In the High Court Queen’s Bench Division

Court File:
BETWEEN:

x
( Claimant)
-v-
The Security Services MI5
( First Defendant)
L&Q Housing Trust
( Second Defendant)
Metropolitan Police Service
( Third Defendant)

Statement of Claim

1. The Claimant is 68 years old, physically disabled male, retired application

programs/game developer, residing in London, had been directly
affected by act of public authority. The Claimant is a victim under Article
34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The First Defendant the Security Service MI5 (1D) had initiated the
surveillance on the Claimant since 1999 that continues to date.
3. The Second Defendant (2D) is L&Q housing trust failed to act or acted
incompatibly with my Conventional rights and acted in a breach of duty
to care.
4. The third (3D) Defendant is the Commissioner Metropolitan Police
Service failed to act or acted incompatibly with Claimant’s Conventional
rights.
5. The 1D defendant had contracted a number of security companies to
facilitate the needs of the 1D in surveillance in UK and abroad. The
contractor company had contracted the personal who were immigrants
from EU and others British ‘school drop outs’ for the services.
6. The alleged starting salary of the servants/agents is 18K and they are
provided with the housing from L&Q housing trust.
7. The Second Defendant (2D) the Housing trust is a front organisation that
controlled by the 1D for monitoring the residents, providing housing for
the 1D defendant servants/agents.
8. The Claimant had complained to 2D about anti-social behaviour from the
flat above (217 Sangley Rd), who made a number of tiny holes in the
 Claimant’s celling to conduct electronic surveillance including
eavesdropping on the Claimant.
9. The 2D has a duty to investigate but acted in breach of the duty.
10.The 2D had knowledge that the floor tiles in Claimant flat contain the
dangerous asbestos. The 2D had a duty to inform the Claimant and to
remove the asbestos, 2D breached their duty of care.
11.The surveillance continues to date.
12.The in-human treatment of the Claimant for such prolong period (over
20 years) had caused physical and mental sufferings.
13.The treatment of the Claimant had been degrading and arouse the
feelings of fear, anguish, inferiority and humiliation.
14.The Defendants subjected the Claimant to torture, inhuman and
degrading treatment and are in breach of HRA Article 3 and Article 8.
15.The Defendants were aware fully aware of ongoing harassment but
made no attempt to assess the true nature of the situation complained
of.
16.The Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent abuse
against the Claimant in Breach of Article 3.
17.The Claimant had no effective remedy that would address his situation,
there had been a breach of Article 13 right to an effective remedy before
a national authority.
18.Section 6 of HRA 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a
way that is incompatible with a person’s rights under the European
Convention on Human Rights.
19.The Defendants acted in breach of HRA 1998 article 7 and article 8.
20.The 1D acted without lawful authorization contrary to RIPA 2000 section
27.
21.The Police owed a duty to investigate the ill-treatment under Article 3,
the Police are in breach of the duty.
22.The Police had an investigative obligation and were complicit in the ill-
treatment.

Particulars of the Claim:

