Tweet
At the beginning of this year, I won a civil case against my local authority over a pothole claim (the subject of a previous post on here). During this process I discovered why everyone I have ever spoken to (in my part of the country) has been unsuccessful; it is because the local authority doesn’t tell the truth. In my case, they submitted a number of witness statements to the court that I was able (via FOI) to prove to be fraudulent. Instead of withdrawing the statement(s) in the bundle, they just tipex’d out the name, signature and date.
I requested the judge to commit them for perjury but she explained that the matter was settled and closed for discussion on account of them conceding immediately. I submitted an official complaint but they chose not to investigate it. I then complained to the local government ombudsman but they cannot investigate anything that has already been to court or anything that is criminal – this they said is a job for the Police. The Police were much more helpful but said that the cost of them pursuing a prosecution would prohibitive and so they wouldn’t investigate either. They said I could look into a private prosecution. I imagine this would be outside of my financial means and so they are effectively immune from ever being brought to task. My plan now is to share my experience in the form of a website. So, firstly I welcome any opinions on this and any alternative direction but secondly, defamation. They threatened me with liable action when I complained but I have only supplied the information that I received via FOI and have certainly not said anything that isn’t true. I notice that the governments act prohibits local authorities from perusing defamation but this cannot be the complete picture because there has to be something to stop people making false claims. The derisory offer they made me to withdraw my case started with “without prejudice” as would be expected but there is only one or two other sections in their submissions that have “without prejudice”. Where it does appear makes no sense to me but am I right to assume that this applies only to the sections to where it is stated and that all other sections can be published? Presumably I would need to redact any information that could be considered sensitive? Or do I not? If someone writes me a letter, do they have a right to expect me to be the only reader unless they have explicitly stated so? There must be some nuance or Meghan Markle wouldn’t have been able to draw her case out for so long? Anyway, all comments welcome.
I requested the judge to commit them for perjury but she explained that the matter was settled and closed for discussion on account of them conceding immediately. I submitted an official complaint but they chose not to investigate it. I then complained to the local government ombudsman but they cannot investigate anything that has already been to court or anything that is criminal – this they said is a job for the Police. The Police were much more helpful but said that the cost of them pursuing a prosecution would prohibitive and so they wouldn’t investigate either. They said I could look into a private prosecution. I imagine this would be outside of my financial means and so they are effectively immune from ever being brought to task. My plan now is to share my experience in the form of a website. So, firstly I welcome any opinions on this and any alternative direction but secondly, defamation. They threatened me with liable action when I complained but I have only supplied the information that I received via FOI and have certainly not said anything that isn’t true. I notice that the governments act prohibits local authorities from perusing defamation but this cannot be the complete picture because there has to be something to stop people making false claims. The derisory offer they made me to withdraw my case started with “without prejudice” as would be expected but there is only one or two other sections in their submissions that have “without prejudice”. Where it does appear makes no sense to me but am I right to assume that this applies only to the sections to where it is stated and that all other sections can be published? Presumably I would need to redact any information that could be considered sensitive? Or do I not? If someone writes me a letter, do they have a right to expect me to be the only reader unless they have explicitly stated so? There must be some nuance or Meghan Markle wouldn’t have been able to draw her case out for so long? Anyway, all comments welcome.
