this appointment and provided the relevant documentation. Your complaints have been escalated to our Complaints Resolution Team and will be answered in due course. Regards, Carla, Customer Service Leader"

UC deleted the complaints.

# July 2025 The Government Legal Department do not want to admit that I was identified by email

The SSWP then emailed the court to close the JR claim because I had been identified. However, they did not mention that I had been identified via email, as they had previously told the High Court that this was impossible.

"7 July 2025 Dear Sir/Madam AC-2025-LON-001439 DX 329401 Leeds 22 www.gov.uk/gld Your ref: AC-2025-LON-001439 Our ref: Z2505459/COD/HOI7

    1. Ryan Tremble-Niccolls v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

    2. I am writing on behalf of the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding the above case.

    3. The Defendant would like to update the court with regards to the current position in relation to the Claimant’s Universal Credit identification verification, which is one of the grounds of the Claimant’s claim. The Defendant has confirmed that the Claimant has now managed to successfully complete the identification verification process and can therefore proceed to the next step in his Universal Credit application.

    4. I hope this is of assistance to the court and should the court have any questions in relation to this update, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    5. Yours sincerely

    6. Catherine Dodson

    7. For the Treasury Solicitor

    8. D 07706991136

    9. E Catherine.Dodson@governmentlegal.gov.uk"

Between 25 June 2025 and 4 September 2025, there was a series of sarcastic messages claiming that reasonable adjustments had already been provided. Carla Buey pretended not to be involved in my claim because that was what I wanted. This deception was designed to let rent arrears accumulate so that Daniel Reynard would have grounds to visit. However, to comply with the pre-action protocol, the council needed to show they were attempting resolution.

Sarah Cafferkey had somehow found out that the complex needs team protecting me would be on leave. In her email, Sarah Cafferkey notes this:

"From: Sarah Cafferkey <Sarah.Cafferkey@cambridge.gov.uk>

Sent: 04 September 2025 17:44

To: Buey Carla JCP Customer Service Leader <CARLA.BUEY@DWP.GOV.UK>

Subject: FW: Tremble-Nicolls

Dear Carla,

I was advised by Annie Wolfe that Senior Management are dealing with this complex case, specifically Sabina Deriu and Cassie Conway. Having emailed both, I received responses indicating they are on leave until 15/9 and 4/10 respectively. It would appear that no one is currently dealing with this matter. As Mr. Tremble-Niccolls has been several months without payment and his rent arrears are accumulating, we need to try and get matters resolved as soon as possible. Please see my email below.

Kind regards,

Sarah Cafferkey

Universal Credit Support Officer, Communities, Cambridge City Council"

Sarah Cafferkey then collaborated with Carla Buey to produce a false reasonable adjustment rejection letter. Sarah Cafferkey had somehow discovered that the complex needs team would be on holiday until 15 September 2025, so she emailed UC and miraculously reached Carla Buey again. It was unreasonable to accept any decision from Carla Buey. She was not a decision-maker for the DWP; I was under the care of the complex needs team, not customer services. Sarah Cafferkey had witnessed Carla Buey lying in June 2025 regarding my identification, and she was aware that I had filed two court claims against the DWP, one of which named Carla Buey. Yet, Sarah Cafferkey accepted a decision from Carla Buey, who was disqualified from making such decisions for the reasons outlined above.

"Sent: 05 September 2025 13:13

To: Sarah Cafferkey <Sarah.Cafferkey@cambridge.gov.uk>

Subject: RE: Tremble-Nicolls

Hi Sarah,

Thank you for your email.

Whilst I appreciate you highlighting the ADM and requesting reasonable adjustments to undertake a commitment, a commitment cannot be considered until Mr. Tremble-Niccolls undertakes the actions explained in his Universal Credit account in relation to confirming the status of his self-employment.

