Ingeus Abuse 9 – Pinsent Masons LLP Tara Hepworth Fraud & Contempt of Court

Lying is like a fungus. When you begin telling lies to cover up for atrocities you have committed, you will find that you need to keep telling ever more outrageous lies to protect those already told. Furthermore, anyone you pay with your ill-gotten gains to fight on your behalf will have to lie also.

And so, we come to the lamentable tale of Tara Hepworth, the corrupt solicitor from Pinsent Masons LLP who has deliberately lied on a Directions Questionnaire submission to protect the contempts of a client.

This client is, of course, Ingeus (UK) Ltd., and their nefarious “Global General Counsel” Matthew Flood. For full details of Flood’s deceit, malevolence and multiple contempts of court on the Statement of Case, please see previous posts.

Hepworth has lied by stating on the Directions Questionnaire that Flood has “not acted in contempt of court as alleged or at all”, despite the fact that documentary evidence proves that Flood has lied multiple times on the Statement of Case.

Proof That Flood Has Lied On The Statement Of Case

Here is proof of the most obvious of Matthew Flood’s contempts of court –


This is Flood’s statement that “this statement (the libels which will be revealed in the next post) was not intended to be seen by the claimant.”

Here is a paragraph from the “statement” itself, which tells a slightly different story –


The author of this libellous document, which will be revealed in full in the next post, states that they are “happy for…..Mr Wardle himself to have a copy of said document.”

Enough said.

Tara Hepworth’s Pathetic Fraud And Deceit

Hepworth has blatantly lied on the Directions Questionnaire statement by stating –


Both points 2) and 4) are blatant lies. The defendant has not complied with its pre-action disclosure obligations, as it has refused to disclose any of the documentation relating to the incidents of 9th May 2013 and 14th June 2013, which underpin two of the claimant’s strongest claims.

Proof that 4) is a blatant lie is given above.

Hepworth has made this fraud blatantly obvious, by signing the Disclosure Report, the Electronic Documents Questionnaire and the Precedent H form, but printing ‘Pinsent Masons LLP’ on the Directions Questionnaire, in the place where the signature is supposed to be.

Here is the proof –





This is the extent to which a corrupt solicitor will go to cover up the fraud, lies and contempt of court of a contemnor paying them blood money.

I used to respect Pinsent Masons LLP. I even downloaded some of their documentation to my PC when I was carrying out legal research. Now I have to fight against them, I find out what they are really like.

If you get involved with sick, unlawful cut throat scum such as Ingeus (UK) Ltd., you can scarcely avoid being tainted by association. However, if you deliberately sink to their level by committing fraud and abusing the legal system just to destroy an innocent person’s life, you only have yourself to blame when your reputation ends in tatters.

Unless you wish this type of fraud to be carried out on your behalf, stay away from Pinsent Masons LLP.

Ingeus Abuse 7 – Matthew Flood Contempt Of Court

On 4th November 2015, Matthew Flood, who goes by the extraordinary title of “Global General Counsel” (more properly “Global General Clownsel” or “Global General Contemnor”), produced a so-called “defence” to the prevailing claim in my case against Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

The defence is literally riddled like a cancer with contempts of court – deliberate lies on the Statement of Case which Flood knows beyond doubt are blatant lies.

I cannot particularise all of these contempts in this article, as some are only proven by documentation revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim. The Civil Procedure Rules forbid the use of evidence obtained in this manner for any purpose other than litigation. However, there are many contempts which can be demonstrated and proven here without relying on confidential evidence. Here is a sample, albeit not an all-encompassing sample, of Flood’s contempts of court –

Paragraph 2 of the Defence states that the Independent Case Examiner and Parliamentary Ombudsman both “rejected” the claimant’s case against Ignoramus. In reality, the Parliamentary Ombudsman only investigated ICE, and did not carry out an investigation into Ignoramus.

Paragraph 15 contains contempts which are known to Flood to be false. These contempts cannot be specified here as they are proven to be contempts by evidence revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim.

Paragraph 19 is a contempt. It denies that crucial probative evidence was logged on to the system, despite the fact that such data retention is mandated by the Data Protection Act 1998.

Paragraph 20 is another deliberate lie. The claimant is alleged to have approached a certain individual on a certain date, when this allegation has never been made before during the entire three years that this case has dragged through the pre-litigation process.

Paragraph 54 also contains known lies. Flood claims that the claimant threatened to judicially review the report of ICE, when he knows perfectly well that the limitation period for such an action had expired nine months prior to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report being published. Flood also pretends not to know whether or not the Ombudsman’s report was judicially reviewed, despite the fact that the fact that it was not was pointed out to him on 7th August 2015.

Paragraph 59 contains the deliberate lie that a defamatory and malicious communication sent by Flood on 27th July 2015 referenced an “infringing domain name”, and also “any other domain names that incorporated the defendant’s marks.” No such references exist in the letter, and Flood should know as he wrote the bloody thing!

Paragraph 71 contains several known lies, most obviously the lie that the claimant requested snail mail letters to be sent in large font. In reality, the claimant requested electronic copies of letters, and never made any comment regarding snail mail.

