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 http://www.ignoramus-abuse.org/ 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.