Just One Inaccuracy in the IPT Decision

The below is part of the redacted Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) decision letter, dated the 12th April 2024, I received regarding Herefordshire Council’s years of monitoring my website and social media while issuing threats and imposing punitive restrictions since I evidenced neglect etc. of my vulnerable adopted brother in the council’s ‘care’.
This letter, I received before appealing to the IPT for permission to Leave to Appeal to the High Court.

As can be read, point 23 says ‘The Tribunal has not been directed to any policy held by the respondent in respect of its one off, or repeated viewing or monitoring of social media/websites.’

IPT Decision point 23

 

The above is factually inaccurate, as is evidenced by the below redacted copy of my email to the IPT, dated 5th March 2024, showing I provided, as attachments to my email, copies of Herefordshire Council’s policy documents, along with further password-protected information.

Gmail - weblogs and Policies_Redacted

 

The IPT were also directed at the start of the case to the following webpages containing records of evidence of Herefordshire Council’s seven years of monitoring, referring to some content:

ICO Bias Investigation Case IC-188010-V0J0

ICO Herefordshire Council Surveillance Etc.

Threatening Letters

After the above, I submitted a leave to appeal form to the IPT. My grounds for appeal, which the IPT refused were:
* Failed to take into account or resolve conflicts of fact or opinion on a material matter
* Gave weight to immaterial matters and Herefordshire Council’s statement
* Failed to gather evidence relevant to determine whether entitlement or procedure rule was satisfied

I was also not able or assisted to obtain further records for evidence of their activity from Herefordshire Council and their provider services Hoople and ForcePoint; spoliation a likely, and in part, verifiable reason. A clear indication to me, that much like the post office scandal, concealment of evidence is permitted to occur in some organisations.

Herefordshire Council nor the IPT appear to have made any efforts to secure evidence of social media account providers’ logs, which, if done, would have corroborated the visits recorded by Herefordshire Council to my social media accounts without authorisation, verifiable with data I hold; some of which was provided to the IPT.
This evidence appears to have been disregarded by the IPT and not requested and examined; similarly, Forcepoint VPN data.
However, I did receive an ‘unreasonable behaviour’ letter from Clair Porter of Herefordshire Council, the same individual who misled the IPT regarding the number of my emails to councillors asking for their assistance, Porter’s letter imposing and extending restrictions for requesting data and assistance from specific councillors.

The IPT refused my appeal to leave request, denying me any justice for the distress & harm caused by Herefordshire Council and its employees, failing to thoroughly review evidence and hold the council accountable.
The only route left, a costly appeal to the Court of Appeal for permission to proceed to The High Court for a proper case review at a significant cost.

The broader purpose of this post is to stress that when local authorities choose to deceive or conceal, or relevant bodies lack oversight or fail, similar injustice could happen to you or many others, while councils staff appear free to ignore policies and laws such as RIPA authorisation.