‘A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people.’
by AMBROSE BIERCE
Either we are all accountable in law or none of us are!
I updated this page 18.09.23
I wish I had seen this excellent article on the link below, before I took CHA to court. Anne McCrea has kindly given me permission to upload the entire article and is displayed in Ch 9. The Narcissist in Court by Anne McCrea. Search Results for “narcissist in court” – Narcissistic and Emotional Abuse
Guidance for social housing providers | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com) update 01/05/24 This link has now disappeared along with the original article I copied!
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial The previous link broke as they now have updated on different pages.
“Article 6 protects your right to a fair trial
You have the right to a fair and public trial or hearing if:
you are charged with a criminal offence and have to go to court, or
a public authority is making a decision that has an impact upon your civil rights or obligations.
What is a fair and public hearing?
You have the right to a fair and public hearing that:
– is held within a reasonable time
– is heard by an independent and impartial decision-maker
– gives you all the relevant information
– is open to the public (although the press and public can be excluded for highly sensitive cases)
– allows you representation and an interpreter where appropriate, and
– is followed by a public decision.
– You also have the right to an explanation of how the court or decision-making authority reached its decision.”
None of the highlighted above, were applied in my case when I took CHA to court. I have no idea about the other two.
“Article 6: Right to a fair trial and “is an absolute right. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, before an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable time. This right applies where someone’s private rights are at stake, such as in contractual or property disputes. It also applies to criminal trials. The right to a fair hearing means, broadly, that a person should be given the opportunity to participate effectively in any hearing of their case, and to present their case in conditions which do not place them at a substantial disadvantage when compared with the other party in the case. For example, a person who is subject to a decision-making process in relation to a possible eviction should have access to an interpreter, if necessary. Decisions should be given with reasons.”
Q. When the law is not the law?
A. I was denied my absolute legal rights to a fair and impartial hearing, when I took CHA to court and was disallowed the opportunity to present my case and show evidence prior to decisions being made. Instead, I was given two Case Management Discussions (CMD) and as a result of these, my claim was substantially altered to favour CHA’s interests, which enabled them to avoid liability for breaking laws and malicious intent to cause harm, because “No evidence, means no case”. The Sheriff was perfectly happy to ruin the reputation of the Scottish Courts to protect her unscrupulous friends at CHA.
This is a prime example of how some people pursue careers, to use for dishonourable means.
Below is the claim I submitted to the court; I have taken it from my word document copy as it was difficult to copy from a PDF file completed online. It is followed by Sheriffs Jillian Martin-Brown decision; to change my claim into something completely different, (without giving me reasons).The Sheriff set a date for second Case Management Discussion but it should have been an evidential hearing; whereby I could have shown my side of the case; the truth, with evidence to back it up and if the law had been applied, CHA could not have walked away, see evidence in Ch’s 3 & 6.
FORM 3A
The Simple Procedure Claim Form
Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) refuses to follow policy, procedure, and are in breach of contract. Since 15/09/16 I have been victimised and discriminated against by staff/directors/contractors, after supporting a vulnerable tenant who was being victimised by CHA.
My son and myself are being driven out of our home by unethical practices from CHA. My tenancy rights and data protection rights are being abused.
CHA deliberately failed to make reasonable adjustment according to Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination protected characteristics).
- I want CHA to stop processing my Data and remove all reports and file notes they have written about me at any time. I do not want them to retain or process any personal or sensitive data. Only to retain essential basic data e.g. repair requests. I would like to receive a declaration that they have complied and evidence to support.
- I would like to receive a declaration that CHA are in breach of contract (I need for help in getting new home, to replace references)
(Continued in separate sheet D5)
CHA have refused to follow policy and procedure and are in breach of contract. They never take responsibility for any wrongdoing and blame everyone except themselves.
CHA have engaged in unethical practices to harass me, to drive my son and myself out of our home, and therefore made it impossible to conduct business with them. I did not sign up for this and it is not the behaviour expected from a social housing landlord.
- I would like to receive a declaration that CHA is in breach of Equality Act (Disability Discrimination) 2010
- I would like a hand-written apology from Cheryl Connolly, Susan Stewart, Ian Beeching, Tim Calderbank, and Garry Savage for all the unnecessary distress they have caused me.