Paragraph 101 is the most obvious deliberate lie of all. Sadly, these contempts cannot be specified here as they are proven to be contempts by evidence revealed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in response to a Letter Before Claim.

Paragraph 118 is deliberately deceitful, and is designed to aggravate distress to the claimant. Flood states that the claimant “agreed” to an action which had been the subject of multiple complaints over a six-month period. So, according to Flood, the claimant complains about something in writing for several months, then “agrees” to it verbally, and then goes back to complaining about it again in writing immediately after.

Paragraph 123 is an even more blatant extension of the same contempt. Flood states once again that the claimant “agreed” to an action which was a constant subject of formal complaints, and then tells the blatant lie of a “good relationship” between the claimant and the individual complained of.

It is beyond belief, but all that matters in the end is what the Judge will make of it. The contempts of court will be particularised at length in the Reply to the Defence, which will be filed with the County Court Money Claims Centre in Salford some time before 11th December 2015.

The only fact which can be stated without fear of contradiction is that Matthew Flood, Global General Contemnor of Ignoramus (UK) Ltd, is a sick, vile, nefarious, loathsome deceiver who will invent multiple lies on a legal Statement of Case just to attempt to ensure that the victim of sadistic bullying and abuse by his organisation receives no just compensation for his ordeal.

Ingeus Abuse 5 – County Court Claim Form Issued

I have to report that the inevitable has now happened in my ongoing case against Ingeus (UK) Ltd. On 25th September 2015, I submitted a claim form to the County Court Money Claims Centre in Salford. It was deemed issued on 2nd October. What a birthday present for me – a claim against the most sickening, vile, depraved and malevolent organisation I have ever been torn to pieces by.

Matthew Flood, the grotesquely-named “Global General Counsel” of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, again failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. Flood offered no response to my Letter Before Claim, but then offered a facetious and nonsensical pseudo-response to the follow-up. I gave Flood another chance to negotiate a settlement because the Parliamentary Ombudsman had offered me the chance to apply for a case review. I think the Ombudsman is now aware that it was entirely deceived by falsified evidence supplied by Ingeus (UK).

Flood quoted generalities from the CPR Pre-Action conduct, but carefully evaded the fact that the Rules require a particularised response to a Letter Before Claim. Flood failed to comply with paragraph 4.2 (1), which states “Unless the defendant accepts the whole of the claim, the response should……give reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which facts and which parts of the claim (if any) are accepted and which are disputed.”

If Ignoramus had a case to state, it would state its case. The simple fact is that Jack Sawyer and his London mob are perfectly aware that the allegations stated by myself on the claim form are entirely accurate and truthful, and that there is no conceivable defence. All litigation involves risk, but so far I have no reason to believe that I will not be able to prove my case at the trial hearing.

What sense does all of this make? Yes, Ignoramus are vile and sadistic enough to destroy an innocent human being’s life, but, what, apart from the “fun” that scum like Marshall gain from their perverted pursuits, do they gain from doing this?

When the case was escalated to the Regional Director, there were only two months to go before Year Two. Had “Loopy” Lou Preston taken responsibility for the situation, I could have been referred to “Mrs S.” for two twenty-minute appointments, and then moved on to the Year Two advisers. Had Ignoramus been prepared to give me forty minutes of adviser time, this case would never have reached ICE, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, or the County Court.

If the management scum don’t give us adviser time, we take more expensive management time through the complaints procedure. Then, more management time is wasted dealing with ICE. If ICE don’t resolve the case (which they won’t, as they are corrupt and sick), more time has to be wasted dealing with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Then, if the PO doesn’t resolve the case, it goes to the County Court. Even if Ignoramus wins its case, it will still not be able to recover its legal expenses from a claimant it has reduced to financial ruin. If it loses its case, it will lose a five figure sum. What sense does it all make?

The Ignoramus management, especially the Regional Director, are as thick as pig excrement.

Wish me luck, everyone. I so much deserve it. But, then, I deserved to be provided with the Work Programme and treated like a human being, didn’t I?

I will keep everyone updated, as far as the Civil Procedure Rules will allow.

Ingeus Abuse 1 – Matthew Flood Ingeus (UK) Cease And Desist Letter

On 27th July 2015, Matthew Flood forwarded a “cease and desist” letter to the address associated with this website. Flood goes by the extraordinary title of “Global General Counsel”, which presumably means that he is a professional barrister. Whether he is an Ingeus (UK) employee, or someone who does legal work for them on the cheap, I have no idea. What I do know is that his communications are far from professional.

I first became aware of Flood when he responded to my initial Letters Before Claim. The response was grotesque, in that it entirely failed to comply with the CPR Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct, and it also gave me another cause of action for the forthcoming litigation.

The next communication I received from Flood was the incoherent and utterly disingenuous attack on this website. I will now go through each paragraph of that letter and address them in detail.

“Following your email to Jack Sawyer on 21 July 2015, it was brought to my attention that a number of articles published on your domain contain untrue, defamatory and intimidating statements regarding Ingeus and members of Ingeus’ staff.”