23.The Claimant made the complaints to Lewisham council and the

Lewisham Police and L&Q Housing trust, about intrusive surveillance and
in-human treatment, they had a duty to investigate but failed to
investigate and in breach of their duties.
24.The Claimant had managed to trace the surveillance to the company
called the ‘The Hanging man’ with the office on Sangley Rd. After the
Claimant informed the Police, they ‘The hanging man’ had relocated to a
new location.
25.The ‘The hanging man’ and the similar companies are contracted by 1D.
26.The ‘The hanging man’ employs of duty Police officers, who must be the
Freemasons members to get this employment according to the info
given by the former resident “Peter” of 211 Sangley Rd, whose flat had
been used for the surveillance.
27.In or about 1999 the Claimant sought in the Wandsworth County Court
the custody of his children from Michele Redgrave, the full-time
servant/agent of the 1D.
28.The Wandsworth County Court Judge William Rose QC, age 52, never
married, had no children, now deceased, had barred the Claimant from
seeing the Claimant’s children or come to court to seek the justice for
five years. Shortly, after making the order the Judge had received a
Judicial promotion.
29. The Claimant is a man of good character, had formed a view that he
became a victim of conspiracy, degrading and in-human treatment, an
unjust and concerted ruling by the Judge W. Rose QC. The Claimant had
not been legally represented in the court.
30.The Claimant had never seen his children since then and has no contact
with them.
31.Since 1999, the Claimant find himself under surveillance by the
agent/servants of the 1D the company called ‘The hanging men’.
32.1D has unlawfully intercepted the Claimant’s post, emails, and
telephone communications.
33.The 1D had unlawfully monitored the transactions of the Claimant’s Visa
card to gain the advance knowledge of the Claimant’s travel.
34.The 1D had approached Claimant’s lady-friends, relatives in USA, Israel,
the acquaintances from Russia, ex-wife who now lives in Germany and
paid substantial amounts of money for collecting information about the
Claimant. 1D had been obsessed to obtain his mother’s maiden name,
which only can be used to defraud of Claimant’s bank account.
35.The Claimant suffers from deteriorating osteopathy and in the winter,
time travelled to the country with the warm climate.
36.The 1D would send a team of its servants/agent to accompany the
Claimant on all the foreign travels.
37.The 1D had hired the service of agents in the host country to conduct
surveillance of Claimant’s activities in aggressive and unlawful manner.
38.In Thailand the 1D hired a female escort to accompany the Claimant 24
hours for the duration of the vacation on every visit the Claimant made
to Thailand.
39.The 1D had rented a condominium in Thailand where they enjoyed the
luxury life of the Thailand on the tax payer’s funds.
40.The 1D used the Claimant’s travel to reward its senior officers with a
luxury life at tax payer’s resources.
41.Once the Claimant figured out the scheme, he refused to travel to
Thailand. The 1D brought in an obese Police sergeant from Lewisham
Police station to harass the Claimant in to travel to Thailand.
42. After the Claimant complained to 3D of the Police sergeant conduct, he
received a visit from the Police at 2 o’clock in the morning, who alleged
that they received emails from the Claimant threatening to commit
suicide. Being afraid of unforeseen retaliation from the Police, the
Claimant refused to cooperate with the investigation unless the
investigation is conducted by the independent authority.
43.The Claimant had candidly photographed some agents of 1D in UK,
Thailand and in USA and published the photos on YouTube. The 1D
managed to manipulate the YouTube management to close the
Claimant’s channel.
44.The 1D’s senior agent had threatened to kill the Claimant.
45.The Claimant candidly photographed the senior Agent who made the
threat and made a report to the Lewisham Police. No investigation took
place even so the police officer advised the Claimant that he knows the
agent on the photo but barred from identify him to the Claimant.
46.The 1D uses teen-agers agent to provoke a violent confrontation while
another one had been candidly filming with the mobile telephone the
ongoing incident. The teenager-agent had caused criminal damage to
Claimant’s mobility scooter and made threats ‘to cut your white arse’.
47.The Claimant reported this incident to British transport Police and
provided the photo of the teenager-agent. The Police could not identify
the teenager-agent and closed the file.
48.The 1D agents had bought from the Claimant one folding old bike for
35.00 and folding bike ‘Brompton’ for 600.00.
49.About a year later the 1D agent’s stood near the Claimant with the sold
bike in attempt to engage the Claimant in a conversation.
50.Every time the Claimant goes shopping he observes how 1D agent’s
filled out the trolleys with the food that would last a family for a month.
Especially such events involved 1D agent’s from Romania.
51.The Russian spoken female an immigrant from Kirgizstan who had
married and divorced the black male with British passport, had a child
with him. The said agent kept ‘accidently’ bumping into the Claimant.
During the meetings the female agent inadvertently revealed that she
receives 50.00 for food shopping and 30.00 for taxi fare home for
meeting the Claimant.
52.The said female-agent had also bragged that her 18 years son from
another marriage could not get an employment and she arranged for
him to be employed by the 1D and he received a flat to live in from L&Q
housing trust. She further bragged that she rents out her basement
while receiving the Housing Benefit’s, she felt that 1D will protect her
from any criminal prosecution.
53.The asylum seeking female from Belorussia, who became a lover of the
1D manager, had befriended the Claimant and asked the Claimant to
forge on the computer some documents to facilitate her immigration
claim. The said female had latter received the help and advice from 1D
how to obtain the residence permit and the flat in New Cross (London)
from the 2D.
54.In September-October 2017 the black female a resident in the flat 221
Sangley Rd, had a female child about 10-12 years staying in her flat.
55.The little girl had acted not in a childlike manner towards the Claimant.
