Letter to Jack Straw MP, 24th March 2008
Dear Minister
I attended an Information Tribunal 17th March 2008 regarding an appeal against Decision Notice FS500082420; the appeal went against us. While HMRC and ICO lawyers decided on what laws or rules had or had not been attended to, no mention was made of the fraudulent acts against us.
We (my wife and I) claim that because the initial fraudulent acts against us had not even been mentioned within the Tribunal, we had been outmanoeuvred by deceit and obstructive lawyers giving out public sector legalised injustice that bears little or no resemblance to case law within the Decision Notice, especially in paragraph 36. We think the D/Notice along with the handling of our case should be investigated by a higher legal authority, especially paragraph 36.
We have spent 5 years being abused by governmental complaint procedures and realise it is common. This public sector governmental abuse of complainants has to stop. Democracy is being killed off!
I found myself listening to (and quite frankly not understanding) legal issues that seemed to have little or no bearing on the way our case had been fraudulently handled. The Tribunal was controlled by legal definitions that prevented me from speaking out against the Commissioners fraudulent (10) references as to the authority's accountability within the D/Notice.
This led me to mention to the Tribunal, how members of the electorate complaining against a government dept, such as the Inland Revenue, become entrapped when they allow themselves to be controlled by the public sectors complaint procedures. How my 5 years experience dealing with such procedures, led me to believe that it would be more democratic for members of the electorate having a complaint against a government body, to have their own Courts.
These courts should be completely divorced from public sectors chicanery thereby avoiding the abuse of government power as used within these present complaint procedures that have a cover-up culture in 'systematic denial' regarding complaints against government departments.
I pointed out that it would have been a much more democratic hearing if the miscreant and her inept management who had treated us so badly were sitting opposite me, replacing the Panzer division of public sector lawyers representing the HMRC and the ICO.
At least, in our own courts, with government lawyers out of the way; I would have been able to get to the point about the fraudulent and corrupt way our case had been handled. We would not be bogged down with dubious legalised procedures that avoided the issue. At least in our case we would have come face to face with the miscreant and her management who had abused us by undemocratic means.
This would be a real wonderful opening up of the complaint procedures destroyed by over-protective public sector lawyers. It was argued by the ICO that the Commissioner could not be responsible as to what might or might not have happened within the VOA.
This led me to point out that Lord Nolan in his attempts to clean up fraud and corruption within the public sector stated that everyone must be 'active' in dealing with such fraud and corruption. I suggested that included the Commissioner and the Revenue executive being 'active', thus enabling them to combat the fraud against us.
The fact that such public sector senior officials were not 'active', means that the public sector cover up culture and the 'old pals act' that Lord Nolan tried to clean up remains intact - firmly entrenched within Whitehall etc. Such government official's lack of 'active' response towards public sector fraud nurture the status quo, enabling the 'systematic entrenched public sector cover-up culture' to thrive.
I wanted to counter the Commissioners 10 references as to the Revenue or its staff as being' accountable' within the Decision Notice. I was not allowed to.
From our own experience we consider the National Audit Office to be more accurate than the Commissioner, as when it reported on the HMRC; ' Weaknesses and inconsistencies in HMRC process and operations, these include inadequate management information and failure by staff to comply consistently with departmental problems.' This NAO account is a much more honest description of the HMRC internal squalor and failure in its public service.
The Commissioners description of the HMRC within the Decision Notice is biased. Such bias leads us to demand that the machinations within the ICO network needs serious investigation. We waited 2 years for a fumbling lengthy D/Notice that gave unwarranted protection to the HMRC. Parliament should have a problem with our case.
I was not allowed to point out within the Tribunal, the Revenues fraudulent act of not answering my request for vital information over some 7 months (2003). Not one letter was answered! This HMRC abuse, inflicted upon us as complainants the Commissioner purposely sees as being' accountable'.
The Commissioner (knowing of our case) was negligent or worse in giving within the Decision Notice what might be construed as a friendly propaganda statement in claiming the seriously dysfunctional HMRC as being 'accountable' on numerous occasions. There are other fraudulent or corrupt acts against us, all comfortably by-passed within the Decision Notice and the Tribunal hearing.
This D/Notice is a less than honest government document alarmingly put out into the public domain by the ICO! That's why we ask that our case and the Decision Notice especially paragraph 36 be investigated by a higher legal authority.
I am an 80-year-old war pensioner, an ex front-line soldier who like untold thousands of others put our lives on the line for supposed democracy. I deserve better treatment; a more honest approach to a democratic hearing, a hearing divorced from this appalling public sector cover-up culture with its powerful legal officials.
Within the Tribunal, I was to face 2 barristers and 2 lawyers (one did not attend) representing the HMRC and the Commissioners Office.
This affront to democracy that many died for led me to write in some anger to Rt. Hon. Minister Des Browne MOD asking if he could get me on a House of Commons gravy train in order to secure a barrister or two. We were isolated and quashed by supposed legalities that confounded us, not being lawyers we became sitting ducks.
