Brian Pead and Richard Fulcher ... two men who uncovered corruption in their local authority, the police and the judicial system.

We reproduce below a 76-page letter of complaint against the Police which draws attention to the crimes perpetrated against them and Robert Ecclestone, 61, and his elderly mother, Violet Ecclestone, 93. Both Robert and his mother had more than £1.5million worth of antiques stolen from their home. Robert is not allowed to live in his own house because David Clack, an officer from the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, stole the items under the guise of "clearing the house". The Ecclestones are avid collectors - not hoarders!

Poor Violet is currently being held against her will in an old people's home. When she pops her clogs, the Council will force Robert to sell the family home to pay for her keep in the home - even though she doesn't want to live there!

Now read on ... these crimes are against INNOCENT people whom the police and judiciary should be protecting, not SHAFTING.

Dear Safer Neighbourhoods Team, HUNSTANTON, Norfolk:

AN OPEN LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO NORFOLK CONSTABULARY

REPORTING CRIMES: DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS, ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AGAINST NAMED PERPETRATORS OF CRIMES

Please see below the Particulars of the Offences which need to be recorded by Norfolk Constabulary and thoroughly and robustly investigated to the CRIMINAL STANDARD.

Perverting the course of justice

The Offence

3. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

·         does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)

·         which has a tendency to pervert and

·         which is intended to pervert

·         the course of public justice.

4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).

5. Intention is not the same as motive. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

6. Where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested (Cotter [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 762).

JAMES MORGAN, Partner, Hayes and Storr Solicitors, Norfolk

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

JAMES MORGAN, a Solicitor and Partner of Hayes & Storr, on a day between 09 July and 16 August 2012, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that he:

i.                    arranged for the arrest of Mr Richard Fulcher, a farmer

ii.                  conspired with a member of staff [Amanda Nudds] to bring false claims against Mr Fulcher

iii.                arranged for a member of his staff [Amanda Nudds] to commit perjury on 13 March 2013 at Norwich Magistrates’ Court

iv.                conspired with Anissa Hallworth [a Partner of Hayes & Storr] to bring spurious allegations against Mr Fulcher of Threats to Kill and Harassment

v.                  brought about spurious allegations after Mr Fulcher had complained about the way his civil complaint against Fenland District Council was being handled by Hayes & Storr

vi.                informed the Executive Committee of the Conservative Association that Mr Fulcher would be arrested ‘later that day’

vii.              gave false information to Norfolk Constabulary about alleged threats to kill by Mr Fulcher

viii.            delayed for almost two years in bringing a legitimate claim by Mr Fulcher against Fenland District Council

ix.                deliberately failed to bring a claim despite being instructed to do so by his client

x.                  conspired with Eastern Counties Finance to create fraudulent documents relating to loans

xi.                conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss Mr Fulcher’s application to strike out a bogus claim brought by E.ON on a stolen meter which does not exist on the farm

xii.              conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman to find Mr Fulcher guilty in his Appeal to Norwich Crown Court

xiii.            conspired with George Sorrell of Credence Law Group to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown

xiv.            conspired with Gavin Cowe of FisherCowe to fail to produce a Defence Statement and seek full Disclosure from the Crown

xv.              conspired with Magistrates at Norwich Magistrates’ Court to find Mr Guilty of Threats to Kill and Harassment where no evidence existed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of such crimes

xvi.            conspired with Jonathan Eales of Kenneth Bush Solicitors to make unfounded allegations against Mr Fulcher

xvii.          conspired with Gordon Dean Solicitors to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council

xviii.        conspired with Gordon Dean to further delay Mr Fulcher’s claim against Fenland District Council by applying for an illegal Set Aside on a bona fide court Judgment

xix.            conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to create illegal Set Aside documents to appear as if they were bona fide documents from the Court in order to prevent Mr Fulcher from obtaining the £270,000 awarded to him in a Court Judgment against Fenland District Council and thereafter unlawfully attempting to make Mr Fulcher bankrupt

xx.              conspired with Kirby & Haslam to bring about a bogus money claim

