Letter to the Information Commissioner, 3rd August 2007
Re Valuation Office Agency
Re ICO`s Decision Notice July 07. We are bewildered as to the government's extremely undemocratic well-honed costly defence of a public sector VOA miscreant who gave us much angst! Her long-term belligerent errors indicated she was not a capable public servant - our interest was to keep her from abusing other members of the British public. The VOA`s lack of accountability, allowed her to become an aggressive 'loose cannon' within the NEGLECTED and DYSFUNCTIONAL Southgate Office, that had admitted' serious deficiencies'!
The ICO`s protective stance towards a fellow government agency, the discredited VOA, destroys the ICO`s credibility in this supposed transparent investigation.
We hoped for honest representation - from our experiences dealing with public sector 'investigations' -we should have known better!
We aim to disclose that the VOA were neither 'open nor accountable'
Our criticisms were honest and valid; our aim was to help publicise the blunders one sees within the public sector caused by incompetent staff. Their protection by costly lawyers against criticism/complaints does little to promote honest endeavour within the public sector.
Our criticisms were not malicious as the ICO want to indicate, but showed our concern as to the squalid level of public service one has to endure, along with a powerful cover-up culture that emerges when it is challenged.
The ICO falsely claimed the VOA as having 'Openness & Accountability'
The ICO`s defence of the VOA is biased!
This was not an up-front government transparent investigation! It has gone out of its way with a spurious attempt to indicate that the corrupt VOA was, at the time, an HONEST ACCOUNTABLE BODY. This goes against all the evidence.
Such manipulation of the facts by the ICO destroys the validity of this Decision Notice that, while it falsely gives the VOA credibility, attempts to besmirch our integrity with innuendo.
We became wary of the ICO who once while investigating the VOA on our behalf, produced an obvious untrustworthy 'old pals' gem. It claimed the fraudulent VOA had made an'Honest Oversight'? 'Old pals act' indeed.
In making deceitful reference to the openness and accountability' of the VOA, the ICO are again in denial of the facts! The indolent VOA Executive was ignorant of the way we were being corruptly handled by its 'belligerent' loose cannon! Our mutual exchanges at the time, (copies given to the press and parliamentarians) show the VOA as deceitful, dysfunctional and fraudulent in trying to cover up its errors once they had been caught out!
For instance, having asked for months for a report on our appeal, we were informed (June 2003) a Mrs Gupta would be doing a report and would be in touch! We waited and waited; we wrote and wrote over many months for copies of this promised report. ALL OUR LETTERS WENT UNANSWERED! We saw no evidence of Openness and Accountability at this time?
It took us 18 months to discover that Mrs Gupta played no part in our appeal? It meant our appeal had not been initiated - it had been throttled - almost at birth, despite our continued request for a report of its whereabouts - the VOA remained silent. This lack of government accountability towards a complainant is fraudulent. The VOA was in denial of serious maladministration?
In the 18 months we wrote and awaited copies of the Gupta Report, no one at the VOA informed us it was all a big lie. Only after we had assiduously pointed out and complained to the VOA Executive, did they agree with us that the Southgate Office had 'Serious Deficiencies'.
The VOA Executive had been remote, with a serious lack of staff control!
OUR APPEAL HAD BEEN KILLED OFF BY LONG DRAWN OUT NON-ATTENTION! Yet the ICO claim the VOA was' Open & Accountable'?
The VOA feebly claimed that the corrupt invention of Mrs Gupta`s Report was due to inner misinterpretation of 'Agency Internal Jargon'? You could not make it up? 'Open & Accountable indeed? Even the Parliamentary Ombudsman attempted to give this ridiculous VOA cover-up excuse some weight in order to get her public sector colleagues 'off the hook'.
The VOA then held a deceitful 'investigation' that purposefully exonerated the 'loose cannons' belligerence against us; its fraudulent decision was that she had acted with the'Best of Intentions'? A cover-up culture lacking in Openness!.
Unethically the VOA once asked us to Draw-a-Line under its corrupt acts against us, they being intent in hiding their deceits?
Our case needs to be studied by academics interested in cleaning up these public sector complaint cesspits of denial?
The British public's loss of faith in parliament grows day by day. Citizens are becoming aware of the constant low integrity levels within government departments, many of whom are almost capsizing because of the continued lawyer's style protection of staff.
The ICO in a veiled attack on our honesty, made detrimental quotes from a 'previous case'? (para36) 'that a complaint made against an employee may lead to assumptions being made about the employees competence? However the complaint may be unsubstantiated or malicious?' (Our question marks)
This is a dishonest denunciation and interpretation of our struggle against the public sector cover-up culture!
We ask as to the validity of these quoted 'previous case' decisions? Because these 'old pals act' decisions would not hold water in a proper court of law! We ask just how valid are these public sector 'previous decisions' that have been quoted to smear our case? Because of our experience within the public sector cover-up routine, we feel strongly that these 'quoted previous decisions' could well be tainted and biased against most complainants!
WE DO NOT THINK THIS UNDERHANDED PRACTISE OF QUOTING FROM PREVIOUS DODGY PUBLIC SECTOR DECISIONS SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE?
It smacks of biased lawyers pulling 'porkies' out of a hat in order to protect, at any cost, their culpable government colleagues? Further to the ICO`s previous 'unsubstantiated or malicious' quote; we would like to investigate its authenticity, its honesty? Could we have the evidence?
We feel the burden of facing powerful iron grip forced-fed public sector chicanery, where lawyers are producing even more unwarranted 'pork pies' in defence of miscreants? Is the Mother of Parliament smelling the stench coming from this public sector protection racket?
WE ARE CONCERNED BY THIS UNJUST ICO`s ROBUST DEFENCE OF THE VOA AND ITS EMPLOYEES FRAUDULENCE, despite her numerous errors we ask;
(1) Is the ICO claiming the deceitful 'employee' was competent?
(2) Why is the ICO deviously implying that our claims over many years against the VOA, may be 'unsubstantiated and malicious'? This is another attempted 'put down' of our case by the ICO, who despite its claim to represent the FOI are behaving more like the oppressive Spanish Inquisition against our case?
(3) We have to suffer this intended smearing, simply because we continue to reveal the public-sectors corrupt acts? The ICO are in denial of all the relevant correspondence! THE VOA WERE FRAUDULENT!
(4) A Tribunal, after our first 16 months of struggle against this dysfunctional careless VOA, quashed the early VOA deceitful acts against us. There was no evidence of VOA 'openness and accountability' during this long 16 month session of severe VOA negligence and fraud. There was of course plenty of devious VOA manoeuvres against our case. However, there was no evidence of the VOA's 'Accountability' as the ICO deceitfully suggests?
(5)The ICO has belittled our cause by its gross abuse of its power in showing unworthy protection of its public-sector colleague, a sort of despotic public sector family nepotism that goes on and on ad-infinitum?
To my wife and myself, it's all a bit like being crushed by government self-serving bodies using illegal undemocratic bulldozing tactics in order to protect the retaliatory status quo! To make matters worse, and no doubt trying to kill off our resolve, we have been invited by the ICO to appeal to another public sector inspired'investigative body'. We feel we are approaching a Machiavellian water torture epic? The ICO must be confident that the public-sectors crooked 'cover-up' culture, with its strangulation techniques against complainants is secure from parliamentary gaze, thus escaping an honest Lord Nolan type scrutiny!
AW & I Tanner