Ingeus (UK) Ltd Manager Ross Marshall Lies To The High Court

Ingeus (UK) Ltd manager Ross “Dross” Marshall has two abiding characteristics. Firstly, he is a thug. Secondly, he is a liar. Although he has now departed the Northampton office where he maltreated, bullied and abused me in 2013, he is still causing trouble and attempting to destroy my life. It is his second characteristic, that of being a pathological liar, which will be examined in this post.

I will just briefly recap the history of Marshall’s malice and troublemaking for those who are new to the case. On 18th March 2013, he promised me a referral to one of the best advisers in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd Northampton office, in response to a formal complaint. In April, when the time came for the resolution to be implemented, he reneged on his promise. At the time, I had no idea why I was being victimised, but it has since revealed that a junior staff member, Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, was telling extreme defamatory lies about me behind my back, and Marshall used these lies as an excuse to maltreat me even though he knew at every stage that they were lies.

Marshall persistently refused to give me access to a suitable adviser and to allow me to benefit from purportedly being on the Work Programme. When the complaints were escalated above his head, he still meddled and interfered to prevent any higher manager from taking action and reversing his unconscionable acts. Once he had completely destroyed any hope I had of being allowed to participate in Year One of the programme, he misrepresented communications to criminal law enforcement officers to cause even further anguish.

Having robbed me of Year One in entirety, Marshall then refused me access to the whole of Year Two, despite the fact that the Regional Director Louise Preston had specifically mandated that I be given such access. Marshall, and another sick thug known as David “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton refused me access to Year Two, removed my statutory right of access to the complaints procedure, and forced me off the Work Programme altogether, at the same time forcing me to lose my entitlement to state benefits.

Marshall continued to harass and abuse me even after I had been forced off the Work Programme. He forwarded a document containing extreme defamatory lies to a third party investigator in order to pervert the investigation into his employer, he forwarded other forged and falsified documents to cover up for the antics of another manager Mark “gLIEbrt” Gilbert, who is literally the nastiest piece of scum I ever had to deal with, and he also illegally obtained my cell phone number from a third party to make repeated nuisance calls, and sent my file to an irrelevant department so that I would be inundated with unsolicited email.

Now, Marshall is being sued for harassment along with five other defendants. In response, he failed to acknowledge service of the Part 8 claim form and shoved his head up his arse. However, that didn’t stop him getting involved in a malicious and totally groundless application being made by his employer, and purportedly by four other defendants, including himself. The application, apart from being groundless, is also fraudulent and the bent lawyers from Pinsent Masons LLP have made an application on behalf of a litigant without that litigant’s knowledge or consent.

Marshall has submitted a dishonest witness statement, signed with a false Statement of Truth, to the High Court of Justice Birmingham District Registry. As with all other witness statements filed in support of Ingeus (UK) Ltd and its illegal treachery, the statement has been written in “Pinsent Masons-speak” by the bent lawyers, and then Marshall has just signed the false Statement of Truth. Hiding behind a solicitor is, of course, no defence to contempt of court.

Here is Marshall’s false witness statement. I have redacted it in three places, to protect the identity of an employment adviser in the Northampton office, who has committed no wrongdoing. The portent of the entire statement remains unaltered.

ingeus-uk-ltd-ross-marshall-lies-to-high-court

The first five paragraphs are routine bullshit and have been written by Pinsent Masons LLP bent lawyers. Paragraph 6 is obviously a lie, paragraphs 7 and 8 are factual.

Paragraph 9 is deceitful and probably amounts to a contempt of court. I will now relate the truth of what happened on Monday, 18th March 2013. I had submitted a formal complaint (as Marshall correctly states in Paragraph 8) regarding the conduct of an employment adviser known as Matthew “Hedge T.” Rimmer. Rimmer had, completely out of the blue and for no apparent reason, raised his voice and became extremely threatening and abusive.

I met with Marshall on 18th March 2013, the Monday after the incident occurred. Marshall told me he was going to take no action regarding Rimmer for two reasons. Firstly, Rimmer was leaving the employ of the Ingeus (UK) Ltd on 12th April 2013, and, secondly, at around the same time I would be due to move onto the case load of “Mrs Y.”

