Further Submissions and the surprising responses from those whose duty it is
to both report and investigate cases of fraud. - 8th March 2012 to 31st May 2012

"There is no confidence in iniquity" - Lord Denning,

----- Original Message ----- To: Serious Fraud Office
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:49 AM
Subject: Email of 29th February 2012

For the attention of the Serious Fraud Office, Elm House, 10-16 Elm Street, London, WC1X 0BJ

8th March 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am trusting that you will confirm receipt of my email dated 29th February 2012
Subject: Condoned corruption and serious fraud

Many years of effort that has endangered my health have gone into gathering the evidence, preparing the details and reporting to the various agencies that claim to protect people from abuse of power and law and I am certain that you will realise the importance even to your own health and well-being of the issues involved.
In case the email was "lost" I have attached same in pdf format.
I have also sent the information to my MP and to other interested parties and look forward to your response, advice and recommendations.
Sadly the much trumpeted legal system has proven to be at best unreliable and at worst corrupt when it comes to issues such as these. I hope and trust that your offices will help to end that distasteful abuse of power.


----- Original Message -----
From: Confidential
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: Email of 29th February 2012

Dear ******,
Thank you for your email and for bringing this matter to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”).
The SFO will now undertake an evaluation of the information you have provided. If there is a need to seek clarification of any part of your referral or request any documentation from you, we will get in touch and request it from you.
Once again, I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Intelligence Officer l SFO | Elm House | 10-16 Elm Street | London | WC1X 0BJ l (+44) 020 7239 7388


----- Original Message -----
To: Confidential
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: your email of 9th March 2012

For the attention of the Serious Fraud Office, Elm House, 10-16 Elm Street, London, WC1X 0BJ

12th March 2012

Dear Nigel,

Thanks for acknowledging my email. As I wrote to my MP please understand that I am weary of this battle against deception and trying to cope with the debilitating effects on my body but, although I sometimes wish that I could forget what I have learned in our struggle for the truth so that I could return to a life of blissful ignorance, my conscience will not allow me to keep silent and so allow others to suffer similar fates.
I have no great wish to see anyone sent to prison, although it would seem that even Policemen have been sent there for lesser crimes, but we are always told that no individual or organisation is above the law. It seems that some are.

What I find difficult to understand is that there was no need for any deception at all. Sadly the initial incident now seems unimportant compared with the official abuse of power and government income that followed - and continues.
It would not have cost the employer very much to have admitted that his staff had been stupid and had they not lied and thus triggered the deception in officials, who it seems were trying to avoid criticism for failing in their duty, then the considerable cost to the nation and to the families could have been avoided.
No one was brave enough to stand for truth.

In the case mentioned the costs in benefits; legal aid; court costs; numerous tribunals; Commissioner Hearings; and even the considerable High Court costs, could have been avoided.
It would also not have been possible for others in the group litigation to publicly single out B's case to take the blame for the failure of the group to have their cases tried in the High Court.
As I mentioned the costs in that litigation, into which B was forced wrongly as a part, were said by the BBC to be in the region of £35 million and I know of many cases where similar deception was used to prevent them having success at trial.

What is extremely annoying is that while B's employer was encouraging B to "keep fighting" and suggesting that his staff would quickly break under questioning in court he was actually giving false information to both the Benefits Agency and to the High Court, despite being in direct contact with B's GPs, and B, and knowing the true situation.
From 1999 to 2005 his family business reportedly received over 3 million Euros in Common Agricultural Policy subsidy payments - and still more after that date when the farm business was split to ensure continued receipts after rule changes.
In addition he was personally in receipt of benefits paid to his many tenants as rent for the many properties he owns and had told B that he did not understand why B would not agree to doubling the rent B paid for the formerly tied home as the Benefit Agencies would pay it all just as they did on all his other properties. When B's home was sold to this man a condition of the farm sale was that B should remain in the house rent free with "all statutory and other rights" transferred as a continuation of Bs employment.
The "sale is subject to his [B's] continued employment from and after the 6th November 1991 in the same capacity by the purchaser and to his rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981) and the Purchaser hereby indemnifies the Vendor and the said ****** ****** ******* against all or any claims by or on behalf of such employee" - later denied by the defendant and his lawyers in an attempt to hide the use of the illegal mixing , storing, and disposal, of poisons and to pass the blame to B's previous employment.
No wonder B's solicitors stated that there had been breaches of employment law - but failed to tell the High Court.

I hope that the information above offers the Serious Fraud Office some explanation as to why I consider this to be a very serious matter. Sadly I made sure that all authorities were aware of the potential evidence at every stage but it was ignored. Most tell me that the matters raised are those for the Police, who were not interested.
To be honest I don't think the SFO needs me any more if this is to be properly investigated but I will do all I can to assist in any way possible if required, health permitting.

Thanks again.


----- Original Message -----
From: Confidential

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: Condoned corruption and serious fraud