- I would like steps to be put in place to prevent them engaging in any further intimidation or harassment.
Claimant: ———
Respondents: Mr. Garry Savage.
D1 continued
Information Commissioners Office case worker told Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) to follow policy and delete the excessive information held. CHA have ignored the advice. They are stonewalling over removing excessive, or sensitive data which is not pertinent to CHA business, to upset me.
CHA have failed to follow policy, procedure, and legislation: Anti -Social Behaviour(a.s.b.), Data Protection, Repairs and Maintenance, Complaints procedure, Estate Management, and Group Service Standards.
The appalling and sometimes malicious, customer service standards my son and myself have been subjected to, are not the behaviour expected from our social housing landlord and not what I signed up for at the beginning of my tenancy in 2013.
D5 continued.
1.Breach of contract and unnecessary inconvenience which was detrimental to my health, to hold to CHA to account £1000
2.Removal costs and rent upfront for my son and myself £1500
3.Kitchen replacement costs due to insect infestation from mould in home £1000
4.Major upheaval and cost of removing garden, kitchen, bathroom alterations, and remedial work. £1500
Interest rate at 8% annually from last date of service
Below is what my claim was turned into.
No 1. states wood lice but it was about book lice which was entirely damp related, after long delays in treating the source. These lice do not stay in a house if there is no damp. My claim was also about how CHA withheld services, put obstacles in my way and never offered to replace the kitchen forcing us to buy one, which was their responsibility, see chapter 6 and the laws they broke; including criminal offences under The Rent (Scotland) Act 1984; 22 Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier.
No 2. It was not damp equipment installed incorrectly, it was a hot water cylinder which had been deliberately installed to bypass the breaker box and had its thermostat turned up high; to inflate my electric bills. A plumber who later discovered this, said it was dangerous (shock and fire safety risk) see bottom of page in chapter 6.
No 3. This was about multiple data protection breaches from more than one person and several violations of my privacy and had nothing to do with CHA’s fictitious claim of assessing rough casting repairs, as described in solicitors’ letter in chapter 6, which was not even plausible. I wanted to stop CHA from processing my data as they are too untrustworthy, but Sheriff J Martin-Brown turned it into something about money, which the second Sheriff in a different Case Management Discussion, said I couldn’t claim, as I was not allowed to be compensated over stress caused by data breaches. The fact that they did breach the Act many times, was ignored.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22
The Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 ;
22Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier.
(1)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.
2)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—
(a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or
(b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;
does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.
[F1(2A)Subject to subsection (2B) below the landlord of any premises or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household; or
(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,
and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.
by Andrew Crosbie, An Advocate at the Scottish Bar
“Fraud is a dishonestly made false-pretence, in order to bring about a practical result”
Fact: CHA has a history of defaming their tenants behind their backs; to prejudice the opinions of others and deflect attention away from their dishonourable practices. It probably explains why the Sheriff greeted me with “so you are Ms—– (this signifies knowledge of me, prior to even meeting with me)”repeating it again, then went on to shout me down when I tried to state; I had a medical certificate, “No, you are not!” a mandate from another tenant “No, you are not!” and what evidence I needed to be heard at a hearing. “No, you are not!” Unless of course she has another reason, for blocking my attempts to put my case. I was treated worse than a criminal; at least they get a lawyer and get to put their case. It was obvious that this Sheriff was completely biased towards CHA, and she went on to make decisions, which were beneficial to the respondent allowing them to avoid accountability. Her solemn oath and the law require her to recuse herself, but she ignored this.
I was further disadvantaged by both Sheriffs who dealt with my CMD’s, who told me not to open my evidence file, yet I have ‘brain fog’ and needed it to help with my concentration and recall. The Sheriffs and the respondent’s solicitor were reading from their own sources which I was excluded from seeing, despite we are all supposed to have access to the same information. If I had been represented by a solicitor, my case would have been treated completely different, as my legal rights would not have been ignored. I would never attend a court without a lawyer again, because of this.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20
Duty to make adjustment (Equality Act) was ignored by CHA, their solicitors and the court. The solicitor tried to say it was not anticipatory to claim they did not know about my disabilities as seen in solicitors letter in CH6 (link underneath the image):
Judiciary of Scotland (with Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown as poster girl) Click on Ethics and Independence you will see The Judicial Oath.
