Email:

Subject:

Dear

Claim No.

Issue Date

Pre Action Conduct Letter

Claimant Name	a. Name: Simon Paul Cordell	Defendant(S) Name	a. Name: b.
Address Including Postcode	b. Address 1: 109 Burncroft Avenue Enfield, London c. Post Code: EN3 7JQ.	Address Including Postcode	c. Postal Address 1:

BRIEF DETAILS OF CLAIM

To:

From: Simon Paul Cordell

Date:

Reference Number:

Subject: Formal Pre-Action Notice – “”

Dear

This letter serves as “Formal Notice” under the “Pre-Action Protocol For Civil Claims In England And Wales.”

1. COMPLIANCE WITH PRE-ACTION CONDUCT UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

a. Our Subject:

Outlines the purpose of the letter, which is to initiate pre-action conduct proceedings and present a compensation claim due to submitted allegations.

b. Introduction:

Provides an overview of my situation, highlighting the key grievances, including misconduct, racial profiling, and harassment by government officials.

c. Time Limits:

Specifies the deadlines for responses and actions required under “Pre-Action Protocols,” ensuring compliance within established timeframes to prevent undue delays.

d.The Accused Company Details in a Year Order of Accused as Liable:

Lists the organisations held liable for misconduct, sorted chronologically by the years of the incidents.

e. We Request for Compliance with the Practice of Directions for Pre-Action Conduct:

Explains the requested steps for compliance under “Pre-Action Protocols,” such as providing relevant documents and exploring alternative dispute resolution.

f. Nature And Summary of The Claim:

Summarises the allegations, including profiling, conspiracy, fraud, and deliberate endangerment, alongside my compensation request.

g. Our Summary of Facts:

Highlights significant incidents and injustices, such as alleged forgery, coordinated efforts to discredit me, and failures by officials to acknowledge critical evidence.

h.This Is About Our Provided List of Documented Evidence:

Discusses the range of evidence submitted, including case files, recordings, medical reports, and other documents organised for the claim.

i. About The Evidence We Have Presented:

Details key evidence used to support the allegations, including specific documents like PNC records and forged reports Exhibits in our “N1 Claim Form.”

j. Our Requests:

Lists Our formal requests, such as initiating an investigation, immediate rehousing, compensation, and deletion of government records.

k.In Accordance with The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, We Request That You Provide Us with Copies of The Following Documents:

Specifies additional documentation required from the accused parties, along with my openness to alternative dispute resolution.

l. P.S:

Identifies potential legal breaches relevant to my case and emphasises the need for urgent compliance and resolution.

m. Our Conclusion:

Calls for a thorough investigation and resolution within a set timeframe, stating that legal proceedings will follow if no response is received.

n.Our Claim Calculations:

Claim Calculations for Compensation Due to a Forged Criminal Record!

Best regards, Simon Paul Cordell

VALUE

1. Grand Total: £

· This calculation reflects the claim up towards the “15^th May 2025” and does not include any legal fees or additional expenses incurred beyond this date.

Defendant’s name and address for service including postcode.

a. Name:

a. Postal Address 1: b.

Amount claimed
Total amount	£

Pre-Action Claim Form

☒Attached

☒To Follow

1. Our Subject: Request For “Pre-Action Conduct” Prior To Court Proceedings and A Subsequent Compensation Claim, Due to our submitted Claims.

2. Introduction

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as the Claimant, Mr. Simon Paul Cordell, a mixed-race male who has been subjected to a series of deeply concerning incidents. These incidents include alleged racial and discriminatory profiling, as well as subsequent harassment by the police and other local authorities listed in this document. Regrettably, my previous interactions with these local authorities have not led to a satisfactory resolution, despite significant efforts to address these matters through amicable means.

The circumstances outlined in this document have arisen as a result of specific Government staff members failing to adhere to lawful standards and regulatory procedures. These failures have allowed certain individuals, or their colleagues, to avoid accountability for alleged misconduct while acting in official capacities representing Government entities.

In this matter, I am acting as a “Litigant in Person” unless I determine it necessary to engage legal representation at a later stage. Given the additional effort and challenges involved in preparing and presenting this case myself, I am requesting compensation for the time and resources expended in my role as a litigant. This request is in line with “Part 46 Of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Specifically Practice Direction 46.5,” which provides guidance for awarding costs to litigants in person.

Despite repeated attempts to resolve these issues with the implicated Government officials and management, they have failed to reach a fair and satisfactory resolution. As such, it has become evident that I may need to initiate legal proceedings through the submission of a “N1 Claim Form” if these matters are not addressed appropriately and in accordance with this “Pre-Action Conduct letter.”

Time Limits

1. About The Time Limits And Extensions Permitted To This Case

· The “Limitation Act 1980,” particularly “Section 32,” provides “Critical Exceptions” to the standard time limits for initiating claims, allowing extensions when fraud, concealment, or extraordinary circumstances have obstructed the claimant's ability to act. In this case, the cumulative evidence clearly demonstrates that systemic collusion, deliberate misconduct, and ongoing harm existed, which all justify the time extension in the time limitation period.

· The key points in relation to the time limitation period and this claim include:

2. Fraud and Deliberate Concealment:

· Under “Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980,” the limitation period is suspended until the claimant discovers or could reasonably have discovered the fraud or concealment. This principle applies to the fraudulent contradictions found within the “PNC Printout and Acro Record,” which have resulted in a fabricated criminal record associated with Mr. Simon Cordell’s name.

2.1. Contradictions and Impossibilities

· The entries in the “PNC Printout” and “Acro Record” contain irreconcilable discrepancies. These include:

a. “Charge Times” at the police station and “Plea Dates” at the court, which are impossibly scheduled during hours when the courts would have been closed (E.G., Nighttime).

b. There is “Fabricated Intel Within The Records” that tarnish the integrity of the data, making the timelines and accusations impossible to reconcile.

§ For Instance:

· Convictions show unexplained contradictions between sentencing dates and alleged offence dates, which defy procedural protocol.

2.2. Failure to Rectify and Passing of Accountability

· Despite being alerted to these irregularities, the police and courts have repeatedly failed to follow protocol and rectify the errors. Instead:

a. Responsibility has been passed back and forth between the police, courts, and Acro department without resolution.

b. Additional fabricated offences have been created during these exchanges, further exacerbating the issue and preventing the claimant from addressing the matter in a timely and fair manner.

c. It is contended that the “Mental Health Services” have been improperly utilised to undermine justice and to systematically defame Mr. Simon Cordell's character. This exploitation of mental health support mechanisms serves to diminish the integrity of his testimony in judicial settings and other official proceedings. Furthermore, it has become evident that requests for legitimate assistance have been unreasonably denied, further exacerbating the injustice faced by Mr. Cordell.

2.3. Systemic Collusion

· The delays and fabrications were not isolated incidents but part of a “Coordinated Effort,” as evidenced by:

a. References to "Joint Circular" meetings between the police, council, doctors, and other entities, during which actions were coordinated to discredit and obstruct Mr. Cordell’s claims.

b. This collusion not only compounded the fabrication of offences but actively delayed any opportunity for the claimant to respond or rectify the fraudulent record.

2.4. Critical Observations of Fabricated Records

· Upon Review of the 2012 PNC Printout:

a. The "PNC Printouts" indicate that the first date for each conviction represents the court sentencing date. However, ambiguity has persisted regarding the meaning of the second date, which could either signify a "Plea Date" or an "Offence Date." Following consultations with Police, Court Officials, and Artificial Intelligence systems, it has been unequivocally confirmed that the "PNC Printouts" are strictly “Court Records.” As such, they are only mandated to record the following: - “Court Sentencing Dates - Court Plea Dates - Court Conviction Dates.”

b. Notably, "PNC Printouts" are not required to document “Offence Dates.” This contradiction directly undermines the reliability of the "Acro Report," as its “Offence Dates” mirror those of the "PNC Printouts" and its "Plea Dates." Further exacerbating concerns of fraudulent activity, the "Acro Report" lists "Police Station Charged Times" that coincide with times when courthouses are officially closed. These inconsistencies go beyond mere assumptions, presenting compelling evidence of potential fabrication.

c. Specific Examples of Fraudulent Data: Convictions “Fourteen” and “Sixteen” distinctly illustrate these issues, highlighting the discrepancies and further supporting my claims of fraudulent irregularities.

One of Three

2.5. Demonstrating Three Pieces of Evidence Supporting Claims of Fraud in Our Pre Action Conduct & N1 Claim Forms.

· One of Three: “Critical Issues Highlighted in Offence Number 1 from the PNC Printouts:

· Notably, offence number 1 within the "PNC Printouts," as shown in the screenshot below, demonstrates significant flaws in the official format. Specifically, the text is entirely “Uppercase” and lacks “Abbreviations,” what is a critical formatting issue that renders the criminal record unreliable and fails to fulfil its intended purpose.

a. Problematic Presentation:

· The absence of punctuation (such as full stops) and the lack of lowercase letters create a deceptive appearance, making it challenging to distinguish between key pieces of information. This confusion is exacerbated without specialized knowledge of the system and its mandatory documentation standards.

b. Impact on Interpretation:

· When reading the text, one is led to believe that the information refers to an "Offence Date." However, upon closer examination, it is apparent that this is the “Court Plea Date” and not the offence date—further supporting claims of error or deliberate misinformation.

§ Screenshot PNC Record: Exhibit 1

§ Original PNC Printout File Link:

§ https://horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1.%20PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1.%20New-PNC-Claim-Folder/2.%20The-PNC-Exhibited-Evidence-4-Court/2.%20Exhibited/01.%20Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates/01-PNC%202012-and-2014-Printouts/1-Orig12-PNC-Pri.pdf

§ All

§ Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates

a. The First Date Of The 06/08/97: this date is the date I was supposed to have attended the courthouse!

b. The offence: “Taking Motor Vehicle without consent” is a [36-Bit Word Count] and this includes its “Whitespace!” but you cannot define what is what between the offence date or the plea date of the 24/01/97 and this is because there is no “Uppercase” and “Abbreviations,” in the text nor is there any “Whitespace” left at the end of the sentence due to its length, leaving any person unable to be sure of the offence date or plea date.

c. In the next exhibited screenshot demonstrated by us, the word count is much shorter and due to this once noticed you can see the white space at the end of the texted sentence!

d. The offence: “Theft of Vehicle” is a [16-Bit Word Count] and this includes its “Whitespace!”

e. And due to this time, there being “Whitespace” left at the end of the sentence it becomes proved that the date of the 24/01/97 is not the “Offence Date” And Really The Plea Date!”

** ------Next------- **

§ Screenshot PNC Record: Exhibit 2

· Now if we copy the Plea date from the second entry from the PNC Printout of the 24/04/97 and then open the Acro report and enter the plea date obtained from the “PNC Printout” into the “Acro Report’s” search option, we will be taken to the second section out of the two Titled as: “Disposable,” for this case, as web-linked here:

§ Original ACRO File Link:

§ https://horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1.%20PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1.%20New-PNC-Claim-Folder/2.%20The-PNC-Exhibited-Evidence-4-Court/2.%20Exhibited/01.%20Plea-Dates-or-Offence-Dates/02-ACRO-Printouts/

- There are two sections to keep in mind within the “Acro Report.” Both sections contain the information about arrest: “1. PNC Printout: (Theft of Vehicle,)” the first of the two sections is titled as “Arrest” and it exhibits the police station details, such as the Arresting Officer also, the Summons Number and the Final Decision, ‘If Charged,’ at the police station. While the second section is titled as “Disposable” and this section in the Acro Report exhibits the Courts stages detailing the attendances, any pleas and the Court Final Outcomes!

· Title: Disposable: “The dates taken from the Court Convictions out of the PNC Printout will only ever show the Disposables in the Acro Reports, we must then take the summons number from that case and research with that summons for the Arrest!”

** ------Next------- **

1+ The First PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/01/97” Contacts with the 76^th “Acro Report” Court’s “Disposable”

§ Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 3

· There are three Police Charges listed here under the date of the 24/01/97 and the offences are not of the importance at the moment but what is of the importance is the summons number and the “Offence Date(s)” “Times”: I.E., 19:30, as the courts would be closed.

· Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T.

** ------Next------- **

2+ The Second PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/04/97” Contacts with the 74^th “Acro Report” Court’s “Disposable””

§ Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 4

· There are three police charges listed here under the date of the 24/04/97 and the offences are not of the importance at the moment but what is, becomes the: --

· Offence Date(s): 24/04/97 15:50 to 24/04/97 16:30 “This Means I Was Arrested At This Time.”

· The time of offence is 15:50 and 16:30 and the courthouse would have been closed after this time.

· Also, copying the arrest summons ref number and placing it back into the search option of the document so we can check the arrest details for it.

· Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U.

** ------Next------- **

1+ The First PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/01/97” “Arrest”

· Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T.

§ Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 5

· Titled as: 62 Arrest.

a. The charge time at the police station is provided here and this is it: “Process Stage: CHARGED ON 08/03/97 23:59.” The date and time come into motion.

b. Acro Report Details:

· Offence Date(s) and Time Acro Disposable: = “24/01/97” “19:30” Friday.

· Charged Date and Time Acro Arrest: = 08/03/97 23:59. “Saturday”

a. The courts would have been closed by 5pm on the 24/01/97 when I was at the police station at the time of “19:30” and therefore I would not have been transported to Tottenham Lord Ship Lane Lower Court in time.

b. The date and time of charge is the 08/03/97 at 23:59, it is after the date of offence date and that of the plea date, which is stated to be the 24/01/97.