Dear Mr *******

Thank you for contacting the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and for informing us that you suspect you have been the victim of fraud.
After consideration of the information you have provided to us, we have concluded that this is not a matter which is appropriate for investigation by the SFO. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by us and I hope the following will help explain why this is so.
The SFO is a relatively small, highly specialised government department that is permitted by law to investigate only those cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud. For this reason, we take on only a small number of new cases each year. That is not to say that the matter you have reported is any less important or any less distressing for you. It is essential that suspected offences are investigated expeditiously and our intention in informing you that this is not a matter for the SFO is to reduce the delay in it being brought to the attention of the appropriate organisation. If you believe you are the victim of anything other than the most serious or complex fraud, you should normally pursue the matter through your local police force. The police have primary responsibility within the UK for investigating all types of criminality including fraud and other offences of dishonesty.
Contact details for your local constabulary can be found in your telephone directory or online at
Alternatively, you may wish to pursue the matter through one of the following organisations who have responsibility for handling specific types of complaints:
You may wish to report this matter to Action Fraud - It is the UK's national fraud reporting centre. It provides a central point of contact for information about fraud. The service is run by the National Fraud Authority – the government agency that helps to co-ordinate the fight against fraud in the UK. Their online fraud reporting service
http://www.actionfraud.org.uk/report_fraud is available 24 hours a day, enabling you to report a fraud and find help and support. They also provide help and advice over the phone through the Action Fraud contact centre. You can talk to their fraud specialists by calling 0300 123 2040.
You can also forward emails to Action Fraud at
Department for Environment food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
08459 33 55 77
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) One of the stated organisational objectives of BIS is ensuring markets work to the benefit of business, investors, employees and consumers. It also works to deter fraud by enforcing the relevant law. This includes dealing with misconduct or unscrupulous practices, whether or not this amounts to fraud.
The Companies Investigation Branch (CIB) of BIS is responsible for investigating companies under the relevant company legislation. Where CIB uncovers evidence of criminal conduct the facts are generally referred to the police for investigation or to its own prosecution lawyers.
You can contact CIB on 0845 601 3546 or report a matter online at:
You may wish to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) which provides free, independent, confidential and impartial advice to everyone on their rights and responsibilities. Your local CAB office can be found at
You may also wish to consider seeking independent legal advice from a firm of solicitors. They will be able to advise you of the best course of action and whether there are any remedies available to you. Free, confidential and independent legal advice for residents of England and Wales is available from Community Legal Advice, who can be contacted on 0845 345 4345.
In addition, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) maintains a list of useful links to organisations that may be appropriate for your concerns. This list can be found online at:
In certain situations the information you have provided may be retained on our intelligence database for future reference. Information which includes any personal data (such as your contact details) will only be processed, retained or disclosed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Data Protection Act 1998. Please be assured that all information you have provided will be handled professionally and with the utmost sensitivity.
Once again, thank you for contacting the SFO and for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel John
Nigel John l Intelligence Officer l SFO | Elm House | 10-16 Elm Street | London | WC1X 0BJ l (+44) 020 7239 7388


Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:24 PM
Subject: Fw from Serious Fraud Office Condoned corruption and serious fraud

For the attention of Action Fraud.

14th March 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am advised to report my concerns to you by the Serious Fraud Office - see below and attached.
Oddly enough I am also advised to report to the Police but this has already been done, as reported to the Serious Fruad Office, but the Police refuse to get involved. I think everyone will refuse to get involved because the case exposes corruption in various government departments and private companies linked to Government.
All that is needed is a proper investigation and it could soon be stopped but the will does not appear to be there and officials are able to hide their crimes behind false names and unsigned documents..
I have long been in touch with Defra, as is suggested below, and have made several official submissions reporting how they have been misled by the manufacturers as regards chemical safety, with the supporting evidence.

I simply do not understand how such blatant deception can be condoned when the health of every person in the country is directly affected by the issues involved due to the deliberate incorporation of poisons into food and the environment.

This afternoon I received the latest email from the Serious Fraud Office, only the second reply.
I have only had a read receipt from the following sent on 12th March.

If you are unable to investigate this matter perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know who can?
Given the ability to keep obtaining contracts when under investigation of fraud it would seem that I am correct in my unhappy conclusion that corruption is not only condoned but is encouraged now here in the UK....


----- Original Message -----
From: af@actionfraud.org.uk
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Fw from Serious Fraud Office Condoned corruption and serious fraud

Thank you for your email.Reporting scam emails has changed and we are no longer taking emails through email@actionfraud.org.uk. If you would like to report a fraud or an online scam, please go to http://www.actionfraud.org.uk/report_fraud
If you need guidance on fraud and how to protect yourself, please go to www.actionfraud.org.uk
Action Fraud is the UK's national fraud reporting centre.To report a crime that is not fraud related please contact your local police. Police force contact details can be found at www.police.uk.
To make an anonymous crime report please phone Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040.


Sent: 15 March 2012 10:22 To: NFD Subject: General Inquiries

This is a response sent by ****** ****** using the feedback form on the website. The details of the message follow below:
Name: ****** ********
Regarding: General Inquiries
comments: I sent details of a complex fraud involving perjury, perversion of justice and gross deception by officials and others to the Serious Fraud Office. They advised contact with Action Fraud but the contact address given was inactive.
They also advised reporting to the Police, which I have done many times only to receive a refusal to investigate because the gross deception involved has been successful. The report involves multiple victims and £millions lost plus serious adverse health effects for countless numbers of people, including members of the Police and emergency services. I have asked the SFO to forward my considerable information. Someone must surely take action eventually??
You can use this link to reply: ********
P Please consider the environment before printing my email Note:This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential,proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. City of London Police and any of its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity.
All incoming and outgoing emails are virus checked, however we cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. City of London Police accepts no liability in respect of any loss, cost, damage or expense as suffered as a result of receiving this message or any attachments
City of London Police Website:
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal


----- Original Message -----
From: Howarth Christopher
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:40 AM
Subject: RE: General Inquiries (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)


Thank you for reporting this fraud to the National Fraud Desk. (NFD)


----- Original Message -----
From: Howarth Christopher
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: General Inquiries (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)


Thank you for reporting this fraud to the National Fraud Desk. (NFD)

NFD is part of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) hosted by the City of London Police. NFD receives reports of fraud for investigation by the City of London Police Economic Crime Directorate (CoLP ECD). The City of London Police has been designated Lead Force for fraud investigation and as such not only investigates fraud occurring within it’s geographical Force area (parts of postal districts EC1 and EC2 and the whole of postal districts EC3 and EC4) but also frauds occurring in other parts of the country (Lead Force cases).

NFD assesses all reports of fraud to determine if they constitute an offence in the City of London Police area in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR). (HOCR provides guidelines to police forces about the recording and detecting of crime). Where reports of fraud do not constitute a crime to be recorded by the City of London Police they are automatically assessed for suitability of investigation by CoLP ECD as “Lead Force” cases.

Your report of fraud has been assessed by a police officer. It has been determined that the circumstances do not amount to an offence in the City of London Police Force area nor is the matter suitable for investigation as a “Lead Force” case. In light of this decision I recommend you report this fraud to Action Fraud by telephoning the Action Fraud call centre on 0300 123 2040 or by completing the Web Reporting template at www.actionfraud.org.uk
Action Fraud are our partners in the fight against fraud and are the experts in Fraud reporting.