xxi.            conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to arrest Mr Fulcher, bring false allegations against him, allow armed police on to his farm on 01 August 2013 where the unlawful arrest of Brian Pead was made for criminal damage, AFTER Mr Fulcher had telephoned the police to report criminal damage by operatives claiming to be from the electricity company E.ON

xxii.          conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards bring unfounded allegations of animal cruelty against Mr Fulcher

xxiii.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have officers from Norfolk Constabulary accompany council officers from Trading Standards whenever they visited Ramblewood Farm

xxiv.        conspired with Stephen Bett, Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk Constabulary to have Trading Standards and Norfolk Constabulary harass Mr and Mrs Fulcher with numerous unwarranted visits to Ramblewood Farm without the consent of the owners

xxv.          conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss photographic evidence of theft of a meter at his farm during the hearing to strike out E.ON’s fraudulent claim held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178)

xxvi.        conspired with District Judge Barry Rutland to dismiss bona fide evidence of false representation by E.ON during the hearing to strike out held at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013 (Claim number: 3KL00178) in that E.ON entered into Court demonstrably false evidence of an alleged debt owed by Mr Fulcher for the consumption of electricity on a meter which does not exist on the farm

xxvii.      conspired with HHJ Nicholas Coleman of Norwich Crown Court to disallow witnesses as to fact and crucial disclosure in preliminary proceedings before a criminal Appeal against conviction of Threats to Kill and Harassment

xxviii.    conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mr L.R.V. Fulcher

xxix.        conspired with Stephen Bett in order that Norfolk Constabulary did not report any crimes perpetrated AGAINST Mrs K.A. Fulcher

We refer you to precedents in these matters:

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10544657.Dave_McLuckie_jailed_for_eight_months_for_perverting_the_course_of_justice/

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10503978.Judge_in_court_accused_of_perverting_course_of_justice_in_Huhne_case/

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/solicitor-faces-jail-perverting-course-1841076

SAMANTHA RAINBIRD, Investigator with E.ON Energy Suppliers

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES

Perverting the Course of Justice

Samantha RAINBIRD, between 01 July 2013 and 25 September 2013, with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice in that she:

(i)                 contacted King’s Police officers before any crime had been committed

(ii)               claimed that she was working with the authority of E.ON yet provided no such identification

(iii)             provided false information to police officers and others who were tasked with investigating the offences

(iv)             provided false information to Leonard Richard Fulcher and Brian Pead

(v)               conspired with others to falsely imprison Brian Pead

(vi)             conspired with others to cause actual bodily harm to Brian Pead

(vii)           conspired with others to harass Brian Pead

(viii)         conspired with others to create a false and malicious witness statement

(ix)             created a false and malicious witness statement

(x)               caused criminal damage to a gate at Ramblewood Farm

(xi)             caused criminal damage to a car belonging to E.ON

(xii)           failed to report an accident she had caused

(xiii)         failed to report careless driving

(xiv)         failed to provide an evidential specimen

(xv)           failed to give permission for a laboratory test

Richard Fulcher, part 17

1.            I then opened the locked electricity housing and showed the people claiming to be from E.ON the meter.

2.            This meter number was an entirely different meter number than the one on the bills my wife is receiving from E.ON. (The account was set up in her name).

3.            The female operative looked surprised and beckoned to her male counterpart.

4.            The female took a photograph of the meter with her mobile phone. I found this odd behaviour, just as I found it odd that neither operative had an HHT on which to record the meter reading.

5.            I believe that the operatives then checked the seals on the meter and found them not to have been tampered with.

6.             All of this scene was played out in front of the two armed police officers and one other (female) police officer. I understand that the female officer (WPC Girton) is married to one of the male officers. I believe it to be improper that two married police officers should be sent out on a job together and that this also makes the arrest unlawful.

7.             My friend appeared at King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court on 2 August 2013 and he entered a plea of Not Guilty to causing criminal damage.

8.            I did not see the police take any photos of alleged damage to the car.

9.            I did not see the police take photos of the damage to my farm gate.

10.       On 4 August 2013, both my wife and I pressed criminal charges against the female driver for causing damage to the farm gate.

