Public Disclosures
Active Public Disclosures, A Lawful Evidence of Systemic Breach
Lawful Evidence Bundles
Verified evidence bundles prepared under lawful disclosure. Each record functions as equilibrium restoration through proof.
Public Interest Disclosure Act
Protected disclosure under PIDA 1998 ensures safety, accountability, and public right to truth.
Systemic Failure
Systemic failure documented, not rhetoric, but verified breakdown across law, health, and housing.
The Active Public Disclosures section forms the civic record of the Truthfarian system. It exists to publish verified evidence of institutional or procedural failure where harm, negligence, or discrimination have occurred and where standard accountability routes have collapsed.
Each publication is a lawful act under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) and contributes to the equilibrium principle that defines Truthfarian ethics: truth as coherence restoration through evidence.
This record does not rely on belief, conjecture, or ideology. It documents the factual chain of events that led to measurable human, structural, or ethical imbalance. Each entry is therefore a mathematical and moral correction, proof that exposure itself is an act of equilibrium, restoring public right over private concealment.
Moral Law
Derived from the Truthvenarian Principle: coherence and justice are inseparable. Moral equilibrium defines the integrity of disclosure itself.
Civil Law
Rooted in Magna Carta (1215) and the common law maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium,where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Statutory Law
Protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). Ensures that publication of evidence is not rebellion but lawful restoration of balance between state, citizen, and system.
Truthfarian – Introduction Part 1
This video introduces Truthfarian by defining it as a truth mechanism grounded in law. It explains truth as an evidential condition in which every variable is bound through legal, ethical, and proportional constraints, rather than belief, opinion, or narrative.
Truthfarian — Introduction – Part 1b(i)
Part 1A defined Truthfarian as a truth-recognition mechanism grounded in equilibrium rather than belief.
Part 1B(i) does the necessary work of grounding that mechanism in law. This matters because truth, as Truthfarian defines it, cannot exist outside lawful constraint. Without law, there is no equilibrium. Without equilibrium, there is no truth mechanism.
Truthfarian — Disclosures Part 3 – 1 of 2 Why Disclosure Becomes Necessary
This video introduces Truthfarian Disclosures.
A Truthfarian Disclosure is not opinion, accusation, commentary, or narrative. It is a law-bound disclosure mechanism used when lawful process, candour, or remedy has failed.
Disclosure is not made to persuade or to argue. It exists to place verified facts, timelines, and procedural failures onto the public record where truth has been obstructed by delay, omission, distortion, or misstatement.
Truthfarian — Disclosures Part 3 – 2 of 2 Why Disclosure Becomes Necessary
This part clarifies the function and limits of disclosure.
A Truthfarian Disclosure does not assign guilt, speculate, persuade, or replace lawful process. It does not manufacture claims or seek authority through narrative. Its purpose is to stabilise the record where truth has been disrupted by delay, omission, distortion, or procedural failure.
Disclosure operates where internal correction has failed. It restores equilibrium by placing verifiable facts, timelines, and breaches into an auditable public domain, without exaggeration and without concealment.
View Disclosures by Jurisdictional Class
Disclosure Articles Headlines
SRA “No Case” Signal vs CNBC Continuation — Regulatory Dismissal as Extra-Procedural Authority (DAC Beachcroft LLP)
Regulatory non-enforcement deployed as simulated merits determination inside an active civil corridor.
This disclosure records a structural governance fault-line in which an SRA non-enforcement outcome (“no action” / “no case” effect) becomes operationally convertible into a proxy-merits signal while a CNBC civil claim remains live (issued claim, continuing procedure, and amendment pathway via N244). The defect recorded is not the regulator’s discre…
Sources:
1. DAC Beachcroft LLP — Costs-pressure email (WP / Save as to Costs) — 6 February 2025
2. DAC Beachcroft LLP — ET3 Response filed — 9 February 2025
3. SRA — Complaint submission (initial filing) — 11 February 2025
4. SRA — Outcome / closure communication (non-enforcement / “no case” effect) — date per file
5. Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) — N1 Claim Form issued — 25 February 2025 — Claim No. M05ZA443
6. Case file — Supplementary case expansion / breach consolidation pack — March 2025
7. CNBC — Supplementary Particulars (dated document for record) — 28 March 2025
8. CNBC — Acknowledgment of Service (N9 / AOS) — date per file
9. CNBC — N244 Application (permission to amend) — 14 April 2025
10. CNBC — N244 Cover Letter (supporting submission) — 14 April 2025
Legal Breaches Identified
Abuse of Process / Procedural Intimidation
Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness (Bias-by-Signal)
Constitutional Due Process Degradation (Magna Carta 39–40 Effect)
HRA Article 6 Interference (Fair Hearing / Equality of Arms)
HRA Article 14 Discriminatory Effect (where disability/vulnerability engaged)
Equality Act Disability Disadvantage (procedural exclusion by effect)
CPR Part 1 Corridor Integrity Failure
Service / Notice Theatre (Simulated Standing via Delivery Mechanics)
Defence / Pleading Integrity Distortion (standing asserted without compliant corridor step)
Statements of Truth / Verification Integrity Risk
Costs Weaponisation / Improper Costs Leverage
Regulatory Objectives Undermined (Legal Services Act 2007)
SRA Principles Breach (Integrity / Public Trust / Rule of Law)
SRA Code Breach (Not Misleading / Fair Dealing / Conflicts Controls)
Regulatory Signal Failure (Non-enforcement posture functioning as proxy merits verdict)
Misrepresentation Vector (False Meaning Inducement)
Harassment Vector (Course-of-Conduct Pressure)
Public Interest Disclosure Suppression / Detriment + International Interpretive Anchors
Bath Road, Hounslow, GP Surgery – Deletion of Live Patient Medical Records
Record deletion during active care severs continuity and converts data loss into systemic clinical harm.
Deletion of live patient records triggers overlapping duties across common law, NHS governance, data protection, and human rights frameworks, creating a cumulative governance failure with direct patient-safety and accountability consequences.
Sources:
Subject Access Request (SAR) disclosure bundle — GP record output(s) evidencing missing / unavailable periods and supplied extracts.
Bath Road Surgery primary care record extracts — including the 28 June 2018 Type 2 diabetes entry (and any surrounding record context).
Patient registration / transfer record — Bath Road Surgery → Theale Medical Centre (10 May 2022 registration confirmation).
Theale Medical Centre record extracts — evidence of diabetes-care gap (May 2022–April 2024) and first diabetes-related medication review (22 April 2024).
Any SAR response letters / covering correspondence from Bath Road Surgery and/or Theale Medical Centre (including statements of what is held, what cannot be produced, and any explanations given).
Any deletion/retention notices, system notes, EMIS/TPP/SystmOne audit outputs, or explicit confirmation that no audit trail can be produced (if provided).
Clinical correspondence or secondary care letters referencing diabetes status (2018–2022) used to evidence that the diagnosis existed during the “missing” period.
Formal complaints / communications to the GP surgery regarding missing records (and any responses).