Action Fraud was set up 2009 following a review of Fraud reporting in the UK. The review recommended that fraud reporting was centralised and that the data from confirmed frauds was held on one database. Consequently Action Fraud was launched to make fraud reporting easier and the “Know Fraud” database of confirmed fraud created. By doing this Police and Law Enforcement partners are able to identify emerging fraud trends and target resources accordingly. It also means that confirmed frauds can be linked together and investigated as a whole rather than individually. This is a much better use of Police resources and means the Fraudster answers for all their crimes and not a few as was previously the case.

If you report to Action Fraud the details of your fraud will be ingested into the “Know Fraud” database of confirmed frauds and automatically matched against all records held therein. The NFIB analyses the “Know Fraud” database to identify Criminal Fraud Networks and single reports of report with viable lines of enquiry and disseminate these to Police Forces throughout England and Wales for consideration of investigation. Networks and single crimes deemed suitable for investigation as Lead Force cases are forwarded to the City of London Police. Therefore if your report links to an existing investigation, forms part of a network being developed or has a viable line of enquiry your report will be disseminated to a Police Force. If, at this time that is not the case your report will provide invaluable data within the database and inform the current and future picture of reported fraud. It should be remembered that as your data is automatically matched against future reports of fraud although not suitable for investigation at this time it may well become so in the future.

Action Fraud receives thousands of reports of fraud every month and the Know Fraud database contains several million pieces of data linked to confirmed frauds.
Given this information you will appreciate the NFIB cannot provide you updates with the progress of your report. However you can rest assured that by reporting to Action Fraud you are giving your case every possible chance of being investigated by Police in which event you will be contacted by the Investigating Officer. The NFRC number you receive from Action Fraud is recognised as a Crime Number.

Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

DS David Robertson

National Fraud Desk


To: Serious Fraud Office ; Howarth Christopher
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: General Inquiries (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)

For the attention of DS David Robertson (and Howarth Christopher?) of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau

16th March 2012

Dear DS Robertson,

Thank you for your very interesting response.
I wonder how you managed to come to the conclusion that the reported fraud did not involve the City of London when many of the players were directly linked via the High Court, Government Departments, London Hospitals and Lloyds of London via insurance? After all it was an insurance company that began the deception.

I have been trying, without success so far, to determine who, or what organisation, in the UK is unaccountable to Parliament or the Monarch and yet has the power to protect those who commit criminal offences on behalf of Government. Even MPs get nowhere and are given false information when they try to assist.
Interestingly no less a person than a High Court Judge actually telephoned me to thank me for reporting perjury, perversion of justice and abuse of position by officials of Government but he and other judges involved in the decision to throw out the group action that was destroyed by the reported criminal deception refused to take any action.
Someone ordered that no action should be taken against these criminals and it is of great interest to me that no matter what organisation the crimes are reported to all possibility of independent and open investigation is blocked.

This is why I have come to the reluctant conclusion that corruption is now not merely condoned but is actually encouraged - despite the fact that the Police themselves state that concealing a crime is itself a criminal act and that even Police Officers have been sent to prison for much less serious offences. Obviously some people really are above the law but I really do not like being the sacrificial body on which they tread to reach their own goals.

I consider that I have done my duty in reporting these offences to so many authorities.
That I am blocked at every stage is obviously part of the system of protection but that is not my problem.
I don't have the strength to waste on all this nonsense only to be blocked at every stage and I am hopeful that the Serious Fraud Office would have done the decent thing and passed my information to Action Fraud as I requested.
The situation is far too complex for a phone call and the Action Fraud reporting form does not cover issues as serious and complex as this - after all it has taken me a very long time and much pain to extract the evidence from the system.

Thanks again.

I have removed your message as this is copied to the SFO.


----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:51 AM Subject: Reported serious fraud and persistent perversion of justice

For the Attention of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau

20th March 2012.

Dear DS David Robertson (and Howarth Christopher?)

On your advice I telephoned Action Fraud and had a very interesting conversation.
It seems that neither the Serious Fraud Office nor your offices passed on my information to Action Fraud.
This is interesting as the Police themselves wrote that concealing a crime is in fact a criminal offence.
Section 5(1) of the Criminal Law act 1967 as amended by Schedule 7 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Which "creates the offence of persons concealing the fact that relevant offences have been committed and not revealing the fact because they have been offered money or some other consideration for not doing so.
It states: 5(1) Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other relevant offence has been committed, and that he has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury, commits an offence. A 'relevant offence' is defined as either an offence for which the sentenced is fixed by law, ot [sic] an offence for which a person of 18 years or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or might be sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by sentenced 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980."
From the Lord Chancellor's Office down it has been written that what has been reported is a matter for the Police.

So I asked Action Fraud for an email address through which I could report as it was obvious to the person on the phone that it would take too long to prepare a report via phone. I have heard nothing since and this seems to confirm what he said during the phone call that "it seems that these people are well-protected."

So that it is not possible to deny knowledge of my report to the Serious Fraud Office I have attached same.
I consider that I have more than done my duty under the law as stated above.
If these people really are above the law then it is no surprise that corruption is rife in the UK today.
The thousands of people affected by this issue must then regard themselves as "expendable" to advantage others..


----- Original Message -----
From: Action Fraud
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:34 PM

Subject: Response from Action Fraud

Dear *******,

Thank you for your email,

However in this email there is no details about what exactly the fraud is, so I am unable to advise if this is within our remit to report.

Action Fraud was introduced to encourage members of the public and small businesses to report fraud to us, so we can build a bigger picture of the scale of fraud happening, and to build intelligence to aid police investigations. Please note, we cannot guarantee nor prompt a police investigation.

If you would like to go through a crime report, you can visit our website www.actionfraud.police.uk and complete the report online. Alternatively you can call the team on 0300 123 2040. . Lines are open from 8am – 8pm Monday – Friday, 9am – 5pm Saturdays and Sundays.