We ask that the whole affair be investigated because we feel there are issues/decisions raised within our case that bore little or no resemblance to the'rule of law' or indeed case law. That the earlier corrupt acts (2003/4) etc against us had purposely been lost sight of by deceitful manoeuvres certainly not mentioned by the Commissioner neither within the Decision Notice nor within the Tribunal.
We think there were serious misjudgements within the Tribunal as for instance; we were denied the chance to speak out against the (1) ICO's claim that the authority or its staff was accountable on some 10 occasions within the Decision Notice. We claim the authority was not as accountable as the Commissioner suggests.
Then (2) we were denied the chance to explain or question the quality of the ICO investigation that allowed the authority to dictate the pace of the FOI investigation. That the Revenues freewheeling attitude and dragging of feet in relation to its FOI commitments helped drag out the D/ Notice over some 2 years. (We enclose the report we were not allowed to reveal within the Tribunal)
Because we had been severe critics of the Revenues corrupt complaints procedures, we felt this may well have led us to be'hung out to dry'. We also become critical of the Commissioners handling of our FOI appeal. We again asked that a higher authority study our case.
The D/Notice has been printed and is now in the public domain. This Notice is in fact withholding information from the public and academics regarding fraudulence and dragging of feet in contempt for the FOI within the public sector complaint procedures. We claim that this is of serious public interest and indeed of public concern.
When studying the Commissioners Decision Notice one is reminded of Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth' where covering-up for bunglers was the order of the day. The ICOs protective bias for the oft-dysfunctional HMRC is given with effortless ease that smack of the 'old pals act'. We would hope the Law Society or the Law Lords would study paragraph 36 within the Decision Notice.
We asked the Tribunal March 17, of paragraph 36; 'Was there such a piece of legislation passed that can be so badly misrepresented, misinterpreted that can be so fraudulently manipulated that it can give unwarranted legal protection to a fraudulent dysfunctional government office?'. We feel the rule of law was abandoned here and that there is little relevant public sector case law that allows such abuse.
Paragraph 36 states; 'The potential detriment to the third party (the employee who had given us much aggro) through disclosure of information relating to complaints made against them is a significant issue here. To release the fact that a complaint made against an employee may lead to assumptions being made about the employee's competence. However, the complaint may be Unsubstantiated or malicious'… (After 5 years of combating public sector fraud and its cover-up culture we took exception to the Commissioners atrocious put down of our efforts as being 'unsubstantiated or malicious')
Regarding 'assumptions' as indicated in para 36. We have evidence, forced out of the authority, in condemnation of the third party, (1) 'That her professional conduct and behaviour towards you and your wife whilst handling your tax affairs was less than satisfactory'.
And further condemnation (2) ' She was not acting in accordance with tax procedures, and her customer service fell below the standards expected of staff. The same third party also claimed (3) our honest qualified appeal was 'invalid'. It took us 16 months to get this fraudulent Revenue claim overturned by a Tribunal.
These are not assumptions as declared in paragraph 36 but are incriminating facts as to the third party's unprofessionalism and belligerence against us as client complainants.
These were the actions of an overprotected Revenue employee who appeared in para 36 under false pretences, where it is claimed by the Commissioner that she is/was in danger of assumptions being made against her? We ask was this fraudulent misuse of the DPA?
We were producing facts in denial of the Commissioners assumptions. This did not carry any weight with the Tribunal.
Minister, we are enclosing a separate copy of our notes that we were not allowed to voice at the Tribunal, these simple notes counter the ICO claim that the authority was 'accountable'.
We also send notes relating to the 2 year drawn out Decision Notice as mentioned above where the dragging of feet by the authority regarding its FOI commitment etc and poor management of proceedings by the ICO was ever apparent and time consuming.
Minister, because we have often written of what we see as large public sector 'systematic denial' towards governmental complainants, and have made this known to the public and universties etc, we feel it necessary that parliamentary committees etc know of the latest developments in our case.
Yours sincerely
AW & I Tanner 2 enc. rec/del.cc PM, MP, parliamentary committees
Sent to Minister Rt. Hon. Jack Straw. March 08
At the Tribunal 17th March 2008 we wanted to counter/rebuff the Commissioners some 10 references as to the 'HMRCs accountability' within the biased Decision Notice but were not allowed to, we were being strangled by legalities which we frankly, as laymen, did not understand. I was denied the chance to point out the numerous historic HMRC gaffes.
I had prepared notes from which I wanted to quote critical statements that would prove the Commissioners claim that the Revenue being 'accountable' was false. I wanted to quote from responsible parliamentary bodies such as Parliamentary Accounts Committee and the NAO and Chartered Accountants etc who had made serious criticisms and allegations giving more honest indications as to the authority being more dysfunctional than accountable.
I was not allowed to quote from Public figures such as Vince Cable MP who indicated the HMRC had taken over from the Home Office as the department 'most unfit for purpose'.