Claim documentation identifying the pleaded clinicians and defendant surgery (Particulars of Claim / N1 documents).
Correspondence from Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP (defence/representation communications relevant to the records issue).
Any recorded-delivery envelope / postage evidence connected to Gordons correspondence (if relied upon as a disclosure source).
Any ICO / CQC submissions, reference numbers, acknowledgments, or outcomes (if already initiated and relied upon).
Legal Breaches Identified
1. Deletion and/or non-preservation of clinically material live patient medical records whilst the patient remained alive and registered.
2. Loss of auditable longitudinal continuity-of-care record (diagnosis history, treatment pathway, clinical decision-making evidence).
3. Failure to operate lawful retention and disposal governance (premature deletion and/or uncontrolled disappearance of records).
4. Failure to provide transparency, lawful justification, or documented process explaining how and why clinically material records ceased to exist.
5. Failure to produce any contemporaneous audit trail identifying the actor, timestamp, authority, mechanism, and scope of deletion/non-preservation.
6. Failure to provide remedial restoration pathway, recovery attempt evidence, or validation process capable of restoring or confirming record integrity.
7. Frustration of lawful access rights (SAR/right of access) by inability to supply clinically material personal data on request.
8. Failure of integrity and security controls sufficient to prevent loss, destruction, or unavailability of high-risk health data.
9. Failure of clinical governance systems and processes to ensure compliant record management, accountability, and oversight.
10. Failure of candour/openness in responding to a safety-critical record-integrity event and its implications for ongoing care.
11. Safeguarding and clinical risk assessment impairment arising from removal/unavailability of longitudinal history required to assess risk and manage chronic disease.
12. Interference with the patient’s ability to evidence and challenge clinical decision-making within medical, regulatory, and legal processes due to evidential destruction/unavailability.
Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP — Unopened Correspondence Issued Post-Default
Recorded Delivery as Simulated Authority — Formal Signalling Outside the Lawful Court Corridor
This disclosure records the dispatch of a formalised recorded-delivery envelope by Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP during a live period of Defence default. At the time of dispatch, no Defence had been filed, no relief from sanctions had been sought, and no order had restored standing. The procedural record was fixed.The envelope’s registered, au…
Sources:
Claimant correspondence sent to the County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
CNBC email correspondence and internal return notices
Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP “Recorded Delivery” envelope (front scan)
Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP “Recorded Delivery” envelope (rear scan)
Royal Mail tracking and delivery metadata for the Gordons envelope (09-02-26)
DAC Beachcroft LLP envelope used for comparator (EX3B)
Northampton PO Box 300 envelope used by CNBC (EX3C)
Reading County Court live case record showing Acknowledgment of Service filed
Reading County Court record showing Defence deadline expiry and default status
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) as published on legislation.gov.uk
Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 6 and 8 (legislation.gov.uk)
Equality Act 2010 — ss.15, 19, 20–21 (legislation.gov.uk)
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Principles 2019 (SRA official publication)
SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2019 (SRA official publication)
Royal Mail delivery standards and signed-for service specification (Royal Mail publications)
HMCTS published procedural standards and response guidance (gov.uk)
Publicly available HMCTS court listing interfaces (gov.uk and CourtServe)
Claimant master bundle of indexed exhibits (as uploaded)
Time-stamped screenshots evidencing online court listing absence
Postal date stamps, delivery marks, and barcode evidence from uploaded scans
Any other evidential images uploaded as exhibits in the disclosure record
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Civil Procedure Rules — r.15.4 (Time for Filing a Defence)
II. Civil Procedure Rules — r.16.5 (Contents of the Defence)
III. Civil Procedure Rules — r.12.3 (Conditions for Default Judgment)
IV. Civil Procedure Rules — r.3.8 (Sanctions Effective Unless Relief Granted)
V. Civil Procedure Rules — r.1.3 (Duty of the Parties)
VI. Civil Procedure Rules — r.22.1 (Statement of Truth Requirement)
VII. Civil Procedure Rules — r.3.4(2)(b) (Abuse of Process)
VIII. Civil Procedure Rules — r.1.1 (Overriding Objective)
IX. Civil Procedure Rules — r.1.4 (Court’s Duty of Active Case Management)
X. Civil Procedure Rules — r.3.1 (Case Management Powers)
XI. Civil Procedure Rules — r.52.21 (Procedural Fairness / Review)
XII. Civil Procedure Rules — r.44.2 & r.44.11 (Costs and Misconduct; Personal Liability)
XIII. Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6
XIV. Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8
XV. Equality Act 2010 — s.15 (Discrimination Arising from Disability)
XVI. Equality Act 2010 — ss.20–21 (Reasonable Adjustments)
XVII. Equality Act 2010 — s.19 (Indirect Discrimination)
XVIII. Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2019
XIX. SRA Code of Conduct 2019 — para 1.2 (Misleading the Court)
XX. SRA Code of Conduct 2019 — para 1.4 (Misleading Others)
XXI. SRA Code of Conduct 2019 — para 2.7 (Threatening / Misuse of Litigation)
XXII. SRA Code of Conduct 2019 — para 7.3 (Correspondence with Opponents)
XXIII. SRA Code of Conduct 2019 — para 3.5 (Governance and Supervision)
XXIV. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 6
XXV. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 13
XXVI. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — Articles 2 & 14
XXVII. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Articles 5 & 13
DAC Beachcroft / CNBC (Civil National Business Centre) — Out-of-Hours Transfer Email (20 Jan 2026, 21:15) + Next-Cycle DAC Beachcroft Service Email (19 Jan 2026, 09:12): Procedural Interference Timing Pattern and Record-Integrity Risk (Claim No. M05ZA443)
DAC Beachcroft asserted service and pressed for response, then CNBC issued an out-of-hours transfer notice closing the administrative channel creating a timing trap and record-integrity risk in M05ZA443.
DAC Beachcroft asserted service and pressed for response in Claim No. M05ZA443 while, within 36 hours, CNBC issued an out-of-hours transfer notice to Reading County Court stating it could take no action and provide no updates. The two emails operate as a single procedural sequence: adversarial momentum continues by solicitor email while the court-a…
Sources:
Procedural Interference and Intimidation During Judicial Freeze — DAC Beachcroft LLP — M05ZA443.
High-Value Claim Disposed Outside Proper Jurisdiction / Allocation — DAC Beachcroft LLP — M05ZA443.
Conflicts of Interest and Institutional Control — DAC Beachcroft LLP.
Procedural Delay, Out-of-Hours Correspondence, and Court Letter Fragmentation — CNBC / HMCTS.
Failure to Respond Within a Reasonable Time — CNBC / HMCTS.
January Hearing Date Introduced by Party Email and Retrospective Court Correspondence — HMCTS / Reading County Court.
Procedural Misstatement / Ultra Vires Commentary — Reading County Court.
Comparative Harm Valuation (PHM vs Vento Bands) — harm valuation framework.
How Ordinary People Can Use Generative AI to Clarify and Empower Their Legal Position — Legal Application Layer.