This is because Mr. Tremble-Niccolls was a UC Migration customer due to being in receipt of Tax Credits for self-employment. DWP have offered Mr. Tremble-Niccolls a face-to-face, video, or phone call to undertake the gainfully self-employed appointment. I have also offered to have an alternative office undertake the appointment, which are suitable reasonable adjustments for this appointment type. Please be aware it is not appropriate to undertake this appointment type in writing, as it is an assessment of a customer's self-employment status resulting from an interactive interview between the claimant and the work coach. Mr. Tremble-Niccolls chose not to attend the gainfully self-employed appointment booked for him.

Mr. Tremble-Niccolls has been advised how he can declare a change of circumstances if he is no longer self-employed or receiving an income from self-employment, which will be considered and may negate the need for the gainfully self-employed interview.

A judge has agreed with DWP that we have offered suitable reasonable adjustments to Mr. Tremble-Niccolls, which are not to his liking.

Whilst it is an open legal case, Cambridge Jobcentre will continue to follow guidance and the advice of our Legal and Policy Teams.

Thanks,

Carla Buey"

Furthermore, it was unreasonable in public law terms to accept Carla Buey's response. Carla Buey included irrelevant details and excluded essential factors, none of which were substantiated by evidence. It was a malicious email manufactured to delay my Universal Credit claim.

Sarah Cafferkey forwarded this decision to me just hours before Daniel Reynard arrived on 11 September 2025. When Daniel Reynard arrived, he was aware that Carla Buey and Sarah Cafferkey had deliberately delayed my Universal Credit claim. This delay was evident because they took excessively long to act and ignored standard legal principles. They did this to facilitate eviction proceedings on 11 September 2025. Sarah Cafferkey delayed providing Carla Buey's decision until that day so that I would not have time to challenge it before Daniel Reynard arrived. Daniel Reynard arrived unannounced so that I could not review the situation before he fabricated his report.

Daniel Reynard's fabricated report, his unannounced visit, and his attempt to deprive me of an opportunity to defend against eviction carry criminal liability. His culpability is highlighted by the fact that even after I informed him I was recording the interaction, he still produced a false report and initiated eviction proceedings based on it. To further deprive me of time to challenge this, the following events occurred:

On 11 September 2025, Daniel Reynard attempted to evict me. I was alone and disabled, and he made an unannounced visit to fabricate a report.

As my landlord, he was legally required to provide at least 24 hours' notice before visiting, unless it was an emergency. This was not an emergency. 

The council's Income Policy and the courts discourage evicting tenants suffering from mental health issues and Universal Credit difficulties. Therefore, he used the unannounced visit as a pretext to write whatever he wanted. He heard that I was disabled and experiencing problems with Universal Credit, but he deliberately excluded this information from his report.

1. "Ryan Tremble-Niccolls 00:21: No, through your email. I copied in Sarah to explain what was going on. Yeah. So in a nutshell, I'm in my pyjamas, as you can see.

2. Daniel Income team 00:21: Yeah.

3. Ryan Tremble-Niccolls 00:22: So I'm suffering from depression and anxiety. It is making my communication with Universal Credit very difficult. I am also currently undergoing an autism assessment. So there are a lot of things happening with me—ADHD, dyslexia. The issue with Universal Credit, which Sarah (the landlord) helped me with, was that they seem to treat everyone the same.

4. Daniel Income team 01:15: Mmh."

This is not what he wrote:

'2. Notes - Mr. answered the door to me upon my second knock. He was very confident when speaking to me and stood for around 10-15 minutes unaided. He looked very well kept and the property was clean and tidy.'

He agitated me during the visit. Since he was there, I assumed he did not know what had happened, especially as he could not legally be there without notice.

It was only when he listened to me and then handed me a pre-written letter that I realized his concern was fake. Daniel Reynard then lied and tried to maintain that it was merely an advice letter.

He deliberately agitated me during the visit, claiming that I was swearing at him. When he persisted with this claim, I showed him my phone to prove I was recording and had evidence that he was lying. 

Daniel Reynard was determined to evict me. He arrived with a pre-written letter to initiate the eviction process, and nothing I said made any difference to him.

His actions seemed intended to cause harm. He knew I was recording him, that I was disabled, and that eviction would be inappropriate. Yet he compiled the report anyway, claiming I was well. This report was necessary for Anna Hill, the Director, to sign off on the eviction, which would force me to make a court appearance. 