Action Fraud

Click here to report this email as spam.

Please consider the environment before printing this email

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. bss accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

bss - Registered charity in England and Wales 282264 and in Scotland SC040511, Company limited by guarantee; Registered in England and Wales 1548958, VAT registered 674 7822 93. Registered office: bss, 163 Eversholt Street, London NW1 1BU

The M Corporation Limited - Registered in England and Wales 02551204 V.A.T registered: 674782293 Registered charity 282264 Scottish charity SC040511 Registered office: Third Floor, 163 Eversholt Street, London NW1 1BU

bss Scotland Limited - Registered in Scotland SC085804, VAT Registered 382 9044 37. Registered Office: 44 Fullarton Drive, Cambuslang East Investment Park, Cambuslang, Glasgow, G32 8FA


Sent: 28 March 2012 20:20
To: Action Fraud
Subject: Re: Response from Action Fraud 18th March 2012

For the attention of Action Fraud

28th March 2012.

Thank you for responding.

I had hoped that since I had reported to the Serious Fraud Office and to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau that they would have acted on my request to send you the details but obviously not. Thank you for confirming that is the case.

This is not easy for me as I am disabled and not at all well. All I ask is for justice to be done and be seen to be done.

Simply put perjury, gross deception and perversion of justice is putting lives at risk and has defrauded many of the thousands of victims and the taxpayer of £multi-millions.

You ask for details - it could take a while and as I stated in my email your on-line reporting tool is useless for complex cases such as these.

I can give detailed evidence of my own case and I can refer to others treated similarly, though perhaps not to the same degree or with the same volume of supporting evidence. In fact I deliberately took myself through the appropriate channels many times in order to obtain the evidence that the deception was not done in error but was planned.

We are told that no one is above the law. That is not true.
Despite the fact that even Police Officers and MPs have been charged for far less serious crimes those involved in this have been protected even from being properly investigated.

Your web site lists numerous forms of fraud and those of us who are the victims in these cases have been defrauded in numerous ways. I can only speak of my own case and when I have reported to the authorities every effort has been made not to investigate and discover if my reports are accurate but to find any excuse for protecting those involved.

I will begin by saying that on information given to me in the earliest days I realised that lies would be employed to prevent those responsible from facing court actions. In fact the employer told me that his staff would lie. They did.

So. An illegal mixture of chemicals was mixed, used, stored and disposed of contrary to every regulation with no warning given to me when I was exposed and subsequently made seriously ill by that exposure.

I contacted the authorities and asked for assistance in discovering the identity of those chemicals but instead was threatened with prosecution myself if I did not report the incident to the authorities. That was my mistake.

Having done so the employer and his staff lied to the authorities suggesting that there had been no chemical and that I had not been involved, even though I had correctly identified one of the chemicals in the mix from my long experience of its particular odour.

Thus the first fraud began as an attempt to prevent prosecution of those who mixed the chemicals unlawfully and caused me harm as a result.

It is unlawful for an employer not to report an incident that triggers long-term ill-health. That report was not made by the employer. He was not prosecuted and yet I had already been threatened with same.

Once I reported I was dismissed from employment with the date backdated a month, thus losing a month's pay.

In addition the employer's insurer's took additional steps to hide the truth using an employee involved in the incident, who has long claimed not to be able to read or write, to make a false statement denying my involvement and denying the presence of the chemical. That statement was made using a false address. East Meon Farm, Freshwater is not known by locals and could not be found by my MP or searches on the internet, maps etc.

That report was used against me during pre-trial hearings in both my civil case and as a result in a later multi-party action in the High Court and may also have been used to convince doctors that there had been no exposure.

The second fraud was therefore used to pervert justice.

My illness could not be understood without knowledge of the chemicals involved but despite repeated requests to the employer and my right to that information as an employee under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health regulations the employer refused to give that information and as a result my GP treated symptomatically.

Sadly the drugs used were contraindicated in poisoning and this may well be why I became permanently disabled, unable to recover, although the toxicity of the illegal mixture is not known even to the manufacturers.

I was not to discover the names of the chemicals for many years.

It is clear that the information was withheld in order to prevent prosecution and to pervert justice.

False information was given to those responsible for investigating the incident but statements contradicted that made at "East Meon Farm". The "investigators" did not note the contradictions and took the employer's denials as fact.

Essentially the deception succeeded even at this point but then things became complicated.

Despite my hopes to return to work as soon as possible doctors said that it would be unlikely and an expert lecturer in Health & Safety advised me to report those whose task it was to investigate these matters to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and to seek legal advice.

The Ombudsman was given false information by the investigators and cleared them but not without criticism which they persuaded him to weaken before the report was published. The Ombudsman was notified of the deception but was "unable to reopen the case"

A third deception had therefore protected the "investigators".

A legal clerk assuming the role and acting as a solicitor (itself a fraud) suggested that I made a claim for industrial injury - that of poisoning by the chemicals.

Meanwhile poisoning had been confirmed on numerous occasions by a specialist toxicologist who had asked for a proper investigation, which was never done.

Further testing was traumatic and at times life-threatening but the deception took a more sinister step.

A writ for negligence and breaches of Health and Safety legislation was served on the employer

Within days a senior doctor working with the "investigators" decided to write and sign three letters on the same day.

He wrote to my GP withdrawing the poisoning diagnosis and even symptom consistency with poisoning.

He wrote to the Benefits Agency confirming those same symptoms and eligibility for the Industrial Injury Benefit.

He wrote to the "investigators" explaining what he had done.

Meanwhile the serving of the writ was reported in the press. The investigators saw same and a senior staff member encouraged an EMAS doctor by asking in writing "Are you going to Spike his guns?"

Despite later claims that this was "a joke" the EMAS doctor wrote to the employer and to my lawyer stating that there was no evidence of any incident involving my work.

The latter is written evidence of two further frauds with intent to cause loss.

Meanwhile an ophthalmologist had confirmed brain, optic nerve and Autonomic nervous system damage.