Ethics & Independence (judiciary.scot)
JUDICIAL ETHICS
“The statement of principles of judicial ethics, a widely accepted framework of judicial ethics, helps to ensure that both the judiciary and the public are aware of the principles which guide judges.
Impartiality
The role of a judge is to interpret the law without bias or prejudice. Cases are primarily allocated to judges based on their availability. The specialisations and expertise of individual judges may also be a factor, such as in commercial matters, or intellectual property cases.
To be impartial, judges base their decisions solely on the law and on the facts and evidence of the case in court.
All judges take the judicial oath, acknowledging their accountability to the law by pledging:
“I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”
Ethics & Independence (judiciary.scot)
Update 20/06/24 “…Like everyone else, judges are subject to the law, and may be found guilty of criminal offences or be subject to civil proceedings.” but a few months after sending my complaint to Nicola Sturgeons office – this sheriff was promoted and is still ‘cherry picking’ when to uphold the law!
“…the courts and lawyers must always be entirely independent of the State in order to protect the rights of citizens and the rule of law. This is a fundamental part of democracy. Read more about the independent regulation of the legal professions.” and the Lord Advocate has been an influential part of the SNP cabinet with several roles- ..how is that independent? just because they make claims, does not make it true!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate
“His Majesty’s Advocate, known as the Lord Advocate (Scottish Gaelic: Morair Tagraidh, Scots: Laird Advocat), is the principal legal adviser of both the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland for civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. The Lord Advocate provides legal advice to the government on its responsibilities, policies, legislation and advising on the legal implications of any proposals brought forward by the government. The Lord Advocate is responsible for all legal advice which is given to the Scottish Government.[2]“
Making up all the rules/laws to suit their own corruption.
Yet, Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown ignored article 6 of the Human Rights Act, the Simple Procedure rules, and the Judicial Oath, to protect a dishonourable company. Why would she do this? CHA does not care about who they drag down in the mud as long as they avoid accountability, but a Sheriff should know better and lead by example. Why would anyone expect to have faith in the courts or any legislation if they are only on the side of the perpetrators and ignore the victims. This Sheriff was later recommended for promotion by first Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn’t matter to the govt that the Sheriff has no respect for people or the law just like CHA, or perhaps that was the reason she was selected!
The Human Rights Act | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com)
“Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world…… These basic rights are based on shared values like dignity, fairness, equality, respect, and independence. These values are defined and protected by law. In Britain our human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) ”
Except when you are a tenant of Caledonia Housing Association who disregard legislation, encourage the same in others, have no moral compass, who harass decent tenants, cover for their antisocial tenants, and then pull strings to avoid accountability.
I had no choice but to get my case dismissed as CHA were aiming to make me lose, (and to add insult to injury), they could then claim expenses from me. The scheming narcissists/gaslighters at CHA, did what they do best; control all the situation to their own advantage, by manipulating others to cover for them. It is disgusting what these people get away with and just how many people are willing to ignore the law to protect them. It speaks volumes about the integrity of those covering their backs.
COURT: Forfar Sheriff Court, Market Street, Forfar, DD8 3LA
CLAIMANT: ——
RESPONDENT: Caledonia Housing association
CASE REFERENCE:
Additional information C1
Dear Forfar Sheriff Court,
I believe my case against Caledonia Housing association should be dismissed because I was not allowed the claim which I made in my court 3A application form, to be heard and it has been altered into something completely different.
The first case management discussion dated 29/06/18, had my claim altered by the court, as I was prevented from having a fair impartial discussion prior to a hearing, where I would have proven my case with overwhelming evidence.
My original claim has since been watered down even further by the respondent’s solicitor and I realise is not worthy of another discussion in the court. I should not be charged for expenses as I never lost my case, which was denied the opportunity of a fair hearing, from the beginning. I was disadvantaged by the court and the respondent’s solicitor. My claim was successfully obstructed by CHA manipulating people to avoid accountability, as revealed by the second sheriff who allowed me one piece of evidence to be shown to him instead of the false evidence provided by CHA’s solicitor.