The recording clearly shows that I explained my difficulties. Furthermore, the very reasons I was placed in social housing contradict Daniel Reynard's report.

On 16 September 2025, the council removed my housing officer to make it harder for me to dispute the Notice Seeking Possession (NOSP). The NOSP was dated 17 September 2025. Daniel Reynard sent it using a second-class stamp, even though the council's Income Policy mandates that NOSPs must be sent via first-class post. This was done to deliberately delay the arrival of the letter and hinder my ability to seek assistance. The NOSP arrived on 20 September 2025. Because Daniel Reynard and other officers were unreachable, I contacted senior management.

Anna Hill, Director of Housing, did nothing to assist me. Instead, she took steps to protect Daniel Reynard. In response to my warnings of legal action, she instructed me to wait. However, she communicated with Daniel Reynard and the legal team on 23 September 2025. It is clear that Daniel Reynard had failed to follow the proper eviction process, as the notice she was requesting takes weeks to prepare after an NOSP according to the Income Policy. By asking for these documents for the legal team, she demonstrated her awareness of Daniel Reynard's plan to evict me.

"From: Anna Hill

Sent: 23 September 2025 10:44

To: Daniel Reynard

Subject: FW: Letter seeking resolution before judicial review is started with the council 4pm 24 Sept 2025

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed

Hi Daniel,

Please see the email chain below that has gone to all Councillors, the directors, and the CEO. Can you give me the background to this please? I need this ASAP as Legal need to respond. They haven’t had any instructions, so they are asking whether you have raised this on PCOL? Although looking at the notes, is it just an NOSP that has been issued? Happy to speak if that’s easier than you typing.

Kind regards,

Anna

Anna Hill (she/her)"

Anna Hill then instructed the councillors not to assist me. Councillors are legally required to provide an interface between the council and residents, as outlined in the council's constitution and the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) workbooks.

Anna Hill left records in my housing file indicating that she stopped the councillors from replying to my emails:

"24/09/2025 00:00: Email from Councillor Gawtrope Wood after the local councillors were also contacted about the same matter. Response sent giving background of case."

And on:

"30/09/2025 00:00: Councillor Hossain emailed Samantha Shimmon re the UC/NOSP matter. Response sent providing info that was sent to the other Councillors. AH" (AH refers to Anna Hill).

# October 2025

I sent a Letter Before Action for Judicial Review. Anna Hill claimed that I was a 'mass complainer' and attempted to route the issue through the standard complaints system. However, the council's complaints policy states that legal matters of this nature cannot be resolved through the complaints procedure.

Sue Amner continued this facade to make me look like a mass complainer. To obscure the Judicial Review pre-action letter, she minimized it by referring to it in her complaint response as 'your comments from 2 October 2025'. She then appended several other unresolved complaints from previous months. The three complaints she added were:

(A) 05 Sep 2025 CAM756044: Complaint regarding CCC UC support.

(B) 10 Sep 2025 CAM704749: Complaint regarding noise, ASB, and garden/pavement issues.

(C) 24 Sep 2025 CAM127445: Complaint regarding staff failure to respond about an NOSP.

This was used to obscure the legal action:

Non-Complaint (D):

(D) 02 Oct 2025: A formal Letter Before Action (Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review) regarding the NOSP.

Alongside that Judicial Review, I sent a claim and particulars of claim. Gareth Chulow refused to assess my homelessness application without a phone interview. He pretended to log a complaint, but ignored me when I requested the complaint reference number. When I asked if he had read the homelessness guidance, which states that I can choose the format of the interview, he ignored me. He continued to call and subsequently wrote emails noting that I had not answered. He is part of the housing team working under Anna Hill.

Daniel Reynard wrote:

"On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 at 12:43, Daniel Reynard <Daniel.Reynard@cambridge.gov.uk> wrote:

Hi Ryan,

I hope you are well.

Please direct your enquiry to HousingOfficer@cambridge.gov.uk.