** ------Next------- **

2+ The Second PNC Printout Offence: “The 24/04/97” “Arrest”

· Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U.

§ Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 6

· Titled as: 60 Arrest.

c. The charge time at the police station is provided here and this is it: “Process Stage: CHARGED ON 01/09/97 21:18.” The date and time come into motion.

d. Acro Report Details:

· Offence Date(s) and Time Acro Disposable: = “24/04/97” 15:50 to 24/04/97 “16:30” Thursday.

· Charged Date and Time Acro Arrest: = 01/09/97 21:18. “Monday”

a. The courts would have been closed by 5pm on the 24/04/97 when I was at the police station at the time of “16:30” and therefore I would not have been transported to Tottenham Lord Ship Lane Lower Court and seen within 30 minutes.

b. The date and time of charge is the 01/09/97 at 21:18, it is after the date of offence date and that of the plea date, which is stated to be the 24/04/97.

** ------Next------- **

3+ Additional Two Exhibited Example’s:

Both of these examples display later timestamps than the previously exhibited case titled “The Second PNC Printout Offense: 24/04/97,” which is time-stamped at “16:30 hours.” These discrepancy raises significant concerns regarding the accuracy of the records, as they indicate fraudulent activities. Specifically, these later timestamps:

a. Case 22 PNC Report and Arrest 41, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 22:45. Dated: 02/11/02.

b. Case 23 PNC Report and Arrest 42, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 19:08. Dated: 17/06/02.

- suggest that the courthouse had already closed at the time recorded, further substantiating the argument that the cases in question contain fraudulent erroneous information.

§ Screenshot Acro Report: Exhibit 7

★

22.	24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates
1.	1. Possession of A Class B Drug - Cannabis Resin . On 02/11/02 (Plea: Not Known) Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(2)	No Separate Penalty Forfeiture/Confiscation of Cannabis

★

23.	24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates
1.	Taking Motor Vehicle Without. Consent On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 8.12(1)	Imprisonment 6 MTh’s.
2.	Using Vehicle While Uninsured On 17/06/02 {Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988. S.143 (2)	No Separate Penalty Disqualification from Driving 12 MTh’s Varied on Appeal 25/07/03 Disqualified Reduced From 12 Months To 3 Months Driving Licence Endorsed
3.	Driving Without Reasonable Consideration On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988 S.3 .	No Separate Penalty Disqualification from Driving 12 MTh’s Varied on Appeal 25/07/03

Continued On Next Pape

4.	24/04/03 Enfield Magistrates (Coni . Driving Without Reasonable+ (Cont.)

§ ScreenshotPlea-Date-or-Offence-Date-Acro2017: Exhibit 8

1+ Case 22 PNC Report and Arrest 41, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 22:45. Dated: 02/11/02:

“Case 22 in the 2012 PNC Printout,” is for “Possession of A Class B Drug - Cannabis Resin,” and this text wrongly spreads across two lines and has “Whitespace At The End Of It!” and this proves that the date of the 02/11/02 is a plea date.

· The Plea Date: 02/11/02,

· Plea Outcome: (Plea: Not Known)

· This Data contains a concise description, aligning with our exhibited facts and demonstrates data that does not corresponds with the courts opening times.

2+ Case 23 PNC Report and Arrest 42, Acro Report, with a Charge Time of : 19:08. Dated: 17/06/02:

“Case 23 in the 2012 PNC Printout,” is for “Taking Motor Vehicle Without. Consent On 17/06/02 (Plea: Not Known)”

· The Plea Date: 17/06/02,

· Plea Outcome: (Plea: Not Known)

· This Data contains a concise description, aligning with our exhibited facts and demonstrates data that does not corresponds with the courts opening times.

· Punctuation: when overviewing the data provided it is noticeable that the full stop in the grammar after “Taking Motor Vehicle Without,” is located in the wrong location and makes the details read as if this is the “Offence Date” and not “The Plea Date” as it must do.

a. As a Fact, this happens through the complete official record and cases titled under arrest that have a later time of police charge than the courthouse would be opened or a weekend day when they would not be opened are not possible as well!

b. These findings establish that the Acro records are fabricated, and this is further substantiated by their reliance on manipulated data.

c. I have included an Exhibited video that demonstrates the bases of this claim!

§ Screenshot- Video: Exhibit 9

§ horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1. PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1. New-PNC-Claim-Folder/01. Plea Dates or Offence Dates.mp4

Two of Three

2.6. More Findings That Guarantee Fraud Within the Acro Record that Has Occurred is:

1) Definition of Reprimands/Warnings/Cautions:

a) This refers to “Police Cautions,” which are a method for resolving minor criminal allegations without proceeding to court. The timeline is pivotal in verifying the validity of the PNC entries and aligning them with actual procedural norms.

§ Extract from the PNC Printout:

b) Despite the clear reprimand timeline of 21/08/97, entries prior to this date reveal contradictions, raising concerns about fraudulent entries in the PNC Printout that is a model of the Acro Record.

2) Detailed Timeline Analysis of Pre-Reprimand Offences:

a) 17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1): “Court Adjudication Date: This is the date to Compare against.”

· Details:

1+ Robbery under Theft Act 1968 S.8.

2+ Associated with an unexplained reference to "Pizza."

· Court Sentencing:

1+ 21/05/98 (5th sentencing date). “This is addressed below the next screenshot and its text version.”

· Contradictions:

1+ 21/05/98:

(1) is missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/193878F,) this is as proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”

2+ If accurate, I would have been in prison as of 20/05/98 before this court date and was not made aware! “This is addressed below the next screenshot and its text version.”

3+ This alleged offence “Precedes” the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, rendering it inconsistent with procedural norms.

4+ The Arrests section in the Acro 2017 Report States: that I was Charged On: 28/02/97 at 16:51, Arrest 63.Arco, so if I was charged on this date, it would still mean that this was before the first reprimand/warning dated 21/08/97, and I could not have put a plea in at court on the 17/01/97 at I had not been charged.

· Additional Notes:

1+ This is Arrest 63. Disposable 67. In the Acro Report 2017.

2+ This is also Conviction 9 in the 2012 PNC Printout.

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Snippet from PNC File.”

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”

★

9.	21/05/98 Enfield Juvenile
1.	1. Robbery ' On 17/01/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 S.8	Young Offenders Institution 6 MTh’s

· Additionally Addressing: “2+ If accurate, I would have been in prison as of 20/05/98 before this court date and was not made aware!

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 10, Conviction 9 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”

PNC Printout

This is a separate case to the exhibited case above, but it demonstrates that I could not have been in court on this day as I was in HMP Custody.

This is Conviction 5 from the 2012 PNC Printout.

★

This is the 2014 PNC Printout!
5.	20/05/98 Enfield Magistrates
1.	1. Burglary and Theft - Non-Dwelling On 03/01/98 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 S.9(1)(B)	Young Offenders Institution 6 MTh’s At Feltham DO THREE Months = The date 6 months after 20^th May 1998 would be 20^th November 1998.  Sentence: 20/05/98 till 20/11/98. Do 3 month inside from the 20/05/98 till 20/08/98 then the rest on Licence.

PNC Printout Conviction Intel: 9

1+ 17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1): this is supposed to be the offence date and plea date and is the “Earliest Date” in the PNC Printout and Acro Report, meaning that this is supposed to be the first time I was ever arrested, and this is not true and never happened.

2+ Search the PNC Printout and the Acro Report Records for: 01/97” and by doing this and checking the search options will prove this to be recorded as the first ever offence committed, as there are no dates earlier.

3+ PNC Printout 2012 States: the first reprimand/warning date is 21/08/97 and this is after “17/01/97 (Court Plea Date 1),” meaning that the records are frauded.

PNC Printout Conviction Intel: 5

· Now we are going to prove I would have been in prison as of 20/05/98 before this court date and was not made aware as I was not brought to court as the plea outlines!

1+ If accurate, the “20/05/98 PNC Printout Conviction 5” proves that I would have been in prison as of 20/05/98, what is 1 day before the 21/05/98 and this means that I was not made aware or brought to court, due to the plea date and not being able to attend the Court House unless arranged and brought to it by prison staff. I would have been on a prison induction wing and not registered completely into the system.

· Details PNC Printout 2012:

Conviction PNC Printout is: 5.

Plea Date: 03/01/98

Sentenced at Enfield Magistrates: 20/05/98.

· Details Acro Record 2017:

Arrest/Summons: 98/0000/00/5553D.

Disposable Court: 71.

Offence: 56. Arrest

Offence Date: 03/01/98

Offence Time: 20:00

Process Stage: Charged On 04/01/98.

Process Stage: Charged Time 18:05.

2+ As it is recorded, this demonstrates that the records state that I went to prison on the 20/05/98 for 6 months to the Young Offenders Institution Feltham. Then this would mean that I would have been released on Licence by the: 20/08/98, Three months later with good behaviour but none of this happened.

3+ It is also important to keep in mind that there are 1997 and 1998 dates both involved.

** ------Next------- **

b) 24/01/97 (Court Plea Date 2): “Court Adjudication Date: This is the date to Compare against.”

· Details:

1+ Taking a motor vehicle without consent.

2+ Driving-related offence.

· Court Sentencing:

1+ 06/08/97 (1st Court Sentencing Date).

· Contradictions:

1+ 06/08/97:

a) missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/236370T). this is as proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”

2+ This “Offence” “Precedes” the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, undermining its legitimacy.

3+ This “Court Sentencing” date “Precedes” the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, undermining its legitimacy.

4+ This is Arrest 62. Disposable 76. In the Acro Report 2017.

5+ This is also Conviction 1 in the 2012 PNC Printout.

· Additional Notes:

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 11, Conviction 1 “Snippet from PNC File.”

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 11, Conviction 1 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”

★

1.	06/08/97 Enfield Magistrates
1.	Taking Motor Vehicle Without Consent On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 3.12(1)	No .Separate Penalty Costs 25.00 Supervision Order 24 MTh’s
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **
2 .	Using Vehicle While Uninsured On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988 S.143(2)	Disqualification From Driving 12 MTh’s .
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **
3 .	Driving Otherwise Than in Accordance With A Licence On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988 S.87(L)	Driving Licence Endorsed No Separate Penalty
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **

** ------Next------- **

c) 24/04/97 (Court Plea Date 4): “Court Adjudication Date: This is the date to Compare against.”

· Details:

1+ Theft of a vehicle.

· Court Sentencing:

1+ 12/11/97 (2nd Sentencing Date). This date is not before the “The First Reprimand/Warning Date!”

· Contradictions:

1+ 12/11/97 missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U). this is as proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”

2+ The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,) starts to cause an issue but it has to be addressed under the last table of this kind due to it needing its own table to be exhibited!

3+ This offence “Precedes” the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97.

· Additional Notes:

1+ This is Arrest 60. Disposable 74. In the Acro Report 2017.

2+ This is also Conviction 2 in the 2012 PNC Printout.

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 13, Conviction 2 “Snippet from PNC File.”

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 13, Conviction 2 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”

★

2.	12/11/97 Enfield Magistrates
1 .	Theft Of Vehicle ' . On 24/04/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 S.L	Community Service Order 180 Hrs Compensation 100.00
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **
2 .	Using Vehicle While Uninsured On 24/04/97 (Plea: Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988 S.143(2)	No Separate Penalty Driving Licence Endorsed
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **
3 .	Driving Otherwise Than in Accordance with A Licence (2 Tic's) On 24/04/97 (Ple Not Known) Road Traffic Act 1988 S.87(I)	No Separate Penalty Driving Licence Endorsed
* *	Offence Committed on Bail **

** ------Next------- **

d) 22/05/97 (Court Plea Date 5): “Court Adjudication Date: This is the date to Compare against.”

· Details:

1+ 1x Burglary with intent to steal – dwelling.

· Court Sentencing: 13/11/97 (3rd sentencing date). “This Is The Day After The Last Case!”

· Contradictions:

1+ Arrest/Summons Ref: (97/0000/00/768545U.) this is as proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”

2+ The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,) starts to cause an issue but it has to be addressed under the last table of this kind due to it needing its own table to be exhibited!

3+ This entry repeats similar contradictions and inconsistencies as noted above, further preceding the “First Reprimand/Warning Date 21/08/97.”

· Additional Notes:

1+ This is Arrest 60. Disposable 73. In the Acro Report 2017.

2+ This is also Conviction 3 in the 2012 PNC Printout.

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 14, Conviction 3 “Snippet from PNC File.”

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 14, Conviction 3 “Text Version of Snippet above from PNC File.”

★

3.	13/11/97 Enfield Juvenile
1.	Burglary W/I To Steal - Dwelling On 22/05/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 S.9(L)(A)	Community Service Order 180 Hrs Compensation 400.00
**	Offence Committed On .Bail **
2.	Burglary And Theft - Non-Dwelling On 11/02/97 - 12/02/97 (Plea: Not Known) Theft Act 1968 3.9(1)(B)	Community Service Order 180 Hrs
**	Offence Committed on Bail *'*

** ------Next------- **

a) 11/02/97 + 12/02/97 (Court Plea Dates 3): “Court Adjudication Date: This is the date to Compare against.”

· Details:

1+ 1X Burglary and Theft – non-dwelling.

· Court Sentencing: 13/11/97 (3rd sentencing date).