11.       On 28 August 2013, I sent an email to Katie Parry of Parry & Company, the solicitors alleging to represent E.ON in their fraudulent claim against me. (They had not claimed against my wife, but only me.)

12.        I sent this email at 10:02. It was entitled “NOTICE OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AND CRIMINAL DAMAGE”.

13.       I copied all of the Directors of the E.ON Board (UK) into the email and I held them jointly and severally liable for their criminal actions.

14.       I ensured that all parties knew that the letter was an Open Letter and that I intended it to be shown to the world via the medium of the internet.

15.       In this email, I brought the fraudulent misrepresentation to the attention of all parties concerned, so that they would be in no doubt that if they went ahead with their criminal activities and continued to enter false documentation into Court, then the Hearing would be a nullity (because it would be based on fraud) but that they would held criminally liable for their actions, jointly and severally.

16.        In the same email, I also sought full disclosure, but this was denied me.

17.       In the same email, I asked for a report into the incident on the farm on 1 August 2013. This has not been sent to me to date.

18.       I believe that Ms Parry, Thomas Denash, the entire UK Board of Directors of E.ON, Judge Barry Rutland and Timothy Williams (Fenners Chambers, Cambridge) are all complicit in an unlawful and fraudulent Hearing at King’s Lynn County Court on 04 September 2013.

19.       I had witnesses present in the public gallery.

20.       On 06 September 2013, I received a number of telephone calls from the High Court Enforcer (hereinafter “the HCE”), whom I had instructed to collect the monies owed to me (£270k) in my Judgment against Fenland District Council. This Judgment is dated 7 November 2012.

21.       Officers from the HCE informed me that fraudulent documents had been provided to them by Council Officers from Fenland District Council, when the HCE had attended their offices on 03 and 04 September 2013.

22.       Officers from HCE told me that my Judgment was bona fide but that documents involving Gordon Dean (of Gordon Dean Solicitors, 16 Princes Street, Norwich, NR3 1AE) and Andrew Clarke (of Weightmans Solicitors, LLP) were clearly fraudulent.

23.       The officers from HCE advised me to contact the police and inform them that an investigation needs to take place because fraudulent documents had been entered into court and had been made to deceive the court and the HCE agency.

24.       On Friday 6 September 2013, I spoke with the High Court Enforcers office regarding my bona fide judgment against Fenland District Council. The HCE informed me that court documents allegedly involving District Judge Barry Rutland were bogus documents and that fraud had been perpetrated.

25.       On 07 September 2013, I reported the theft of a meter to Siemens, UK and I have asked them to investigate where the meter owned by that company has gone.

26.       In an email dated 10 September 2013, Siemens informed me that they had reported a stolen meter to E.ON.

27.       I, in turn, informed the local Safer Neighbourhood Team police about the stolen meter.

28.       In an email dated 10 September 2013, the HCE sent me a letter claiming that they had never said that the court documents were fraudulent. I believe that they had been “got at”.

29.       On 10 September 2013, I received an email from an Elliot Nason of Eastern Counties Finance (hereinafter “ECF”) in which he once again refused to meet to discuss the loan agreements with me.

30.       Mr Nason claims that there are 6 agreements. I believe from evidence that I have seen that Mr Nason and ECF are acting fraudulently and I have reported them to the police on 11 September 2013 under the Fraud Act 2006.

31.       Also on 11 September 2013, I reported District Judge Barry Rutland to the Office for Judicial Complaints and cited fraud, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice amongst other misdemeanours.

32.       Also on 11 September 2013, I reported Judge Nicholas Coleman to the Office for Judicial Complaints and cited fraud, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice amongst other misdemeanours. He had refused to seek full disclosure – particularly the CAD report – and he refused to allow me to call witnesses in a direct breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

33.       On 10 September 2013, I received a visit from two people purporting to be from the Official Receiver’s Office (hereinafter “the ORO”), but I had reason to doubt their credibility. After some initial research on these people, I still have reason to doubt their credibility.

34.       They had brought the police with them and PC 503 (Ben Clarke) from Hunstanton Police and WPC 1424 Whitmore from Dersingham Police came on to my property without lawful excuse.