Kind regards,

Daniel Reynard, Income Officer, Cambridge City Council"

# November 2025

"From: Daniel Reynard <Daniel.Reynard@cambridge.gov.uk>

Sent: 5 November 2025 12:30

To: Ryan Niccolls <ryan.niccolls@gmail.com>

Cc: Paula.Still@p3charity.org; ACORN Cambridge <cambridge@acorntheunion.org.uk>; Sarah Cafferkey <Sarah.Cafferkey@cambridge.gov.uk>

Hi Ryan,

Thank you for the permission to discuss.

Our responses to your questions are going through our legal team and will be answered through them.

Kind regards,

Daniel Reynard, Income Officer, Cambridge City Council"

I then sent a warning email to the council—specifically CEO Robert Pollock, Anna Hill, the Monitoring Officer, and Daniel Reynard—asking if they would withdraw the NOSP that was based on falsehoods. They never responded. Consequently, I posted a video on YouTube. The video features the recording of Daniel Reynard with his report overlaid, showing the discrepancy between what he said and heard versus what he actually wrote.

Sue Amner tried to probe and confuse me for information just before she started her weekly December campaign. Importantly, she claimed that the decision to visit my home on 11 September 2025 had nothing to do with Carla Buey refusing contact on 5 September 2025.

"On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 10:23, Sue Amner <Sue.Amner@cambridge.gov.uk> wrote:

Dear Ryan,

I think you have confused two separate issues, so I am sorry if my last email wasn't as clear to you as I intended it to be. I will address each question below:

Why did the Cambridge City Council (CCC) ask Universal Credit (UC) on 4 September 2025 for a reasonable adjustment just before considering possession?

These two things are not related. As I said previously, the decision to issue you with a Notice Seeking Possession is based entirely on non-payment of rent and rising rent arrears. If there were any conversations with the DWP relating to reasonable adjustments, it would have been CCC acting on your behalf to try and get UC in payment for you.

What information or statement from Carla Buey specifically led you to continue with the possession process?

Again, these two issues are not connected. The decision to issue you with a Notice Seeking Possession is based entirely on non-payment of rent and rising rent arrears.

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have answered my questions at all, so can you please answer these so that we can move forward and work towards a solution. For your reference, the questions are listed here again:

1. I can see from your email that you have refused a home visit from the DWP. Can I ask why this was, please?

2. I am asking this as I can see you have received a home visit from the P3 charity recently, so I am wondering if you could consider a home visit from the DWP with Pauline from P3 in attendance to support you?

3. If that is not possible, is there someone else who could provide support to you during a home visit?

Thank you for your co-operation with this, Ryan.

Regards,

Sue Amner"

Sue Amner insisted, in relation to section 2.6(a), that I must provide all information to the DWP to establish a claim.

It took a YouTube video to stop Sue Amner. Throughout December 2025, she bombarded me with weekly texts and emails threatening to pass my details to the legal team for action.

Like Daniel Reynard, she threatened legal action based purely on an opinion—claiming that under section 2.6(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I had not provided the DWP with all the evidence required to process the claim. This was a lie.

It was a lie disguised as a helpful, genuine inquiry. She was asking me to prove a negative. She knew I could not prove that I had provided nothing, and she knew that under Universal Credit regulations, no commitments are required in extenuating circumstances, meaning it was impossible to provide 'nothing'. She first initiated this lie on 3 October 2025 to assist Anna Hill in diverting attention from Daniel Reynard. On that day, she used the complaints system to hide my Judicial Review pre-action letter and help frame me as a mass complainer. She took three unresolved complaints from months prior and lumped them together with a response to my Judicial Review letter before action, which she referred to as 'comments from 2 October'. This was designed to deprive me of a court resolution to my housing situation. It only stopped when I posted the video on YouTube.

These are exceptional circumstances in which the SSWP would provide access under UC Regulation 16.

Claimant commitment – exceptions

16.— [F1(1)] A person does not have to meet the basic condition to have accepted a claimant commitment if the Secretary of State considers that— (a)the person cannot accept a claimant commitment because they lack the capacity to do so; or (b)there are exceptional circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect the person to accept a claimant commitment.

