Ryan v Cambridge & Jobcentre Plus Litigation fund Cambridge, England, United Kingdom

Aim

Daniel Reynard plans eviction by deleting my health from his report. He knows my arrears are caused by UC staff lying. Cambridge knows this and will not remove the NOSP based on two lies. Share this to help me fight them.

Fundraising campaign

What exactly are you trying to do?

I face eviction in days because I challenged the DWP legally.

Last week Cambridge > The week Christmas Possession > Next week Court process > New years eviction > Homeless

SHARING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY << share this page

Share this video on social media / Email your MP / Contact local press

6 years as good tenant, no previous rent issues, no ASB, disabled, and vulnerable

I, Ryan, am trying to stop Cambridge evicting me for something that Universal Credit can do but refused to do. I was rehoused as vulnerable in 2019. 6 years in my home, no previous rent arrears, no trouble with neighbours, no trouble with council. Even with mental health from 2019 I behaved well. But since UC April 2025, I've been 8 months without benefits over paperwork Carla could accept, but Cambridge won't

8 months without benefits over paperwork Carla could accept, but Daniel won't.

Only, now since UC April 2025 I had a problem. A problem with Carla Buey, and Daniel Reynard.

That UC person is Carla Buey. The DWP, Cambridge and my MP, know why I am suing Carla Buey for discrimination, She lied. She held up my UC, claim she could not send email, or follow DWP guidance.

Cambridge know this, but Daniel Reynard of Cambridge decided that he would resolve Carla lyins, by lying himself. He would omit my health from my eviction paperwork. With no health country have no reason to stop possession. Even if I can explain to the court the council could get another order for eviction. It puts me on the back foot and that is why they did it. That video is here: https://linkly.link/2WAtf

Does health matter?

This is the question the director asks before eviction warrant in the Cambridge's income management and arrears policy "Does the tenant have mental health issues?"

Cambridge has lied to cover up Daniels lies, omitting my health. Sue Amner claiming first that health is not part of a possession assessment. Then she said that health was taken into account then rejected. WTF Cambridge? Lying like this is criminal.

At least bad faith, or an improper/unauthorised purpose.

Help, I am being squeezed between two Goliath's

SHARING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY << share this page

I now need you help to stop this, share this far and wide

ryanvcambridgejcp.bsky.social
https://ryanvcambridgejobcentreplus.blogspot.com/
https://x.com/RynVCambsJCPlus

Cambridge know that my disability will stop possession so they deleted it from my eviction report. This video of me reporting my disability and situation to Daniel Reynard is here. The image on the video is Daniel's Eviction report, without my health or why I am upset.

I am trying to fight that lie with no funds and no solicitor. I need you to share that video and be upset too.

I need that like life, to stop my eviction. Cambridge have sent the claim to their lawyers to process. They will apply to court this week 25 Dec 2025 and without health, it will be batch processed by court. I will not get legal help over new years 2026. And then be evicted as they planned in the New Year.

£5000 court costs for proving Carla could use email for ID

The reason I am upset in the video is that UC staff Carla Buey previous lies created rent arrears, and £5000 High Court costs. That lie was that the UC cannot use email for ID. On 25 June 2025 that lie fell apart, as I was ID'd by Cambridge.

I am also upset by Daniel Reynard thinking I am, so stupid, that I do not know his letter is legal. My rambling about public does not remind him in the video.

You would think that the DWP would stop Carla Buey being in control of my UC account, as she lied, but they will not. Now Carla Buey is lying again for my final interview. On 5 sept 2025 she claims she cannot accept my evidence in writing. The interview needs to be live because of policy.

Carla does not follow policy. She did not follow DWP policy until I sued her and the UC Cambridge 4 on 20 June 2025. And she will not follow DWP reasonable adjustment policy until I sue her again.

But I need you to share this, not pay, just share what Carla Buey did and what the DWP and Cambridge are now allowing to happen again.

I need your help to fund and pressure the DWP and Cambridge to back down in their pressure campaign against me, and other claimants, and tenants. Lying is not fair.