35.       I was informed by the two people purporting to be from the ORO that District Judge Barry Rutland had issued a Bankruptcy Order and that “it stands”.)

36.       I informed the men from the ORO (if, indeed, they were) that I cannot be bankrupt because my assets outweigh my alleged liabilities, that I have not attended a bona fide Bankruptcy Petition hearing; that I have never signed any documents declaring that I am bankrupt and that DJ Rutland must have created the documents fraudulently, just as he had had a hand in fraudulent documents emanating from Norwich Courts (a fact initially corroborated by the HCE and subsequently denied.)

37.       I informed the two men from the ORO that they were acting ultra vires and that any Bankruptcy Order would be void ab initio.

38.       The two men left after around half an hour. The two police officers left around 15 minutes later.

39.       On 11 September 2013, I reported the two men from the ORO to the police for having perpetrated a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

40.       I have received email receipts from the police for every email that I have sent them.

41.       I have put my name to a book entitled FRAMED! which highlights judicial and police corruption.

42.       I believe that the allegations against me (of Threats to Kill and Harassment) arose because James Morgan (of Hayes and Storr Solicitors, King’s Lynn) did not want me to obtain a seat on the Borough Council of King’s Lynn.

43.       Hayes and Storr were supposed to be handling my legitimate claim against Fenland District Council, but they sat on my claim for two years. It was only when I brought their dilatory attitude to their attention that they initiated criminal charges against me.

44.       Upon my unlawful arrest for Threats to Kill (under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861), I was given a duty solicitor, Mr George Sorrell from Credence law. I believe he has connections with Hayes & Storr and Gavin Cowe of FisherCowe Solicitors.  

45.       Mr Sorrell failed to act on my behalf and I subsequently de-instructed him.

46.       When I instructed Gavin Cowe, he failed to obtain the CAD report and he failed to write a defence statement for me.

47.       Mr Cowe led me to believe that my case would be heard in the Crown Court, but it was heard in the Norwich Magistrates’ Court.

48.       Mr Cowe also failed to obtain the pocket notebooks of the arresting officers (armed police) in my arrest of 15 August 2013.

49.       My wife and I managed to obtain a bona fide judgment against FDC for more than £270,000 in November 2012, but they have still failed to pay me out.

50.       Having uncovered all of this corruption, I made contact with an investigative journalist and author.

51.       It is my belief that there should be a full and thorough investigation at the highest level into this corruption.

52.       The offences committed against me and my wife are getting out of proportion.

53.       I was due to attend the Norwich Crown Court on 13 September 2013, but under duress have had to decide not to attend because I cannot get a fair trial or Hearing in my Appeal in Norfolk or Cambridgeshire. Judge Nicholas Coleman has been reported to the OJC for failing to allow me witnesses, to obtain full disclosure and for significant breaches of my human rights and those of my wife.

54.       I still intend, however, to continue my Appeal against Conviction and Sentence, but have decided that it will have to be outside of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire and I want it to be heard in the Court of Appeal in London.

55.       I believe that writing this Affidavit and my part in publishing the book has put my wife and me at risk from reprisals.

56.       My wife and I fear for our lives, having had three properties destroyed by fire and I feel there is no point in asking for police protection as they are involved in most of the matters mentioned in this Affidavit.

57.       If anything should happen to me or my wife and family or my friends or property because of these Facts of Truth being made public, I have appointed three former Army and RAF officers to expose all the evidence we have gathered in these matters.

58.       I shall now devote the rest of my life to exposing miscarriages of justice upon the public and corruption as this is my destiny in life. 

59.       I believe that everything I have said in this Affidavit is true.

Violet Ecclestone, part 6

[Exhibit RAE24, letter from Sue Lowe, former Manager of Age Concern, dated 04    March 2011]

1.             On 12 May 2009, Mrs Woodbine and another Stonham assistant, Robert and Violet Ecclestone visited a warehouse in North Lynn where Clare Hanna and John Greenhalgh, had the key to the unit. When we arrived, all of our possessions were lying on the floor. It looked like a big tip. We went to see if the book was there. We could not find the rare book.