Also I could not quote from Baroness Noakes, who in the House of Lords claimed she 'Had grave doubts about the culture of the HMRC, she talked of its lack of awareness in its obligations that go with public service.
We also wanted to quote from the Public Accounts Committees report looking into the propriety of the HMRC after Treasury figures showed that virtually half the fraud across all government depts was taken by Revenue employees.
We wanted to quote from Accountancy Web who stated; 'That what is needed is someone to weed out the cultural incompetence that pervade the HMRC'.
We wanted to quote Treasury figures, obtained by R. Bacon PAC that shows 190 cases of fraud were reported in the HMRC in one year coming to almost £2m. The HMRC shows reluctance to prosecute such cases, out of 190 cases only 15 cases were prosecuted (Guardian).
We also wanted to mention at the Tribunal Hearing what we saw as evidence of the HMRCs internal squalid pervasive DNA. As when we read that MPs had called for the PAC to launch an investigation into the Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office, where the Chief Operating Officer was 'removed from office' (old pals leniency act)) for gross misconduct. It seems a matter of around £100,000 was involved.
In order to combat even further the Commissioners claim as to the 'accountability' of the authority within the D/Notice. We wanted to mention HM Inspector of Constabulary Dennis O'Conner who, after lengthy investigations concerning a high profile court case, where the trial judges were extremely critical of the HMRC, he claimed that HMRC officers and at least one senior HMRC lawyer were dishonest in their evidence.
It is hoped/claimed that errors and bad practice which so seriously damaged the reputation and integrity of HMRC in the criminal courts will not find there way into the Tribunal Service – we hope its not too late. It is known that because of the Revenues extreme incompetence, millions of taxpayers pay the wrong amount of tax; some pay more than they should, others pay less.
Now there are many more Quotes that we could have made in relation to the HMRCs unaccountability, of its unawareness of its public duty as Baroness Noaks pointed out in the HOUSE of LORDS. We also realise there are hundreds of other fraudulent or severely incompetent HMRC acts that have not yet come to the surface. No doubt many remain buried beneath the entrenched public sector cover-up culture, supported by the well-honed public sector 'old pals act'.
You will no doubt get the strength of my anger when I wrote (as disclosed above) to the very Rt. Hon. Des Browne Minister MOD. As a war pensioner who had put his life on the line I asked him if I could be put on a House of Commons gravy train in order to provide legal expenses to combat 2 barristers and 2 lawyers representing the HMRC and the ICO.
As a member of the electorate, a war pensioner I was merely asking for a share of what appears to be easily assessable taxpayer money to defend myself against the overpowering HMRC legal department. As an ex front-line soldier I was struggling against the legal power of the state – its got something to do with the 'rule of law'.
AW&I Tanner
EXTRAORDINARY ICO EXTRAPOLATION; leading the Commissioner to extrapolate from poor evidence and a convoluted mix of dates and figures that the Revenue were accountable?
We urge that this peculiar over-friendly extrapolation given in the authority's favour also needs investigating.
The peculiar extrapolation comes about like this; The HMRC refused to provide us with proper relevant information in relation to a specific employee (third party para 36) in relation to her fraudulent acts against us in 2003. The authority instead of giving us the requested information concerning this individual, later saw fit to disclose in lieu, misinformation that they had some 45 complainants in the years 2005/6?
In the Decision Notice however, para 35 the Commissioner claimed by a strange extrapolation that this non-information concerning other complainants in 2005/6 indicates that the authority had attempted to be'open and accountable' within the restrictions of not wishing to disclose details of complaints made about individual employees.
We ask, so what is the picture here? The HMRC did not want to disclose to us details of the miscreant ( hidden third party in para 36) who gave us much aggro in 2003. But because the deceitful HMRC disclose red herring non- information about the number of other complainants in 2005/6 that have no bearing on our case' the ICO by some strange means of extrapolation, claim that this erroneous mix of non-information and wrong years 2003 and 2005/6 is an indication that the Revenue is 'open and accountable'. They published the result of this ridiculous extrapolation within the Decision Notice.
The Commissioner refers to this red herring non-information several times ad nausea in the D/Notice para 39 he claims; ' It is also significant that the public authority has demonstrated transparency through disclosure of the total number of complaints received'. This non-informative red herring is also put forward in para 41 as somehow proving the authority's disclosure of non- information as being an 'accountable act'
The figures issued by the authority are for 2005/6 – our complaint was issued in 2003. We think the NAO, many parliamentary committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Treasury and Chartered Accountants etc would be appalled to learn that such an extrapolation of convoluted mixture of non-informative information, figures and dates, would give the remotest indication that the world renown dysfunctional Inland Revenue as being 'accountable' as proclaimed by the Commissioner in his biased Decision Notice.
We repeat the National Audit Office statement that wrote, 'of weaknesses and inconsistencies in HMRC process and operations including inadequate management information and failure by staff to comply consistently with departmental procedures.'
This is the authority we have unfortunately known for many years, that has a 'systematic' dislike of critics and has an inability to give a decent public service or be accountable as civil servants!
AW&I Tanner