Conduct complaint to house of commons parliamentary commissioner - Conduct of Daniel Zeichner MP Cambridgeshire

Complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

16 Sept 2026

Re: Daniel Zeichner, Member of Parliament for Cambridgeshire

This complaint is brought by [Redacted] and Ryan Tremble-Niccolls. [Redacted] is disabled and would not be able to make this complaint by herself.

The Allegation

We allege that between 8 June and 15 September 2026, during [Redacted]'s casework, Daniel Zeichner MP pursued a course of conduct against us — through himself, his staff, and other staff — misrepresenting the PHSO, and DWP policy, and material facts in order to frustrate us and to prevent the progression of our complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. An investigation which would be in the public interest.
This conduct involved corrupting the PHSO and the DWP into misrepresenting the policy of the government:

Action which was bullying of staff by “preventing someone from undertaking their role or following agreed policies and procedures” by directing

The PHSO to omit exceptional circumstances and focus on requiring a final letter.
The DWP excluded [Redacted], and her complaint from an investigation.

Action by disregarding the law, and putting people in harm's way by misrepresenting the PSHO and DWP guidance so that the DWP would not be investigated was not in the public interest for personal interest.

This conduct would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.:

The bullying and harassment of staff as above and of a disabled person, [Redacted]..
The corruption of the PSHO and DWP by directing them as above.
The disregard for and of the law as above to ignore guidance.
This would protect the UC staff from misapplying DWP and Government policy and therefore harm the public interest.
A signed PSHO form was required by PHSO guidance, and asked for. But instead referrals were made without a signature knowing they would be refused.
The decision made by the PSHO was false, because you had not signed the PSHO form. But claimed that they had rejected it.
Claiming that others were responsible for the decision not to investigate when you had told them not to investigate,
Knowing that the DWP investigation without including [Redacted], having her complaint modified and not confirmed will be a breach of natural justice.
Knowing that this was harmful and would not result in any justice to [Redacted], or the public interest.

This was a breach of paragraphs 1, 2, and 11 of the Code of Conduct 2023.
We rely on Procedural Protocol paragraph 18(c), read together with Code paragraph 11, to permit the Commissioner and the Committee to investigate this matter. We also understand that although we may allege that laws have been broken, this does not restrict the Commissioner from deciding to investigate disregard for or of the law or guidance. The Commissioner has treated corruption as a very clear signal of action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons, and has treated repeated disregard for the law in the same way.

The Course of Conduct: 8 June to 15 September 2026

Daniel Zeichner MP pursued a course of conduct against us from 8 June to 15 September 2026 in order not to progress the casework.

Background to the complaint

On 8 June 2026, a safeguarding letter was sent to Daniel Zeichner detailing and evidencing that the Universal Credit team had lied about regulations in order to prevent [Redacted] from accessing her Universal Credit health benefits. The lies included fabricating "medical evidence criteria" that do not exist in DWP official guidance, and a disability adjustment that was put in place temporarily but which we later discovered should always have been permanent. We have heard nothing about the safeguarding investigation, or about it being referred to the Work and Pensions Select Committee.
On 8 June 2026 at 17:04, Daniel Zeichner sent a canned response that did not engage with anything stated in the safeguarding letter. No deadline was set for replying to the safeguarding issues raised.
On 9 June 2026, I asked for a meeting to discuss this further. He did not reply until 18 June, and only offered a video call on 3 July for ten minutes.

10 minute casework call Friday 3 July 2026 at 17:20

At the video call on Friday 3 July 2026 at 17:20, Daniel Zeichner and his aide were present. He provided nothing that would suggest he was helping us. An MP can write to the minister, raise a parliamentary question, suggest a change to the law, suggest actions to progress the claim, or refer maladministration to the PHSO. Instead, after hearing how the DWP staff had deliberately withheld [Redacted]'s evidence from the decision maker — which then caused a sanction — he said, or words to that effect, that perhaps they were doing it because of me, and that he had heard good things about the Universal Credit team. He provided no solution, no feedback, and did not ask us to prove any of what we said. There were no next steps and no follow-up. He told us to wait. We had been waiting since 19 May 2026.
On 18 June 2026 at 14:32, I thanked him for the appointment and asked for a date for information about the safeguarding letter.