I will use any money to fund:

Strike out claim opposition against the Cambridge UC staff lying 25 January 2025.
High Court Judgment release 31 July 2025, email won but not processed.
New claim in High Court against Cambridge and SSWP(UC) lying now about my final interview and eviction.

How will you do it?

SHARING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY

<< share this page

You will help me share this case far and wide, no contribution necessary.
You will tell your MP, to stop the DWP lying in peoples claims.
You will tell your MP to stop councils lying in their possession claim.
- Our you will just publish
- the video of Daniel lying.
- this page of government solicitors lying.

MPs are trying to make sure that UC staff owe claimants, a duty of care. So that they will not allow them to slipped through the cracks of the system.

David Lamy Deputy leader, is reforming claims against public offices like UC staff. Making it clear what the actually crime is they are committing.

If you are confused share this now read later.

Why does your project matter?

You know that feeling of someone lying about you. A Rumour that no one will tell you. And when you find out it is too late.

UC staff are killing claimants because the system allows this.
It is years before appeals are heard, DWP does not turn up.
Government solicitors are only allowed to defend claims.

UC staff are trained to close claims. Claim closure does not exist in benefit law, say tribunal judges. But UC staff close claims for any reason from a check list.

In PHC v SSWP even the DWP cannot explain to the judge why UC close claims, as is it not a legal term:

"Making sense of “case closure” in cases where identity is in issue18 As Ms Cowan frankly acknowledged in her supplementary submission, “UC DMs [decision-makers] act in accordance with national operational procedures, or more local practices, that tend not to concern themselves with their statutory basis, which tends to lead to decisions that do not refer to statutory provisions or concepts”. And, one might add, such an approach also tends to lead to decisions that, if they do refer to statutory provisions or concepts at all, they often refer to the wrong ones. As a result, as another of the Secretary of State’s submission writers has observed in an earlier case, “any attempt to understand the legal nature of any given instance of ‘claim closure’ is obliged to have recourse to informed inference(or desperate guesswork)” (PP v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2020] UKUT 109 (AAC) at [8]). The present appeal is a classic case in point. "

My project matters for all disabled claimants that have claimed UC, and for no fault of their own could not jump through the hoops, and have been thrown of UC, had their claim closed and evicted by landlords.

I am lucky that I can make court applications. But for those that cannot, they die.

Share this campaign

What kind of impact do you hope to make?

I hope to pressure the government to go through and make sure that complaints cannot be deleted behind the scenes, that government solicitors cannot lie in claim against claimants.

I support the good work of

CPAG
The public Law Project
Transparency project
Liberty
Disabilty Right
MIND
Disabilty News service

I wish that the equality and human rights commissioner was able to defend claimants more. But the lying in the UC is endemic.

What sets your project apart?

This project is like others. The only reason some is putting their life online is because something tragic happened. I have resisted so far. But now I am sure that my name will get out.

You can find my project at

https://ryanvcambridgejobcentreplus.blogspot.com/

ryanvcambridgejcp.bsky.social

What’s motivating you to do this?

I hate lying. I was brought up to not lie. And see the ease at which DWP and Councils practice deceit with continuing ease sickening.

I also want to live, and see others live through this.

Have you ever had a complaint completely misinterpreted?

Why? How is that going to help the organisations improve? But this is how the government and others continue. The government signed up to the complaints standards but never use it.

When did the project begin?

This project began in 2020. Here are some lies

Cannot use email for ID

Cannot sue UC staff

The lie about email.

"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 maybe your preferred option this will not be accepted as confirmation of your consent or 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 identify 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"

The reality about email ID

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

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.

Hi Sarah,

All I need to confirm is 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. Your rent is £108.64 per week

Sarah"

The lie about suing the government from Ms Shah in the strike out application:

"9. The Claimant has issued proceedings against four employees of the Crown in relation to work undertaken on behalf of the Crown. As is clear from the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, a private law claim cannot be made against an employee of the Crown, in the circumstances, and should be made against the DWP."