Legal Breaches Identified
Out-of-hours transfer notice (21:15) — CPR Part 6; PD 6A; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Court-admin channel closure (“CNBC can take no action / no updates”) — CPR Part 30; PD 30; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Transfer decision opacity (no decision time/author/reason on notice) — CPR Part 30; PD 30; common law procedural fairness; open justice.
Transfer decision-time not disclosed (audit gap) — CPR Part 30; PD 30; natural justice.
File integrity at transfer not evidenced (no inventory/baseline) — CPR Part 30; PD 30; open justice / record integrity.
Receiving court activation/receipt time not evidenced — CPR Part 30; PD 30; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Defendant service posture asserted by email during admin closure — CPR Part 6; PD 6A; CPR Part 3.
Email “service” substitution risk (service asserted without verified court-file trail) — CPR Part 6; PD 6A; PD 5B.
Order handling latency/irregularity (order dated 19 Nov 2025 surfaced in Jan 2026 service posture) — CPR Part 40; PD 40B; CPR Part 6; PD 6A.
Proof of court service of the order not evidenced within the sequence — CPR Part 40; PD 40B; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Tight coupling of opponent escalation and out-of-hours closure (timing trap risk) — natural justice; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Prejudice amplification risk (“non-response/default” narrative during practical remedy window closure) — CPR Part 3; CPR Part 6; PD 6A.
Application-process integrity risk where “without a hearing” disposal is implicated on the file — CPR Part 23; PD 23A; CPR Part 3.
Anonymous/unsigned CNBC authorship despite first-person wording (“I/we”) — CPR Part 30; PD 30; open justice / record integrity; HRA 1998; ECHR Art. 6.
Judicial Order Proceeding on Assumed Hearing and Unidentified Third-Party Participation – Reading County Court (January 2026)
Procedural reliance on a hearing that was never lawfully notified, listed, or served.
This disclosure documents a procedural failure in which a January 2026 hearing was asserted and relied upon without any lawful notice, public listing, or proof of service. The only communication of the alleged hearing date originated from party correspondence, followed by delayed and retrospective court administration after the asserted date had pa…
Sources:
This disclosure is derived from the following primary and corroborative sources:
• Court correspondence and orders issued by the County Court Business Centre (CNBC) and Reading County Court, including scanned letters received post-January 2026.
• Party correspondence (email) asserting a January 2026 hearing date without any accompanying court-issued notice.
• Absence of official court records, including no sealed Notice of Hearing and no public listing on HMCTS-maintained hearing lists or CourtServe at the relevant time.
• Timestamped administrative communications, including out-of-hours correspondence issued by CNBC.
• Documentary evidence bundle submitted and logged prior to the asserted hearing date.
• Visual evidence demonstrating volume, timing, and escalation of documentation delivered to the court.
• Cross-reference to related Truthfarian disclosures, including procedural suppression and court handling irregularities at Reading County Court.
• Publicly accessible HMCTS listings and service standards, used to verify non-listing and procedural non-compliance.
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Failure to serve a sealed Notice of Hearing
II. Absence of lawful service under CPR Part 6
III. Proceeding on an assumed hearing without notice
IV. No public listing of the alleged hearing (HMCTS / CourtServe)
V. Denial of the right to attend and be heard
VI. Breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem)
VII. Equality of arms violation
VIII. Procedural ambush by retrospective correspondence
IX. Out-of-hours court communication undermining procedural fairness
X. Excessive administrative delay (64-day non-response)
XI. Failure to maintain accurate and contemporaneous court records
XII. Improper reliance on party email as court notification
XIII. Judicial reliance on non-attendance caused by court failure
XIV. Failure to verify service prior to adverse procedural action
XV. Procedural irregularity in case progression
XVI. Administrative suppression of live procedural defects
XVII. Breakdown of judicial oversight and safeguards
XVIII. Record inconsistency across court documents and systems
XIX. Denial of legal certainty
XX. Prejudice caused by administrative failure
XXI. Abuse of process through retrospective procedural reconstruction
XXII. Breach of CPR r.1.1 — Overriding Objective
XXIII. Breach of CPR Part 3 — Case management duties
XXIV. Breach of CPR Part 23 — Applications and notice requirements
XXV. Breach of CPR Part 39 — Hearing and attendance safeguards
XXVI. Breach of Article 6 ECHR — Right to a fair hearing
XXVII. Breach of Article 13 ECHR — Right to an effective remedy
XXVIII. Breach of Human Rights Act 1998 s.6 — Unlawful public authority action
XXIX. Breach of Equality Act 2010 s.20 — Failure to make reasonable adjustments
XXX. Breach of Equality Act 2010 s.149 — Public Sector Equality Duty
XXXI. Failure to comply with HMCTS service standards
XXXII. Failure to preserve accurate public records (Public Records Act principles)
XXXIII. Procedural misattribution of fault to the litigant
XXXIV. Systemic obstruction of access to justice
Introduction of a January Hearing Date by Party Email and Subsequent Retrospective Correspondence
When a hearing exists only by assertion, procedure collapses into administrative fiction.
This disclosure documents a procedural failure in claim M04ZA309 where no sealed Notice of Hearing, service certificate, or court-issued notification was ever provided. The only indication of a hearing date arose from a party email on 8 January, unsupported by any public listing, court call, or official notice, following a 64-day period of administ…
Sources:
• Claimant correspondence to County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
• CNBC email correspondence and case transfer notifications
• Reading County Court letters and envelopes (dated and timed)
• Defendant email asserting hearing date (8 January)
• Absence of sealed Notice of Hearing (court-issued)
• Absence of Service Certificate for hearing notification
• HMCTS online court listings (January listings snapshot)
• HMCTS “Find a Court or Tribunal” public listings
• HMCTS published service standards and response time guidance
• HMCTS Equality and Inclusion Policy (publicly available)
• HMCTS Vulnerability Guidance (publicly available)
• Civil Procedure Rules (published statutory instrument)
• Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk)
• Equality Act 2010 (legislation.gov.uk)
• UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018 (legislation.gov.uk)
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
• UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
• Public reports, reviews, and documented complaints relating to Reading County Court administration
• Claimant master bundle and indexed exhibits (as served)
• Time-stamped screenshots evidencing online listing absence
• Postal evidence of delayed or irregular service
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.1.1
II. CPR r.1.3
III. CPR r.3.1
IV. CPR r.3.8
V. CPR r.3.9
VI. CPR r.6
VII. CPR r.12.3
VIII. CPR r.23
IX. CPR r.24
X. CPR r.30
XI. CPR r.52
XII. Human Rights Act 1998
XIII. Equality Act 2010 s.149 (Public Sector Equality Duty)
XIV. Data Protection Act 2018
XV. UK GDPR Article 15
XVI. Housing Act 1988
XVII. Administration of Justice Act 1970 s.40
XVIII. Protection from Harassment Act 1997
XIX. HMCTS Equality and Inclusion Policy
XX. HMCTS Vulnerability Guidance
XXI. Duty of Candour (Public Authorities)
XXII. Judicial Conduct (Judicial Code of Conduct)
XXIII. Freedom of Information Act 2000
XXIV. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6
XXV. ECHR Article 8
XXVI. ECHR Article 13
XXVII. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2
XXVIII. ICCPR Article 14
XXIX. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Article 5
XXX. CRPD Article 12
XXXI. CRPD Article 13
XXXII. UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
XXXIII. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
XXXIV. UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 32
Williams Lea – Unpaid Overtime, Time Equivalent Served (TES), and Health & Safety Threshold Breach
Quantified unpaid labour, documented systemic overwork, and foreseeable harm under law.