The request to sign the PSHO form On 11 August 2026 at 18:45

On 11 August 2026 at 18:45, I emailed Daniel Zeichner asking him to sign the PHSO referral form, which was attached. The email stated:

"[Redacted] is aggrieved by the DWP, since 19 May 2026, maladministration of her benefits claim, has and continues to cause hardship and injustice. She is experiencing suicidal ideation. Her payments have stopped. No complaints have received an official reply. Evidence was passed to you showing she was deliberately sanctioned. Sign and send her complaint to the PHSO via email to mp@ombudsman.org.uk."

I understood that he was not helping, and so informed him that I would be approaching other MPs.
In the PHSO complaint form attached to this email, we stated the reason why a final response letter was not required, and cited the PHSO's own published guidance:

"If a complainant has not started or attempted local resolution then we will normally decline to investigate the complaint at that stage as being 'premature: local resolution not started'. However, there could be exceptional circumstances in which we would consider waiving that requirement so each should be considered on its merits. For example, if the complainant was suffering particular hardship, had a terminal illness or where it was clear that the relationship between the complainant and the organisation had broken down completely."

MP Ignoring the request to sign the PSHO form On 12 August 2026 at 09:29

On 12 August 2026 at 09:29, Daniel Zeichner's office dismissed my request for signing by reframing it as a mere referral, stating referral repeatedly:

"You have asked Daniel Zeichner MP to refer [Redacted]'s complaint… The MP is prepared to make a referral on her behalf. The MP will nonetheless refer the case to the PHSO… We will draw these points to the PHSO's attention when making the referral…"

This email also made it obvious in another way that Daniel Zeichner was not going to help. He was explicitly stating that he would treat related items as separate. He was going to treat the PHSO guidance — which provided that a final letter was not needed — as separate from the evidence that supported using that guidance. And then he was going to present this separation to the PHSO, meaning the PHSO would inevitably demand a final letter. His office stated:

"We have noted the exceptional circumstances outlined in the material you have provided. In particular, your submission states that local resolution has not been possible because complaints have been handled by the same team that is the subject of the complaint, that no substantive complaint responses have been received despite repeated attempts to engage with the process, and that delays have prevented access to the Independent Case Examiner.

We also note the reasons advanced in support of premature consideration by the Ombudsman, including the alleged hardship arising from the suspension of benefit payments, concerns regarding [Redacted]'s wellbeing, and the contention that there has been an irreversible breakdown in the relationship with the department. We will draw these points to the PHSO's attention when making the referral."

Daniel Zeichner was deciding — not the Ombudsman. His statement that "the decision whether to investigate rests entirely with the Ombudsman" rang hollow when he was the one deciding what the Ombudsman would see and how it would be framed. There was still no signed form.
On 12 August 2026 at 10:10, I put the evidence and guidance back together in reply: "I am sure that the evidence does meet the threshold for discretion as noted in the PHSO's latest policy V23." I asked him either to help or to refer the matter to another MP. I also copied the Ombudsman into the correspondence, given the repeated referrals without a signed form.

MP Ignoring the request to sign the PSHO form On 27 August 2026 at 17:51

On 27 August 2026 at 17:51, Daniel Zeichner forwarded what he presented as the PHSO's decision. It was his own opinion, regurgitated. This had been foreshadowed in his earlier correspondence, and the PHSO's reply of 27 August 2026 at 13:29 proved it by opening with his words: "As you mentioned, in order to successfully refer a case to us… we would need to see that what we call 'local resolution'…" A final letter is a local resolution. But there was no mention at all of exceptional circumstances.

The request to sign the PSHO form On 27 August 2026 at 20:02

On 27 August 2026 at 20:02, I asked again whether a signed form had been provided: "Can you clarify whether a signed form was provided to the PHSO? In any event please return a signed PHSO form." I also explained why the PHSO's response was incorrect and provided the guidance again: "I would like to provide feedback about the advice the PHSO gave your aide. It is critically wrong. As you already know, the PHSO can proceed without a local resolution. '7.4 [In] exceptional circumstances where we may decide to consider a premature complaint. For example, if the complainant is suffering particular difficulties, has a terminal illness or where it is clear that the relationship between the complainant and the organisation has broken down completely.'"