I accepted the agreed resolution for two reasons. Firstly, there was no point in pushing the Rimmer incident any further, as any escalation to a higher manager would only result in a meeting held after Rimmer had already left the organisation. There is no point in coming across as a serial complainer when the complaining can’t possibly achieve anything anyway. Secondly, I had overheard “Mrs Y” working on many occasions (Ingeus (UK) Ltd has an “open plan” office and just about any conversation can be heard anywhere in the room), and I knew that “Mrs Y” was both a highly competent and skilled adviser, and a mature adviser with a calm temperament to whom I would relate extremely well. I considered that, on balance, I had received an excellent result and was happy to accept it.

Of course, I had no idea at the time that Marshall would renege on his promise and refuse to implement the agreed resolution. As Marshall himself states, this meeting of 18th March 2013 was the first time I had met him. Obviously, if I had to deal with him now, I wouldn’t believe a single word he says about anything, but at that time I had no idea what a dishonest, malevolent, vicious piece of scum he was.

Marshall has, for once, been honest in stating that I did not ask to be referred to “Mrs Y.” Only a gibbering idiot asks a manager for something that a manager has just promised to provide. If a manager in an office of that type tells you that he is going to do something, you believe that he will actually do what he promises to do.

The deceit and contempt arises from the fact that Marshall states that I “assert” that “I asked to be referred to a different adviser.” I did not and do not. Marshall is perfectly aware that I have only ever asserted the truth, that I was explicitly promised a referral to “Mrs Y”, and had no need to “ask” for it.

The deceit is continued into Paragraph 10. This issue has nothing to do with “personal requests” (none were ever made), it has to do with deliberate victimisation of a “client” by promising that “client” a referral to a suitable adviser in response to a formal complaint and then deliberately reneging on that promise in order to victimise, distress and disadvantage that “client.”

Paragraph 11 is also deceitful. The period after which Ingeus (UK) Ltd moves “clients” to a different adviser is less than six months, but that is a technicality. What is significant is that I was promised a resolution in response to a formal complaint, and then Marshall vindictively refused to implement the resolution. Unless all other “clients” are promised resolutions which are then reneged upon, I was obviously treated wholly differently from all other “clients.”

The truth is that I was victimised and abused by Marshall as a result of the slander of the 1st defendant, Kate “Hate Liar” Dyer, even though Marshall was aware at every stage that Dyer was lying. At the time, I was totally unaware that Dyer was slandering me behind my back, and was frightened and confused by Marshall’s behaviour.

Paragraphs 12 and 13 have a significant element of dishonesty. The “policy and procedures” of Ingeus (UK) Ltd extend to the stage at which a complaint is referred to the Regional Director. This complaint had been so referred following the incident of 5th July 2013. Consequently, Marshall and gLIEbrt had no authority to be dealing with the matter at all.

It is, of course, a complete lie that the “meeting” was scheduled to “attempt to find a solution.” Had anyone in the Ingeus (UK) Ltd organisation actually wanted to resolve the complaint, they could easily have done so. There was still three months of my scheduled year one time left, so they could easily have referred me to “Mrs Y” and closed the complaint. They could also have informed me of the libels which the 1st defendant, Dyer, had just committed to paper, and asked me if there was any truth in any of the allegations.

Of course, gLIEbrt and Dross Marshall were already aware that the libels were entirely false. One of Dyer’s lies was that I had stared at her through the glass doors, and managers who either work in, or regularly visit, an office obviously know whether or not there are any glass doors in that office. There are no glass doors anywhere within the office at Charles House, 61 Derngate, Northampton, NN1 1UE.

Furthermore, Dross Marshall was the manager of the Northampton office during the entire time that the events Dyer alleges were supposed to have taken place. During March, April and May 2013, Marshall sat at the very next desk to where Dyer was sitting, and the very next desk to the bank of computers at which the “clients” or attendees sit. Had I done anything, even one thing, which was remotely untoward or suspicious, Marshall would have noticed it, stepped in, and at the very least a report of the incident would have been created. The total absence of any such reports is concrete proof not only that Dyer’s lies are 100% pure fabrication and deceit, but also that Marshall was 100% aware of Dyer’s deceit at every stage.