This disclosure documents sustained unpaid overtime evidenced by employer systems, including JIRA work logs covering October 2023 to June 2024, which were sufficient to demonstrate both the scale of excess hours worked and systemic failures in workload management. While project hours had been logged since at least August–September 2023, the evident…
Sources:
I. Consolidated Particulars of Claim — Ramdin v Williams Lea (ET Case No. 3300001/2025)
II. Background to Claim with Evidence (Claimant-authored evidential narrative)
III. Schedule of Loss and PHM Calculations (as filed)
IV. Subject Access Request (DSAR) Response — Williams Lea
V. JIRA Work Logs (August 2023 – June 2024)
VI. Chart of Planned vs Logged Hours (Oct 2023 – June 2024) — Exhibit 35
VII. Portfolio Case Studies Produced During Employment — Exhibit 36
VIII. Gantt Chart: Case Study Timelines & Workload Intensity — Exhibit 37
IX. Integration of Case Studies, Roles, and Contributions — Exhibit 38
X. Employment Contract, TOIL Policy, and Internal HR Communications
XI. Follow-up Emails from HR During Period of Medical Fatigue / Burnout
XII. GP Records and Medical Diagnosis Referencing Workload-Induced Burnout
XIII. Tribunal Case Management Orders and Directions (including video hearing reference)
XIV. Williams Lea Internal Systems of Record (Time, Task, and Delivery Reliance Evidence)
XV. Publicly Accessible Portfolio Evidence (webinmotion.co.uk case studies)
XVI. Prior Truthfarian Public Disclosures Relating to Williams Lea (Overtime / Workload)
XVII. Supporting Exhibits Referenced Within the Particulars of Claim
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 — s.2(1) (General duty of employers)
II. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 — s.2(2)(a)–(c) (Safe systems of work)
III. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 — reg.3 (Risk assessment)
IV. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 — reg.13 (Capabilities and training)
V. Working Time Regulations 1998 — reg.4 (Maximum weekly working time)
VI. Working Time Regulations 1998 — reg.10 (Daily rest)
VII. Working Time Regulations 1998 — reg.11 (Weekly rest)
VIII. Working Time Regulations 1998 — reg.12 (Rest breaks)
IX. Working Time Regulations 1998 — reg.24 (Health and safety protection)
X. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.1 (Statement of employment particulars)
XI. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.13 (Unauthorised deductions from wages)
XII. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.23 (Right to complain to tribunal)
XIII. Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence (Common Law)
XIV. Common Law Duty of Care — Foreseeability of Harm (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932])
XV. Equality Act 2010 — s.6 (Disability)
XVI. Equality Act 2010 — s.15 (Discrimination arising from disability)
XVII. Equality Act 2010 — s.19 (Indirect discrimination)
XVIII. Equality Act 2010 — s.20 (Duty to make reasonable adjustments)
XIX. Equality Act 2010 — s.21 (Failure to comply with duty)
XX. Equality Act 2010 — s.26 (Harassment)
XXI. Equality Act 2010 — s.27 (Victimisation)
XXII. Equality Act 2010 — s.39 (Employees: terms, detriment)
XXIII. Equality Act 2010 — s.136 (Burden of proof)
XXIV. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.43A (Protected disclosure)
XXV. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.43B (Qualifying disclosure)
XXVI. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.43C (Disclosure to employer)
XXVII. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 — s.47B (Protection from detriment)
XXVIII. Employment Rights Act 1996 — s.103A (Automatic unfair dismissal)
XXIX. Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 — Rule 2 (Overriding objective)
XXX. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 4 (Forced or compulsory labour)
XXXI. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 6 (Fair hearing)
XXXII. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 8 (Private and family life)
XXXIII. European Convention on Human Rights — Article 14 (Non-discrimination)
XXXIV. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — Article 7 (Just and favourable conditions of work)
XXXV. Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Article 23 (Just remuneration)
XXXVI. ILO Convention No. 1 (1919) — Hours of Work (Industry)
XXXVII. ILO Convention No. 30 (1930) — Hours of Work (Commerce and Offices)
Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP – Procedural Default and Absence of Defence
A documented case of defence default, sanction crystallisation, and post-deadline procedural misconduct engaging domestic and international legal protections.
This disclosure documents a clear procedural divergence between the court record and the conduct of Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP following the filing of an Acknowledgment of Service. Despite the activation of the CPR timetable and the subsequent expiry of the Defence deadline on 14 November 2025, no Defence was ever filed and no relief from s…
Sources:
Court Record (Primary):
Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) court file → Acknowledgment of Service (AoS) notice → Court confirmation of AoS on record → Absence of Defence by CPR deadline → Absence of relief from sanctions order → Absence of consent order or extension.Correspondence Evidence (Defendant):
Gordons Partnership Solicitors LLP correspondence → instruction letter asserting representation → merits and strike-out assertions → costs exposure warnings → continued correspondence post-deadline → correspondence issued absent pleaded Defence.Postal / Service Evidence:
Royal Mail service envelopes → Whistl bulk-mail handling → date-stamped envelopes → proof of delivery chronology → temporal alignment with CPR timetable.Application Materials (Procedural):
N244 application materials (issued) → draft order (unsupported by Defence) → witness statement advancing merits → application pursued absent statement of case → no verified Defence under CPR r.22.1.Temporal Alignment Evidence:
Date-stamped documents → AoS filing date → AoS confirmation date → Defence deadline calculation → post-deadline conduct mapping → sustained divergence between court record and conduct.
Legal Breaches Identified
Civil Procedure Rules (England & Wales):
CPR r.15.4 (failure to file Defence within time) → CPR r.16.5 (absence of pleaded admissions/denials) → CPR r.12.3 (conditions for default judgment satisfied) → CPR r.3.8 (automatic sanction operative absent relief) → CPR r.1.3 (failure to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective) → CPR r.1.1 (undermining just and proportionate disposal) → CPR r.1.4 (interference with active case management) → CPR r.3.1 (mis-engagement of case management powers) → CPR r.22.1 (absence of verified statement of case) → CPR r.3.4(2)(b) (abuse of process) → CPR r.44.2 (improper costs conduct) → CPR r.44.11 (litigation misconduct by legal representatives) → CPR r.52.21 (procedural fairness principles engaged).Human Rights Act 1998 / European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair hearing; equality of arms) → Article 8 ECHR (interference with correspondence and procedural dignity) → Article 13 ECHR (denial of effective remedy through procedural obstruction) → Article 14 ECHR (discriminatory impact in enjoyment of Convention rights).International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
Article 14(1) ICCPR (equality before courts and tribunals) → Article 2(3) ICCPR (right to an effective remedy).UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD):
Article 5 CRPD (equality and non-discrimination) → Article 13 CRPD (effective access to justice).Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
Article 7 UDHR (equality before the law) → Article 8 UDHR (right to an effective remedy).Common Law / Professional Regulation:
Abuse of process (common law doctrine) → improper use of procedural powers for collateral purpose → breach of duty of candour to the court → procedural intimidation and chilling effect → Legal Services Act 2007 ss.1 & 3 (regulatory objectives and professional principles) → Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles 2024 (Principles 1–5) → SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors 2024 (Rules 1.4, 1.5, 2.1).