The term fraud may become relevant, but I will leave it for the court to decide as the court was clearly misled, (assisted by the respondent’s solicitor), by CHA who are very adept in the art of manipulation to mislead all authorities, and proved this to the second sheriff at the second case management discussion dated 21.09.18
Fraud legal definition of fraud (thefreedictionary.com)
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Despite health issues and disabilities, I spent over 18 months preparing my case without a solicitor, with support from Citizen’s advice and other agencies, who recognised the need for my case to be heard to protect my rights, and those of other tenants and service users. I was assisted by Angus Independent Advocacy for over a year whose efforts have also been in vain.
All Caledonia Housing Association had to do was ignore simple procedure rules, turn up, blatantly lie, and mislead the court with the help of their solicitor, who was complicit in falsifying evidence, they both knew would have gone against the respondents.
Fact. During the second case management discussion dated 21/09/18 a different Sheriff allowed me to show a crucial piece of evidence, which revealed what I had been trying to show to the first Sheriff. The Information Commissioners office decided against Caledonia Housing, in 1) a letter dated April 2018, which their solicitor, (along with other facts withheld from the court), engaged in a deliberate act of deception to protect the interests of their clients to avoid accountability, for their malicious and dishonourable business practices.
The ICO made this decision in my favour because I proved CHA had processed data which they did not have a legitimate reason to process and shown how CHA falsified data to defame my character. They had also withheld data from me which I was entitled to see, and she also told them to follow policy. CHA was given a date to respond.
I also have evidence to prove not only did CHA ignore her advice but went on to falsify more information. They also tried to mislead Aberdeen Law project (acting on my behalf) over what the ICO had said.
I could have even proved CHA had gone into the realms of committing criminal offences e.g.
Taking action about harassment – Citizens Advice Scotland
A landlord or their agent can be prosecuted for a criminal offence of harassment if they behave in such a way that your enjoyment of the peace and comfort of the property is disrupted or services like power or water are withdrawn or limited, and it limits your use of the property in such a way you feel you have to leave.
I am one of two tenants to whom this is relevant, from a small scheme. I had a mandate from the other victim of CHA’s dishonourable customer service, which was so bad, he has been persecuted by CHA and his neighbour, an anti-social tenant who they empowered and used as a weapon to drive him either into an early grave or out of his home. I could have proved in my own evidence how CHA engage in malicious action against tenants to suppress them.
Fact: All I needed to do to win my case and protect other tenants from CHA, was to show the overwhelming amount of factual evidence in my possession, which would have supported and proven my case.
Fact: All that was needed to prevent me from winning my claim and exposing CHA’s dishonourable practices; was to obstruct my case in the first place. This is what happened.
Fact: CHA had their lawyer, but I should have had the law on my side.
Attachments
1) ICO evidence letter proving among other things, a decision went against the respondents CHA; who had falsified information about me in order to defame my character and did not have a legitimate reason for processing. 2) How CHA tried to mislead Aberdeen Law Project by withholding the full account of what the ICO said in the above letter and admitting they had ignored the ICO.s instructions, by playing word games.
I wish to thank the 2nd sheriff, for being fair and taking on board my concerns and for allowing me to show the ICOs letter, which proved the court had been misled by the respondents and their solicitor. (I apologise for not remembering the 2ndsheriffs name, I did not write it down in court and have short term memory problems).
Had this second sheriff been involved at the first case management discussion, I feel confident a fair and impartial hearing would have taken place and my case proven. CHA’s dishonest, morally abhorrent and harmful business practices would have been exposed and they would not have been able to continue conducting their business, a fact they were fully aware of. People are being harmed and I had the means to protect them from CHA but was denied.
Please dismiss this case without any expenses to be met by me, as I brought this to court in good faith and with the understanding, I would be given a fair and impartial hearing; to present my case as outlined in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and simple procedure rules.
1.2( 3) Parties are to be treated even-handedly by the court. I was greeted by the first Sheriff “So you are Miss —–” followed by no you’re not, no you’re not, no you’re not as soon as I tried to discuss anything. I protested to CHA’s lies, including evidence of CHA’s deception over what the ICO said, by offering immediate evidence to dispute them and prove my point, but I was refused. This case management discussion was totally in favour of the respondents. Had I been treated fairly, I could have successfully proved my claim as outlined in my 3A application form.
1.4 (2) The sheriff must ensure that parties who are not represented, or parties who do not have legal representation, are not unfairly disadvantaged. I was clearly disadvantaged, my case was not given any consideration, and was turned into something else, based on the lies and deception of the respondents whose own solicitor was discredited in a second case management discussion by a fairer sheriff.