MP Ignoring the request to sign the PSHO form On 28 August 2026 at 11:29

On 28 August 2026 at 11:29, the reply again ignored the request to sign the form or provide evidence of having done so. Daniel Zeichner deflected: "I can confirm that my office forwarded the complaint form." He treated the corrupted PHSO response as proof that his referral was proper: "The fact that I subsequently received a substantive response from the Ombudsman indicates that the referral and accompanying material were received and considered." He again mocked the idea that he had any responsibility for the outcome: "As you will appreciate, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is independent of Members of Parliament."
On 2 September 2026 at 08:36, in a further diversion and delay, Daniel Zeichner caused the DWP to send an email. He then explained the reality of it later that day at 10:32.
This was a serious blow to the fairness of having the complaint pursued. The DWP stated: "all of the issues raised will therefore be considered together as part of a single complaint investigation under reference CMPT12026/52426."
This was the third time the complaint was being started at stage one. We were being sent backwards, not forwards. [Redacted] and I were also being excluded from it entirely: only the DWP and Daniel Zeichner were involved. It was clear that the complaint would be reframed and made as weak as possible, because at no point were we asked to confirm the final complaint. The DWP target date for response was 1 October 2026 — thirty days, not the standard fifteen days. Everything that natural justice requires had been removed with Daniel Zeichner's help.
On 3 September 2026, the day after the single complaint investigation began, the Universal Credit team signalled that the investigation would yield nothing by booking a meeting that addressed the very matter at the heart of the complaints. There had been no such meeting when the UC team thought the PHSO would be investigating. Now a meeting was set contrary to the DWP and government guidance on the Conditional Earnings Threshold.

MP Ignoring the request to sign the PSHO form On 4 September 2026 at 10:16

On 4 September 2026 at 10:16, Daniel Zeichner again tried to misrepresent that he was not involved and was helping. In reality he was telegraphing that he had convinced the PHSO to ignore their own guidance: "I asked the PHSO to clarify whether your circumstances had been considered against its published guidance on exceptional circumstances, including cases where there may be particular difficulties affecting a complainant or where the relationship between the complainant and the organisation has broken down. The PHSO has explained that it is very unusual for it to begin an investigation before the organisation concerned has completed its own complaints process and had a full opportunity to respond. It advises that…"
As before, he was stating exactly what was needed for the PHSO to investigate under exceptional circumstances — and then claiming that the PHSO had decided not to apply those very provisions.

The request to sign the PSHO form On 9 September 2026 at 16:04

On 9 September 2026 at 16:04, I asked him to sign the form again: "I would like you to sign the form so [Redacted] can have the PHSO investigate the maladministration by the UC Cambridge team. I know I cannot force you to sign it, but the form is attached. Please decide either way so that I can move on to other MPs. And either contact PACAC or the Parliamentary Commissioner to have a new MP assigned to me."

Explanation of no signed PSHO form On 10 September 2026 at 17:17

On 10 September 2026 at 17:17, I replied to an aide who was trying to explain that Daniel Zeichner was doing his best, citing dates when referrals had been sent to the PHSO. I tried to explain the reality: "You have misunderstood what is happening. Without a signed form, no matter how many referrals are sent the PHSO will not start."

MP Ignoring the request to sign the PSHO form On 11 September 2026 at 08:51

On 11 September 2026 at 08:51, [DZ’s senior caseworker name Redacted], Daniel Zeichner's senior caseworker, replied. His stated purpose was to clarify matters: "I am concerned that there may be a misunderstanding about the current position, so I hope it may be helpful if I clarify matters." Actions speak louder than words.
Without providing a signed form, he stated: "For that reason, the present position is not that the complaint is unable to proceed because of a missing signature. Rather, it is that the Ombudsman has advised that the complaint should continue through the DWP's formal complaints procedure." The signature had first been requested on 11 August 2026. No signed form had been provided at any point.