The very same doctor who had written those letters then arranged for an optician to over-rule the ophthalmologists report saying that no matter how many times I was tested they would still find nothing wrong.

A muscle biopsy was performed - later said to be of insufficient sample and to have been improperly prepared.

Medical records were hidden. Entire days of testing went unreported, even when serious effects threatened my life.

One blood test was said to have been taken in the hospital and to confirm a virus but was reported as being taken at a time and date when I was at home in bed with my wife.
Yet another fraudulent act.

My GP was not amused having paid from his funding for the tests and refused to allow me to attend the hospital again.

The misuse of funding could also represent fraud. He obtained a second opinion again confirming poisoning.

I was examined by the Benefits Agency, who had access to my medical files and what I now know to have been proof of both the diagnosis and exposure. Sadly the vital information was frequently requested but was deliberately kept from me.

The diagnosis was denied and it was suggested that there had simply been an infection.

Given that they had access to the medical reports this was another fraud based on those letters above.

The "investigators" twice reported that poisoning was not even likely despite having access to those records.

The legal clerk had stated to them that he was a solicitor.

A high level meeting at my house had him refusing to give me a copy of his business card, handed to the "investigators" who had said they were trying to "address my concerns". They met secretly outside when I was very ill at the meeting.

Later it was revealed that they simply intended to draw a line under the matter and despite further supporting opinion the legal clerk then reported to the Legal Aid Board that I had unreasonably refused a settlement offer of £2,500 and had "0%" chance of success. This despite a barrister opinion stating the importance of knowing the chemicals involved before any decision could be taken plus the failure to obtain the full medical records.

This was yet another deception and the lawyers who then took on the case confirmed that no settlement offer had ever been made. Since only a month before the clerk had demanded £50,000 from the Legal Aid Board for what he stated was a very reasonable case it would appear that the fraud could run much deeper.

Very likely since he had reportedly taken hundreds of thousands for other cases that he had dropped before court.

Thus began an even greater deception as the false information generated by these people ensnared ever increasing numbers of people costing the taxpayer millions and at least a thousand victims of poisoning being denied justice.

I appealed the benefit decision only to be examined by an uninterested individual who simply quoted word for word from the first doctor's report but with silly spelling mistakes as the typist admitted that she was unable to read the handwriting.

A Tribunal followed only to find that the Benefits Agency had carefully removed all the papers giving a diagnosis of poisoning. All the Tribunal members criticised the Agency and order a thorough examination by a specialist neurological unit. Instead they used a doctor with no equipment or knowledge of poisoning who suggested "Somatisation"

Implying mental illness in order to cause someone loss is a definition of fraud under the Fraud Act of 2006.

This has been repeated ever since by Benefit Agency doctors and Tribunals even when they have admitted to finding serious physical effects of the poisoning during examination which do not appear in their reports. Some have even stated in writing that there have been no prescribed drugs when all have been provided at great cost over many years and prescribed directly by my GP and the NHS who fund every aspect of my treatment to this day - for poisoning.

That is also fraud and deception.

One Benefits agency doctor actually altered his own report after having spoken to the doctor above who had written those three letters but had never examined me and had not been directly involved in the case for years.

My GP later again confirmed the diagnosis with a very expensive test performed by an internationally renowned specialist but all to no avail as the lies continue to this day and because of those lies others are given that same diagnosis suggesting mental illness. My case is publicly blamed for the failure of the group litigation for which the BBC put the costs at £35 million but it is likely that the thousand cases originally involved benefited the dishonest much more than that..

I am too tired now to continue with this but this case is very well documented and there are witnesses who can confirm everything that I have reported. There is much, much, more but I have had enough now.

The Serious Fraud Office and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have PDF files with more details and names.

There is also a history of destruction of evidence in order to pervert justice and false information given to the High Court.

Much of my evidence is held by third parties, including members of Parliament who have encouraged me to try and help stop this disgrace harming other innocent people. MPs are themselves fed false information in order to hide the truth.

I hope this assist you in your work. Someone has to act on this. We are all at risk - more perhaps than you think.


----- Original Message -----
From: Action Fraud
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Response from Action Fraud 18th March 2012

Dear *******,

Thank you very much for the detailed information you have provided in the below email.

Just so you know what exactly we do here, Action Fraud was introduced to encourage members of the public and small businesses to report fraud to us, so we can build a bigger picture of the scale of fraud happening, and to build intelligence to aid police investigations. Please note, we cannot guarantee nor prompt a police investigation. We are not ourselves an investigatory body.

The situation you have detailed is extremely complex, and therefore is outside of our remit to report. We would normally have suggested legal assistance but you have already mentioned you have sought this previously. Unfortunately, other than this, We have no other referrals of bodies that may be able to help that you have not already spoken to.

Apologies we could not offer any further assistance.


Action Fraud


Sent: 29 March 2012 20:40
To: Action Fraud
Subject: Re: Response from Action Fraud 29th March 2012


No crime number then... More misinformation from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau who wrote "you can rest assured that by reporting to Action Fraud you are giving your case every possible chance of being investigated by Police in which event you will be contacted by the Investigating Officer. The NFRC number you receive from Action Fraud is recognised as a Crime Number."

Just more evidence that the deception is controlled from the top I guess.

Obviously phone tapping and those frequent and annoying computer phone and email scams are much more important than killing and maiming thousands of people and then denying them access to medical treatment and justice..

No point in me reporting those scams to you either I guess... it might be some protected bent official doing it??

After all the Chancellor's Office et al, and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said years ago that such things were matters to be reported to the Police but they are much more interested in spending two weeks immediately opposite my house preparing charges for damaging badgers against a local farmer only to have the case dropped almost at the court steps as there was no charge to answer - but the officer involved refused to discuss the deception and fraud in my case and without even looking at my files suggested that I was probably making things up!

What support the vulnerable get in society these days.

Just remember that the chemicals involved are poisoning people around the world in aircraft, in computers, in food, and in the environment. Plus, because the deception worked in these cases it is used with other chemicals and issues to hide.