· Contradictions:

1+ 13/11/97 missing from the court registry (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U). this is as proved by my mother emails and the government officials who were also involved as detailed below in the next section of this “Pre-Action Conduct Letter!”

2+ The (Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,) starts to cause an and is now addressed under the next Screenshot exhibited.

3+ This offence “Precedes” the first reprimand/warning date 21/08/97, further supporting the fraudulent nature of this record.

· Additional Notes:

1+ This is Arrest 60. Disposable 73. In the Acro Report 2017.

2+ This is also Conviction 3 in the 2012 PNC Printout.

§ Screenshot-Before Pre-Reprimand and/or Police Caution Offences: Exhibit 12, Conviction 3 “Snippet from PNC File.”

3) Key Findings:

· The repetitive discrepancies across offences demonstrate “Systemic Fraud” within the Acro record. Entries that precede the “First Reprimand/Warning Date” contradict lawful procedural timelines, proving these records are fabricated or manipulated.

· The Case Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U is central to this issue, showing one arrest recorded in the Acro Report but linked to “Two Different Disposable Numbers,” “73” and “74”, totalling “Three Separate Cases.” This creates confusion due to the following findings:

a) Disposable 73:

1+ Court Sentencing Date: 12/11/1997.

2+ Includes “Three Driving-Related Offences” dated 22/05/1997 (08:45 to 16:20) with all occurring on the same day.

b) Disposable 74:

1+ Court Sentencing Date: 13/11/1997.

2+ Features “Two Distinct Burglary and Theft Cases:

§ Non-Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 11/02/1997–12/02/1997.

§ Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 22/05/1997.

· Both offences are “Approximately 2.5 Months Apart” yet oddly sentenced together as guilty on the same day (13/11/1997) at the Enfield Juvenile Court.

c) Critical Observations:

1+ All three offences share a Plea: “Not Known” status.

2+ Court documentation describes bail conditions from 08/10/1997, listing appearances at Enfield Magistrates on 22/10/1997, followed by sentencing dates (12/11/1997 and 13/11/1997).

d) Documented Irregularities:

· Disposable 73's “Three Offences” are linked to “Conviction (2) in the PNC 2012 Printout,” including:

1+ Burglary W/I to Steal – Dwelling.

2+ Driving-Related Offences: Dated 22/05/1997 with unknown plea statuses.

· Disposable 74's “Two Offences” are linked to “Conviction (3) in the PNC 2012 Printout,” which highlights:

1+ Non-Dwelling Burglary: Dates contradict procedural norms.

2+ Dwelling Burglary: Offence dated 22/05/1997.

· The plea date inconsistencies illustrate procedural impossibilities:

1+ Simultaneous plea entries contradict logical court processing timelines due to overlapping offence and court appearance dates.

e) Arrest 60's Misrepresentation:

· All three cases share the same “Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U,” indicating a singular arrest linked to all offences. However:

1+ Documentation states “I Was Not Charged on the Arrest Dates,” invalidating the claims.

2+ The Acro Report misleadingly consolidates the cases under one arrest, contradicting the “PNC Printout,” which implies charges and court dates match offence dates, a procedural impossibility.

f) Systemic Fraud Indicators:

· The Acro Report and PNC Printout contain irreconcilable contradictions, such as:

1+ Claiming simultaneous arrests, charges, and court pleas on the same dates as the offences.

2+ Fabricated timelines aligning offences under “Arrest 60,” obscuring the truth.

3+ Procedural violations, like charging and plea entries outside lawful court hours.

4+ In Layman Terms:

· Within the Acro Report, it is stated that all three of these cases are linked to “Arrest 60”, sharing the same “Arrest/Summons Ref: (97/0000/00/768545U).” This implies one singular arrest for all offences.

· However, this cannot be accurate due to procedural violations and systemic fraud, as outlined within this claim and here:

a) I could not have been arrested on these dates, charged, and brought to court on the same day to enter a plea, as the documents indicate. ‘The ACRO Report’ shows that I had not yet been charged at the time of those arrests.

b) It seems that a warrant may have been issued, resulting in multiple arrests being consolidated into one incident referred to as ‘Arrest 60’ in the ‘ACRO Report 2017,’ this is evidenced by the same summons number for all the arrests. However, this contradicts the ‘PNC Printout’s,’ which all state that I was charged and went to court on the same days as the offense dates.

§ Arrest 60 Acro Report 2012

1+. Arrest / 2017 Acro = 97/0000/00/768545U = Remand x1 X2 Disposables!

Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/768545U

Name Charged: CORDELL, SIMON PAUL

Date of Birth: 26/01/81

Fingerprint Status: CONFIRMED 66 (NIS - NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SERVICE)

09/09/97

Process Stage: CHARGED ON 01/09/97 21:18

Arresting Officer: URAND/PC/194672

Report Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)

Prosecuting Agent: CPS (CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE) Last Updated: 09/09/97

Remand

Description: REMANDED ON BAIL ON 08/10/97

At: AT ENFIELD MAGISTRATES

To Appear At: NEXT APPEARING ON 22/10/97

At: AT ENFIELD MAGISTRATES

Owner: 01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)

Last Updated: 09/10/97

Bail Address: BAIL ADDRESS: 23 BYRON TERRACE ED MONTON LONDON N9

Condition 1: TO RESIDE AT BAIL ADDRESS

Condition 2: TO OBSER VE A CURFEW BETWEEN 9PM & 7 AM

Condition 3: NOT TO CONTACT DIRECTLY/INDIRECTLY PROSECUTION WIT NESSES OR INTEREFER WITH IN ANY MANNER

Three of Three

2.7. Missing From The Court Registry! Mother Proved

1) The Reason the Now Claimant Requested the ACRO Report

· The Now Claimant first became aware of inaccuracies in his criminal record during legal proceedings, where errors within the police printout of his criminal record became evident.

· At a crucial stage of the proceedings, a failure-to-surrender charge was shown on the Claimant's criminal record. The Claimant argued that this charge was inaccurate and unfounded at the time, but despite raising objections, the custody officer refused bail, deferring the matter to the court for resolution.

· Upon appearing in court, the presiding judge refused to hear verbal submissions from the Claimant or his legal team regarding the criminal record's inaccuracies. This led to the Claimant being remanded in custody based on the erroneous charge.

· Subsequently, the Claimant’s legal team obtained a copy of the police’s criminal record, which they presented in court alongside evidence proving its inaccuracies. Following this application, the judge granted bail under strict conditions.

· These events prompted the Claimant, his legal team, and his family to initiate inquiries to rectify the errors in the criminal record to ensure such issues would not reoccur.

2) Efforts to Address Inaccuracies in the Police Criminal Record

· In 2013, the Claimant and his mother began systematically reviewing the criminal record and cross-checking it with court registries. They contacted relevant courthouses to question arrest summons numbers and discrepancies in the police printout.

· Among the errors they identified were:

a) Offence and court dates not aligning with official records.

b) Several instances of court dates entirely missing from the court registry.

c) Charges being listed inaccurately, without any supporting evidence, or being dismissed in earlier proceedings.

3) Specific Instances Of Errors Include:

a) 21/05/98: Not found in court records.

b) 05/01/01: Not found in court records.

c) 17/08/02: Not found in court records.

d) 24/04/03: Not found in court records.

e) 25/01/08: A failure-to-surrender charge dismissed by the judge.

§ As Exhibited Here:

· The Claimant and his mother repeatedly raised concerns via emails and personal visits to courthouses, requesting clarification and evidence to address these discrepancies.

§ As Exhibited Here:

a) 1-PNC-Original-Emails

b) 3-PNC-Emails-Additional-Files-02-12-23

Sent: 18 September 2015 15:00

Attachments: Court-List-From-Benedicta.pdf

4) Evidence of Collusion and Fraud

· Their investigation uncovered patterns indicating systemic issues in how the Claimant’s criminal record was maintained:

a) Errors in court dates and charges suggest that records were inaccurately updated, or key data was fabricated to reflect unfounded offences.

b) The refusal of authorities, including police and courts, to correct these errors despite the evidence presented adds to concerns of negligence or deliberate misconduct.

· Ultimately, the investigation revealed fraudulent practices within the Claimant's criminal record. The errors in the records and the systemic failure to address them have obstructed justice and caused undue harm to the Claimant.

5) Impact of Fabrications

· Fabricated intelligence and refusal to delete fraudulent records directly obstructed the claimant’s ability to act earlier. Furthermore:

a. The systemic collusion among public entities deliberately prolonged the resolution process, adding extraordinary circumstances to justify the extension of time limits under Section 32.

b. The resulting harm to me both procedural and reputational, underscores the severity of these actions and the necessity for accountability.

6) Fraud Conclusion

· The systemic misconduct, collusion, and fraudulent records maintained by the police, council, courts, and Acro department constitute deliberate concealment under Section 32 of the Limitation Act. These actions obstructed the claimant from taking earlier legal action and justify the suspension of the limitation period. The fabricated records, proven through careful analysis of the PNC and Acro documents, further emphasize the urgent need for judicial intervention to address these injustices.

· The findings from the Claimant's inquiries into the police’s criminal record and related Acro records highlight a broader issue of systemic inaccuracy and negligence. These inaccuracies, some of which appear to be intentional fabrications, justify further scrutiny, and support the argument of fraud in maintaining the Claimant’s records.

7) Legal Framework and Human Rights Violations

a. Fraud Act 2006:

· Section 2: Fraud by False Representation of Official Records:

1+ Misrepresentation of Arrest Dates: Inaccurate arrest dates disrupt legal proceedings and infringe upon individuals' rights.

2+ Plea Timelines: Manipulated timelines mislead judicial processes, undermining fairness and integrity.

3+ Procedural Accuracy: Falsified procedural details erode the reliability of official documents. Collectively, these violations justify liability and necessitate accountability.

· Section 3: Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information:

1+ Failure to address or rectify contradictory timelines and irregularities constitutes deliberate obstruction and deepens systemic misconduct.

b. Limitation Act 1980 (Section 32):

· Fraudulent concealment suspends standard time limits, ensuring that claims relating to fabrication, collusion, and obstruction can proceed.

· For “Human Rights Cases,” time limits are waived under precedents and international legal standards, emphasising the fundamental principle that justice cannot be limited by procedural barriers when rights are violated.

c. Human Rights Act 1998 Violations

1+ Article 2: Right to Life

· The fabrication of records has caused irreparable harm to my livelihood, career prospects, and personal development. These actions perpetuate stigma, harassment, and alienation, infringing on my right to live a dignified and fulfilling life.

2+ Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial:

· Manipulated records have deprived me of procedural justice, preventing a fair opportunity to defend against fabricated charges.

3+ Article 8: Right to Private and Family Life:

· The falsified records damaged my reputation and personal relationships, breaching my right to privacy and family life.

4+ Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination:

· Fabricated records were systematically weaponised to target and discredit me based on identity crises and stereotypes, perpetuating institutional bias.

· This discrimination encouraged cruel behaviors, alienating me socially and professionally.

· Time limits cannot constrain these claims, as they involve “Human Rights Breaches” with profound and ongoing impacts. Such violations demand “Justice” regardless of when the harm was first discovered.

d. Systemic Fraud Indicators

· The “Acro Report” and “PNC Printout” contain clear systemic fraud indicators, including:

1+ Simultaneous procedural events (Arrests, Charges, And Pleas) falsely attributed to the same dates.

2+ Fabricated timelines consolidating multiple offences under “Arrest 60” to obscure procedural truth.

3+ Procedural violations, such as charges and pleas, recorded outside lawful court hours.

e. Impact on Dignity and Livelihood

· The Fraudulent Records:

1+ Denied me equal opportunities for employment, exacerbating “Psychological And Social Burdens.”

2+ Subjected me to “Stereotypical Harassment,” further revealing systemic flaws that disregard “Human Rights.”

· These breaches unequivocally establish liability for violating “Legal Standards” and “Fundamental Rights.” “Waiving Time Limits For Human Rights Cases” is essential to ensure justice and accountability for systemic misconduct.

f. Systemic Fraud Indicators:

· The Acro Report and PNC Printout Contain Irreconcilable Contradictions, Such As:

§ Claiming simultaneous arrests, charges, and court pleas on the same dates as the offences.

§ Fabricated timelines aligning offences under “Arrest 60,” obscuring the truth.

§ Procedural violations, like charging and plea entries outside lawful court hours.

3. Extraordinary Circumstances:

· Evidence of collusion across multiple entities (Police, Council, Courts, And Doctors) demonstrates coordinated efforts to discredit me, and this included having "Joint Circular" meetings about me, where their plans to obstruct and harass me were executed. This systemic obstruction constitutes to extraordinary circumstances beyond my control.

· Overloading me with documentation, while delaying Subject Access Requests that we put them in receipt off. The liable denied access to critical information when they used deliberate tactics to prolong delays in my claim.

4. Continuous Damage and Ongoing Harm:

· Persistent harassment fabricated legal actions (Such As The Fraudulent ASBO Alleging Illegal Rave Organization), and refusal to address violent attacks against me caused ongoing harm. The lasting physical and emotional distress, compounded by their refusal to delete fabricated data, supports the argument for “Continuous Damage,” which extends the time limits for filing.

5. Protected Party Allegations:

· The defendants falsely claimed I was of unsound mind, despite no medical diagnosis supporting these allegations. This baseless accusation was used to discredit my claims and delay proceedings unfairly.