The last email explanation of dishonesty in not signing the PSHO form On 11 September 2026 at 11:46

On 11 September 2026 at 11:46, I made the position plain:

"Thank you for your message. I will approach other MPs. Since no assistance is being provided. For example, I have repeatedly asked for a copy of the signed form, but nothing has been provided. I have shown that this PHSO message is not a genuine PHSO decision. I have also shown that an investigation excluding the complainant is unfair. None of this will result in an effective investigation into the harm that continues.

No one can make Daniel Zeichner or any MP sign the PHSO form. See 2.17. However, claiming that others are stopping the investigation, when there is no cogent evidence of this, is irrational and unreasonable, and false.
In relying on the PHSO and DWP not signing the form is not honest.
It lacks integrity to rely on the PHSO's advice when that advice is proven flawed. It is flawed because it does not follow the PHSO guidance 2.17 on exceptional circumstances. Flawed because your office invited it to be flawed, she says, 'As you mentioned, in order to successfully refer a case to us'. It is also flawed because the decision claims to be a decision letter but contains none of the details of a proper refusal letter under PHSO 3.109."

On 15 September 2026, Daniel Zeichner still deflected by claiming that others were making the decisions, not him. He still provided no signed PSHO form.

Allegation 1: Breach of Paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct 2023

Paragraph 1 provides:

"Members must treat their staff and all those visiting or working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect."

The Procedural Protocol on bullying provides:

"2.3 Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour involving an abuse or misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, undermined, humiliated, denigrated or threatened. Power does not always mean being in a position of authority and can include both personal strength and the power to coerce through fear or intimidation.

2.4 Like harassment, bullying can take the form of physical, verbal and non-verbal conduct. Bullying behaviour may be in person, by telephone or in writing, including emails, texts or online communications such as social media. It may be persistent or an isolated incident and may manifest obviously or be hidden or insidious. Whether conduct constitutes bullying will depend on both the perception of the person experiencing the conduct and whether it is reasonable for that person to have perceived the conduct as bullying.

2.5 Elements of bullying may include, but are not limited to: … Overbearing or intimidating levels of supervision or micro-management, including preventing someone from undertaking their role or following agreed policies and procedures."

Daniel Zeichner was directing staff to ignore agreed policies and procedures.
The PHSO was told to repeat what Daniel Zeichner had told her, in breach of the PHSO's own guidance. This is clear from the PHSO's response of 27 August 2026 at 13:29, in which she opened with "As you mentioned…" — demonstrating that the PHSO Intake Operations Manager was repeating what she had been told by Daniel Zeichner's office, rather than applying the published guidance independently.
It was also clear from the PHSO's response of 27 August 2026 that it was not made in accordance with the PHSO policy on exceptional circumstances. The response dealt only with the general local resolution requirement:
"In order to successfully refer a case to us, a formal complaint must be made in writing to the organisation in question and be in receipt of its written response (or responses) addressing the issues that have been raised. Whilst we appreciate [Redacted]'s frustrations, we would need to see that what we call 'local resolution' (the organisations complaint procedure) has been fully exhausted before we can consider her complaint."
However, the PHSO's own published guidance expressly provides for exceptional circumstances in which a premature complaint may be considered without a final letter:
"2.74 There are some exceptional circumstances where we may decide to consider a premature complaint. For example, if the complainant is suffering particular difficulties, has a terminal illness or where it is clear that the relationship between the complainant and the organisation has broken down completely.
2.75 If the organisation has provided a Duty of Candour response but no local resolution response, then we should consider whether there is any merit in looking further at the complaint even without a local resolution letter.
2.76 If we decide not to require a complainant to have completed previous procedures, the intake caseworker should record this on Dynamics 365 and explain why we should consider the case now. (Policy requirement)"
The involvement of the DWP Complaints Resolution Manager on 2 September 2026 at 08:36 also suggests that he was directed to ignore policy.
This was at least the third time a stage one complaint had been started without progressing to stage two. This latest complaint, running from 2 September to 1 October 2026, would take thirty days — exceeding the normal fifteen-day policy once allocated.
The complaint would exclude us from the process and reframe the complaint without clarifying it with us or asking us for evidence. This is not how complaints are supposed to work. To be excluded procedurally in this way is a breach of natural justice.