Medical Health Disclosure – Comprehensive Medical History with Supporting Evidence: June 2018 - December 2025
Documented clinical risk arising from disrupted care, delayed monitoring, and safeguarding failures across long-term treatment.
This disclosure sets out a consolidated medical history from 2018 to 2025, evidencing sustained clinical risk arising from gaps in monitoring, medication disruption, and failures in continuity of care. It documents persistent hyperglycaemia, repeated hypertensive episodes, and associated complications, including a suspected stroke event, alongside …
Sources:
Disclosure Sources
General Practice medical records (2018–2025)
NHS secondary care correspondence and referrals
Subject Access Requests (SARs) and SAR responses
Evidence of missing and deleted medical records (2018–2020)
Pathology and diagnostic test results (including HbA1c, renal markers)
Medication history and prescribing records
Hospital attendance and outpatient records
Consultant letters and clinical communications
Visual timelines and medical data visualisations derived from source records
NHS Constitution, NICE guidance, and clinical governance standards
Prior Truthfarian medical and safeguarding disclosures
No confidential or privileged material reproduced.
Legal Breaches Identified
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR rr.1.1, 1.2, 3.1(2), 3.3(4), 3.4(2), 24.2, 44.2)
Equality Act 2010 (ss.15, 20, 21, 149)
Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 6, 8)
European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6, 8)
ICCPR (Articles 2(3), 14(1))
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Articles 5, 13, 25)
Common Law – duty of care, foreseeability of harm, equality of arms
Judicial Code of Conduct (2024) §2.3
Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR (Articles 5, 12, 15, 32)
NHS Constitution (duties of care, patient safety, continuity of care)
Governance Overlay and Judicial Non-Engagement in the Gopal Litigation
Public-interest disclosure documenting governance overlay and procedural non-engagement in civil litigation
This disclosure documents a publicly verifiable governance role held by the landlord party in Ramdin v Gopal and records its coexistence with observable judicial and administrative non-engagement across the related proceedings. Without alleging impropriety or motive, it preserves contextual evidence of structural asymmetry, where a disabled litigan…
Sources:
West Berkshire Council — Register of Interests
(Statutory register published under the Localism Act 2011 and the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012)
Localism Act 2011 (Part 1, Chapter 7)
(Members’ interests, standards, and governance transparency obligations)
Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012
(Mandatory disclosure and management of pecuniary interests)
Judicial Code of Conduct (2024)
(Impartiality, independence, and avoidance of apparent bias)
Civil Procedure Rules and Court File Records
(Filed applications, listings, procedural orders, and administrative correspondence in Ramdin v Gopal)
Equality Act 2010 — Public Sector Equality Duty Guidance
(Court and public authority obligations where disability and vulnerability are notified)
Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR Guidance
(Judicial obligations relating to fair hearing and respect for home and private life)
Truthfarian Archive — Related Disclosures and Bundled Evidence
(Cross-referenced procedural, medical, and housing evidence already published on the site)
Legal Breaches Identified
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR rr.1.1, 1.2, 3.3(4), 3.4(2), 24.2)
Equality Act 2010 (ss.20, 21, 149)
Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 6, 8, 14)
European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6, 8, 14)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR Articles 2(3), 14(1), 26)
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Article 13)
Common Law – equality of arms; procedural fairness; foreseeability of harm
Judicial Code of Conduct (2024) §2.3 (Impartiality and appearance of bias)
Localism Act 2011 (ss.29–34) and Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012
Williams Lea – Video Hearing Direction, Overtime Evidence Scope, and Procedural Posture
Procedural record of Tribunal-directed evidential scope and system-based overtime assessment
This disclosure records the procedural posture of the Williams Lea Employment Tribunal matter following tribunal directions for a video hearing. The Tribunal confined the scope of the hearing to overtime records and employer-controlled system logs, expressly limiting the evidential field. This entry documents that scope and the procedural tim…
Sources:
• Employment Tribunal Notice of Video Hearing
• Tribunal direction restricting evidential scope
• ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate
• ET1 claim submission and acceptance
• Employer-controlled overtime records
• Employer system logs (including JIRA / time-tracking systems)
• Procedural correspondence between parties and Tribunal
Legal Breaches Identified
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
• Rule 2 – Overriding Objective (fairness, proportionality, efficiency)
• Rule 29 – Case management orders and directions
• Rule 41 – Tribunal power to regulate evidence and scope
Employment Rights Act 1996
• Section 13 – Unauthorised deductions from wages
• Section 94 – Right not to be unfairly dismissed
Working Time Regulations 1998
• Regulation 9 – Employer duty to maintain adequate working time records
European Convention on Human Rights
• Article 6 – Right to a fair hearing (procedural equality of arms)
This disclosure records tribunal-directed evidential scope only.
No findings, liability, or determination are asserted.
High-Value Claim Against DAC Beachcroft Disposed of by Deputy Judge Outside King’s Bench Jurisdiction
High-value civil litigation resolved through forum downgrading and procedural compression, foreclosing adjudication on the merits.
This disclosure documents the summary disposal of a complex, high-value civil claim through procedural routing to a structurally unsuitable forum. Despite advance notice, unresolved procedural filings, and the absence of a pleaded Defence, dispositive powers were exercised at local County Court level by a Deputy District Judge. Analysed with…
Sources:
Pre-hearing escalation correspondence (timestamped)
Court procedural records and order (N24)
Court file position (absence of pleaded Defence)
HMCTS procedural architecture and listing practice
Prior Truthfarian DAC Beachcroft disclosures
Associated unresolved applications and filings
Truthfarian equilibrium and procedural-suppression analysis
No confidential or privileged material reproduced.
Legal Breaches Identified
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR rr.1.1, 3.3(4), 3.4(2), 24.2, 44.2)
Equality Act 2010 (ss.20, 149)
Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 6, 8)
European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6, 8)
ICCPR (Articles 2(3), 14(1))
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 13)
Common Law — foreseeability of harm, equality of arms
Judicial Code of Conduct (2024) §2.3
DAC Beachcroft LLP – Costs-Threat Triggered Civil Claim and Procedural Bypass via Strike-Out
When costs pressure replaces adjudication and procedure is used to foreclose defence.