It could be any one of you in this position next. (355,000 deaths reported per annum worldwide and many more maimed)

I wish you luck. You will need it.

Professionally Induced Nelson's Eye Syndrome (PINES) - There are none so blind as those paid not to see.....

Fraud? What Fraud??? I see no crooks - but they are in control now and disguised as our "protectors".......


----- Original Message -----
To: Howarth Christopher
Cc: Serious Fraud Office
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:09 PM
Subject: Reporting to Action Fraud

For the Attention of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau

30th March 2012.

Dear DS David Robertson (and Howarth Christopher?)

Well I fear your advice to contact Action Fraud where "by reporting to Action Fraud you are giving your case every possible chance of being investigated by Police in which event you will be contacted by the Investigating Officer. The NFRC number you receive from Action Fraud is recognised as a Crime Number" was rather too optimistic.

I gave them a brief outline of the initial deceptions that drew so many others into the mess and the astounding response was that "The situation you have detailed is extremely complex, and therefore is outside of our remit to report. We would normally have suggested legal assistance but you have already mentioned you have sought this previously.
Unfortunately, other than this, We have no other referrals of bodies that may be able to help that you have not already spoken to.
" It is interesting that the reported fraud was not denied as being fraud.
Can this failure to act on a £multi-million issue that endangers not only the health of our population but now also all of Europe because the Government is relying on false information generated by these people in it attempts to persuade the EU to keep approving even the most dangerous chemicals.

Do we have to go to Europe to get justice now?

Any other ideas please?

cc Serious Fraud Office

********************** ----- Original Message -----
From: Action Fraud
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:23 AM

Subject: RE: Response from Action Fraud 29th March 2012

Dear *******,

We are by no means saying that “there is no crooks” – Just that the issue is outside of our remit to report.

If you would like to see an example of the fraud’s we can report please visit our online reporting tool http://actionfraud.police.uk, You will find that your issue would not go through our tool.

I apologise we could not help you any further.


Action Fraud


Sent: 03 April 2012 11:57
To: Action Fraud
Subject: Re: Response from Action Fraud 3rd April 2012

Hello again

As you say
You will find that your issue would not go through our tool.

I fear that is my point but that does not mean that the issues are beyond your remit, simply that your reporting system does not accept the reports.

The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau advised me to contact you after falsely claiming that the issues involved did not take place in their area and that therefore they could not be involved unless I first contacted action Fraud.

As I have stated previously reporting on your web site was impossible, although as it is clear, as I have also stated, that many of the frauds listed on your site have taken place (and still are taking place) in these cases, not least of them abuse of position by numerous individuals for which many officials in the Home Office have already been sent to prison.

I have requested that if you, or the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, or the Serious Fraud Office, are unable to deal with this matter could you please instruct those who are responsible to investigate the criminal actions reported to you but so far all that has resulted is a determined washing of hands and passing what is obviously a hot issue on to others?

Usually myself.....

I have done my duty in reporting the crimes after spending years obtaining the evidence to support what I have reported.
Someone in authority must be responsible for ensuring that the deception stops now so that other individuals are not treated as appallingly by those acting in an official capacity with a duty to comply with the law.

I have tried for some 20 years to find out who or what organisation has that responsibility with no luck so far.

To be honest I am uncertain as to whether you meant that you "could not help" or simply that you "refuse to help", in which case to a layman like myself it would seem that the serious fraud involved is condoned, as I suspected initially.

How can that be so - if failing to report a crime is an offence and if no individual is above the law?


----- Original Message -----
To: Action Fraud
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: 2nd Response from Action Fraud 3rd April 2012

For the Attention of Action Fraud

3rd April 2012

Thank you very much.

So could you tell me who you report to and why you are unable to use that part of your "tool" that specifies abuse of position? It is after all the very first itemised type of fraud on your own web site... http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z_of_fraud

A-Z of fraud

To help understand which fraud you've been affected by, we've categorised them into an alphabetical list.

Abuse of position of trust -This is when someone abuses their position of authority or trust against another person for personal or financial gain, or to cause loss to another.
A person of trust or authority could be a friend, family members, service personnel eg carers, or a company employee.
The personal gain is often financial, but can also be causing loss to another person.
It could happen to an individual or to a business.
Fraud has been committed if money or assets are lost by the victim to the person in the position of trust or authority.

If you let me know who you are supposed to report to I will do it for you but I suspect this is a blocking move once again.
It has not gone unnoticed that the response address has changed to coming from bss.org (a company) and not from action.fraud@nfa.gsi.gov.uk so my guess is that you are simply a means to restrict complaints of fraud and to stop them being recognised officially. I hope and trust that I am wrong as if correct the whole thing is a sham - effectively a fraud!


----- Original Message ----- From: Action Fraud Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:12 PM Subject: RE: Response from Action Fraud 3rd April 2012

Dear ******,

The types of fraud we can report are outlined on our reporting tool. We use exactly the same system as the one available on our website.

Action Fraud is not an investigatory body, we are purely a reporting centre. When something falls outside of our remit it is normally because legal assistance is required or it is too complex for our tool. As I have advised we would normally have advised you to seek legal assistance. I apologise I could not offer you any further assistance.


Action Fraud


----- Original Message -----
To: Action Fraud ; Action Fraud
Cc: Serious Fraud Office ; Howarth Christopher Fraud Bureau
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:31 PM
Subject: Questions on fraud and reporting of Fraud

For the Attention of Action Fraud

10th April 2012

Are you people interfering with my computer connection - or is it someone else?

Have tried to sent this email several times but keep getting this most unusual message...
"An unknown error has occurred. Account:
'pop3.lineone.net', Server: 'smtp.lineone.net', Protocol: SMTP,
Server Response: '421 #4.4.5
Too many connections to this listener.',
Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 421, Error Number: 0x800CCC67"

I have had no response to my email of 3rd April in which I asked for the name of the organisation to which you would normally report fraud.
Since it is a criminal offence to fail to report a crime I have some questions for you based on the web site description of frauds upon which Action Fraud claims to be able to act.