6. Human Rights Violations:

· The actions taken by the defendants constitute breaches of the “Human Rights Act 1998,” including:

a) Article 6: Denial of my right to a fair trial through systemic obstruction and fabrication of evidence.

b) Article 3: Subjecting me to degrading treatment by enabling harassment, false accusations, and fabricated intelligence.

7. Time Limits and Discovery:

· The coordinated efforts of the police, council, courts, and doctors were uncovered through separate Subject Access Requests and cross-referenced release notes. Only by putting these together was I able to uncover the systemic collusion and obstruction that had prevented me from asserting my rights earlier.

8. Judicial Discretion and Accountability:

· Courts have discretion to extend time limits when equitable and reasonable under the circumstances. The systemic nature of the misconduct, the substantial evidence presented, and the significant public interest in holding these entities accountable necessitate judicial intervention.

9. Evidence of Prior Successes:

· My successful outcomes in previous legal battles, such as two possession orders and two injunctions, demonstrate the merit of my case and the lengths to which the defendants have gone to discredit me.

10. Impact on Daily Life:

· The systemic abuse caused me to fear leaving my own front door due to persistent setups and harassment. This demonstrates the profound impact on my daily life and strengthens the argument for extended time limits.

11. Public Interest and Systemic Accountability:

· Exposing the coordinated efforts of public entities to harass, obstruct, and discredit an individual is in the broader public interest. Systemic misconduct by those entrusted with public service cannot go unaddressed.

12. Conclusion

· The combined evidence of fraud, concealment, extraordinary circumstances, continuous damage, and systemic misconduct unequivocally justifies extending the limitation period under “Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.” This case highlights not only the need for accountability but the urgent requirement for systemic reform to prevent such injustices from recurring.

3. Provided Below Is the Accused Company Details in Year Order of Accused as Liable.

· Please take a note that Due to the size of the file, we have attached the accused as labels names in a separately attached sheet.

· For the following claims that Our Client has against you, which we have detailed in this official document and its affiliated documents, according to the years relevant to each Recipient: –

3.1 Explanation:

· The table below summarizes the accused parties in chronological order, providing their details and categorizing their potential liabilities.

3.2 This Includes:

a) Direct liability for fraudulent input or updates to the PNC and ACRO reports.

b) Liability for creating or enabling fabricated cases used through the police, courts, and related entities in civil and criminal matters.

Year	Entity	Address	Contact Information	Fraud in PNC / ACRO The Top Three Examples	Fabrication of Cases
1997	Youth “Justice” Team	Claverings Industrial Estate, 3 South Way, Edmonton, London, N9 0AB	Tel: 020 8379 5800	Not Applicable As Not Directly Involved In Updating Acro Reports!	Swan Youth Justice. Failed To Prevent Fabrication
1997	Youth “Social” Services	1 Orton Grove, Enfield, EN1 4TU	Tel: 020 8379 5802	Not Applicable As Not Directly Involved In Updating Acro Reports!	Facilitated Or Failed To Prevent Fabrication Indirect Oversight
1997	Metropolitan Police Force & Other Associated Forces	Claverings Industrial Estate, 3 South Way, Edmonton, London, N9 0AB	Tel: 020 8379 5800	Complicit In Updating Of Acro Report Fraudulent Entries Complicit In Updating Of PNC Printout Fraudulent Entries	Complicit In Creating Fabricated Cases
1997	Her Majesty’s Courts, UK	New Scotland Yard, Victoria Embankment, London, SW1A2	Tel: 999 / 101	Complicit In Updating Of Acro Report Fraudulent Entries	Failed to ensure accurate legal proceedings
1997	Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), UK	102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9EA	Tel: 999 / 101	Complicit In Updating Of Acro Report Fraudulent Entries Complicit In Updating Of PNC Printout Fraudulent Entries	Presented And Relied On Fabricated Evidence
1997	ACRO Department of Criminal Records	PO Box 481, Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 9FS	Tel: +44 (0)23 8047 9920	Direct involvement in the handling of the Acro Records Fraudulent Entries	Supported fabricated case narratives
2006	Enfield Homes Repair Teams	1-3 Gentlemans Row, Enfield, EN2 6PT	Tel: 020 8379 1000	Not Applicable	Allowed unsafe conditions impacting claims
2012+	Bow 999 Call Centre	111 Bow Road, Mile End, London, E3 2AN	Tel: 020 7515 1212	They necessitated the facilities and resources to commit the Civil Wrongs and crimes	They intentional aggravated the situation and therefore Failed to mitigate fabricated case handlings. Failed to act on fabricated reports. Indirect involvement through PNC integration. They acted recklessly in Joint Circular in emergency crisis.
2012+	Lambeth 999 Call Centre	109 Lambeth Road, SE1 7 London, United Kingdom	Contact not listed	They necessitated the facilities and resources to commit the Civil Wrongs and crimes	They intentional aggravated the situation and therefore Failed to mitigate fabricated case handlings. Failed to act on fabricated reports. Indirect involvement through PNC integration. They acted recklessly in Joint Circular in emergency crisis.
2012+	Hendon 999 Call Centre	Aerodrome Rd, London NW9 5JE	Tel: +4487078945611	They necessitated the facilities and resources to commit the Civil Wrongs and crimes	They intentional aggravated the situation and therefore Failed to mitigate fabricated case handlings. Failed to act on fabricated reports. Indirect involvement through PNC integration. They acted recklessly in Joint Circular in emergency crisis.
2012+	Enfield Council	Silver St, London EN1 3XA	Tel: 020 8379 1000	Indirectly complicit through governance gaps	Enabled and overlooked systematic failures
2012+	Enfield Neighbourhood Watch Teams	36-44 South Mall, Edmonton N9 0TN	Tel: 020 8379 10001	Indirectly complicit through governance gaps	Assisted in community-level fabrications
2012+	NHS & Private Mental Health Teams	8th Floor, 10 S Colonnade, Canary Wharf, E14 4PU	Tel: 020 7811 2700	Indirectly complicit through governance gaps	Medical teams involved in fabricated reports and caused medical negligence to aid in the cases being wrongly avoided.
2012+	Burncroft Avenue Community	*	*		Community-level harassment contributing to fabricated claims
2012+	DAC Beachcroft	*	*	Not Applicable	Legal firm involved in mismanagement
2012+	Parliament Members	Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA	Tel: 999 / 101		Members of Parliament are implicated as the key contributors to the ongoing issues, demonstrating an alarming lack of intervention and accountability in them addressing these problems. Their actions, or inactions, having exacerbated the situation and they therefore raise serious concerns about their commitment to serving their duties out in the public’s interest.

End Of Page!

4. We Request for Compliance with the Practice of Directions for Pre-Action Conduct: --

· Considering this, we are writing to request that all parties listed as liable comply with the Practice Directions in respect of Pre-Action Conduct before we continue to move forward with court procedures. We request that you comply with the practice directions for pre-action conduct, as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, by doing the following:

(1) Providing us with copies of the relevant documents that you hold or control, relating to the above allegations, within 14 days of receiving this letter.

(2) Considering the possibility of resolving this dispute through alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation, arbitration, or negotiation, within 28 days of receiving this letter.

(3) Respond to this letter with a full admission or denial of liability, and a detailed explanation of your position, within 28 days of receiving this letter.

· If you fail to comply with the above request, we reserve the right to commence legal action against you without further notice. We also, reserve the right to seek an order for costs and interest from the court if we succeed in our claim.

5. Nature And Summary of The Claim: --

· Our claim involves the following allegations:

(1) Racial and discriminatory: profiling committed by the police and other authorities, resulting in harassment, intimidation, and false accusations.

(2) Conspiracy and fraud: Committed by the council and other parties, involving the misuse of public funds, the falsification of documents, and the violation of our rights and interests.

(3) Deliberate life endangerment: Committed by the council and other parties, involving the exposure to hazardous materials, the denial of essential services, and the failure to provide adequate protection and support.

(4) Compensation: We kindly request compensation for the damages and losses our client has suffered due to the misconduct and injustice committed by the police and other authorities. These damages encompass physical, mental, emotional, and financial harm that our client has endured. We firmly believe that it is necessary to rectify this situation by providing appropriate retribution for the harm caused.

6. Our Summary of Facts: --

(1) AN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE OUR CLIENT.

· These incidents have escalated to an extent where it appears there is an attempt to silence Our Client from speaking out about these injustices.

(2) A CRIMINAL RECORD HAS BEEN FORGED.

· It has come to our attention that a criminal record has been forged against Our Client, an act that we believe can be proven to be fraudulent. This has not only tarnished Our Client’s reputation but has also caused significant distress and harm to him.

(3) A COORDINATED EFFORT TO DISCREDIT MY CLIENT.

· Furthermore, it appears that other government bodies, including Enfield Council, have been implicated in these allegations due to a coordinated effort to discredit my client, which has resulted in fraudulent court applications being brought against him. Despite clear evidence of fraud, these allegations have been dismissed and ignored.

(4) ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS TO INVOLVE THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

· Most alarmingly, it has come to light that our accused as liable have made illegal attempts to involve the National Health Service NHS in this matter, with their apparent intention of using medical intervention to prevent Our Clients from voicing his complaints.

§ For A More Comprehensive Understanding of The Claim, We Proceed with The Following Explanations: --

(5) WRONGFULLY VIOLATED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

· Through the years of 1996 till 2024 The claimant, Mr. Simon Paul Cordell, has been Wrongfully Violated by Government Officials claiming to be carrying out their official duties, when the only truth of the matters is that their actions were illegal and have now prevented him from having a safe life in the Country where he was born in as a citizen, and in all honesty it was them the Government Officials who was knowingly abusing their powers of trust for their own wrongful self-gains, as we prove in our supported case files of evidence, such as our N1 Claim Forms.

(6) POLICE ARRESTS DID NOT WARRANT DETENTION.

· The claimant's homes in the United Kingdoms & that of the Official Persons buildings have mostly been used as illegal holding cells for him to be held inside off, for much of his life. This was done so, that the police could turn crimes into positive statistics for themselves, to look good in the public’s eye regardless of the truth being that Our Client did not commit those crimes. Mr. Cordell states that the police start wrongly on him at first sight, and this has happened to him throughout 97.6% of the police's intervals that he is forced to be put through and this is in part why Our Client is stating that the police have continued to manipulate the truth from their own made-up assumptions against him, to gain their own statistics, in them knowing that their Police Arrests did not warrant detention, as the criminal record attached to his name proves.

(7) THE EXHIBITED PNC WORKOUT-FILES.

· The Metropolitan Police Officers' abusive cycle against Our Client is an easy-to-spot piece out of our evidenced exhibits, as for when any person is the beholder of Our Official Documentation and he or she takes the time to read over them, as to what they will conclude, from the Exhibited PNC Workout-Files that we have provided for all to read, is that it becomes apparent that the police have forcefully repeated their illegal patterns time and time again and abusively against Our Client. This wrong, yet repetitive cycle, created by the police, demonstrates abuse of police powers against him since he was an adolescent.

(8) OFFICIAL PERSONS TURNING A BLIND EYE

· His current home, rented to him by the Enfield Council & Co, since 2006 is a place of a crime scene due to official persons turning a blind eye, conducted after 2013 so, they can avoid justice. It is not a safe home for him or others to reside in, after those who rented it to him and those who are there to protect it and him and his loved ones, all decided to set him up so, that he can wrongly be victimised. This was done to Our Client by members of Government Officials & inclusively of members of his neighbours and it is said that they all are endangering his life deliberately while they were illegally detaining him for years at a time without any crime being proved as committed by him since he was a child.

(9) THE CLAIMANT COMPLAINED OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED

· When overviewing the evidence for the cases we have supplied, it is more than fair to say that it becomes apparent that the claimant complained of his legal rights being violated at every stage of his aggressors' aggression, as did others on his behalf.

· He was screaming for sympathy as an innocent person, but all his and his other persons' complaints that they all brought through the correct government channels stayed to no avail.

· It is said that the Government Officials and Our Client's neighbours alike were torturing Mr. Cordell, though the years of 2013 till 2024 in knowing what they were doing to him was vastly illegal.

· They all intentionally chose to stay as his aggressors, who are named as members of the United Kingdom's Government Officials and also, members of his neighbours to who None showed any empathy towards Our Client as they involved sadly chose to continue in their evil cruel ways that is said to be a wrong perception for a modern reality in a humane world, as they refused to follow the land's rules of right and continued to torture him, until date of this Pre Action Conduct Letter being submitted.

(10) REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR ANY FAIR INVESTIGATIONS

· The staff of Enfield Council, along with members of the Metropolitan Police Force, NHS Mental Health Teams, and Private Mental Health Teams, are all accused of refusing to acknowledge various types of evidence required for any fair investigations and legal proceedings to take place for our client, and, for fabricating evidence maliciously against him. It is alleged that Our Client and others requested a thorough investigation into their claims against those listed as liable, but they, along with other government officials, failed Mr. Simon Paul Cordell, and his family.