The reality about suing the government from the government proves this is a lie,

"If a customer is able to establish in a court that they have experienced discrimination as defined in the Equality Act, they could be awarded compensation. This could be awarded either against DWP or an individual"

Carla Buey's lie that made Cambridge pursue me:

Cambridge pretend asking for help

"From: Sarah XXX Sent: 04 September 2025 17:35 Subject: FW: Ryan Dear Sabina I am contacting you as I am aware this complex case now sits with you.

Mr has reached out asking for help as he has mental health issues and he would like to do his commitments through his journal or paper form and he is being advised by JCP that he must attend a video appointment or face to face which is not possible for him.

As his commitments have not been af=greed his payments have been on hold which means his rent account is now in arrears and the Income Team are looking to serve a Notice Of Seeking Possession.

I believe it is entirely possible that the claimant commitment can be accepted in writing and this is confirmed within paragraph J1007 of the ADM which you can find here: “J1007 The methods by which a claimant commitment can be accepted by a person is set out in regulations as 1. electronically or 2. by telephone or 3. in writing1 . The Secretary of State can specify which of these methods are to be used by a person to accept their claimant commitment. UC Regs, reg 15(4)” Is it possible you can contact whoever is requesting the f2f or video consultation and advise them accordingly . Mr feels his requests for reasonable adjustments due to his health issues are being ignored. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Sarah XXX Universal Credit Support Officer Communities, Cambridge City Council"

Carla Buey's response for the DWP

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

A judge has agreed with DWP we have offered suitable reasonable adjustments to Ryan which are not to his pleasing."

The reality about Carla Buey:

She did no follow the DWP policy on the 10 June 2025. She is following the DWP policy as if it is an Act, not a guide. The policy is not law, but you need to have a good reason not to follow it. Carla has reasons but they are fictional, and are bad faith.

A judge agreeing with her is implied, ie fictional. If she was following the judge she would have not used email.

This is criminal because she is a public officer lying.

Please copy and paste and share this or anything here. Every little helps.

The claim against Carla Buey and the SSWP

This is a summary of my High court claim to the SSWP

"Where a disabled person is at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled, there is a duty to take reasonable steps to remove that disadvantage by:changing provisions, criteria or practices ...An adjustment should, as far as possible, remove or reduce any disadvantage faced by a disabled worker or service user."

PCP
- live meetings, GSE live meeting, claim closure.
Disabled
- Ryan ADHD, Dyslexia, Mixed anxiety and Depression, PTSD, under going autism assessment. PIP confirms "strong evidence on which to advise on the case and a consultation is likely to be stressful". The group is mentally disabled claimants MDC, 4000s of mistakes, deaths in double digits per and claiming..
  - "The inquest into the death of Philippa Day heard a DWP “telephony agent” had listened to Philippa sobbing as she described how she was “literally starving and cold”, “genuinely can’t survive like this for much longer”, was “in so much debt”, “literally cannot leave the house”, and needed “a reason to live”.
  - But the agent offered no reassurance or acknowledgement of Philippa’s distress, and made no attempt – during the call in the summer of 2019 – to “escalate” any concerns to senior colleagues."
    - https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/claimant-deaths-still-linked-systemic-flaws-benefits-system-dwp-document-shows
  - "staff errors in nearly 40% of nearly 4,000 cases indicate a systemic crisis in handling disabled claimants" - Canary 29th July 2025 https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/07/29/dwp-deaths-reports/
Substantial Disadvantage,
- In MM v SSWP, the SSWP and Tribunal agrees that interviews put mental health claimants at a disadvantage. Ryan's Council eviction, rent arrears, abuse from Carla Lying 10 June 2025, 2 Court cases, Gov solicitors. lying. Months delay in PIP, UC and other mental health health, cannot complete autism assessment, cannot enjoy Christmas, Daniel Reynard lying because of arrears targets by omitting health 11 Sept 2025, strike out hearing 25 Jan 2025, £5000 cost High Court, Cambridge ignoring High Court order further limitation needed = Carla Buey.
Propose adjustment
- Paper based assessment like the PIP assessment.
Reasonable
- the power
  - s23(3)(4) of WRA 2012 is "sufficiently wide" to allow a paper based assessment. It is almost identical to S80(4)(b)(c) WRA 2012 which allows a paper based interview for PIP. PIP "(b) about the way in which that information or evidence is to be provided; (c) requiring a person to participate in such a consultation" UC (1) "may require a claimant to participate in an interview f" (4) "may require a claimant to report to the Secretary". They are the same meaning, a paper based report, and no consultation
- Nature of service
  - PIP is able to have a paper based assessment of an assessment which is more complex that 4 gainfully employed questions. You can fail PIP. But you cannot fail UC from a GSE assessment.
Adverse effect:
- A VC v SSHD "Lacuna" exists, a gap, in the UC system for interviews, that has been fixed in PIP, the problem exists in UC, there is evidence to support this problem:
  - "Ryan chose to not attend the Gainfully self-employed appointment (thereby allowing himself to be evicted) which was booked for him."
  - anyone that mental health is not a choice. Ryan has not attended meetings since 2019.
  - PIP recognised this twice 2020 2024. UC recognised 2025 after being sued. What makes Carla Buey so special?
Effective:
- Paper based assessments, PIP 22 July 2020, 19 Dec 2024. UC 25 June 2025.
- Claimant waited average of 7 months each time refusing interviews.
- Instead preferring legal action and winning.
- Is preparing to take action against Daniel, Carla, SSWP, and Cambridge.