My suspicion is that all these descriptions are designed to catch the general public but that they specifically attempt to ignore any possibility of fraudulent behaviour by those acting in an official capacity.
But no one is above the law - or so our Prime Minister insists on telling us.....

I would be grateful for answers to the following, or at least an explanation as to why such crimes are "not reportable".

The following Fraud definitions are from the Action Fraud Police descriptions.

Abuse of Position of Trust

Is it Abuse of Position of Trust when officials acting as representatives of Government suppress information in their possession in order to prevent their victims succeeding with their rightful claims?
Is it Abuse of Position of Trust when such officials deliberately invent false information in order to cause their victims further loss?
Is it Abuse of Position of Trust when such officials conspire together to pervert the course of justice?
Is it Abuse of Position of Trust when specialist doctors both deny and confirm a proven diagnosis in respect to the same patient on the same day and then re-affirm that diagnosis days later yet still deny in writing any possibility of that diagnosis repeatedly - without ever examining that patient?

Corporate fraud

Is Corporate Fraud a suitable description of acts by companies who provide deliberately misleading information in order to gain product approval and thus pass liability for any defect to Government - and the taxpayer?
Does Corporate Fraud include the use of false expert witness in order to pervert justice?
Would it be Corporate Fraud if by exposing individuals to chemicals that they know induce symptoms in the unsuspecting public they then sell their victims treatments for those symptoms?
Would it be Corporate Fraud if a company or individual gave false information in order to avert prosecution and potentially very large fines?
Would it be Corporate Fraud if a Company or individual destroyed evidence to prevent a successful claim against it?

Procurement fraud

Would Procurement Fraud include obtaining funds for medical examinations from Government or from GP Fundholders and then deliberately falsifying the data so obtained in order to mislead both the patients and their GPs with the additional bonus of perverting justice to the extent that no legal cases are able to proceed and expose those crimes?
Would Procurement Fraud include the denial of diagnosis of benefit claimants in order both to obtain bonus payments for denial of benefit and to prevent those claimants obtaining their rightful level of benefits?
Would Procurement Fraud involve the claiming of grants to do research in order to "find" data that is already known but which has been deliberately "ignored" in order to obtain those funding grants?
Would Procurement Fraud include specialists who shadow NHS appointments with those for other specialists for the same patients on the same day but never keep those appointments, thereby causing loss to the patient and to the NHS?

Health Scams

Would a Health Scam include recommending treatments that are known to be harmful to patients when their true diagnosis has been known and proven, but hidden from those patients?
Would a Health Scam include denial of the correct treatments to patients in order to force them on to long-term potentially more expensive treatment regimes and to cause them serious loss through permanent disability, loss of pensions, etc?
Would a Health Scam include falsely claiming that a group of people with symptoms known to be caused by exposure to products manufactured by a close associate are not made ill by those products and to falsely diagnose mental illness.
This is itemised as a description of Fraud under the Fraud Act of 2006 and yet such actions continue to this day.

Impersonation of officials

Would Impersonating and Official include claiming falsely to be a solicitor or expert witness?
Would Impersonating and Official include claiming to act as an impartial examiner while refusing to disclose qualifications for such a post and then demonstrating gross bias by producing false reports in order to cause the victim loss?

Medical scams

Would a Medical Scam include the denial of a proven diagnosis in order to force patients through unnecessary, often painful and dangerous procedures, often at great cost to the NHS and the Taxpayers?

Public funding and grants

Would Public Funding and Grant Fraud include the misuse of GP Fundholding and NHS funds as above?
Would Public Funding and Grant Fraud include claiming grants with the false suggestion that little is known about a speciality when in reality knowledge taught to students for decades is denied in order to obtain those grants?

Rental fraud

Would it be Rental Fraud if a tenant agreed with his landlord to massively increase his rents in order that the landlord obtained greater sums of money from the taxpayer via Housing Benefit?
Would it be Rental Fraud if that landlord had done that very thing with numerous tenants?
Would a landlord be committing Rental Fraud if he made an attempt to trigger such an action?

It would be good to know the answers - and why those who have committed such acts are so well-protected when those very acts endanger potentially every man, woman and child in this country....


----- Original Message ----- From: Action Fraud To: Richard Bruce Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:36 AM Subject: RE: Questions on fraud and reporting of Fraud

Dear ********,

We have not interfered with your internet connection.

Action Fraud was introduced to encourage members of the public and small businesses to report fraud to us, so we can build a bigger picture of the scale of fraud happening, and to build intelligence to aid police investigations. Please note, we cannot guarantee nor prompt a police investigation.

I can only apologise we cannot report your situation through our reporting tool, but it is far too complex for our system. We would advise that you seek legal assistance. Apologies we cannot help you any further.


Action Fraud


----- Original Message -----
To: Action Fraud
Cc: Howarth Christopher Fraud Bureau ; Serious Fraud Office
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Questions on fraud and reporting of Fraud

My thanks to our anonymous protectors! How easy it is to hide and do nothing.
At least we can eat a chocolate Teapot - much more useful!

Since the CAB and Law Centres declare that they cannot find any legal person with the qualifications to advise me your suggestion that I seek legal advice of the sort that even the Inns of Court Law School was "unable" to find is a bit of a non-starter - and why should I pay to have the law enforced anyway. That is not my duty.
If an MP can be tried for lying about speeding to avoid risking 3 points on his licence and the Police declare that failing to report knowledge of a crime is a criminal offence then how is it that those who poison people and then lie about it and deliberately pervert the course of justice are running free to do so again?
Priorities are turned upside-down...

You say that the case is too complex. I suggest it is as complicated as you want to make it.
Break it down to its component parts and it cannot be more simple.

Illegal acts caused people to be permanently disabled and then deception and fraud condoned at the highest level as you demonstrate was, and is being, used to ensure that the poisoners, fraudsters and perverters of justice go unpunished. The Permanent People's Tribunal in Bangalore recently reported 355,000 deaths every year resulting from related incidents without counting those thousands disabled like myself who are left with but one way to go.