1.5 What are parties’ responsibilities?
(1) Parties must respect the principles of simple procedure. CHA’s solicitor withheld all the information, from me which it supplied to the court.
(2) Parties must be honest with each other, with representatives and with the sheriff. The respondents and their solicitor deliberately withheld facts which they knew would damage and discredit the respondents
1.8 What are the sheriff’s powers?
(6) The sheriff may make decisions about the form, location and conduct of a discussion in court, case management discussion or hearing. The sheriff must explain to parties why these decisions were made. It was not explained to me why my claim was turned into something else which allowed the respondents to avoid accountability and trivialise my serious claim against CHA.
(17) If a claim should have been raised in a different sheriff court the sheriff must transfer the claim to a court in which the claim could have been raised, unless the sheriff is satisfied that there is a good reason not to. The first sheriff J Martin-Brown stated that she did not know whether this was the right court for my claim, but then continued anyway making decisions which had nothing to do with my original claim. These were later watered down further by the respondent’s solicitor in the 2nd case management discussion, before the 2nd sheriff revealed the court had been misled by the solicitor and the respondent.
Attachment 1) From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: Garry Savage
Subject: Data Protection Concern [Ref. RFA0669181]
Date: 11 April 2017 11:38:16
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Mr Savage,
Re: Ms — Subject Access Request –
Ms — has contacted us with a concern in relation to the way that her subject access request (SAR) has been dealt with by Caledonia Housing Association.
Ms — has raised concerns that third party information in relation to a neighbour who made a complaint relating to Ms— have been disclosed to her.
She has also noted that information in relation to this concern has not been disclosed.
The data subject has also advised us that she did not receive your organisation’s Customer Data Protection Notice or sign the relevant paperwork.
Finally Ms — has noted that she has concerns in relation to a Contact Report of the 15 September 2016 as she states that the information recorded is inaccurate and excessive.
The ICO’s role
Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the Data Protection Act (DPA) properly.
If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask organisations to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.
What happens next?
From the information provided, it seems likely that Caledonia are in breach of Principle 6 of the DPA which relates to an individual’s rights. This is because in the file notes provided to Ms— of 14 December 2016, it states that the information on permission requests had not originally been provided to her as part of her first SAR response. However it does seem that this information was provided to Ms —- at a later date. (????)
In relation to the fact that it was disclosed to Ms —– who the complainant was regarding a neighbour complaint, please can you provide the ICO with further information. Please can you provide a summary of the reasons why this information was disclosed to the data subject?
Furthermore please can you outline in relation to the DPA, the reasons why the information regarding this complaint has been withheld from Ms— under the DPA. Please find our guidance on disclosing information in relation to complaints below:
s40 Access to information held in complaints files v3.0 (ico.org.uk)The concern regarding the fact that Ms — was not provided with the organisations Customer Data Protection Notice relates to principle 1 of the DPA which states that data must be processed fairly and lawfully and, in a way, that data subjects would reasonably expect.
Furthermore fair processing information should be provided regarding how information will be processed in order for organisations to be transparent.
In light of the concern raised by Ms— I would now advise that your organisation should adhere to your data protection policies and that measures should be put in place as remedial action in regards to this.
In relation to Ms — query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections.
Furthermore from the information provided by Ms—, your organisation will accommodate Ms —’s request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.
Please can you provide me with the requested information requested above by 25 April 2017. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, If you would like to discuss this case further please do get in touch.
ICO Statement
We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website(www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Manuel
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office 01625 545 655
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest. To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.
Misleading the court over the facts is against the Law Society Rules and is also an act of fraud, especially as a Sheriff takes its lead from the solicitors.
Standards for solicitors | Law Society of Scotland (lawscot.org.uk) Several standards apply including “Confidentiality does not apply when a client indicates to their solicitor that they intend to commit a crime” for example commit fraud, or when the solicitors failed to reveal to the court the facts; how CHA break laws including the Rent Scotland Act 1984 and incite others to break laws on their behalf, and routinely engage in malicious actions, commit fraud and also protect the criminal interests of anti-social tenants (ch3)etc.