2.             After we left the premises, John Greenhalgh and Clare Hanna remained in the warehouse.

3.             From information in my possession, John Greenhalgh told me personally on 14 February 2009 that his father was an antique book dealer.  

4.             After the house was cleared David Clack deemed the house uninhabitable by issuing what he claimed to be a Prohibition Order.

      [Exhibit RAE29, document purporting to be a Notice of Emergency Prohibition Order, undated and unsigned]

5.             The document was a Notice of a Prohibition Order and not a bona fide Prohibition Order. I believe that only a Court can issue a Prohibition Order.

6.             The document purporting to be a Prohibition Order did not have a date and it was not signed.

7.             When I brought this to Mr Clack’s attention, he claimed that he had given me a bona fide document a month earlier and that I was out of time to Appeal it.

8.             The Notice of Prohibition effectively evicts me and my mum from our house but according to law (Protection from Eviction Act 1977, section 3) this Order can only be issued by a court, not a council.

9.             Mr Clack and other council officers claimed that the Council has the right to issue a Prohibition Order.

10.        On the document purporting to be a Prohibition Order, it states that my mother and I are unable to occupy our own house for residential purposes, unable to use our own property for overnight sleeping and no other person is allowed occupation of the property outside of the hours of daylight.

      [Exhibit RAE29, document purporting to be a Notice of Emergency Prohibition Order, undated and unsigned]

11.        Solicitors involved in the case include Hawkins (King’s Lynn), Staveley, Johnson and Proctor (Hunstanton), Kenneth Bush (King’s Lynn), Hayes & Storr (King’s Lynn), Maxwell Gillott EC1Y 0SG, and Prescotts Solicitors (Kidderminster).

12.        Henry Bellingham MP and his secretary Eileen Stephens visited Spire View in October 2009 as a result of many written complaints to him. On 16 December 2009, Mr Bellingham confirmed in writing that he could see no hazards in the property and failed to see why the house could not be occupied.

      [Exhibit RAE30, letter from Henry Bellingham, MP to Robert Ecclestone dated 16         December 2009]

13.        In August 2009, I met a Judith Maxey of Ivy Farm, who claimed to be interested in my case. She put me in touch with Maxwell Gillot and then Prescotts Solicitors.

14.        In September 2010, the Borough Council issued an invoice of almost £15,000 being the cost of the illegal works (i.e. theft, harassment and vandalism).

      [Exhibit RAE26, Invoice 3221 from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council     to Robert Ecclestone, dated 14 September 2010]

15.        On 21 February 2013 (four years after it was taken), my and my mother’s property was taken out of storage in Dereham and moved to our house.

      [Exhibit RAE31, letter from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council to Mrs      Violet Ecclestone and Robert Ecclestone,  22 January 2013]

     

16.        In September 2012, Clare Hanna said that she got an auctioneer, Geoffrey Collings to do a valuation. It was stated that there was nothing of any real value amongst our possessions. From his website on the internet, Geoffrey Collings is an auctioneer who deals in books, prints, antiques and house clearances.

      [Exhibit RAE32, screenshot from <www.geoffreycollings.co.uk> website offering           house clearance auctions]

17.        Therefore, I believe that the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, the Baines paintings and all other valuables have gone missing. The Council is liable for their replacement, or compensation for their current value as they had no right to interfere with our property. In her letter to me, Clare Hanna stated that she “...didn’t find any books that have any monetary value...”

      [Exhibit RAE33, letter from Clare Hanna to Robert Ecclestone dated 27 September       2012]

18.        After the property was cleared, David Clack deemed that the electric supply at Spire View was “unsafe”.

      [Exhibit RAE34, letter from Ray Harding, Chief Executive, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council to Robert Ecclestone dated 15 August 2011].

