Jeff Lampert’s response to the Upper Tribunal’s Decision


Jeff Lampert’s response to the Upper Tribunal’s Decision

Public Interest


Dear Richard,

  1. On the 1st of March 2019, the Upper Tribunal decided that the FCA is a business for the purpose of the DPA.

  2. This closed the avenue of the FCA documents you are holding to be released into the public domain.

  3. However, the UT also decided it is within the ICO's discretion, acting as a public authority, as to what should be released into the public domain. This is your decision alone.

  4. It is in the public interest for you to immediately release those documents.

  5. Those documents relate to the allegedly perjured affidavit of SCB in the Court of Appeal (Lloyds Bank Plc v Jeffrey Lampert, Vanessa Lampert: CA 25 Nov 1998. [1998] EWCA Civ 1840).

  6. That case set the precedent which allowed secured lenders to litigate directly against Guarantors without having to go to the Borrower first.

  7. That case also decided that 2 banking hours was sufficient time to give a company to repay a guaranteed loan.

  8. I am sure you can see how toxic the combination is to guarantors of company loans.

  9. You are holding the documents that will support the allegedly perjured Affidavit. The case is currently with DJ Cooper in Bristol.

  10. It is my intention to present the matter to Trevor Mealham, who is assisting Avon and Somerset Police in their investigation into Lloyds Bristol where SCB was employed. I will also seek the involvement of Anthony Stansfeld, Police Crime Commissioner of Thames Valley Police, who has expressed an interest in this matter.

  11. During the litigation referred to above, it has emerged that in my previous litigation (under CPR31) trying to get the same information before DBR Briggs, Joel Scott of the FCA claimed this information did not exist. A recent complaint to the FCA resulted in their suggestion that I take the matter to Court or a Tribunal.

  12. This is another reason for the ICO to put the information into the public domain.

  13. J Lloyd Davies has also suggested that should I not be successful on the "business" point I should look at the other gateways again.

  14. Richard, as you are aware diyLAW has been working with the legal establishment to create a computerised process that can make some recompense to the many thousands of people who have been evicted as a result of this flawed Judgment referred to at point 5.

  15. It must be in the public interest for the ICO to support this initiative.

  16. I reserve my position on appealing the decision of Lloyds Davies.

  17. Richard, I would appreciate an immediate response before I take any further actions.

Jeff Lampert

The First Tier Tribunal`s decision in this matter.

The Upper Tribunal`s decision in this matter.

The ICO`s response.

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.