Well, if any articles published on this site did contain untrue, defamatory or “intimidating” statements, you would no doubt specify those statements and explain with proof why they are untrue. The fact you have entirely failed to do so not only means you have failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol, it also means that you are being dishonest and inventing fairy stories.

“The articles accuse Ingeus of ignoring the provisions of the Equality Act as a matter of course, allege that staff members physically and verbally threatened you and suggest that Ingeus fabricated evidence submitted to independent case examiners.”

Those statements are all entirely factual and supportable with documentary evidence. I have obtained proof from the DWP that Ingeus (UK) had knowledge of my medical condition from the start of the programme, yet not once was any notice taken of it. If I was not threatened by staff, why were alleged “apologies” made on 27th June and 30th July? The “final response” document by Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert alone contains two libels deliberately construed to pervert the ICE investigation and prevent the complainant from obtaining restitution.

If I can provide actual evidence of the truth of the statements I make, why can you only threaten with generalities?

“These statements are wholly untrue and defamatory.

On the contrary, every statement made on this website is entirely factual and supported with documentary evidence. No statement which is truthful has any potential to be defamatory.

“As discussed in correspondence sent to you on 17 July 2015, none of these accusations were independently upheld by either the Department for (sic) Work and Pensions’ Independent Case Examiner or the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”

So what? Courts are concerned with facts, not the opinions of biased quangos set up to whitewash the abuses of their “business partners.” In any case, as the investigations were carried out using evidence falsified by the guilty party in the first place, the conclusions can scarcely be deemed credible or valid.

Furthermore, these quangos explicitly state that they are unable to rule on points of law.

If you had any probative evidence to submit, you would submit it, instead of continually referring to irrelevant third party reports. Confucius say “he who does not state case, probably has no case to state.”

[the next paragraph is omitted as I have sought further clarification as to its meaning. It may be included at a later date.]

“The articles are likely to cause reputational or financial damage to either Ingeus and/or the staff you directly name. We have informed the staff named and will continue to monitor the impact of the articles.”

The articles may cause reputational damage, but only with total justification. No doubt any truthful and factual news report causes “reputational damage” to those reported upon, if those reported upon have engaged in actions which evidence gross moral turpitude. That is no excuse for blaming the reporter.

If those named on this website were concerned about their reputations, they should have been equally concerned as to their actions in the first place.

Direct damage to the Ignoramus organisation as a whole is extremely unlikely, as the DWP seems determined to tolerate these abuses instead of insisting that the organisation provides the Work Programme as contracted. There is a potential for the site to inform Work Programme attendees of their rights, which could lead to appropriate legal action being taken against the tortfeasor. This would hardly be a negative consequence.

There is also a potential for a better informed public to campaign for improvements to services, causing the Ingeus (UK) organisation to begin complying with the law and providing a far higher standard of service in line with its purported standards. This would consequently lead to an improvement in the reputation of Ingeus (UK).

If this happens, Jack Sawyer can send a thank you message through the contact form on this website, and a cheque to the registered address.

“[the first part of the next paragraph is omitted pending clarification] ask that you undertake the following –

* Remove Ingeus’ name from all articles on your website

* Remove Ingeus’ staff member names from all articles listed on your website

* Remove the untrue allegations

* Remove Trademark material from the website, and any logo, or adaption of it, which would likely draw an association with Ingeus UK Limited”

Oh, my God!!!!! So, now we live in a world where the corporate god is so omniscient that it must not be blasphemed by being mentioned.

Just imagine what will happen to the news – “Today, nobody of nothing limited didn’t make a speech telling the other nobody that nothing had happened between the two non-existent parties at no known venue, which probably didn’t exist when the incident didn’t happen in the first place.”

The only part of this I am happy to comply with is the order to remove the untrue allegations. As all statements made on this site are accurate, factual and supportable with documentary evidence, the untrue allegations appear to have removed themselves.

I won’t even mention Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

“We take the mental and physical wellbeing of our staff very seriously at Ingeus, and you should be aware that your actions are causing individuals distress. If you do not carry out the actions as per our request, we will have to consider taking appropriate action through the courts [rest of paragraph omitted pending clarification]”

Taking the mental and physical wellbeing of your staff seriously is a highly positive attribute. It is just a shame that you don’t extend it to those whom your staff bully, threaten, abuse, harass, torment, lie about, defame, deny rights to, cause grievous loss to, or reduce to the point where they have to cease claiming benefit in order to avoid suicide.

I would suggest that the responsibility for any “distress” caused by the reporting of facts lies with those responsible for creating the facts in the first place.

I would be delighted to see you take appropriate action through the courts. Appropriate action would be admission of the forthcoming claims, and the payment of due damages into the Court to compensate the victim of your unlawful actions.

If you take inappropriate action by issuing your own spurious and groundless claim, note that it will be defended in full, a counterclaim will be issued, and costs will be sought on the indemnity basis due to your total non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol.

Following this, Mr Flood signs the letter “Yours Faithfully”, even though he used my name in the “Dear” section.

Even though this letter entirely fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation, a compliant response was sent within two days. I must maintain the moral high ground, no matter what the provocation.

More to come, no doubt.