The reason that Marshall and gLIEbrt arranged the “meeting” was so that two “big, tough, hard men” could torment, harass and abuse me in a way which the Regional Director “Loopy” Louise Preston would not be able to do. In hindsight, I was foolish to attend, but at the time I had not seen Dyer’s libels and had no idea what was happening. I knew there was something wrong, but I had no idea what. I certainly had no idea that a person who had been friendly and supportive towards me up until 24th May 2013 had invented these malicious lies behind my back.

Of course, gLIEbrt has refused to acknowledge service or to submit any form of evidence in this application. The application which Pinsent Masons LLP have made purportedly “on his behalf” is fraudulent. It is also to be noted that Marshall refused to acknowledge service, and also that he completely avoids the issue of Dyer and the libels apart from one short paragraph where he admits to forwarding the document to a third party. He completely avoids the issue of his use of the libels as an excuse for threatening behaviour and harassment, and defends the case against himself by simply pretending that it doesn’t exist.

It is true that gLIEbrt did most of the shouting, threatening and humiliating. He was the senior manager and in control of everything which was taking place. He personally arranged for administrative staff to falsify statements in support of the libels so he could hold them up in front of my face and threaten and torment me. The Department for Work and Pensions later disclosed one defamatory and grossly offensive document which gLIEbrt had pretended had been authored by an employment adviser. The document had been redacted, but so poorly that the author’s email address was still showing. It was that of Sue Reeve, an administrator. The entire pantomime had been set up for the sole purpose of inflicting alarm and distress on an individual whom Marshall and gLIEbrt knew was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. It is one thing to accuse someone of doing something they have not done, it is quite another to engage in threatening and humiliating behaviour without even having the decency to tell the recipient of the behaviour what they are supposed to have done. This obviously crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’.

Marshall did his fair share of gloating and threatening also, but he did take very brief notes. The purpose was so that he could falsify the account of the meeting and pervert the third party investigation which he and Gilbert knew would soon follow.

At no time was there any attempt to discuss, or even to allow me to discuss, a potential positive or constructive resolution. There were two elements of complaint. Firstly, that I was not receiving any form of adequate support on the Work Programme. The answer to that was to refer me to the adviser with whom I should have been working, “Mrs Y.” Secondly, that I was being subjected to bullying and threatening behaviour from members of staff without even having a clue as to what was going on. The answer to that was to show me the libels Dyer had authored and to ask me for my version of events. A five year old child could have resolved the first element of complaint within a minute, and the second could have been partially resolved as well. Once I knew of Dyer’s lies, I could just simply avoid Dyer and issue my own statement telling the truth. If these two steps had been taken, it is unlikely the matter would have progressed any further, even though the course of conduct of harassment perpetrated by employees of the Ingeus (UK) Ltd had already gone past the point of civil or criminal liability.

Instead of trying to resolve the complaint, the management decided to be as vindictive and sadistic as they could possibly be, in an attempt to control the situation by suppression and force. They couldn’t care less about the complaint being escalated, because they knew that their “business partner” would just whitewash the abuses, and also that any report of the incident would be issued in several months’ time when it would all be too late anyway.

They deliberately and maliciously referred me back to the one adviser in the building with whom I had severe bad history, and then falsified the account of the meeting to suggest that I had “agreed” to this. Obviously, I would not, and did not, author multiple written complaints about an individual, then go into a voice meeting and agree to being “sent back” to them, and then come out of the meeting and start submitting written complaints again. The evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that Marshall is lying, although I do state once again that it was extremely unwise to go into such a meeting without a third party present, and probably unwise to engage in any form of dialogue which didn’t leave a valid audit trail.

The reason I did so was because I felt it would go against me in the investigation if I did not cooperate with the apparent attempt to resolve the issue. The investigator is supposed to have a mediation stage, at which I could once again make the reasonable request to be referred to a suitable adviser. In the end, the investigator refused to action the mediation stage and I was left in a hopeless situation.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 are deliberate deceit for the reasons given above.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 are completely false. By the time of October 2013, I had lost all hope and was in a state of perpetual anguish where I had no idea what to do next. The management had refused to engage at every stage of the complaints process and I now had no hope of ever gaining any benefit from being on the Work Programme unless I could do something dramatic and force a change. My only hope was to reach the Regional Director, “Loopy” Louise Preston, and demonstrate to her how grossly unfairly I had been treated. I also somehow had to reach the junior members of staff in the office who could have at least offered me some degree of support had they realised how desperately I needed it.