· Their failures attributed to not following strict company protocols and government regulations, resulting in a lack of evidence collected and other materials that were fabricated that if not could have led to the right arrests and convictions, as mandated by UK law for a successful modern society. The types of evidence that should have been collected & not fabricated against him include, but are not limited to, the following materials: –

a. Analogical Evidence: which uses comparisons to clarify or explain situations.

b. Physical Evidence: Tangible items like stolen goods found in an employee’s locker, or under their computer identifications, as to electronical data.

c. Illustrative Evidence: Visual aids such as charts, graphs, photos, models, or recordings.

d. Direct Evidence: That Directly proves a fact, like eyewitness accounts, which are not forged against him and/or his claims.

e. Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that implies a fact but does not directly prove it, that is not forged against him and/or his claims.

f. Primary Evidence: Original documents or objects, that are not forged against him and/or his claims.

g. Secondary Evidence: Copies or substitutes of original documents, which have not been forged against him and/or his claims.

h. Forensic Evidence: Scientific evidence like DNA or fingerprints.

i. Expert Evidence: Testimony from individuals with specialized knowledge, which did not aid in crime by fabricating testimonial statements against Our Client in knowing that what they & others were all doing to him was taking apart in crime instead of their legal duties being conducted in accordance with their legal statues.

- A fair investigation into Our Clients claims would have meant that Government Officials would have intervened and acted accordingly to United Kingdom Laws and company policies, as our collected evidence for each case we attach proves has not happened.

· The correct investigations would have led Our Client to the correct arrests and could have easily prevented the death of his three unborn children, that he continued to contact them about after the loss of the first child as to when he asked the Government Officials for legal help as a victim of crime. The claimant asserts that all three children would be born alive if the Officials had listened to him and others and acted in a fair and speedy manner when requested. Despite his upset, he states he can still provide evidence supporting his claims, which the official persons continue to ignore to this date!

· The cause of the death of the three unborn children is said to be partly due to his rented home, which was and still is technically being used as a trap house where he can be tortured by official persons who have abused their powers of trust to prevent the Now Claimant from making an insurance claim against themselves and that this is all while they fuelled his Neighbours full of fake truths so, that they as the Now Claimants Neighbours, viciously bang on the walls and ceilings of his flat, Morning In & Day Through, while Night Out, to get rid of him in anyway what soever, as to what the Government Officials had betrayed about him and then afterwards needed to coverup.

(11) CLAIMANT RECEIVED DAMAGES TO HIS ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, “TOOSMOOTH.”

· The claimant received damages to his entertainment company, “TooSmooth,” due to our accused as liable, which he and others were building. The company was a hire company, and Our Client had highly invested money and time into building his company. He and others were in the process of turning his company into a festival that represented London and its inner and outer talent. However, due to the wrongful interventions of Government Officials, such as a continuous stream of forged official court order applications that we submitted, the company was forced to sit to the side while forged court battles continued.

(12) FORGED OFFICIAL COURT ORDER APPLICATIONS, DEVELOPED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

· The continuous flowing stream of forged official court order applications, developed by Government Officials and brought before the courts from 2014 till 2020, were set out to deprive the claimant from being able to prove his innocence in court, unfairly. But he and others were determined not to let right lose, especially when he was being set up. Eventually, as the years faded away, all their determination was not lost as they won all the forged official court order applications, except for minus one case that he should never have lost in the courts. The Government Officials have since refused to fairly review any of the official court order applications or cases, that they brought against Our Client, in our belief, so, that they can avoid the Now Claimants Claims, meaning that Our Client's claims have stayed as none investigated. This means that not one of the identified criminals that can easily be identified for their crimes has been apprehended by the Government Officials as they, as the representing Officials of the United Kingdom's Land, have all simply refused to make even one arrest for what can be proved to be true by Our Client or anyone else as, of so far, even though he holds an impenetrable defence.

7. This Is About Our Provided List of Documents of Evidence: --

· The Files We Mention & Include: --

(1) Court case files and transcripts of the proceedings that we have initiated or participated in, relating to the above allegations.

(2) Recorded telephone calls and emails and their associated mailing lists that we have made or received, relating to the above allegations.

(3) Medical reports and certificates that we have obtained, relating to the physical and mental injuries that we have sustained.

(4) Financial statements and receipts that we have issued or received, relating to the expenses and losses that we have incurred.

(5) Photographs and videos that we have taken or obtained, relating to the conditions and situations that we have faced.

(6) Witness statements and affidavits that we have collected or received, relating to the testimonies and experiences of other people who have witnessed or suffered from the above misconduct and injustice.

a. Listed Below Are the Case names & there associated dates, on Which We Intend to base our Claims Against You and in those following submitted files are the dates, locations, names, and actions of the alleged incidents, which demonstrate how Our Clients harms & losses were caused and for each case mentioned above, we have meticulously organized individual folders. Within these folders, we have included all relevant documents that serve as evidence for each respective case. Our intention is to rely on these documents and pieces of evidence, which we believe strongly support our claim.

a) Title: A-Shadow-Copy-of-The-External-File-Structure-Chart

· Due to its size, we have attached the Shadow Copy of The External File Structure Chart as a separate sheet. This document provides a meticulously created and highly detailed representation of the external file structure. We have taken great care to accurately present the arrangement of the files, ensuring maximum clarity and precision.

b) Title: Summery-Explanation-of-Submitted-Internal-Files-Chart

· In a separate attachment, we have provided the Summary Explanation of Submitted Internal Files Chart, also due to its size. This document offers a comprehensive overview of the reasons behind the submission of our internal files. It goes beyond the necessity of proper documentation and organization, aiming to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and the overall quality of our work. The chart outlines the specific reasons for submitting both external and internal files and highlights their significant importance to our operations.

8. About The Evidence We Have Presented: --

a) From "forged acro reports," otherwise known as a PNC Record or Criminal Record, being forged in a different way every time it is requested from Government Systems, to a "Forged ASBO Application," and more, here are a couple of the PNC court cases: --

Please look in the attached document:

EXHIBITS FOR THE N1 CLAIM FORM

Statement Regarding DNA Report and Legal Status

This next exhibit illustrates how the claimant's Acro report incorrectly includes his DNA.

I request that the court review the DNA report included in the "Our Request Sheet." While the document may contain some inconsistencies, I have included the relevant information below for your consideration. Additionally, please search for the term "DNA" in the combined file, which contains the original details from the Acro Report.

Key Points:

1. The police have not provided any legal justification for retaining my DNA.

2. There are no DNA samples linked to any successful cases that involve me.

3. As a result, there is no basis for the continued possession of my DNA by law enforcement.

It is my assertion that the retention of my DNA is unwarranted and lacks legal foundation based on the available evidence.

Files:

1-Combined-2017-2020-2021-WorkOut-Code-4-PNC-27-08-23

1-Combined-2017-2020-2021-WorkOut-Code-4-PNC-27-08-23.docx

5-Our-Request-Sheet-Police-Acro-Markers.

01-Our-Request-Sheet-Police-Acro-Markers.docx

6-Our-Request-Sheet-Arrests-Acro-Interruptions-Made-By-Police.

02-Our-Request-Sheet-Arrests-Acro-Interruptions-Made-By-Police.docx

Search for: DNA Report in The Our-Request-Sheet, also search for “DNA” in the “Combined File” for the original details in the Acro Report.

DNA Report Summary / 2021 Acro =

WORK OUT CODE	26
DNA Report 1
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	06/0000/00/397207P
DNA Status:	CONFIRMED
Sample Barcode:	96988294
Date of Sample:	15/05/06
Sent to Lab:	FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS)
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	42 (ESSEX POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED
Test Method:	SGMPLUS (SECOND GENERATION MULTIPLEX PLUS)

The Now Claimant won this case at court and requests the files removal.

DNA Report 2

WORK OUT CODE	55
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	97/0000/00/193878F
DNA Status:	CONFIRMED
Sample Barcode:	90437213
Date of Sample:	28/02/97
Sent to Lab:	FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE (FSS)
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED
Test Method:	SGM (SECOND GENERATION MULTIPLEX)

For DNA Report 2

· This DNA Report says it for the following case: -

1 Taking Motor Vehicle Without Consent

2 Using Vehicle While Uninsured

3 Driving Otherwise Than in Accordance with A Licence

4 For this case as well as others the Plea dates are not correct as they are the same as the offence dates in the Acro Reports and the PNC Printouts.

· But “DNA Report 2” also states it for a case in 1997 before the first reprimand warning!

· 21/05/98 not in the Court reg and it wrote it’s not there. 97/0000/00/193878F by the Courts Staff admitted in the Emails between them.

DNA Report 3

WORK OUT CODE	18
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	07/01YT/01/34813D
DNA Status:	DESTROYED
Sample Barcode:	98407055
Date of Sample:	23/11/07
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED

DNA Report 4

WORK OUT CODE	22
Arrest/Summons Ref.:	06/0000/00/1629163X
DNA Status:	DESTROYED
Sample Barcode:	97658916
Date of Sample:	21/12/06
Sample Type:	SWAB
DNA FS Ref.:	01 (METROPOLITAN POLICE)
Fingerprint Status:	CONFIRMED

End Taken from ACRO Report 2021.

9. Our Requests: --

a) These allegations are of a serious nature and warrant immediate attention. We kindly request that a meeting be held to conduct an official investigation into the matter and treat these claims with the seriousness they deserve. We therefore ask that you proceed with the following: --

(1) A Meting to Be Held for An Official Investigation to Take Place: Where Our claims are to be taken in an official format and treated appropriately as of the serious nature of their claims as to what they are for and if the following is not chosen to be adhered towards then for the following to proceed:

1+ Immediate Rehousing: We request that Mr. Simon Paul Cordell be promptly rehoused in accordance with the court order issued by the Lower Court of Edmonton North London on 09/08/2018.

2+ Deletion of Government Records: We also request that all government records pertaining to the Claimant be deleted in accordance with the law, ensuring complete confidentiality and protection of personal information.

3+ Compensation Settlement: We request that the accused Parties be held liable and agree to our compensation request for the sum of £50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Pounds UK Sterling). This amount has been calculated based on the number of days the Claimant has suffered due to government company failures, spanning from 14th January 1997 to the current year of 15th May 2025, totalling 10,342 days. These damages account for: --

a. The life expectancy of a mixed-race male born in the UK and living in London, leading a healthy lifestyle, is approximately 79.3 To 79.7 Years. However, it is crucial to note that the Claimant’s life expectancy was and still is adversely affected due to the following factors for which we hold the liable party responsible: -

(1) Racial And Discriminatory Profiling,

(2) Harassment,

(3) Conspiracy,

(4) Fraud,

(5) Deliberate Life Endangerment.

b. These factors, particularly stress, trauma, and discrimination, are well-documented for their negative impacts on health.

4+ Legal Fees and Expenses:

a. Litigant Fees & Legal Expenses Calculation:

1) Mr. Simon Paul Cordell has suffered long-term damages due to fraudulent entries in the records associated with his case. These inaccuracies have contributed to an identity crisis that has unjustly hindered his ability to secure employment, placing the responsibility on those who developed and managed his records. This issue is documented throughout the entirety of the “Acro Record,” dating back to “1996” and continuing to the present day, as the erroneous convictions continue to adversely affect his life.

2) Liability was accepted by the courts for certain entries held against Mr. Simon Pauls Cordell as towards an Acro record and those entries being errors. But was wrongly pushed away from being rectified.

· The first formal email addressing the issue was “On 25/06/2013,” where the errors were acknowledged in writing.

· Since liability was “Admitted,” and the “Court Later Provided Evidence To Confirm This,” litigant fees are “Calculated From This Date Forward” as a formal claim under the “2014 Act.”

· The “Civil Procedure Rules, Part 46,” allow a “Litigant In Person” to claim “Reasonable Costs” for time spent handling legal matters without professional representation.

§ These Costs Include:

✅ Research, preparation, and submission of claims

✅ Time spent communicating with courts, police, and other authorities

✅ Expenses related to printing, mailing, and formal documentation

b. Client Damages & Losses Calculation:

1) The “Claim For Damages And Losses” is based on “Proven Expenses And Harm Suffered” from the “Earliest Date The Errors Were Acknowledged By The Courts (14/01/1997).”

2) Since the issue “Has Never Been Corrected,” the losses continue “Until Today’s Date (9/05/2025),” covering:

✅ Direct financial losses incurred from “Incorrect Police Records”

✅ Costs of legal efforts to correct records “Despite Systemic Obstruction”

✅ Missed opportunities and negative impact on personal and professional life

✅ Emotional and reputational damages due to wrongful allegations.

c. Fraud & Misconduct Impacting Calculations:

1) The “Failure To Delete The Fraudulent PNC Entry” resulted in the “Police, Councils, And Other Authorities Fabricating 80+ Offences” after 2014.

2) Instead of correcting the “First Frauded Cases From Before 2009.”

3) Officials Persons have since built “A False Criminal Record,” despite the “Courts, Confirmed Evidence Proving It Was Falsified.”

4) The “14/01/1997 Date” marks the “Start” of the claim, as it accounts for the “Earliest Wrongful Entry And Ongoing Damage” from the fabricated record.

5) All losses and legal expenses are “Calculated Until Today,” covering every documented attempt to “Rectify The Issue.”

d. Final Summary of Calculation Approach:

✅ Legal Costs: Calculated from “25/06/2013,” when liability was first acknowledged.

✅ Client Losses: Counted “From 14/01/1997” to “Today’s Date” due to the issue remaining unresolved.