A costs-based threat issued during active Employment Tribunal proceedings was followed by the issue of a civil claim supported by extensive medical vulnerability evidence. Although the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to defend, no Defence was ever served.Instead, the Defendant pursued early termination of the cl…
Sources:
DAC Beachcroft LLP — Conflicts of Interest and Institutional Control
DAC Beachcroft LLP — Procedural Interference Through Unauthorised Communication
DAC Beachcroft LLP — Procedural Interference and Intimidation During Judicial Freeze
Reading County Court — Suppression and Procedural Breach
CNBC Failure to Respond Within a Reasonable Time
Tribunal Knowledge of Medical Vulnerability and Subsequent Procedural Detriment
Medical Denial — When Legal Defence Overrides Care
Legal Breaches Identified
Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, r.2 (Overriding Objective)
Civil Procedure Rules:
r.10 (Acknowledgment of Service)
r.15.2 (Defence to be filed)
r.3.4(2) (Strike out)
r.24.2 (Summary judgment)
Equality Act 2010: ss.20–21 (Reasonable adjustments); s.149 (Public Sector Equality Duty)
Human Rights Act 1998, Sch. 1, Art. 6 (Fair hearing); Art. 8 (Private life)
European Convention on Human Rights: Art. 6; Art. 8
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Art. 2(3); Art. 14(1)
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Art. 5; Art. 13
Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles (2024): Principles 1–3
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Common Law: Access to justice; abuse of process
Tribunal Knowledge of Medical Vulnerability and Subsequent Procedural Detriment
Recorded medical vulnerability followed by unadjusted process, exposing institutional inertia across law and care systems
This disclosure documents a tribunal process in which formal knowledge of medical vulnerability was established during live proceedings. That knowledge activated a duty to apply procedural adjustment or accommodation, shifting the system into a safeguarded state under Truth-Variant principles. Despite this, proceedings continued without adjust…
Sources:
Tribunal procedural records and case-management architecture
Published statutory frameworks (UK legislation and procedural rules)
Human rights instruments (ECHR, ICCPR) and associated jurisprudence
Equality and safeguarding duties applicable to public authorities
Regulated legal-services standards and professional conduct frameworks
NHS medication-monitoring standards and safeguarding expectations
Subject Access Request medical chronology (lawfully obtained)
Truthfarian proportional-harm and institutional-inertia analysis
Legal Breaches Identified
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6
Right to a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations, compromised by unadjusted procedure despite known vulnerability.Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8
Interference with physical and psychological integrity through continued procedural pressure after vulnerability was formally recorded.European Convention on Human Rights — Articles 6 and 8
Failure to ensure fair process and respect for personal integrity once medical vulnerability was known.ICCPR — Articles 2(3) and 14(1)
Denial of effective remedy and equality before tribunals in circumstances of known vulnerability.Equality Act 2010 — Sections 20–21
Failure to make reasonable adjustments following formal notice of disability or impairment.Equality Act 2010 — Section 149 (Public Sector Equality Duty)
Failure by public authorities to have due regard to the need to remove or minimise disadvantage connected to disability.Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 — Rule 2
Breach of the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly, justly, and on an equal footing.Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR (Special Category Data)
Procedural handling of medical vulnerability information engaging heightened duties of care and lawful processing.Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Procedural detriment arising in the context of protected disclosures, including sustained pressure during a period of known vulnerability.Common Law — Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
Failure to prevent foreseeable harm once vulnerability was known, rendering inaction unreasonable.
DAC Beachcroft Llp — The Tribunal Nexus and Institutional Capture
Structural convergence of advisory, defence, and adjudicative functions within UK tribunal systems.
Disclosure BasisPublic Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA)— publication of structural risk, governance imbalance, and systemic capture indicators, without attribution or allegation.This disclosure examines the structural convergence between advisory, defence, and adjudicative functions within UK tribunal and civil-justice systems, with DAC Beachcro…
Sources:
Public statutory frameworks (UK legislation and procedural rules)
Published regulatory instruments and codes of conduct
Open public procurement and panel-appointment records
General tribunal and court procedural architecture
Truthfarian proportional-harm and equilibrium analysis
This disclosure does not rely on, disclose, or reproduce confidential information, party communications, or privileged material from any named organisation or proceeding.
Legal Breaches Identified
Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 6 (fair trial), Article 13 (effective remedy)
European Convention on Human Rights — Articles 6, 8, 13
ICCPR — Articles 2(3), 14(1)
Equality Act 2010 — ss.20–21, s.149
Civil Procedure Rules — Parts 1, 3, 6
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 — Rule 2 (overriding objective)
Legal Services Act 2007 — Regulatory objectives
SRA Principles (2024) — Principles 1–3
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
Common Law — natural justice, procedural fairness
Life-Threatening Heating Failure: A Triple-Agency (Landlord, Council, and Court) Safeguarding Collapse
A routine attempt to restore heating in a property already subject to live disrepair proceedings escalated into a life-risk electrical and flooding incident, following prolonged landlord neglect, council non-action, and court suppression of safety evidenc
A corroded radiator bleed/isolation valve failed catastrophically during a routine attempt to restore heating within a private rented dwelling already subject to live disrepair proceedings. The failure released uncontrolled water into a confined workspace containing live electrical fittings, legal documents, and computer equipment. The incident occ…
Sources:
• Exhibit — Radiator bleed/isolation valve showing corrosion and seizure
• Exhibit — Water discharge and emergency bucket containment beside live socket
• Exhibit — Wall-mounted light fitting with exposed live wiring above impact zone
• Exhibit — Consumer unit showing single B32 breaker for all sockets
• Exhibit — Photographs of water-damaged papers, electronics, and workspace recovery
Legal Breaches Identified
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s.11 — Failure to maintain heating, water, and electrical installations
• Defective Premises Act 1972, s.4 — Foreseeable risk of injury and property damage from known defects
• Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 — Occupation of an unfit dwelling
• Electrical Safety Standards Regulations 2020 — Unsafe electrical installation and lack of safe isolation
• Housing Act 2004 (HHSRS) — Failure to address Category 1 hazards
• Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21, s.149) — Failure to accommodate known medical vulnerability
• Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 2, 6, 8) — Risk to life, interference with access to justice, and unsafe interference with the home
• First Protocol, Article 1 ECHR — Interference with possessions
Grenfell-Risk Disrepair Retaliation — West Berkshire Council’s Fabricated Council-Tax Non-Compliance Narrative
Despite full compliance, documented vulnerability, and a live hardship application, West Berkshire Council reframed lawful disclosure as non-cooperation and escalated council tax enforcement toward criminalisation.
On 30 June 2025, the claimant submitted the complete Exceptional Hardship Fund form, supporting documents, and full budget breakdown through West Berkshire Council’s secure portal. Despite the timestamped submission, the authority generated internal warnings alleging “failure to supply information”, a representation contradicted by the digital reco…
Sources:
• Secure submission screenshot (30 June 2025)
• Exhibit WA3 — Visual Timeline of Messages and Issues
• Email thread with West Berkshire Council (Benefits Team and Customer Services)
• Gas certificate (2020)
• “Dear British Gas” letter (Ref R0326179)
• Exceptional Hardship Fund form and budget statement
Legal Breaches Identified
• Local Government Finance Act 1992 (s.13A(1)(c)) — failure to consider hardship before enforcement
• Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (rr.34–36) — unlawful liability progression
• Fraud Act 2006 (s.2) — false representation of non-submission
• Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21, s.149) — failure to apply vulnerability protections
• Human Rights Act 1998
CNBC Failure to Respond Within a Reasonable Time
A reply from the County Court Business Centre on 27 November 2025 was issued 51 days after the claimant's correspondence of 6 October 2025, delaying corrective action in landlord cases M04ZA309 and M00RG751.