The claim against Cambridge

Cambridge's lie about my health - Improper/unauthorised purpose

Lying in part of a decision makes the whole decision invalid

In Regina (Trafford) v Blackpool Borough Council [2014] EWHC 85 (Admin) is a case about a council where the council failed to take account of things that should have, and took into account they should have, and had no way to prove what they had said. The mixing of good an bad made the whole decision wrong. Here is one of that cases referred to by trafford as an example of mixing purposes to punish even for good reasons is wrong:

73 Moreover, and even if the CAMG was in part motivated by an assessment that by taking that decision it would in fact operate to reduce the number of tripping claims made against it, so that it was in its own financial interests to so act, none the less by failing to have regard as well to the question as to whether or not the claimant met the tenancy suitability criteria the CAMG failed to consider all relevant considerations, given that the tenancy suitability criteria was something which it had decided to operate as its own published policy. In the circumstances I take the view, as did the Court of Appeal in Ex p Fewings [1995] 1 All ER 513, that the decision is vitiated by the failure to have regard to all relevant considerations."

The fake report by Daniel after he assessed me 11 Sept 2025

"Notes - Mr did open the door to me apone my second time of knocking. He was very confedent when he was speaking to me and stood for around 10-15 minutes unadded. He looked very well kept and the property was clean and tidy." (SIC) Daniel is dyslexic.

The Reality

During this visit, I disclosed my disabilities to Daniel, specifically stating:

"So I'm suffering from depression and anxiety. It's making my communication with the universal credit very difficult. I also am going for an autism exam at the moment. So there's lots of things happening with me, yeah, ADHD, and I've got dyslexia."

Daniel responded with acknowledgments like "ehm" and "yeah" throughout, confirming he heard these disclosures.

What progress or milestones have you already hit?

I have already proven that you can make claims against UC staff. People think that is is only the SSWP. But is it not. I want everyone who has an issue to sue the UC staff.

I have already proven that UC can use email for ID, or use representatives for ID as well. This will prevent people being evicted.

What have you learned along the way?

I have learned that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I have also learnt that DWP solicitors are probably using Chat GPT. In Ms Shah's High Court response she wrote "PIP regulation 88". But there are no pip regulations.

I have also learnt that liars cannot stop lying. So do not try. Use this to your advantage to trap them.

How will the funds be used?

I will use the funds to stop being evicted:

Unblock my High Court Case;
Fight the strike out claim 25 January 2025 against Carla Buey;
Start a new claim against the lies of Carla Buey and Daniel Reynard, UC Cambridge and Cambridge City Council

Thank you for reading this far. Your help will see that I and other will not be evicted or die, based on the lies of government officials, or ChatGPT.

25 Dec 2025

Ryan

Ryan v Cambridge Jobcentre Plus

Search This Blog