✅ Fraud Impact: Authorities fabricated cases “Rather Than Correcting The First Fraudulent Entry, ” increasing damages significantly.

e. ADDITIONAL NOTES OF IMPORTANCE ARE:

· The claimant's mother, who has also been adversely affected by the negligence of the 13 government companies, magnanimously states that if her son receives the full requested sum of money, she will graciously refrain from pursuing her own claim for compensation. This selfless act demonstrates her unwavering belief in the fairness and just resolution of the matter. By putting aside her personal grievances for the greater good, she exemplifies an admirable character that not only seeks rightful restitution but also seeks to contribute to the overall well-being of all parties involved. Her decision showcases a remarkable sense of empathy and understanding, elevating this case to one of exceptional and commendable circumstances.

· We trust that you will give due consideration to our requests and take appropriate action in this matter.

f. CALCULATIONS:

· Below we have Exhibited a breakdown 0f the calculations that are titled as the following:

1) “oooo”

2) “oooo”

· These titles Exhibits Includes: --

1. INDEX OF FEES ABOUT PERSON

a. Reputation Damage

b. My Personal Health and Future Impact

1) Medical Fees

2) Future Impact Fees and Expenses

c. Support Services

d. Emotional and Psychological Impact

e. Impact on Relationships

f. Variable Costs

2. FEES FOR DAMAGED GOODS AND LOSSES PERSONAL PROPERTY

a. Home Damage

b. Personal Belongings

3. FEES COMPANY PROPERTY

a. Office Equipment

b. Inventory

c. Website and Online Presence

4. POTENTIAL ANNUAL REVENUE LOSS

a. Estimated Revenue

b. Client Database Value, Damaged

c. Professional Licensing Complications

d. Market Position Loss

e. Lost Opportunities

f. Potential Annual Revenue

5. LEGAL EXPENSES

a. Litigation Costs

b. Additional Legal Fees and Taxes

c. Fixed Costs

d. Variable Costs Defence Work

e. Fixed Costs Defence Work

f. Travel Defence Work

6. TORCHER ELEMENT

a. Police Council and Mental Health Services Harassment, Including Unauthorized Involvement of Neighbours and Other Members of the Public

7. THE SELLING OF COPYRIGHTS

a. Addendum: Selling of Publishing Rights

Using an approximate value of 10,342 days in a year, we find that 28 years is equal to approximately 10,342 days.

If we divide 50 million pounds by this number, the outcome is around 5,070.31 pounds per day. Now, if we divide this amount by 13, Government Companies the result would be approximately £389.26 Per Day. Therefore, if 50 million pounds were divided evenly over 27 years and then further divided by 13, each portion would amount to approximately £389.26 Per Day.

10. In Accordance with The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, We Request That You Provide Us with Copies of The Following Documents: --

a) Material we have, but have not reviewed: --

(1) There is no material in our possession that we have not reviewed.

b) Material We Request to Obtain: --

(2) There is still outstanding material that we believe our accused as liable should put us in receipt of and that is as follows: --

a) We request for all files that have been developed after the dates of the last subject access requests made by Mr. Simon Paul Cordell and others acting on his behalf, when prior accessing data held about himself & these dates account for: --

(1) The Metropolitan Police, 28/07/2021 Till Date of This Letter of Pre Action.

(2) The Enfield Council, 24/01/2017 Till Date of This Letter of Pre Action.

(3) The NHS North London, 16/02/2019 Till Date of This Letter of Pre Action.

b) We can confirm that Our Client would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution [ADR] to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts. We would also, invite you to put forward any proposals in this regard.

11. P.S: --

· During Our Investigation, We Have Identified Potential Breaches of The Following Laws, Which We Believe Are Pertinent to This Case and They Are as Follows: --

(1) *BREACHS VIOLENT DISORDER PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986 “AS SEEN ON TV!” S.2 _+

a. S.18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.

b. S.19 Publishing or distributing written material.

c. S.20 Public performance of play.

d. S.21 Distributing, showing, or playing a recording.

e. S.22 Broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service.

(2) Perverting The Course of Public Justice (Common Law): The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

(3) Fabrication Of Evidence with Intent to Mislead a Tribunal (Common Law): The maximum sentence for this offense can vary but is typically a significant term of imprisonment.

(4) Perjuries (7 Offenses) (Perjury Act 1911 Ss.1-7(2)): The maximum sentence for each perjury offense is up to seven years in prison.

(5) Corruption In Public Office (Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 S.1): The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

(6) Concealing An Arrestable Offense (Criminal Law Act 1967 S.5): The maximum sentence is imprisonment for up to six months or a fine, or both.

(7) Assisting Offenders (Criminal Law Act 1967 S.4(1)): The maximum sentence is imprisonment for up to two years.

(8) False Statement Tendered Under Section 9 Of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (Criminal Justice Act 1967 S.89): The maximum sentence can vary depending on the specific offense and circumstances.

(9) Making A False Statement to Obtain an Interim Possession Order (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S.75(1)): The maximum sentence can vary depending on the specific offense and circumstances.

(10) False Statement Tendered Under Section 5B Of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 S.106): The maximum sentence can vary depending on the specific offense and circumstances.

(11) Fraud by False Representation (Section 2), Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum sentence for this offense is up to 10 years' imprisonment.

(12) Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information (Section 3, Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum sentence for this offense is up to 10 years' imprisonment.

(13) Fraud by Abuse of Position (Section 4), Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum sentence for this offense is up to 10 years' imprisonment.

(14) Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud (Section 6), Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum penalty for an offense under Section 6 is 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

(15) Making or Supplying Articles for Use in Fraud (Section 7), Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum sentence for this offense is up to 10 years' imprisonment.

(16) Participating in fraudulent business executed by a sole trader, i.e. (Section 9), Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: The maximum penalty for offenses under Sections 1, 7, and 9 is 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction and 10 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

(17) Penalty for offenses under Section 10, Fraud Act 2006 / Fraud Company Act 2006: Section 10 of the Act increases the maximum penalty for offenses contrary to Section 458 of the Companies Act 1985 to 10 years' imprisonment.

12. Our Conclusion: --

· In closing, we draw your attention to Paragraphs 15 & 16 of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on parties if they fail to comply with the direction, including failing to respond to this letter before claim.

(1) We look forward to hearing from you within 28 days. If we do not receive a response to this pre-action letter within this timeframe, we will have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings without further notice.

(2) We request a thorough investigation into these matters and seek assurance that any discriminatory practices or injustices will be stopped and addressed promptly and appropriately within 28 days.

(3) We look forward to your prompt response and action on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Simon Paul Cordell & Others.

Signed by:

Dated:

Our Claim Calculations: Claim Calculations for Compensation Due to a Forged Criminal Record!

· I am writing to formally submit the calculations of compensation and business losses incurred due to the severe and prolonged impact of a forged criminal record, which has resulted in significant financial and emotional suffering over the past 27 years. This document outlines the findings relevant to my claim, including lost wages, business losses, and additional damages.

· The enclosed calculations present a detailed analysis of compensation over the years, taking into consideration various factors such as regular wages, overtime, and different job types. The calculations incorporate historical minimum wage rates and potential earnings for several roles, including:

1) Retail Assistant, Construction Worker,

2) Office Assistant,

3) Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner, and

4) Self-employed Web Developer and SEO.

· Furthermore, specific to the "Too Smooth Entertainment Company,” the calculations encompass potential revenue, fixed and variable costs, lost opportunities, the value of the client database, as well as legal and miscellaneous expenses associated with running the business. Additionally, we have accounted for the impact of COVID-19 on the company's revenue for the years 2020 and 2021, which has resulted in substantial reductions due to the pandemic.

· The forged criminal record has severely impacted my ability to secure stable employment, build my own company, and has subjected me to continuous police harassment. As such, I have also included a comprehensive overview of the business losses suffered by Mr. Simon Paul Cordell’s entertainment company, "Too Smooth."

· Below, I have provided a summary of the detailed calculations regarding lost wages, business losses, and other related damages incurred from 1997 to the present.

· Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to discussing this claim further.

§ Attachments: Detailed Calculations of Compensation and Business Losses!

· Legal Costs: Calculated from “25/06/2013,” when liability was first acknowledged!

horrific-corruption-files.webhop.me/PNC66/1. PNC-Errors-and-Its-Other-Claims/1. New-PNC-Claim-Folder/2. The-PNC-Exhibited-Evidence-4-Court/1. PNC-Tool-Kit/02. PNC-Simulation-27-08-23/3-Police-PNC-Record-this-Goes-with-the-Combined-File-27-08-23/(1) Police PNC Record this Goes with the Combined File.htm

1. Invoice for Legal Fees, Analysis Costs & Correspondence Management:

· Prepared for: Simon Paul Cordell

· Case Reference:

· Subject: Compensation Claim against

· Invoice Period: uuu – Present

· The time periods for Regular Hours, Overtime Hours, and Night Shift Hours based on a typical workday starting at 9:00 AM:

a. Regular Hours:

· Typically, these are the standard working hours during the day.

· Start Time: 9:00 AM

· End Time: 5:00 PM

b. Overtime Hours:

· These are hours worked beyond 5:00 PM up until 9:00 PM, assuming a normal 8-hour workday.

· Start Time: 5:00 PM

· End Time: 9:00 PM

c. Night Shift Hours:

· Night shift hours are generally recognised as any work done between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM the following morning.

· Start Time: 9:00 PM

· End Time: 6:00 AM

14. Correspondence Management:

· The implementation of this relatively new law introduced may cause a significant challenge for many companies unfamiliar with its details. The lack of clarity regarding final values and grand totals has necessitated for me to develop for this claim a robust system of documentation, including detailed receipts and explanatory texts. This initiative-taking approach has not only enabled me to align with the “Litigation Act (2014)” but also to understand its legal scope, potential for recovery of cost, and most of all its importance in achieving fairness and justice.

15. Ensuring Fairness and Preventing Abuse:

· While the law demonstrates remarkable capacity for recovery, it also presents opportunities for misuse if left unchecked. The absence of strict caps on final values is of utmost importance due to the unique demands of each case and varying work durations that may arise. Placing a grand total cap would undermine the ability to account for these unique circumstances. Instead, we have ensured that compensation practices remain “Fair, Transparent, And Procedurally Correct” to prevent abuse and ensure compliance with litigation standards. This structured framework balances the law's flexibility with necessary safeguards against exploitation.

16. The Role of Regular, Overtime, and Night Shift Hours:

· The legal right to claim “Regular Hours, Overtime Hours, And Night Shift Hours” is unquestionable. However, this flexibility can inadvertently result in compensation imbalances, particularly when calculating lengthy shifts. To prevent unfair totals, boundaries have been established to ensure equity, aligning with compliance under the “Litigation Act (2014)” and United Kingdom’s laws.

17. Overtime Hours: Strict 4-Hour Limit:

· Overtime is carefully monitored and capped at “4 Hours Per Day,” ensuring compliance with necessary rest requirements under the “Working Time Regulations (1998).” This structure prioritizes worker safety while providing reasonable compensation for additional hours worked. Limiting overtime prevents excessive claims and ensures consistent standards across compensation practices.

18. Night Shifts: Organized for Equity at a Lower Rate:

· To further enhance fairness and prevent inflated claims, “Night Shift Hours” are compensated at a rate of £30.88/hour, which is intentionally lower than the overtime rate. This approach acknowledges the distinct nature of night shift work while ensuring compensation remains equitable and procedurally correct. By organising night shifts with structured boundaries, we prevent the possibility of calculating night shifts at higher sums or combining them unfairly with extended overtime hours, which could inflate totals beyond what is reasonable under the law.

19. Monitoring Compliance Under the Working Time Regulations (1998):

· While the UK has no specific law defining a "Maximum Overtime Hours Per Day," the “Working Time Regulations (1998)” provide critical safeguards to ensure fairness and prevent exploitation:

a. 48-hour weekly limit: Averaged over a 17-week period unless an opt-out agreement is in place.

b. Rest periods: Workers are entitled to “11 consecutive hours of rest within a 24-hour period.”

· These requirements indirectly limit the total working hours per day, ensuring compliance with health and safety standards and promoting fairness.

20. Night Shift Rates and Procedural Compliance:

· To maintain compliance with the “Litigation Rules (2014),” night shift rates have been structured at £30.88/hour. This rate ensures compensation remains “Fair, Transparent, And Defensible,” aligning with legal and procedural standards.

a. Night shift rates are deliberately set lower than overtime rates to prevent inflated calculations and ensure equity.

b. This approach reflects the distinct workload and conditions of night shifts, ensuring fairness without compromising compliance.

· By adhering to these principles, the structured system of Regular Hours, Overtime Hours, and Night Shift Hours ensures all claims are calculated and compensated in a manner that is both equitable and compliant. Transparency and organised boundaries maintain the integrity of the law while preventing misuse.

Final Invoice Summary:

Category	Amount (£)
Legal Fees (620.12 hours @ £24.70/hour)	£
Solicitors’ Expenses	£
Analysis Fees	£
Client Stress Fees (100 days @ £50/day) till the 21/04/2025.	£

PNC Claim File Email Chronology & Legal Fees:

These emails document the time spent acting as a litigant in person, with assistance from my family members, and include calculations of the legal fees and expenses incurred.