I had to make another public post after Daniel Reynard made another unannounced visit on 14 February 2026. He brought a witness with him whom he did not introduce. He only needed a witness to proceed with eviction.

# February 2026

On 14 february he made another unnaoched vist, knocked on my door to hand me a accounts that could be posted.

On 8 July 2026 Daniel Reynard cam to deliver a letter claiming that I likely do not have a Universal claim. This letter is unsreasonable as their is no legal or evidential reason cited. 

# July 2026

Daniel Reynard and Anna Hill are continuing to pursue the eviction. DAniel reynard is making up evidene again on the 8 july 2026, and Anna Hill it pretending to help 13 July 2026. 

First with Anna Hill after 13 Months the Director of houing is now concerned enought to write. She is not concerned. This is cover for DAniel REynard to try to evict before the DWP actually have to make a decision.

The DWP update is that the GLd continue to lie. As you sent above they just write anything. A few weeks ago the court refused to cancel the mediation with the DWP. They agreed that the DWP were not the defendant. But they also did not remove any of their paperwrkorrk filed. So I had to go to meadition on the  9 July 2026. 

On the 9 July 2026 I grew supcious about how the councrt could claim that I did not turn up for mediation. So I emailed them and said that I would record for the whole 2 hours, to prove that I was aiting for the mediation. The mediation was cancelled.

If the court said that I did not turn up I would have had to appeal. Which would have been the end of my case against Carla Buey's decision onf the 10, 11 June, and 5 Sept 2025. 

But it would not be my end of cases asaginst the DWP. I have won the JR case. The DWP said that I could not have email. Not for PIP, and Not for UC. But schedule 2 of the cP regs says the opposite. It covers both PIP and UC and is for claims and awards.

This is relevant to Daniel Reynard who is trying again to construct a situation where I would not, or it is thought that their will not be any evidence. So like the DWP, Council. I used email and a recordeing to make my own evidence of waiting for mediation. 

Daniel Reynard is trying to evict me. He know that he has to satify the pre-action protocol. Part 2.6 (b) because I satify all the others. (a)a and (c)

In (b) he desparetly needs evidence in order to make is seem that I I will reasonably receive UC. 

 "PART 2 POSSESSION CLAIMS BASED UPON RENT ARREARS: 

 2.6 Possession proceedings for rent arrears *should not be started against a tenant who can demonstrate* that   (b) there is a *reasonable expectation of eligibility for housing benefit* or universal credit (housing element); and 

So like before he makes it up. Just like he made up that I was well, and had no problems he is fabricating evidence in order to evict me. But he is going to ignore anything that I write in retrun anyway. son this is for anyone in the same situation. 

I have a fabircation trying to say that I will not get UC:

"I understand that you are still in *dispute with the DWP over whether you should attend a meeting to verify your status as self-employed*, but despite us offering help and support over the last twelve months with this we are no closer to any UC being awarded to you and your arrears continue to increase.

*At this stage it is very unlikely that the DWP would backdate your claim*, but that would of course be their decision."

The only thing that is relevant is *At this stage it is very unlikely that the DWP would backdate your claim*

Lets talk about backdating. If I required back dating it wold not be limited to 1 month. In Miah, Miah v Work and Pensions Secretary (CA)[2024] EWCA Civ 186; [2024] 1 WLR, the Court of appeal said that the SSWP is not limited to any time when entering a start date. Although some part says month the actual decision is not mitted to a month. The SSWP can treat a claim as being made at an earlier date:

"(5) On 16 April 2020 the claimant was informed of the DWP's decision to award him UC from the date of claim.

9 The power to make regulations of the kind referred to in section I (I) is conferred on the Secretary of State by section 5(I) of the Act, which reads (so far as material for our purposes):

"Regulations may provide— (a) for requiring a claim for benefit to which this section applies to be made by such person, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed; (b) for *treating such a claim made in such circumstances as may be prescribed as having been made at such date earlier or later* than that at which it is made as may be prescribed; (c) for permitting such a claim to be made, or treated as if made, for a period wholly or partly after the date on which it is made.."