A second solicitor lied, engaging in acts of deception via a letter (Ch.6) making sure I received it after we had been to court (received same day). She also tried to rewrite a piece of legislation! Having already unlawfully harassed me out of our home, my son was later driven out by Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly, on the basis of what she and the rest of CHA do best; commit fraud behind the scenes by lying to a sheriff officer to obtain a repossession notice, or the letter may be entirely fraudulent; see in Ch.7.
Attachment 2) ——- Forwarded message ———- From: Lorna Miller <Lorna.Miller@caledoniaha.co.uk> Date: 3 January 2018 at 11:48 Subject: RE: Subject Access Request – Caledonia Housing Association (SAR012) To:
Dear —-
I can advise that no information in the Contact Report has been amended or removed, this is due to Caledonia waiting on Ms —-providing us with what information she feels should be amended or removed.
The last correspondence we received on this matter was an email from Ms— dated the 11th February stating that she would be seeking additional advice on this to make sure she was confident that it is done correctly. Please let me know if you would like a copy of this email, as it was out of the timeframe of the information provided in this latest subject access request.
This email was a reply to a letter emailed to Ms— on the 8th February 2017, responding to a stage 2 complaint.
Ms—-’s request to have information in the contact reports for the entry on the 15th September was addressed by advising the following “I have to advise that I do not believe that the Association has breached the Data Protection Act in relation to the way in which the meeting on 15 September was handled and recorded or other notes relating to your tenancy. ** I would restate our position that the note represents a summary overview of Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day, and as such it is a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view.”
“The letter also included an offer to amend the records “I would advise again however that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of your files as noted in previous email correspondence. I would also have to advise however that this would be as a goodwill gesture as opposed to any admission that information itself was incorrectly recorded.”.
On the 27thFebruary 2017 we received a second Subject Access Request from Ms—- for records dated from 2ndNovember 2016 to March 2017, completed 5th April 2017.
When the ICO contacted us (11th April 2017) regarding Ms —–‘s complaint they advised that accuracy of information under the Data Protection Act relates to the accuracy of matter of fact and that the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. The ICO did not take further involvement in this matter as Ms—– had advised that we were prepared to accommodate the request to remove excessive information.
On the 12th April we received the email from Ms— requesting that we cease communication with her, unless for repairs.
Our position still remains, we are happy to consider Ms —-’s amendments to this entry on the Contact Report, and will amend this entry to note what parts Ms —- is in disagreement with.
If you require any more information on this please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Lorna
Lorna Miller
Information Governance Officer
Caledonia Housing Association Direct Dial: 01382 484511 Mobile: 07522226219
**What a load of *twaddle about “factual account from Cheryl’s point of view”. They are playing word games to amuse themselves.
By omitting the facts of what the ICO actually said and turning it into something else, and withholding data I am entitled to see, this brand-new Information Governance Officer, is already engaging in deliberate acts of deception, to cover for Caledonia Housing Association!
I had already accused CHA of falsifying information as part of my early complaint when CHA pushed me through their pseudo complaints procedure. Garry Savage withheld this fact (amongst other things) from his complaint procedure response (see in chapter 6) because he did not want to draw attention to it. CHA does not want to reveal the whole picture, just their twisted version of the truth. Deceiving people, is very much at the heart of how this company runs its business and they encourage others to follow suit.
The ICO tried to offer the *twaddle as a valid argument too (CH. 5) in our email communication, after they did a U-turn. They are all having a laugh, but are so arrogant, unprofessional, and stupid, they never stop to think how they would be perceived by others, once exposed.
As for claiming they will amend data as a goodwill gesture, I will not be coerced into allowing CHA to get away with falsifying data, (fraud), defaming my character and holding on to data which they did not have a legitimate reason for processing in the first place. They should not be allowed to process anyone’s data, not just mine, as any right-thinking person would agree. This Executive Team should not even be allowed to operate, as they have proven to be extremely untrustworthy and have no credibility whatsoever, and the same applies to their enablers.
Update 03.12.22 With the additional information throughout the rest of my wesite on the exposure of how criminal authorities and their sycophants operate, it proves the point that dishonesty is valued by them all and decency is treated with contempt. It speaks volumes! They have no right to preach legislation to us.
Updated 09/09/24 Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown who presided over my case – poster girl for the ‘two tier’ Scottish Judiciary and selected by the corrupt Scottish Govt.
