B e n V e r s u s | c i v i l i s s u e s
B e n C o l l i n s | Åkarhagsgatan 2C, 72337 Västerås, Sweden | +46 727 447422 | email | Website © 2014
So far only the Swedish case have made it to proper handling, where the JustitiaKanslern (the justice chancellor) took 2.5 years tio deliberate - 18 month supposed deliberation. That verdict was IMO wierd and rambling.
In both the UK cases no settlement was offered despite repeated attempts. There is no legal aid for such civil cases so i was left legally paralysed. I wrote to @ fifty lsolicitors but none were interested to take the case on a no-win-no-fee. basis. This does not reflect well on British justice mechanisms which are clumsy, expensive and complicated, making them inaccesible and thus irrelevant to the average person. A society without access to justice is a weak one.
A good example of this paralysis the SPSO - Scottish Public Services Ombudsman -because that process requires surrendering of all legal rights before the case can be judged by the SPSO.
This means in order to pursue an SPSO judgment, you must put your faith in the (paid for and organised by the Scottish Office) body to judge against the Scottish Office, the same Scottish Office that has already cheated you. A bankrupt philosophy and a long way from the original Swedish definition of “Ombudsman”.
The SPSO should be a stepping stone between direct communication (between protagonists) and court. The notion of surrendering legal rights before engagement is ludicrous. Any judgment of the SPSO is not above the law of the land or Europe.
This level of swaggering arrogance in the UK civil government only leads to one inevitable result, incompetence and indifference when that incompetence is exposed. Even when the Scottish Office is trying to establish a fair SPSO system there is stupidity that defies basic logic, enough to make their process irrelevant in this case and probably many other cases.
The philosophical bankruptcy is repeated at the DTI (now DIUS) where there was no means for challenging grant decisions, outwith a Judicial Review (that route was only notified to me in 2009) and all the complexity that involves. What a fundamentally weak system that has no decision reviewing capacity. That is insane protocol.
These are basic intruments that must be available to catch the inevitable bad decisions. The denial that such processes are needed or implemented highlights a very bad culture of unanswerable private decision making where billions of pounds are distributed behind veiled screens, inevitably leading to favour and corruption. The DIUS stinks of corruption and their mechanism s allow it.
In Sweden I had a court summons that gave me two days notice to prepare my case and appear. I was charegd 2000% interest for money not owed. And various other ridiculous cicrcumstances.
The people at the top of these organisations are to blame for creating such a weak and clandestine structure where people can create a pocket dictatorship according their moods and daily whims. I.e.unanswerable.
Scottish Public ServicesOmbudsman process requires surrendering of court rights before the case can be judged by the SPSO, who are funded by the people you challenge.
Heres an advert from 2007 discussing housing, wind turbines, electric transport recharge engines, clean combustion cycles.
This was just before the third and final major issue, QLTR unfair payment.
It greatly saddens me these eco-proposals created in 2001, shown in 2003 are still has not in use.
I contacted SPSO in 2009 to point out that I thought denying court access seemed unfair and probably illegal, they made no reply.