This disclosure documents a 51-day administrative delay by the County Court Business Centre (CNBC) in responding to correspondence sent on 6 October 2025, with a reply issued only on 27 November 2025, well outside HMCTS’s own 10–20 day standard and 28-day maximum. The delay obstructed timely corrective action following a 1 September 2025 possession…
Sources:
Exhibit — CNBC Email (27 November 2025)
Exhibit — Correspondence to CNBC (6 October 2025)
Exhibit — Possession Order (1 September 2025)
Legal Breaches Identified
- Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 6) — Delay obstructed a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
- HMCTS Standards — 51-day delay exceeded the 10–20 day benchmark and the 28-day extended limit.
- Equality Act 2010 (Sections 20–21) — No reasonable adjustments for a vulnerable litigant.
- Equality Act 2010 (Section 149) — Failure to minimise disadvantage affecting a protected party.
- Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 1.1) — Departure from the overriding objective of expeditious and fair handling.
- Common Law Fairness — Public authority delay adversely affecting procedural rights.
DAC Beachcroft LLP — Procedural Interference and Intimidation During Judicial Freeze
Skeleton arguments, case-dumps, and court silence — how DAC Beachcroft escalated intimidation during a live judicial freeze in claim M05ZA443
On 14 November 2025, DAC Beachcroft LLP served a Skeleton Argument directly on the Claimant while Reading County Court was non-responsive: no acknowledgement of the Claimant’s N244, no confirmed listing, and no sealed order. This followed the unsealed 12 September 2025 letter attributed to DDJ Hocking, issued only by post, not logged on CE-File, an…
Sources:
- Improper Skeleton Service — Breach of CPR 23.7 and 39.5 by serving a skeleton argument without directions, listing, or sealed order.
- Abuse of Process — Conduct amounting to abuse under CPR 3.4(2)(b) by weaponising procedure against a vulnerable litigant.
- Jurisdictional Misrepresentation — Ultra vires statements regarding transfer contrary to Practice Direction 7A paragraphs 2.4–2.6.
- Record-Keeping Failures — Breach of HMCTS digital protocols, Public Records Act 1958 and Data Protection Act 2018 through off-record judicial correspondence.
- Fraud Act 2006 (s.2) — False representation of procedural authority through timing, format, and deployment of documents.
- Administration of Justice Act 1970 (s.40) — Harassment and intimidation by documentary overburdening and court-like communications.
- Human Rights Act 1998 — Violations of Articles 6, 8 and 13 through lack of fair hearing, transparency, and remedy.
- PIDA 1998 — Retaliatory conduct against protected disclosure within ongoing whistleblower litigation.
- SRA Principles — Failure to uphold the rule of law, to act with integrity, and to maintain independence from state-linked institutional capture.
Legal Breaches Identified
- I. Civil Procedure Rules — Parts 1, 3, 23, 32 and 39; Practice Direction 7A; Practice Directions 52A and 52C.
- II. HMCTS Digital Communications Protocol (2024) and Record Management Policy.
- III. Fraud Act 2006 — Section 2 (False Representation).
- IV. Administration of Justice Act 1970 — Section 40 (Harassment of Debtors – intimidation principles).
- V. Human Rights Act 1998 — Articles 6, 8 and 13 (ECHR incorporated rights).
- VI. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) — Protected disclosures and retaliation.
- VII. SRA Principles (2024) — Principles 1–3 and 5 (Rule of law, integrity, independence, standard of service).
- VIII. Truthfarian Evidence — Email threads, envelope evidence, and skeleton-argument service logs in M05ZA443.
Reading CC, Procedural Misstatement, Ultra Vires Commentary, and International Rights Interference
When official communication contradicts the Civil Procedure Rules, the procedural record collapses before the case reaches a judge.
This disclosure examines a letter issued through the Judicial Support Section that attributed procedural statements to a judicial officer which do not align with the Civil Procedure Rules, the Practice Directions, or the mandatory transfer criteria for high-value claims.The Truthfarian framework defines this event as procedural misstatement a devia…
Sources:
- HMCTS Digital Communications Protocol (2024)
- Civil Procedure Rules (Ministry of Justice)
- Practice Direction 7A — High-Value Claims
- Judicial Conduct Investigations Office — Standards of Judicial Behaviour
- Truthfarian Evidence — HMCTS Letter (12 September)
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 23, Rule 23.6 — Statement of “applications before the court” inconsistent with filed record.
II. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 15, Rule 15.2 — No Defence filed; disposal cannot be advanced by the Defendant.
III. Practice Direction 7A, Paragraphs 2.4–2.6 — Mandatory High Court transfer criteria breached in a claim exceeding £10 million and involving public-authority issues.
IV. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 30, Rule 30.3(2)(f) — Failure to transfer where complexity and value require High Court allocation.
V. Human Rights Act 1998 / European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 — Procedural fairness compromised by judicial mis-narration.
VI. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 7, 8 & 10 — Departure from equal protection, remedy, and fair-hearing standards.
VII. Magna Carta (1215), Clauses 39–40 — Delay and distortion of justice arising from procedural misstatement.
DAC Beachcroft LLP — Procedural Interference Through Unauthorised Communication (Email of 12 November 2025)
Direct solicitor–litigant contact using an unassigned service address during active proceedings, contrary to Civil Procedure Rules and professional-conduct standards.
This disclosure examines an email sent on 12 November 2025 by DAC Beachcroft LLP to Reading County Court and simultaneously to the Claimant’s private email address, despite no designation of email as an address for service and no procedural basis for direct contact during live proceedings. The communication sought to influence the handling of an up…
Sources:
- Civil Procedure Rules — Part 6 (Service of Documents)
- Solicitors Regulation Authority — Code of Conduct for Solicitors
- Equality & Human Rights Commission — Fair Hearing Standards
- Truthfarian Evidence — DAC Beachcroft Email (12 November)
Legal Breaches Identified
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 6, Rule 6.3 — Service must use permitted methods; email requires explicit written agreement.
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 6, Rule 6.23 — No designation of the Claimant’s private email as an address for service.
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 15, Rule 15.2 — No Defence filed; the Defendant lacks standing to advance disposal or influence listing.
- Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles (2024) — Departures from independence, integrity, and proper administration of justice.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 — Fair process affected by irregular solicitor communication.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 7 & 10 — Equality before the law and fair-hearing standards impacted.
- Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) — Right of a Trinidad & Tobago national to notify consular authorities where procedural irregularities occur abroad.
Welfare Breakdown - Universal Credit and DWP Nexus Failures
Declared vulnerability ignored, lawful exemptions denied while algorithmic enforcement obstructed justice.