Allegation 2: Breach of Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct 2023

Paragraph 2 provides:
"Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest."
The test applied by the Commissioner is: (a) was there a conflict between the personal and public interest? (b) if yes, did the Member resolve this conflict in favour of his own personal interest?
The Commissioner applied this test in the case of Margaret Ferrier MP and found that the COVID-19 regulations were made in the public interest. Margaret Ferrier placed her own personal interest — not wishing to self-isolate immediately or in London — over the public interest of avoiding possible risk of harm to health and life for those she came into contact with after receiving a positive COVID-19 test. Her disregard of the law and the public interest constituted a breach of paragraph 2.
The PHSO guidance is provided to protect the public from maladministration. The MP filter and the exceptional circumstances provisions exist for the PHSO to protect the public.
Daniel Zeichner repeatedly ignored the existence of these provisions in order to prevent an investigation into DWP maladministration. From his email of 12 August 2026 at 09:29, through his forwarding of the corrupted PHSO response on 27 August 2026 at 17:51, to his final deflection on 15 September 2026, an investigation into the DWP would plainly be in the public interest. By blocking it, he was placing his personal interest — in not acting, in not making a decision, and in not confronting the DWP — above the public interest. He resolved this conflict in favour of himself, repeatedly, over a period of three months.

Allegation 3: Breach of Paragraph 11 of the Code of Conduct 2023

Paragraph 11 provides:

"Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally."

Corruption

The Commissioner has found that an MP's involvement in corruption causes significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons. In the case of Scott Benton MP, the Commissioner stated at paragraph 54:

"The Commissioner's opinion is that this rule was breached. He concludes that 'Mr Benton made comments to the effect that he and other Members were "for sale". Such an impression, in my opinion, would cause significant damage; it is of a type that corrodes public trust in the integrity and decency of their elected representatives.'"

At paragraph 55, the Commissioner added:

"I am also satisfied that the damage is not limited to Mr Benton's reputation alone because he implied that he spoke on behalf of other Members and could vouch for the actions that other Members would be willing to take. Mr Benton gave the impression that this behaviour was commonplace in Parliament, which on his own account was a lie. … even in the context of the fictitious scenario in which Mr Benton thought he found himself, the people to whom he was speaking might well have spread the word to others in their own company or far wider that Members of Parliament were susceptible to corruption of this kind."

It matters not that the corruption was directed by Daniel Zeichner rather than at him. Daniel Zeichner repeatedly claimed that he was not responsible for telling the PHSO what to do. But every email — both the invitation to the PHSO and the responses that followed — was sarcastic as to whom the PHSO was following.
The PHSO showed that she had been told what to do by Daniel Zeichner. In her response of 27 August 2026 at 13:29, she opened with "As you mentioned…"
Nobody was able to deal with the exceptional circumstances of the case, because Daniel Zeichner ensured that no one would.

Disregard for the Law

This conduct also demonstrates a disregard for the policies and law of the PHSO and the Code of Conduct.
An MP was directing the PHSO to agree with his interpretation of the guidance, which was clearly the opposite of the actual published policy:
"2.74 There are some exceptional circumstances where we may decide to consider a premature complaint. For example, if the complainant is suffering particular difficulties, has a terminal illness or where it is clear that the relationship between the complainant and the organisation has broken down completely."
He spent one entire email 12 August 2026 at 09:29 making the point that he was going to tell the PHSO that no final letter was attached. He did this after he claimed to have reviewed [Redacted]'s Form containing the PHSO guidance.
We also note the reasons advanced in support of premature consideration by the Ombudsman, including the alleged hardship arising from the suspension of benefit payments, concerns regarding [Redacted]'s wellbeing, and the contention that there has been an irreversible breakdown in the relationship with the department. We will draw these points to the PHSO's attention when making the referral.
It was directly after this that the ombudsman ignored the exceptional circumstances. This demonstrates a disregard for the law, for PHSO policy, and for PHSO guidance.

Natural Justice

This disregard continued when, on 2 September 2026, the DWP was directed to apply a complaints procedure that was not contained in any complaints policy and was the opposite of natural justice.
It excluded the claimant from the process, reformulated the complaint without her input, did not clarify the complaint with us, and delayed the complaint once again. The DWP set a response date of 1 October 2026 — thirty days, not the standard fifteen.
This was at the insistence of Daniel Zeichner MP.
That an MP was involved in corrupting the PHSO on 27 August 2026, and then the DWP from 2 September 2026 — in refusing to permit investigation based on what those bodies were being told by the MP — would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.

