[email protected]From: <[email protected]> Date: 02 July 2013 13:24 To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: A divided nation. Page 1 of 2 18/11/2013 To The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP Secretary of State Department for Work and Pensions Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9DA To The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ United Kingdom CC Rt Hon Duncan Hames MP Dear Sir/Madam I write to you in the middle of a long illness resulting from an industrial accident date 09/12/10. The treatment I received from my former employer forced me into clinical depression and to resign my long career. Based upon those actions I have successfully claimed ESA, housing benefit and industrial injuries benefit (20%). I believe it is just that my former employers are liable for the costs incurred and compensation. These burdens should not be borne alone by the public, the ministry of justice, the DWP, the local council and myself. To those ends I claimed constructive dismissal and submitted my case to the employment tribunal which I lost, I appealed that decision to the EAT and my case was found to be without reasonable prospect of success, I appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal and that was found to be totally without merit. I asked for a review of that decision and was directed to the ECHR and told the Court of Appeal did not have the resources to deal with my claims.
I have applied to my former employers insurers for compensation only for my claim also to be rejected.
Dear Mr Duncan Smith & Mr Grayling
I understand many people have difficulty and do not have their claims accepted by the DWP having to appeal to the Ministry of Justice.
I am unable to understand the paradox or dichotomy of draconian unwillingness of the Ministry of Justice to accept my claims, claims which have been accepted by the DWP?
The DWP is due compensation from insurers as am I.
From: <[email protected]>Date: 18 November 2013 14:55To: "Duncan Hames MP" <[email protected]>Attach: GardinerD301013.pdf; 1400500 capability v conduct.pdf; prohibited-conduct-questionnaire- signed.pdfSubject: jdm\gardinerd\301013
Page 1 of 2
18/11/2013
Dear Mr Hames
Thank you for your time and recent letters – (a copy is attached for quick reference)
The letters you sent me in August and September have been lost in the post. I hope you accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused by my failure to notify you of the change of address earlier.
Referring to you letter saa\GardinerD\180913 and the attached letter from Lord McNally.
Let me assure you for many reasons I am not disappointed by this letter, it comes as no surprise!
Far from it, it identifies that I have at least managed to get my story across. But with the remaining problems.
1) The Tribunal refuses point blank to accept many well founded true facts of the case, this was the basis of my appeal.
2) I do not have the capability to argue points of law, in fact I do not understand points of law or the complexities of case law or “The independence of the judiciary”.I believed that the employment tribunal including the Judge in accordance with public policy had a duty to assist unrepresented claimants and defendants, identify all of the issues, the independent judiciary in these cases has clearly represented the interests of the employer throughout.
To these ends I have reviewed the Judgment myself and submitted a prohibited conduct questionnaire to Lord Elias of the Court of Appeal (See attachments) .
Referring to your letter ks\GardinerD\270813 and the attached letter from Lord Freud.
Again I am not disappointed by this letter, it comes as no surprise!
Far from it identifies that I have managed to get my story across. Again with problems.
1) The DWP accepted the facts of the injuries sustained, the respondents insurers legal
2) I have no desire to consult a solicitor as I have had contact with more lawyers than I care to remember the result, I have no trust in their profession.
3) I have submitted a personal injury claim to the county court. However my former employers have already bragged that my claim will not succeed.
In my case the dichotomy remains – Government v The independence of the judiciary.
This is a question of politics an individual cannot answer.