This disclosure documents a sustained and systemic breakdown in the administration of Universal Credit by the Department for Work and Pensions, in which statutory safeguards for medically vulnerable claimants and litigation exemptions were repeatedly ignored while enforcement actions continued. Between October 2024 and October 2025, declared vulner…
Sources:
- National Audit Office — Universal Credit Implementation (2024)
- BBC News — “DWP Faces Scrutiny over Vulnerable Claimants” (2025)
- Truthverian Evidence — EX 19 & 19A (SAR Acknowledgments Mar & Apr 2025)
- Truthverian Evidence — EX 21 (Rent Redirection and Journal Logs)
- Truthverian Evidence — EX 23 & 23A (Procedural Obstruction Thread Oct 2025)
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21, s.149 PSED) — Failure to make reasonable adjustments and to safeguard disabled claimant.
II. Human Rights Act 1998 (Art. 6 & 8 ECHR) — Obstruction of fair trial and interference with private life through financial coercion.
III. Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR (Arts. 5 & 15) — Dual SAR non-compliance and unlawful processing delay.
IV. Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (Regs. 99(3), 99(4)(c)) — Ignored litigation exemption and imposed sanctions while unfit for work.
V. Public Sector Equality Duty (EqA s.149) — No anticipation of compounded disadvantage or risk assessment.
VII. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (s.43A et seq.) — Retaliatory omission following lawful protected disclosure.
EPC Fraud and the Circle of Institutional Collapse
How a single false EPC certificate exposed a feedback loop of corruption between landlord, council, revenue, and court.
What began as a dispute over an implausible EPC “C” rating for an unretrofitted 1980s property in Reading became proof of a self-reinforcing civic loop. Each institution landlord, council, tax authority, and court validated the same false data, turning one fabricated document into systemic truth.The Ramdin v Gopal case reveals that EPC fraud functi…
Sources:
Legal Breaches Identified
- Fraud Act 2006 (s.2) — False representation through knowingly inaccurate EPC data and subsequent judicial reliance.
- Energy Performance of Buildings (England & Wales) Regulations 2012 (rr.6–11) — Failure to verify or inspect before certification.
- Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 — Misleading commercial practice causing consumer detriment.
- Local Government Finance Act 1992 & Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 — Retaliatory enforcement using falsified property data.
- Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21, s.149 PSED) — Failure to accommodate vulnerability during enforcement and proceedings.
- Human Rights Act 1998 (Art.6 & Art.8) — Denial of fair hearing and violation of dignity through systemic neglect.
- Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (s.43A et seq.) — Protection engaged for disclosure of institutional collusion and falsified data.
Medical Denial - Theale Surgery & DAC Beachcroft: When Legal Defence Overrides Care
Head GP Dr Rock and her practice are now defended by DAC Beachcroft LLP, the same institutional law-firm nexus involved in multiple systemic cases. What began as a medical visit became evidence of legal governance replacing healthcare
Upon arrival at Theale Surgery, the patient raised a direct conflict of interest: Dr Rock, the head of the practice and a named party in related civil proceedings, was scheduled to see him. The request to reschedule with another clinician was refused. The appointment proceeded under protest an encounter already compromised by the surgery’s defence …
Sources:
1. NHS Constitution for England (2023)
2. GMC — Good Medical Practice (2024)
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21) — Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a known disabled and litigating patient.
II. Equality Act 2010 (s.149 PSED) — Omission to eliminate discrimination and advance equality in healthcare access.
III. Human Rights Act 1998 (Art. 3 & 8) — Degrading treatment and violation of dignity through clinical neglect.
IV. NHS Constitution (Principles 1 & 4) — Breach of duty to provide care based on need, not circumstance or litigation status.
V. GMC Good Medical Practice (2024) — Failure to investigate, treat, or follow up on material symptoms.
VI. PIDA 1998 — Protected disclosure (10 Oct 2025 letter) ignored without acknowledgement or action.
VII. DPA 2018 / UK GDPR Art. 9(1) — Potential unlawful sharing or processing of confidential patient data by DAC Beachcroft LLP.
DAC Beachcroft LLP - Conflicts of Interest and Institutional Control
A 250-Year Pattern of Corporate Governance Masquerading as Justice
Evidence shows DAC Beachcroft LLP operating simultaneously as defence counsel for private insurers and as legal advisers to public authorities. This structural duality constitutes a persistent conflict of interest under the Legal Services Act 2007 and SRA Principles (2024), undermining impartial administration of justice and corrupting equality bef…
Sources:
1. UK Gov – DAC Beachcroft expands to Chile
2. Bristol Law Society – The History of DAC Beachcroft
Legal Breaches Identified
I. Breach 1 – Magna Carta (1215) — Denial and delay of justice through institutional capture.
II. Breach 2 – Common Law Maxim (Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium) — Suppression of remedy where right is acknowledged.
III. Breach 3 – Legal Services Act 2007 (ss.1–3) — Conflict with statutory objectives to protect public interest and rule of law.
IV. Breach 4 – SRA Principles (2024) — Failure to act independently and uphold public trust.
V. Breach 5 – Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 6) — Erosion of fair-trial rights through structural bias in representation.
VII. Breach 6 – Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (s.43A et seq.) — Retaliation and obstruction toward lawful whistleblower disclosures.
Reading County Court – Suppression and Procedural Breach
Suppressed filings, conflicting orders, and unlawful listings, a study in civic malfunction and systemic discrimination.
Case bundles transferred from the County Court Business Centre (CNBC) with all fees paid were later suppressed under administrative pretexts. Over 2,800 pages of evidence, including the full N244 Application, vulnerability statements, and medical certificates, disappeared from the live judicial file while contradictory directions were issued by mul…
Sources:
1. UK Parliament – Operations of the County Court Inquiry
Legal Breaches Identified
I. CPR r.6.14 & r.55.5(1) — Proceedings advanced without lawful service; suppression of hearing notice constitutes procedural fraud.
II. CPR r.3.1(2)(g) & r.30.3(2) — Refusal to consolidate or transfer to the High Court despite jurisdictional value > £4 million.
III. CPR r.55.8(2) — Possession order granted while live Defence and Counterclaim remained on file.
IV. CPR r.83.13(8) & r.83.26(1) — Unlawful enforcement and failure to notify the party of execution proceedings.
V. Equality Act 2010 (ss.20–21, s.149 PSED) — No reasonable adjustments made for a known disabled litigant; discriminatory administration of justice.
VI. Human Rights Act 1998 (Art. 6 ECHR) — Denial of fair hearing and equality of arms through record suppression and bias.
VII. Magna Carta 1215 (Clauses 39–40) — Denial and delay of justice contrary to constitutional guarantee.
VIII. Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR Art. 15 — Failure to provide access to own case records and hearing transcripts.
IX. Judicial Conduct (JCIO 2024 Guidance) — Bias and dismissive language across multiple Deputy District Judges compromising impartiality.
X. ICCPR Art. 14 (1) — Unequal treatment before the courts and denial of effective remedy to a vulnerable litigant.