|
LET'S
FACE IT - Britain is just one policy catastrophe after
another. Each one costing the taxpayer yet more money. But,
why with so many checks in place, with existing systems, is
it necessary to completely revise just about everything, in
the process, cocking up just about everything? Who is
responsible for this mess, and will they be sacked, or will
this be another Horizon style cover up exercise, that the BBC
will whitewash and edit, to make it look like it is the
victims who are crazy! Should not the Prime Minister resign,
and call a general election? Let's hope Nigel
Farage is ready with some solutions.
Why did Sir
Kier Starmer keep this a deep dark secret, during his
election campaign, and were such tactics electoral fraud?
HORIZON POST OFFICE SCANDAL Vs ONE LOGIN CRIMINALISATION
This is a very serious and highly relevant comparison, especially in light of the profound miscarriage of justice represented by the
Post Office Horizon
scandal. Public concerns about single points of failure, lack of recovery options, and the feeling of being penalized by an unforgiving digital system are widely discussed issues regarding large-scale government IT projects.
The crucial similarity is that the government entity grants absolute authority to the IT system, prioritizing the system's security or integrity over the real-world experiences and needs of the citizen.
Darren
Jones - Duchy Lancaster - Digital IDs - Blair
McDougall
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
Responsibility for GOV.UK One Login sits with the Government Digital Service (GDS), which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The ministerial lead is the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, supported by junior ministers in DSIT. The Cabinet Office also has oversight because GDS originated there. Civil servants in GDS are the programme managers and data controllers.
Formal Complaint: Systemic Administrative Failure in Companies House PIN Issuance and Inter‑Departmental Handling
To:
Complaints Team
Companies House
[Address]
Cc:
Minister for the Cabinet Office (responsible for GDS) and
Science & Technology Minister
Your MP
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (if unresolved after 8 weeks)
Subject: Formal Complaint — Systemic Failures in PIN Issuance, Case Handling, and Inter‑Departmental Coordination
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding a series of administrative failures that have prevented three companies registered at the same Sussex address from receiving their Companies House Personal Identification Numbers (PINs). These failures have made it impossible to file legally required Confirmation Statements, placing the companies at risk of penalties and strike‑off through no fault of their own.
This complaint is grounded in established Parliamentary Ombudsman precedents, which have repeatedly identified similar patterns of maladministration within Companies House and related government digital services.
1. Failure to Issue PINs Following Verified Identity Checks
All directors for the three companies completed identity verification at the Post Office. Despite this, no PINs were issued.
This mirrors Ombudsman‑identified failures where:
Government systems failed to act on verified identity information
Digital identity processes were fragmented or inconsistent
Departments failed to complete required follow‑on actions
The government’s own consultation on digital identity acknowledges that current systems are inconsistent, poorly integrated, and prone to failure .
2. Failure to Link Correspondence or Maintain a Coherent Case File
Companies House has responded to one letter while ignoring others, creating the appearance of multiple unconnected case files.
This reflects Ombudsman findings of:
- Lost correspondence
- Failure to read or link related documents
- Fragmented case handling due to hybrid working
- Staff responding only to the specific item assigned to them, without access to the full file
These failures constitute maladministration under Ombudsman standards.
3. Failure to Coordinate Between Companies House, GDS, and Other Departments
The PIN‑issuance process requires coordination between:
The Post Office (identity verification)
GDS / GOV.UK One Login (identity token creation)
Companies House (PIN generation and dispatch)
The Ombudsman has repeatedly criticised government bodies for inter‑departmental “buck‑passing”, where each department claims the issue lies elsewhere, resulting in no resolution.
This is precisely what has occurred here.
4. Failure to Prevent Harm Caused by Administrative Error
The Ombudsman has ruled in multiple cases that government bodies must:
- Prevent avoidable harm
- Suspend enforcement where the citizen is not at fault
- Correct their own errors promptly
- In this case, the companies face:
- Statutory penalties
- Potential strike‑off
- Reputational and operational harm
All arising from administrative failures outside our control.
5. Requested Remedies
In line with Ombudsman expectations, I request:
1. Immediate re‑issue of all relevant PINs
By post and, where possible, by secure digital means.
2. Written confirmation that no enforcement action will be taken
Until the PIN‑issuance failure is resolved.
3. A full review of the identity‑handover process
Between GDS and Companies House, to determine whether an address‑level or batch‑level error has occurred.
4. A single point of contact
To prevent further fragmentation of correspondence.
5. A written explanation
Of why three verified directors across three companies received no PINs, and why correspondence has not been handled coherently.
6. Notice of Potential Escalation
If this matter is not resolved within 8 weeks, I will escalate it to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, citing:
- Failure to act on verified identity
- Failure to maintain coherent case files
- Failure to coordinate between departments
- Failure to prevent avoidable harm
- Failure to respond adequately to a formal complaint
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Company Names & Numbers]
[Address]
[Contact details]
WOW! -
Great propaganda, that Labour ministers seem to have fallen
for, head over heels. If only it was true. What part in this
alleged foul up, Deloitte played, remains to be seen. How
much were they paid, and for what?
REFERENCES
https://www.paconsulting.com/
https://www.experian.co.uk/
https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en.html
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
|