So, I composed three creative emails, two of which were sent to both the senior management and every junior member of staff in the office whose address I could work out. The third was never sent as the first two received entirely the opposite reaction from that I had hoped for.

The target of the emails was Preston, the only individual with the power to overrule the heartless and sadistic actions of the managers beneath her. Reaching her, and persuading her that the persecution had gone far enough, was the only hope I had of recovering even a consolatory crumb from the abject, pitiful wreckage of a Work Programme which had promised much and delivered less than nothing.

Instead, Marshall, who was the cause of all the trouble in the first place, decided to twist the knife in still further and rub salt into the gaping wound his treachery and malice had caused. He misrepresented the communications to law enforcement officers in a deliberate attempt to cause still further pain to the victim he already knew was suffering acute mental anguish as a result of his previous unconscionable turpitude.

The emails cannot possibly be described as “threatening”, as there are no threats contained within them. They cannot possibly be described as “aggressive”, for the same reason. Whether they are “vulgar” is probably a matter of interpretation, although they pale into insignificance in that regard when compared with much of the revolting dross of the mass media. In any case, even if they were vulgar, that is no excuse for deceit intended to harm.

It is also to be noted that the words Marshall uses to describe the emails are the exact same words always used by “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood. This is not a witness statement in Marshall’s own words. It has been dictated to him by the Chief Executive’s office and its bent lawyers, and that specific paragraph is “Flood-speak.”

The emails are what they are. Cries for help from someone in acute distress and very serious trouble. Even with the hindsight of nearly five years, I still can’t perceive of anything I could have done differently to make the blind, deaf and dumb see, hear or speak. There comes a point where the drowning man can do nothing more than drink water and die.

Paragraph 20 is almost certainly deceit, as it is not probable that members of staff, some of whom actually have a conscience and who know when a soul is suffering, would wrongly describe these cries for help using the same pejorative terms as Dross Marshall. He is just bolstering his deceit with hearsay he knows cannot be proved or disproved.

He is also telling the same lies that Flood told on a previous county court witness statement, As Flood wasn’t in the organisation’s Northampton office in 2013, he couldn’t possibly have witnessed anything. Now, he feeds his lies to Marshall parrot fashion, and Marshall signs the false Statement of Truth.

A “reasonable action for him to take as a manager to protect his staff” would have been to apologise for his detestable behaviour which had led to this occurring, refer me to a suitable adviser and stop the persecution.

In Paragraph 21 Marshall admits to forwarding the libels authored by Dyer to a third party. Had this action been intended to facilitate a complaints process Marshall would also have taken the step of obtaining my version of events so that the issue could be dealt with properly. Instead, he just forwarded the libels on the basis that they were factual, an action which was guaranteed to do exactly what he intended, which was to pervert the investigation and to whitewash his own unlawful abuses and the abuses of his employer.

If forwarding defamatory content containing false allegations of criminal activity to governmental bodies is considered to contribute to, or even establish, a tort of harassment in Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, then it must also so do in the present case.

Paragraph 23 is overtly deceitful. While it may be true that “Depravid Bully Boy” Bishton was in authority over Marshall in November 2013, and that it was he, Bishton, who bears ultimate responsibility for refusing me access to year two, the truth is that Marshall and Bishton connived and committed the act together.

This Paragraph entirely misrepresents the incident, because it simply misses out four months of time. What happened in March 2014 has no relevance to the fact that Marshall and Bishton refused me access to the second year of the Work Programme in November 2013, despite the fact that the Regional Director Preston had explicitly mandated that I be given such access in July 2013.