19.        Mr Clack admitted to me that he was not an electrician but claimed that because there were some old electric light switches (approximately 40 years old) that the bungalow needed to be re-wired as the wiring would be “too old to be safe”. He was advised that he was mistaken and that when the bungalow was re-wired in December 1990 my late father, who liked antiquities, asked the electrician to retain the existing light switches. As the electrician said that there was no legal requirement to replace the existing switches, they were retained. (See invoice dated December 1990)

      [Exhibit RAE35, invoice dated 02 December 1990, showing work completed on Spire     View, including the       rewiring of the entire bungalow by electrical contractors]

20.        Mr Clack refuted this. An electrician who was a friend of a friend came to Spire View in around 2009 and checked the electric for safety. He used an instrument known as a Martindale which confirmed that the supply was adequately earthed, the live and neutral wires correctly connected, and that there were no leaks between any wires. The electrician confirmed that, had this not been the position, the fuses would blow and the electricity supply would not remain on. These facts speak for themselves as there were no problems with fuses at Spire View.

21.        On 21 April 2010 the electric failed at Spire View, so we telephoned EDF, who came and they detected an outside fault in EDF’s wiring which they repaired. Before the repair, they disconnected the fuse inside the house and after the repair, in order to confirm that the outside wires were correctly connected, it was necessary to test the house sockets with their instruments. I believe that a Martindale was used. Although the electric supply company do not normally deal with wiring in a property beyond their meter, this was necessary on this occasion. EDF confirmed the electric to be safe.

      [Exhibit RAE36, letter from EDF Energy Networks to Mrs Violet Ecclestone, dated        30 July 2010]

22.        EDF confirmed this in writing on 30 July 2010. Again David Clack refused to accept this. On 07 September 2010 David Clack obtained a warrant from the King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court to enter Spire View with an electrician by force if necessary in order to test the electrics. In giving evidence to a Magistrate under oath that this was in connection with a “Prohibition Order” when no court has ever issued such an order, I believe that David Clack committed an offence which violates s.2 of the Perjury Act 1911.

      [Exhibit RAE37, warrant from King’s Lynn Magistrates’ Court, dated 07 September      2011]

23.        In a letter dated 06 September 2011, Mr Clack stated that he was going to attend Spire View with an electrician before he had even been to the Magistrates’ Court to obtain a warrant. I believe that this shows collusion between Mr Clack and the Magistrate because the former has made an assumption that he would easily obtain a warrant.

            [Exhibit RAE38, letter from David Clack to Robert Ecclestone, dated 06 September       2011]

24.        Furthermore, in the same letter it stated that works would be carried out in order to bring the bungalow up to the required standard but no works were ever carried out by the Council which demonstrates that the Prohibition Order on the grounds of an unsafe electrical supply is bogus.

      [Exhibit RAE38, letter from David Clack to Robert Ecclestone, dated 06 September       2011]

25.        In the event David Clack brought an electrician, Calvin Mallet, employed by Elecsure, to test the electrics at Spire View. He also brought several police officers to the property. The Report appears to be bogus because it is not signed by Mr Mallet and nor is it signed by his manager, Mr Steve Pitcher. However, it is an NICEIC requirement that an electrical safety certificate is only valid upon the signature of the contractor undertaking the test.

      [Exhibit RAE 39, report on condition of electrical installation at Spire View, dated 09   September 2011]

26.        I asked the electrician what he thought about Mr Clack getting police officers to supervise him doing his work and I also stated that “I bet that has not happened before.” He said, “No, but I had better not say anymore because he is a friend of my boss.”

27.        I asked him who that was and he replied, “Steve Pitcher”.

28.        After the test I asked the electrician if the electrics had passed the test and he confirmed that they had and said that his boss would issue a certificate “next week”.

29.        The following week, Steve Pitcher issued a certificate but it contained some information which I believe is incorrect. It stated that the wiring was 40 years old (the age of some light switches) and further stated that the property needed to be re-wired.

      [Exhibit RAE39, report on condition of electrical installation at Spire View, dated 09    September 2011]

30.        I believe that there was some collusion between Steve Pitcher and his friend council officer David Clack.

31.        I decided to send copies of the test results to NAPIT (National Association of Professional Inspectors and Testers) obliterating certain names to comply with the Data Protection Act. I also sent a copy of the December 1990 invoice as evidence of the age of the wiring.