I suggest that you update your reporting tool - or find someone who knows how to use it properly so as to avoid Action Fraud being a party to the crimes....

I am going back to eating that chocolate teapot now - much more useful and much more satisfying than the non-answers to questions in my emails.


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Fw: Fraud Investigations

Seems that the email address I was given NFD@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk is no longer in use so trying again.
I guess a moving target is harder to hit?


----- Original Message -----
To: Action Fraud ; Robertson David ; Serious Fraud Office ;
Howarth Christopher Fraud Bureau ; NFD
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:22 AM
Subject: Fraud Investigations

For the attention of those responsible for investigating serious fraud.

31st May 2012

I had no response to my email of 25th April when I was informed that I had to use nfd@cityoflondon.police.uk for all contacts as the team was unable to access DS Robertson's emails. I hope that he enjoyed his holiday.

My understanding is that there are several investigations ongoing into suspected fraud by the company A4e which was one of the reasons why I reported to you all that this issue had been raised many years ago.

I heard a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions claim the other day that they had looked into this and found no problem. I beg to differ.

I was looking through my files yesterday and came across a bundle of papers sent to me under the Freedom of Information Act by the DWP in January 2007. In a section in which internal communications demonstrated how several members of staff had worked together to see how best to deal with complaints about this very matter by a member of the House of Lords there was the attached photocopied paper which itemised the very problems now under investigation.

I should add that in the same year many attempts had been made to instigate an investigation into the related perjury, perversion of justice and deception that was eventually used successfully to prevent Judicial Review into these very problems. The Courts had suggested that completion of a PF244 form would instigate just such an investigation but this advice was incorrect. Because no legal representation was permitted the crimes have gone not only unpunished but also not independently investigated.

For that reason it is my firm belief that the same methods have been used more recently by A4e and others, with the knowledge of senior staff at the DWP, to defraud even the most seriously disabled of their "customers".

My reason for persisting with this issue is clear. It is not for personal gain, even though the gross deception at the DWP has caused my family considerable loss, but to point out that if such deception remains unchecked then any one of you could be next. All it needs is a second in your life and illness or serious disability could result. Then you too will be at the mercy of criminal deception designed to enrich foreign-owned firms and impoverish yourself and your families.

In case you are unable to open attachments I have scanned and OSR'd the document and the text is pasted below.

1. The various sections of the DWP and Medical Services seem to make up their own rules as they go along.

2 They appear to work to a chosen outcome rather than to determine each case on the facts, merits and the required balance of probability.

3 Even in the most complex cases they only use rudimentary testing procedures which are simply not capable of determining the presence of serious physical illness.

4. Despite this they give their medical examiners the power to overrule specialist opinion in order to achieve the desired outcome - even the claimants' GPs and treating specialists are not consulted.

5. Tribunals are decided on paperwork in the DWP files but there is no obligation on the staff to ensure that the paperwork is complete, accurate, or even legible - not even when instructed to do so by an earlier Tribunal.

6. Their own medical examination is used to support the DWP position - so much so that medical examiners frequently fail to report, or falsify symptoms found if they do not support the chosen outcome.

7. Supporting specialist written opinion is even deliberately misquoted to imply the opposite of what is written in order to undermine the claimants.

8. The Medical Examiners are chosen by the Tribunal Service and the claimant is not permitted to know if that examiner is sufficiently qualified for the task of diagnosis.

9. Conflicts of interest are ignored to the extent that officers who have opined on the case in the negative are then permitted to take part in the appeal process to the disadvantage of the claimants.

10 The NHS, HSE, and DWP links are close and access to the medical records required by the claimant is often denied. The claimants are however required to give the DWP access to those very same records and doctors in all government departments are mutually supportive to the detriment of the interests of the claimants.

11. The Tribunal, Appeal, and Commissioner processes are controlled by the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court and yet the rules of evidence are ignored and even Commissioners refuse to address the issues of perjury, conflict of interest, and deliberate introduction of false evidence.

12. If the Claimant was to act unlawfully the DWP would waste no time in prosecuting for fraud and yet claimants are regularly defrauded out of their rightful benefits by dishonest practices.

13. The DWP does not comply fully with the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act, the Medical Records Act, the Rules of Natural Justice, or their own guidelines in respect to the decision making process.

14. Medical Services doctors are protected from scrutiny by the GMC.

15. Claimants are not permitted to know the full details of Tribunal members in advance of Appeal hearings - or the expertise of the medical examiners.

16. No records of Tribunal or Court hearings are theoretically permitted by the DWP and therefore false reports of proceedings can be made by them in the full knowledge that no legal challenge can be made by the claimant. They hope ....

17. The government removed the right to Legal Aid for Tribunal representation leaving the claimants to face the full force of the Government and its barristers alone – a breach of the Human Rights Act obligations for a fair hearing under Article 6.

18. Even if the claimant's claim succeeds means are found to reduce recognition of the degree of damage attributable to the claim so as to reduce payments to the claimants.

(Are bonuses still paid to DWP staff?)

19. The overall effect is that the Claimants are put in impossible positions and the DWP has total control over everything from medical evidence to proceedings and the interpretation of the law.

20. During their working life most claimants and their employers were made to pay National Insurance Contributions to pay for the very eventualities under which the claims are made. The current process denies the claimants their rightful benefit payments, despite those contributions, and therefore represents theft by deception - serious fraud. That fraud is compounded by the considerable and unnecessary additional costs incurred via the tribunal and appeals systems and the apparent loss of much of this money from the UK to overseas companies.

As seen above the Police, Action Fraud, The Serious Fraud Office and the National Fraud Investigation Bureau had no intent whatsoever to investigate a fraud in a matter that involved many millions of UK pounds and countless lives harmed by that fraud.

Furthermore, surprisingly, it was admitted that Action Fraud is simply a Charity which does numerous works for Government and has been severely criticised nationally for its failure to report and to investigate Serious Fraud.

Perhaps the above gives an indication as to why ?

Dated 08/03/2012    Updated 24/02/2016

Go to top

  Return to latest updates   Return to Front Page;   Return to OP file;