'15 It is clear, and not in dispute, that the intended effect of the backdating provisions is that if the specified conditions are met a claimant will be entitled to be awarded benefit in respect of a period of (up to) a month prior to the date of claim, which I will refer to as "the past period". It is less clear how the language used produces that effect. What the words of the regulation literally require the Secretary of State to do is to is to "extend the time for claiming [UC]" to the actual claim date. As Mr de la Mare observed, that formula is appropriate to a conventionally expressed limitation period in respect of a past liability, but it is not a good fit with the case of a forward-looking claim. However, inept though the drafting is, the words can and should be read purposively so as to have the intended effect. That could be done by reading them either (a) as deeming the claim to have been made at the start of the past period or (b) as deeming the past period to have started at the actual date of claim. In my view the former alternative is correct because it corresponds to the language of section 5 (I)(b) of the SSAA 1992: the claim is "treat[ed] . . . as having been made at *[a] date earlier* . . . than that at which it is madoo le mou be dabatable whather so the lInnar"

16 First, they are not self-executing: that is, they require a decision by the Secretary of State to extend time in the particular case. That is apparent not only from the way paragraph (2) is worded — "the Secretary of State is to extend ..."—but from the fact that in each case a decision has to be made about whether as a matter of fact the specified conditions are satisfied. 

17 Secondly, they do not impose any express obligation on a claimant wishing to invoke the backdating provisions to make any application or request to that effect, or therefore to supply evidence or information necessary for a decision to be made about whether to extend time.

So I guess that it is likely that I will get backdating because it is what the SSWP can do.

That is not likely to satfiy Daniel Reynard. Even thoug the SSWP can backdate a claim to any date I think that he will just come up with some other reason to evict me.

So lets look at why what he is saying in a letterbefroe acttion is not actually lawful. Public lawfful.

Like Carla Buey, Daneil Reynard is not an expert in Unversal Credit. He had not heard of landlord ideritication. Even when it was shown to him. So no one will ba able to accept DAniel Reynard as a expect, opinong saying, "*At this stage it is very unlikely* that the DWP would backdate your claim, but that would of course be their decision."

Which means that he basing his decision to send a legal letter on it being unlikely. 

But he is not that certatin as he says: "*but that would of course be their decision*" which is contradictory. Either they are not going to back date or that are?

He is hedging his bets that I will say nothing, and he will get to evict me.

DAniel Reynard does not want to wait for the UK justice system for him, he is taking personally and willing to do anything. 

But I am I like to win either claim against the SSWP and or Carla Buey.

The JR claim wgait that SSWP is already won by me. I aksed for email idetification on the april 2025, made a clime on 8 may 2025, and the SSWP told the high court that it was no possible on 14 May 2025, and on the 9 June 2025. Then I was idtified by email on the 25 June 2025.

So I have won that part of the JR, for UC. The other part was that there was no agreement for email PIP, and non face to face. The SSWP told the high court that there was no email. But they told the high court about the wrong email.

The SSWP

.

Lets look at what he is saying from a legal stand point. 

"I understand that you are *still in dispute with the DWP* over whether you should attend a meeting to verify your status as self-employed, but despite us offering help and support over the last twelve months with this we are no closer to any UC being awarded to you and your arrears continue to increase.

At this stage it is very unlikely that the DWP would backdate your claim, but that would of course be their decision."

DAniel Reynard premis of back dating is wrong. Vecasue I am not making askig for back dating. Becase I still have a claim, and I am awaiting for my award. 

Backdating claims

Reansional

Daniel Reynard is trying to create a legal basis to evict me based on his opinon. He needs his opion to ffulfill an applicatioin to evict my under the pre-action proteol 2.6 (b) there is a reasonable expection. He believedd that his opinion that I would not get UC was a strong enough reason to proceed with an eviction. This is not reasonable. He wants to make evidence so tha he has a reasonable excsues to contact me. For him to complay eith the pre-action protocol he mst have a reasonable excsuse

# I will take you through his letter

He tries to make sure that my case is one that should have an eviction. He will not even read what I write. For most the letter sounds reasonable. But it is not the lagel standard of reaosnable. REaonable is based follwoing law. And also having some evidencet to refere to. All the evidence he preovides is of the ammount of arreass. 