It was on 8th November 2013 that I was summoned to another so-called “meeting”, this time held in the public office in front of staff members and all other attendees. Marshall informed me that I was not going to be permitted to take part in year two of the Work Programme. When I asked for his reasons, Marshall mockingly said “he’s busy.” The “he” presumably refers to a Mr , who was at the time administering a large proportion of year two of the Work Programme.

There are two points to make. Firstly, it is not my responsibility to lose out on a year of a government service which I am entitled to receive just because Ingeus (UK) Ltd cannot staff its office adequately. Secondly, and more importantly, the issue of “he’s busy” isn’t even relevant. When a previous employee known as left the office in early August 2013, another individual, the individual I have to refer to as “Miss X” because no one even has the decency to tell me their name, joined the organisation. That individual, “Miss X”, was administering year two of the Work Programme, and is the individual to whom I should have been referred if, indeed, Mr was busy.

Instead, Marshall simply refused me access to year two of the programme. He could see the acute distress his actions were causing, but that just gave him even more pleasure and satisfaction. Having refused me access to the programme, he then threatened to report me to the Department for Work and Pensions for refusing to participate in it. As this could result in the loss of my income, and subsequently homelessness and acute privation, this threat obviously crosses the line from ‘regrettable’ to ‘oppressive and unacceptable’.

Paragraph 24 is false. I was never moved to ‘in-work support’ as my case had been moved to a third party known as Avanta following the starting of my business. I was forced to start a business before I would have chosen to as a result of being forced off the Work Programme, although I was looking at the possibility of starting a business.

I was not referred to a local adviser and there was no programme which lasted for six months. As above, my case file had been transferred to Avanta. Only in the case where a “client” does not subsequently start a business is the file moved back to Ingeus (UK) Ltd.

Dross Marshall deliberately and maliciously obtained my cell phone number from Avanta and illegally used the excuse of the ‘in-work support’ (which only applies to people in salaried employment and not to those who have been transferred to other providers because they have started businesses) to begin making nuisance calls. Whether any of these nuisance calls would have been malicious in nature is not known as I blocked the incoming number.

At the same time, I started receiving idiotic and totally irrelevant spam emails. I sent the statutory notice under the Data Protection Act 1998 for the unsolicited emails to cease, but Ingeus (UK) Ltd ignored the notice.

As above, I consider these actions to amount to harassment as they are illegal. Anything which is illegal must be unacceptable and continuing to do something illegal after you have been asked to cease is oppressive. In any case, they are merely a continuation of the far more serious course of conduct of harassment related above, which is obviously and blatantly oppressive and unacceptable.

Until I read Marshall’s false witness statement, I had no idea that he was personally involved in this specific turpitude. However, he appears to be assuming personal responsibility for it.

As these actions were carried out as part of his employment duties, the employer would also be vicariously liable.

Paragraph 27 is false. It is no part of the duties of a manager of Ingeus (UK) Ltd, nor its policy, to illegally obtain cell phone numbers, send unsolicited email, move someone’s case file onto a totally inappropriate and irrelevant programme after it has already been transferred to another provider, or to continue to send out spam when a public authority informs that it is illegal.

It is all typical Dross Marshall bullshit, and these scum will continue to tell any lie until they either drop dead (ohhh, if only!) or are prevented from doing so by a court. In the case of Marshall, a Part 81 application is probably not going to work, as the court would probably consider that there is not enough public interest or engagement of the overriding objective. This is in direct contrast to Dyer, Flood, and the corrupt police officer with whom they connived in February 2016. Part 81 satellite litigation remains highly likely, although exactly what form it takes remains to be seen.

As for Ingeus (UK) Ltd, they have now wasted over £100,000 in unrecoverable legal costs just to protect thugs like Dross Marshall and Mark gLIEbrt. It is scarcely surprising, then, that Marshall is prepared to lie to protect them in return. Marshall is also still an Ignoramus employee, so it is more than likely that Jack “Bent Lawyer” Sawyer and Matthew “Far-Fetched Fairytale” Flood have threatened him with loss of his job if he does not lie. Marshall obviously would not even have 1% of the moral fortitude needed to resist such treachery, as he is a sick, sadistic piece of scum who enjoys bullying and abusing people anyway.

Wouldn’t it have been simpler and cheaper just to have provided me with the Work Programme?