Nub	Date	Time	From	Elapsed Time Since Previous Event	Hours, Days Worked	Legal Fees & Expenses	Intel Summary	Amount (£)
1	—	—	—	—			—	£—
2	25/06/2013	—	Police PNC Record	—			PNC printout confirms fraud/errors—triggered by the Gazebo Case.	£—
3	03/01/2014	—	Simon Cordell	192 days			First identification of errors in my criminal record, leading to further investigation. “Noted in the Claimants Diary!”	£—
4	12/02/2014	12:45 PM	Lorraine Cordell → Westminster Magistrates Court	40 days			Formal email regarding errors in PNC record.	£—
5	17/02/2014	07:19 AM	Justice GsiGov.uk	5 days, 18 hours, 34 minutes			Receipt received—recorded interaction with Justice GSI.	£—
6	17/02/2014	14:07 PM	Beneficiary → Camberwell	6 hours, 48 minutes			Confirmed receipt of further documentation.	£—
7	17/02/2014	14:24 PM	Westminster Magistrates Court	17 minutes			Memorandum of Conviction provided—confirming errors.	£—
8	17/02/2014	15:13 PM	Lorraine Cordell	49 minutes			Follow-up email after court response, discussing wrongful conviction details.	£—
9	17/02/2014	17:53 PM	Josephine Ward	2 hours, 40 minutes			Forwarding case details to barrister Andy Locke—legal strategy discussion.	£—
10	17/02/2014	17:57 PM	Josephine Ward → Trevor Allaway & Legal Team	4 minutes			Coordination for Woolwich Crown Court case discussion.	£—
11	19/02/2014	13:36 PM	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	1 day, 19 hours, 39 minutes			Request sent for full PNC verification.	£—
12	20/02/2014	12:29 PM	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	22 hours, 53 minutes			Follow-up regarding missing PNC records.	£—
13	20/02/2014	12:14 PM	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	Earlier response within the same hour			Initial court reply.	£—
14	21/02/2014	16:06 PM	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	1 day, 3 hours, 52 minutes			Court confirmation on Cordell matters.	£—
15	03/03/2014	14:39 PM	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	9 days, 22 hours, 33 minutes			Continued request for PNC verification.	£—
16	03/03/2014	13:48 PM	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	Earlier response within the same day			Official court reply.	£—
17	03/03/2014	13:22	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	16 minutes			Follow-up regarding PNC verification.	£—
18	03/03/2014	14:39	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	1 hour, 17 minutes			Further inquiries into fraudulent entries.	£—
19	04/03/2014	15:23	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	23 hours, 44 minutes			Response from court about requested documents.	£—
20	04/03/2014	15:08	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	Earlier within same hour			Follow-up regarding incomplete records.	£—
21	06/03/2014	09:38	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	1 day, 18 hours, 30 minutes			Further confirmation of errors found in police records.	£—
22	07/03/2014	16:09	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	1 day, 6 hours, 31 minutes			Court provided additional dates for Cordell cases.	£—
23	10/03/2014	12:43	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	2 days, 20 hours, 34 minutes			Formal request for verification of PNC discrepancies.	£—
24	10/03/2014	12:59	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	16 minutes			Court acknowledges request for updates on PNC records.	£—
25	12/03/2014	11:59	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	2 days, 23 hours			More inquiries into wrongful conviction errors.	£—
26	12/03/2014	12:04	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	5 minutes			Quick response regarding missing PNC documents.	£—
27	13/03/2014	12:27	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	1 day, 23 minutes			Request for verification of fraudulent entries.	£—
28	13/03/2014	13:12	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	45 minutes			Follow-up on unresolved discrepancies.	£—
29	13/03/2014	13:04	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	Earlier within same hour			Court response on outstanding case records.	£—
30	13/03/2014	14:10	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	1 hour, 6 minutes			Continued request for accurate documents.	£—
31	13/03/2014	14:47	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	37 minutes			Additional clarification received.	£—
32	21/10/2014	19:06	Lorraine Cordell & Josephine Ward	222 days, 4 hours, 19 minutes			Legal discussion on unresolved PNC errors.	£—
33	21/10/2014	19:07	Lorraine Cordell & Josephine Ward	1 minute			Continued legal analysis.	£—
34	21/10/2014	19:08	Lorraine Cordell & Josephine Ward	1 minute			Follow-up on previous legal correspondence.	£—
35	21/10/2014	19:09	Lorraine Cordell & Josephine Ward	1 minute			Further legal documentation on unresolved PNC issues.	£—
36	27/01/2015	02:38	Lorraine Cordell → Independent Monitor @homeoffice	97 days, 7 hours, 29 minutes			Formal inquiries into fraudulent PNC entries.	£—
37	27/01/2015	10:16	Independent Monitor @homeoffice → Lorraine Cordell	7 hours, 38 minutes			Official response regarding PNC fraud concerns.	£—
38	13/02/2015	13:50	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	17 days, 3 hours, 34 minutes			Request for updated PNC corrections.	£—
39	27/02/2015	16:30	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	14 days, 2 hours, 40 minutes			Follow-up on unresolved PNC errors.	£—
40	27/02/2015	16:31	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	1 minute			Court acknowledgement of legal request.	£—
41	28/02/2015	09:32	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	17 hours, 1 minute			Further legal correspondence regarding PNC fraud.	£—
42	28/02/2015	12:33	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	3 hours, 1 minute			Court follow-up on previous legal inquiries.	£—
43	02/06/2015	14:02	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	94 days, 1 hour, 29 minutes			Request for memorandum of conviction.	£—
44	08/06/2015	10:42	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	5 days, 20 hours, 40 minutes			Additional inquiries into fraudulent PNC records.	£—
45	14/08/2015	11:25	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	67 days, 46 minutes			Legal note: ASBO wrong verdict & documented disturbances.	£—
46	18/08/2015	15:00	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	4 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes			Further follow-up on fraudulent PNC entries.	£—
47	11/09/2015	21:13	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	24 days, 6 hours, 13 minutes			Request for updated PNC corrections.	£—
48	18/09/2015	15:00	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	6 days, 5 hours, 47 minutes			More legal inquiries into PNC fraud.	£—
49	18/09/2015	14:26	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	Earlier within the same hour			Official court response.	£—
50	20/10/2015	17:48	Lorraine Cordell → Highbury Corner Magistrates Court	32 days, 3 hours, 22 minutes			Final follow-up on unresolved PNC errors.	£—
51	20/10/2015	16:03	Highbury Corner Magistrates Court → Lorraine Cordell	Earlier within the same day			Court defers issue, advising me to contact the police.	£—

PNC Analysis Fee Explanation:

Following the “Acknowledgment Of Errors” in the “PNC Record” by “Lordship Lane And Highbury & Islington Courthouses,” further “Conclusive Studies” were required to uncover “Additional Inaccuracies” beyond those initially accepted. Given the claimant’s certainty that he had been “Wrongly Persecuted” for crimes he “Never Committed,” extensive research was necessary to verify and document these errors.

Scope of the Analysis & Justification for Fees:

Due to the complexity and depth of the errors found, a detailed investigative process was required, including:

✅ Cross-Referencing Case Files: against legal rules to establish contradictions.
✅ Comparing Police Records: with court judgments to identify discrepancies.

✅ Tracking Procedural Errors: that contributed to false convictions and fabricated charges.

✅ Engaging Legal Professionals: to analyze supporting documentation for systemic failures.

Extended Research & Time Commitment:

Since the “Original Findings Were Accepted As Erroneous,” yet “Authorities Failed To Correct Them,” the claimant had to “Undertake Years Of Research” to systematically challenge the false records. The prolonged effort was necessary because:

• The “Fabrication Of Offences Post-2014” significantly worsened the impact of the wrongful allegations.
• Authorities failed to “Whistle-Blow On Their Own Misconduct,” instead sending away the claimant’s mother with clear evidence of fraud.
• Police and local councils collaborated to “Manufacture Over 80 Offences,” rather than “Deleting The Original Fraudulent Entry.”

The Gazebo Case = 1

The Asbo = 6 cases hide inside

9 x Driving Bans = 9

The 1^st Housing possession Order = 32

The 1^st Injunction Order

The 2^nd Injunction Order

The 2^nd Housing possession Order = the original 32 and it went up to 48 = 16

Incident on 26^th of May 2019: "Burglary in Other than Dwelling"

On this date, I experienced a serious incident involving a fraudulent court order application against me. Since 2013, I have been targeted by the police, local council, and neighbourhood watch, which has led to numerous records and case files documenting their harassment.

At the time of the incident, my front door was not secure; the police had previously broken into my home without a warrant or justification, leaving my door temporarily covered with MDF as a makeshift emergency fix. This makeshift door did not seal properly.

Believing I had left my apartment, my upstairs neighbours allowed a friend into the building. This individual reached his fingers through my unsealed door while I was resting on my sofa, attempting to force the MDF door open. In response, I called the police for help.

However, instead of addressing the intruder's actions, the police set me up to be arrested. The case against me was eventually dropped, but the individual who tried to break into my home was never arrested or charged, despite the clear need for accountability. This pattern of behaviour highlights the ongoing harassment and wrongful treatment I have faced.

Total so far: 65

There are 2 arrests that we have not obtained the records for.

The dates below are from the Acro report and were not used in court application like the Asbo or possession Orders!

25/10/18:

24/01/13

15/10/12

14/08/12

13/08/12

04/09/11

04/12/10

02/05/10

Total so far: 76

There is more, I need to think….

• This deliberate obstruction led to “Continued Damage” to the claimant’s legal standing and personal life.

Final Calculation & Claim Basis:

The PNC Analysis Fee is justified as follows:

• Legal Costs: Charged from 25/06/2013, when liability was first formally admitted.
• Client Losses: Counted from 14/01/1997 onward, as the issue remains unresolved to this day.
• Impact Assessment: Every proven effort to correct the errors has been systematically ignored or obstructed, prolonging financial and personal damages.

Closing Statement:

The research and analysis undertaken in this claim were “Essential” to uncover the full scale of misconduct and to prevent further damage caused by “False Police Records.” Given the “Systemic Failure” to correct the wrongful entries, the claimant is entitled to claim “Litigant Fees, Legal Expenses, And Compensation” for all provable losses.

200 Telephone Calls Are Exhibited:

· Since “2013,” when his mother formally “Reported Errors” in his “PNC Printout Records” and “Acro Reports,” that “Mr. Simon Cordell” has been forced to “Defend Himself Against 80 Fabricated Cases,” which were created to construct a “False Criminal Record” and impose various legal restrictions, including “Injunctions, Asbos, And Housing Possession Orders.”

· The “Acro Report and PNC Printout” both officially “State That Mr. Simon Cordell Was Found Guilty” in “1990.” However, despite this being the last recorded conviction, systemic errors within his “PNC Records and Acro Reports” are identified to prove otherwise.

· While contesting “Each of These Wrongful Cases,” he has simultaneously been working to “Prove the Fraudulent Nature of His PNC Records and Acro Reports,” ensuring that the systemic errors are fully exposed.

· This exhaustive legal process has required extensive “Documentation, Appeals, And Evidentiary Submissions,” leading to the “Latest Recorded Entry,” demonstrating the ongoing failure of authorities to “Rectify These Injustices.”

Client Losses: Counted “From 14/01/1997” to “Today’s Date” due to the issue remaining unresolved.

Basic Workweek Structure:

• A standard workweek typically has “7 Days.”
• A standard full-time work schedule is “5 Working Days Per Week,” usually Monday to Friday.
• There are “52 weeks in a year, so:

1) Total working days per year: 5 days/week × 52 weeks = 260 working days.

2) Total days in a year: 7 days/week × 52 weeks = 364 days (or 365 days in a leap year).

Note to be made about:

Office Assistant + Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: Mother’s pc company

• Sum Up Total Earnings:

a. Calculation of Compensation and Business Losses (Including Overtime) “1997-1999: No National

Minimum Wage!”

a. 1997: 16 years old

· Minimum Wage Hypothetical: £3.00/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.00/hour * 8 hours = £24.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £45/week

· Annual Overtime: £45 * 52 weeks = £2,340/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £10,000 + £2,340 = £12,340/year

· Construction Worker: £12,000 + £2,340 = £14,340/year

· Office Assistant: £14,000 + £2,340 = £16,340/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £20,000 + £5,000 (additional work/overtime) = £25,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £25,000 + £10,000 (additional work/overtime) = £35,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: “1997. 16 years old” £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

d. Total for Calander Year: “Office Assistant” £14,000 + £2,340 = £16,340/year

-------

a. 1998: 17 years old

· Minimum Wage Hypothetical: £3.00/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.00/hour * 8 hours = £24.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £45/week

· Annual Overtime: £45 * 52 weeks = £2,340/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £10,500 + £2,340 = £12,840/year

· Construction Worker: £12,500 + £2,340 = £14,840/year

· Office Assistant: £14,500 + £2,340 = £16,840/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £21,000 + £5,000 (additional work/overtime) = £26,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £26,000 + £10,000 (additional work/overtime) = £36,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: “1998: 17 years old” £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

-------

a. 1999: 18 years old

· Minimum Wage Hypothetical: £3.00/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.00/hour * 8 hours = £24.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £45/week

· Annual Overtime: £45 * 52 weeks = £2,340/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £11,000 + £2,340 = £13,340/year

· Construction Worker: £13,000 + £2,340 = £15,340/year

· Office Assistant: £15,000 + £2,340 = £17,340/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £22,000 + £5,000 (additional work/overtime) = £27,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £27,000 + £10,000 (additional work/overtime) = £37,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £11,100/year

-------

1999-2009: “National Minimum Wage Introduced!”

a. 1999: 18 years old

· Minimum Wage: £3.00/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.00/hour * 8 hours = £24.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £45/week

· Annual Overtime: £45 * 52 weeks = £2,340/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £8,760 + £2,340 = £11,100/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £11,000 + £2,340 = £13,340/year