Remoeber he is trying to prove to a judge that I should be evicted and the only evidence is the ammount of arrears. That he himself caused. 

He is trying to say that his opinon that it is not likely that the SSWP will back dates is reaonable

He is not a DWP expert for a court to take his word as an a opionion of how it is likely. And he never quotes any law, regulations to say that. it is likely.

He is using conclusionanry words that seem to show working out, but there is no working out underneet  it is just his opinon that

"At this stage it is very unlikely that the DWP would backdate your claim, but that would of course be their decision."

He is trying to claim that this this is an reaonable expextion.

(b) there is a *reasonable expectation of eligibility for housing benefit* or universal credit (housing element); and 

"1. I am writing to inform you that the arrears on your account as of week beginning 06/07/2026 now stand at £6244.09. I have added a rent statement with this letter."

As epxplained above the arreears were cause by his UC and Ho team delaying. I have explained how to tell that this is deliberate. They needed the delay for DAniel REynard to come round based on lies to try and evict me.

DAniel Reynard is stating eviction notice based on my disabilty. This is called iderect discarmination. He is stating that it does not matter if your disabilty stopps interviews I am going to persue an eviction because I want to. 

See my recording of 11 Sept 2025 were he has no ideat about reasonable adjustments and says I have to follow UC terms.

I would like to follow the terms set out in UC reg 16, for extenating cirucmacnes.

"2. Since your Housing Benefit was stopped just over a year ago we have only received 50 towards the cost of your accommodation."

Daniel Reynard started eviction based on a false statement. He is now using the circumstance he created to justify another attempt at falsy evicting.  

He was not legally able to start an eviction, if I was trying to pay rent. I stopped as soon as I recived the 17 NOSP 2025.

"3. I understand that you are still in dispute with the DWP over whether you should attend a meeting to verify your status as self-employed, but despite us offering help and support over the last twelve months with this we are no closer to any UC being awarded to you and your arrears continue to increase."

This is not the Universal Credit law. 

DAniel Reynard has not offered any help over last 12 months.

Unless he means lying to evict me.

And he, and Sarah Cafferty lying abou access to UC.

"4. At this stage it is very unlikely that the DWP would backdate your claim, but that would of course be their decision."

The SSWP of state can change any date at to anything on a claim for universal credit. 

I have a claim that once the award is made, the claim date starts at the first date.

So what he, and others said, as help to avoid the interview is claim that a change of cicumcstanced will remove the need for an interview. I heard this nonsene from everyone.

It is nonsne because if you have no award, and have made a claim, any change of circumstances will change your claim date.

Further, interviews in universal credit cannot be avoided. I am asksing dfor an adjustment to how my interviews are conducted.

Had I takent this advice I would not have a claim to go fight for.

But importantly what he is saying is that I have tried an failed and should just pay money or be evicted. 

"Due to the level of arrears and the fact that you are no closer to resolving your dispute with the DWP, we now have no alternative but to issue court proceedings to repossess your home."

He wants to avoid the court prooceedure. I have two claims for UC, and he no

# Conclusion

What I have learned from this is that I need to make these issues public. The council has withdrawn its services from me for years, and Cambridgeshire authorities have followed suit. I have no criminal convictions, no history of rent arrears prior to this, and no history of anti-social behaviour (ASB). Yet, since 2019, the council has decided not only to withdraw services but to repeatedly attempt to evict me and cause me harm. They have done this for clearly improper purposes. I do not meet any of the criteria for eviction, yet it is being pursued. Conversely, I meet all the criteria to have a paper-based assessment or to have Universal Credit awarded under extenuating circumstances, yet that has not happened.

I am publicly asking the councillors to help me before I apply for a restraining order against Anna Hill, Daniel Reynard, Sarah Cafferkey, and Carla Buey.

Regards,

Ryan Tremble-Niccolls

3 Caledon Way

CB4 2UT

# Appendix

Crimes:

- Protection from Eviction

- Protection from Harassment

- Misconduct in Public Office