The Nolan Principles: Dishonesty

Daniel Zeichner exhibited a level of dishonesty that was oppressive and overbearing.
He did not sign the form. He ignored repeated requests to provide a copy of the form, from the first request on 11 August 2026 at 18:45 through to 15 September 2026.
He saw the guidance and claimed it did not apply, demanding a final letter and telling the PHSO to demand a final letter. The PHSO's response of 27 August 2026 at 13:29 confirmed that she was repeating what he had told her.
He did this repeatedly.
This is not a complaint that Daniel Zeichner did not sign the form. It is a complaint that he was repeatedly dishonest about whether he had signed the form or not. He knew that a signed form was needed, and he repeatedly refused to provide one — knowing that without it the referral could not be completed. On 11 September 2026 at 08:51, his senior caseworker [DZ’s senior caseworker name Redacted] went so far as to deny that the missing signature was the issue at all.

# Parliamentary case requirements

2.16 In parliamentary cases a complaint must be made in writing to a MP and then referred to us by that MP **(Legal requirements)**. This is unless the case is brought to us under the {++Victims and Prisoners Act++} as detailed below. This must include the consent of the person aggrieved and a request from the MP that we investigate the complaint. **(Legal requirements)** The complainant has to make the complaint to the MP in writing but there is no requirement for the referral from the MP to us to be.

2.17 We do not need the complainant to provide written consent to the MP to pass the case to us. The intake caseworker should check that the complainant knows the MP has referred the complaint to us (for example, have they signed a complaint form). **(Policy requirement)** This is because without their consent the case cannot be properly made.

2.18 A referral that clearly comes from an MPs office and is signed by a member of their staff on their behalf as part of their delegated duties, can be treated as a properly made for our purposes.

2.19 If the Intake caseworker has any concerns over whether the referral is genuine, they should check with the referring MP’s office. **(Policy requirement)**

2.20 Referrals can be made by any MP. But there is an unwritten convention between MPs that they will not interfere in another MP’s constituency business. This means, in practice, complaints will normally be made to the complainant’s own constituency MP.

No matter how many times Daniel Ziechner referred the complaint, unless he signed it, the PHSO could not legally process it. And he continues to claim otherwise:

“Daniel Zeichner MP <daniel@danielzeichner.co.uk> 15 September 2026 at 10:58
To: ryan.niccolls@gmail.com
Dear Mr Tremble-Niccolls,
Thank you for your further email.
I note the points you have raised and that you intend to approach another Member of Parliament. Please note that as [Redacted] is my constituent, parliamentary convention would normally mean that her constituency casework remains with my office.
As [DZ’s senior caseworker name Redacted] explained, my office has already referred [Redacted]’s case to the PHSO and subsequently asked them specifically to consider whether the circumstances justified making an exception to their usual requirement that the DWP complaints process first be exhausted. The PHSO considered this and confirmed that they would not investigate the complaint at this stage.
The DWP complaint remains under active investigation, with an update expected by 1 October. Once the DWP complaints process, including the Independent Case Examiner where appropriate, has been concluded, I can consider any further referral to the PHSO.
I hope this clarifies the position. Yours sincerely,
Daniel Zeichner, Member of Parliament for Cambridge, Email: daniel@danielzeichner.co.uk, Twitter: @DanielZeichner, Web:, www.danielzeichner.co.uk, Phone: 020 7219 4379”

We ask the Commissioner to investigate Daniel Zeichner MP for breach of the Code of Conduct.

Ryan Tremble-Niccolls, 3 Caledon Way

Cambridge, CB4 2UT

[Redacted], [Redacted] Road

Cambridge, [Redacted]

The evidence email chain is attached to this email along with this complaint.

Ryan v Cambridge Jobcentre Plus

Search This Blog

Conduct complaint to house of commons parliamentary commissioner - Conduct of Daniel Zeichner MP Cambridgeshire

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Formal complaint to GLD DWP, SRA, and Cilex,

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