She had been hanging on estate while it was a school time for her age
children.
56.On two occasions the child attempted to enter the Claimant’s flat but
had been told to go away.
57.The black female resident of flat 221 Sangley Rd had ‘bumped’ in to the
Claimant and said that he can invite the child to his flat as she would not
mind.
58.The Claimant walked away from this female distraught and on the
following day went to Lewisham Police station and reported the incident
to a male clerk. The clerk took down the Claimant’s details and advised
that someone will be in touch. No one ever contacted the Claimant
regarding this complaint.
59.The Claimant formed a view that 1D agent’s used the abused children in
their custody to serve the paedophile agents or someone in the
important position, in their monstrous obsession.
60.Thorough the 20 years of harassment surveillance, the 1D agent’s often
engaged in provoking a violent confrontation when the Claimant ignored
them.
61.The 1D uses the Earnest Duncan(ED), the long-time employee of the 1D,
the next-door neighbour to spy on the Claimant and used his flat to set
up eavesdropping equipment to spy on Claimant.
62.The Claimant made a complaint about Earnest Duncan to the 2D who in
turn informed Earnest Duncan of the complaint and the source.
63. Earnest Duncan made violent threats on the Claimant’s life. The
Claimant had locked himself in the flat for the day, fearing for his life.
64.On the following the Claimant reported the violent threats to Lewisham
Police, but the complaint had never been investigated.
65.The Police had refused to release the records of the complaints
requested by the Claimant nearly one year ago, under FOI to date even
after they have re-assured the local MP that they will comply.
66.The 1D took over the flat above the Claimant’s flat from the black female
agent who had been rewarded with the 2 bedroom flat in a new
building, to make some holes in the celling to unlawfully spy on the
Claimant.
67.During the process of making the holes in the Claimant’s celling the 1D
had caused the water damage to the Claimant’s wall.
68.The 1D agents had unlawfully entered the Claimant’s flat on few
occasions apparently to conduct the unlawful searches.
69.The Claimant had found that some canned food items had disappeared
from his flat.
70.The Claimant had made a complaint to the Lewisham Police but the
complaint had never been investigated.
71.After complaining to the Police regarding the holes in the celling and
unlawful surveillance of the Claimant flat, the 2D refused to fix
Claimant’s e-shower for nearly two months, leaving the Claimant in
hygiene jeopardy and getting the relieve from the pain in the arthritis
joints, and only after the litigation in Small Court they replaced the e-
shower.
72.The Claimant had been admitted to Kings College Hospital with the brain
tumour affecting his eyesight. After the MRI the Claimant had been told
that he has increased amount of asbestos noodles in his lungs.
73.The Claimant recalled overhearing a conversation between 2D
contractors about asbestos in the bathroom. The Claimant complained
to the local MP that had forced for 2D to ask for an asbestos survey.
They 2D refused to reveal the asbestos report to Claimant and only had
been disclosed in litigation. To date 2D avoid the removal of asbestos by
the licensed contractors and demand that the physically disabled
 Claimant has to move all his furniture from room to room to enable
unlicensed contractors to remove the asbestos.
74.The 3D has been complicit in the unlawful activities of the 1D.
75.On 11 August 2018, the 1D agents hired a criminal and helped him to
attack the Claimant and later facilitate the criminal’s escape.
76.The Claimant suffered broken sockets in both eyes and a broken nose.
77.The Police officer ( Ed Brown PC 138PL) who arrived on scene did not
take the statement from the Claimant then or later.
78.In fact, the police officer falsely informed the Claimant that they cannot
identify the criminal and he had terminated the investigation.
79.The Claimant had complained to the local MP and the investigation had
been re-opened by another detective who informed the Claimant that
they had identified the criminal from the DNA left at the crime scene,
but the criminal went on the run for about three months before he was
apprehended.
80.The Claimant obtained the photo of the white female employee of
Lewisham Council who coordinated the Claimant’s surveillance on his
visit to Toronto Canada.
81.The black female who is employed by the Lewisham Council had been
dispatched to coordinated the surveillance of the Claimant to Florida
USA. She had instructed the American undercover police officer to
provoke the violent confrontation with the Claimant. The Claimant had
obtained the photo of the black female, an employee of Lewisham
Council.
82.The Claimant had send the photo and the complaint to the Local MP,
who apparently recognised the female on the photo, but skilfully
avoided to investigate the matter.
83.Before the start of pandemic, the Claimant had used the public libraries
to receive and send emails. After the closure of the library, the Claimant
begin to use an old laptop at home. The L&Q solicitor Shabana Ismail
had sent a useless email to the Claimant. The Claimant checked the said
email for the computer viruses and found the number of viruses had
attached and had been released onto Claimant’s laptop. The said
computer-virus known as ‘trojan-horse’ are designed to intercept the
electronic communication.
84.The Claimant suffered from physical and mental suffering, prolong
uncertainty and anxiety, a certain feelings of frustration and
helplessness, isolation and confusion, distress.
85.The ill-treatment of the Claimant had reached the maximum level of
severity.
 The Claimant seeks damages for unlawful act of public authorities and
negligence:

86.130,000.00 British pounds from the 1D;

87.1,000.00 British Pounds from the 1D for flooding and damaging the
celling;
88.15,000.00 British pounds from the 2D (includes the removal of asbestos
by licensed contractors and temporary residence);
89.4,000.00 British pounds from 3D;

Total Damages: 150,000.00 British Pounds.

The Statement of truth:

The facts stated here are true to the best knowledge of the Claimant.

X (the Claimant)______________

Dated: 26-10-2020