· Construction Worker: £14,000 + £2,340 = £16,340/year

· Office Assistant: £15,000 + £2,340 = £17,340/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £22,000 + £5,000 (additional work/overtime) = £27,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £27,000 + £10,000 (additional work/overtime) = £37,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £11,100/year

-------

a. 2000: 19 years old

· Minimum Wage: £3.20/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.20/hour * 8 hours = £25.60/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £48/week

· Annual Overtime: £48 * 52 weeks = £2,496/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £9,344 + £2,496 = £11,840/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £11,500 + £2,496 = £13,996/year

· Construction Worker: £14,500 + £2,496 = £16,996/year

· Office Assistant: £16,000 + £2,496 = £18,496/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £23,000 + £5,500 (additional work/overtime) = £28,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £28,000 + £10,500 (additional work/overtime) = £38,500/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £11,840/year

-------

a. 2001: 20 years old

· Minimum Wage: £3.50/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.50/hour * 8 hours = £28.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £52.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £52.50 * 52 weeks = £2,730/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £10,220 + £2,730 = £12,950/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £12,000 + £2,730 = £14,730/year

· Construction Worker: £15,000 + £2,730 = £17,730/year

· Office Assistant: £17,000 + £2,730 = £19,730/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £24,000 + £5,750 (additional work/overtime) = £29,750/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £29,000 + £10,750 (additional work/overtime) = £39,750/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £12,950/year

-------

a. 2002: 21 years old

· Minimum Wage: £3.60/hour

· Daily Wage: £3.60/hour * 8 hours = £28.80/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £54/week

· Annual Overtime: £54 * 52 weeks = £2,808/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £10,512 + £2,808 = £13,320/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £12,500 + £2,808 = £15,308/year

· Construction Worker: £15,500 + £2,808 = £18,308/year

· Office Assistant: £17,500 + £2,808 = £20,308/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £25,000 + £6,000 (additional work/overtime) = £31,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £30,000 + £11,000 (additional work/overtime) = £41,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £13,320/year

-------

a. 2003: 22 years old

· Minimum Wage: £4.50/hour

· Daily Wage: £4.50/hour * 8 hours = £36.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £67.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £67.50 * 52 weeks = £3,510/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £13,140 + £3,510 = £16,650/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £13,000 + £3,510 = £16,510/year

· Construction Worker: £16,000 + £3,510 = £19,510/year

· Office Assistant: £18,000 + £3,510 = £21,510/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £26,000 + £6,500 (additional work/overtime) = £32,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £31,000 + £11,500

c. Total for Calander Year: £16,650/year

-------

a. 2004: 23 years old

· Minimum Wage: £4.85/hour

· Daily Wage: £4.85/hour * 8 hours = £38.80/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £72.75/week

· Annual Overtime: £72.75 * 52 weeks = £3,783/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £14,162 + £3,783 = £17,945/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £13,500 + £3,783 = £17,283/year

· Construction Worker: £16,500 + £3,783 = £20,283/year

· Office Assistant: £18,500 + £3,783 = £22,283/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £27,000 + £7,000 (additional work/overtime) = £34,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £32,000 + £12,000 (additional work/overtime) = £44,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £17,945/year

-------

a. 2005: 24 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.05/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.05/hour * 8 hours = £40.40/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £75.75/week

· Annual Overtime: £75.75 * 52 weeks = £3,939/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £14,746 + £3,939 = £18,685/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £14,000 + £3,939 = £17,939/year

· Construction Worker: £17,000 + £3,939 = £20,939/year

· Office Assistant: £19,000 + £3,939 = £22,939/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £28,000 + £7,500 (additional work/overtime) = £35,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £33,000 + £12,500 (additional work/overtime) = £45,500/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £18,685/year

-------

a. 2006: 25 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.35/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.35/hour * 8 hours = £42.80/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £80.25/week

· Annual Overtime: £80.25 * 52 weeks = £4,173/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £15,622 + £4,173 = £19,795/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £14,500 + £4,173 = £18,673/year

· Construction Worker: £17,500 + £4,173 = £21,673/year

· Office Assistant: £19,500 + £4,173 = £23,673/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £29,000 + £8,000 (additional work/overtime) = £37,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £34,000 + £13,000 (additional work/overtime) = £47,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £19,795/year

-------

a. 2007: 26 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.52/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.52/hour * 8 hours = £44.16/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £82.80/week

· Annual Overtime: £82.80 * 52 weeks = £4,305.60/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £16,118.40 + £4,305.60 = £20,424/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £15,000 + £4,305.60 = £19,305.60/year

· Construction Worker: £18,000 + £4,305.60 = £22,305.60/year

· Office Assistant: £20,000 + £4,305.60 = £24,305.60/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £30,000 + £8,200 (additional work/overtime) = £38,200/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £35,000 + £13,200 (additional work/overtime) = £48,200/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £20,424/year

-------

a. 2008: 27 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.73/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.73/hour * 8 hours = £45.84/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £85.95/week

· Annual Overtime: £85.95 * 52 weeks = £4,469.40/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £16,741.20 + £4,469.40 = £21,210.60/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £15,500 + £4,469.40 = £19,969.40/year

· Construction Worker: £18,500 + £4,469.40 = £22,969.40/year

· Office Assistant: £20,500 + £4,469.40 = £24,969.40/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £31,000 + £8,400 (additional work/overtime) = £39,400/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £36,000 + £13,400 (additional work/overtime) = £49,400/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £21,210.60/year

-------

a. 2009: 28 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.80/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.80/hour * 8 hours = £46.40/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £87.00/week

· Annual Overtime: £87.00 * 52 weeks = £4,524/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £16,936 + £4,524 = £21,460/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £16,000 + £4,524 = £20,524/year

· Construction Worker: £19,000 + £4,524 = £23,524/year

· Office Assistant: £21,000 + £4,524 = £25,524/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £32,000 + £8,500 (additional work/overtime) = £40,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £37,000 + £13,500 (additional work/overtime) = £50,500/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £21,460/year

-------

2010-2019: Updated Minimum Wage Rates

a. 2010: 29 years old

· Minimum Wage: £5.93/hour

· Daily Wage: £5.93/hour * 8 hours = £47.44/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £89.00/week

· Annual Overtime: £89.00 * 52 weeks = £4,628/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £17,320.60 + £4,628 = £21,948.60/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £17,000 + £4,628 = £21,628/year

· Construction Worker: £20,000 + £4,628 = £24,628/year

· Office Assistant: £22,000 + £4,628 = £26,628/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £33,000 + £9,000 (additional work/overtime) = £42,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £38,000 + £14,000 (additional work/overtime) = £52,000/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £21,948.60/year

-------

a. 2011: 30 years old

· Minimum Wage: £6.08/hour

· Daily Wage: £6.08/hour * 8 hours = £48.64/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £91.20/week

· Annual Overtime: £91.20 * 52 weeks = £4,742.40/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £17,761.60 + £4,742.40 = £22,504/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £17,500 + £4,742.40 = £22,242.40/year

· Construction Worker: £20,500 + £4,742.40 = £25,242.40/year

· Office Assistant: £22,500 + £4,742.40 = £27,242.40/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £34,000 + £9,100 (additional work/overtime) = £43,100/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £39,000 + £14,100 (additional work/overtime) = £53,100/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £22,504/year

-------

a. 2012: 31 years old

· Minimum Wage: £6.19/hour

· Daily Wage: £6.19/hour * 8 hours = £49.52/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £92.85/week

· Annual Overtime: £92.85 * 52 weeks = £4,828.20/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £18,078.80 + £4,828.20 = £22,907/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £18,000 + £4,828.20 = £22,828.20/year

· Construction Worker: £21,000 + £4,828.20 = £25,828.20/year

· Office Assistant: £23,000 + £4,828.20 = £27,828.20/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £35,000 + £9,200 (additional work/overtime) = £44,200/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £40,000 + £14,200 (additional work/overtime) = £54,200/year

c. Total for Calander Year: £22,907/year

-------

Considering the additional context provided about my entertainment company, "Too Smooth," and the services it provided, here is an updated calculation for 2013 and onwards for it:

a. 2013: 32 years old

· Minimum Wage: £6.31/hour

· Daily Wage: £6.31/hour * 8 hours = £50.48/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £94.65/week

· Annual Overtime: £94.65 * 52 weeks = £4,921.80/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £18,425.20 + £4,921.80 = £23,347/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £18,500 + £4,921.80 = £23,421.80/year

· Construction Worker: £21,500 + £4,921.80 = £26,421.80/year

· Office Assistant: £23,500 + £4,921.80 = £28,421.80/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £36,000 + £9,300 (additional work/overtime) = £45,300/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £41,000 + £14,300 (additional work/overtime) = £55,300/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,000,000/year

· Costs: £200,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £500,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £50,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,000,000 - £200,000 + £500,000 + £50,000 = £2,350,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year: £23,347/year

e. Total for Calander Year: £45,300/year

f. Total for Calander Year: £2,350,000/year

-------

a. 2014: 33 years old

· Minimum Wage: £6.50/hour

· Daily Wage: £6.50/hour * 8 hours = £52.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £97.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £97.50 * 52 weeks = £5,070/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £18,980 + £5,070 = £24,050/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £19,000 + £5,070 = £24,070/year

· Construction Worker: £22,000 + £5,070 = £27,070/year

· Office Assistant: £24,000 + £5,070 = £29,070/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £37,000 + £9,500 (additional work/overtime) = £46,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £42,000 + £14,500 (additional work/overtime) = £56,500/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,100,000/year

· Costs: £210,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £525,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £52,500/year

· Total Loss = £2,100,000 - £210,000 + £525,000 + £52,500 = £2,467,500/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2015: 34 years old

· Minimum Wage: £6.70/hour

· Daily Wage: £6.70/hour * 8 hours = £53.60/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £100.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £100.50 * 52 weeks = £5,226/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £19,564 + £5,226 = £24,790/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £19,500 + £5,226 = £24,726/year

· Construction Worker: £22,500 + £5,226 = £27,726/year

· Office Assistant: £24,500 + £5,226 = £29,726/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £38,000 + £10,000 (additional work/overtime) = £48,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £43,000 + £15,000 (additional work/overtime) = £58,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,200,000/year

· Costs: £220,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £550,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £55,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,200,000 - £220,000 + £550,000 + £55,000 = £2,585,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2016: 35 years old

· Minimum Wage: £7.20/hour

· Daily Wage: £7.20/hour * 8 hours = £57.60/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £108.00/week

· Annual Overtime: £108.00 * 52 weeks = £5,616/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £21,024 + £5,616 = £26,640/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £20,000 + £5,616 = £25,616/year

· Construction Worker: £23,000 + £5,616 = £28,616/year

· Office Assistant: £25,000 + £5,616 = £30,616/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £39,000 + £10,800 (additional work/overtime) = £49,800/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £44,000 + £15,800 (additional work/overtime) = £59,800/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,300,000/year

· Costs: £230,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £575,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £58,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,300,000 - £230,000 + £575,000 + £58,000 = £2,703,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2017: 36 years old

· Minimum Wage: £7.50/hour

· Daily Wage: £7.50/hour * 8 hours = £60.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £112.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £112.50 * 52 weeks = £5,850/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £21,900 + £5,850 = £27,750/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £20,500 + £5,850 = £26,350/year

· Construction Worker: £23,500 + £5,850 = £29,350/year

· Office Assistant: £25,500 + £5,850 = £31,350/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £40,000 + £11,250 (additional work/overtime) = £51,250/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £45,000 + £16,250 (additional work/overtime) = £61,250/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,400,000/year

· Costs: £240,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £600,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £61,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,400,000 - £240,000 + £600,000 + £61,000 = £2,821,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2018: 37 years old

· Minimum Wage: £7.83/hour

· Daily Wage: £7.83/hour * 8 hours = £62.64/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £117.45/week

· Annual Overtime: £117.45 * 52 weeks = £6,107.40/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £22,866.60 + £6,107.40 = £28,974/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £21,000 + £6,107.40 = £27,107.40/year

· Construction Worker: £24,000 + £6,107.40 = £30,107.40/year

· Office Assistant: £26,000 + £6,107.40 = £32,107.40/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £41,000 + £11,700 (additional work/overtime) = £52,700/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £46,000 + £16,800 (additional work/overtime) = £62,800/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,500,000/year

· Costs: £250,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £625,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £62,500/year

· Total Loss = £2,500,000 - £250,000 + £625,000 + £62,500 = £2,937,500/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2019: 38 years old

· Minimum Wage: £8.21/hour

· Daily Wage: £8.21/hour * 8 hours = £65.68/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £123.15/week

· Annual Overtime: £123.15 * 52 weeks = £6,404/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £23,980.80 + £6,404 = £30,384.80/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £21,500 + £6,404 = £27,904/year

· Construction Worker: £24,500 + £6,404 = £30,904/year

· Office Assistant: £26,500 + £6,404 = £32,904/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £42,000 + £12,300 (additional work/overtime) = £54,300/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £47,000 + £17,200 (additional work/overtime) = £64,200/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,600,000/year

· Costs: £260,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £650,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £65,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,600,000 - £260,000 + £650,000 + £65,000 = £3,055,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2020: 39 years old

· Minimum Wage: £8.72/hour

· Daily Wage: £8.72/hour * 8 hours = £69.76/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £130.80/week

· Annual Overtime: £130.80 * 52 weeks = £6,801.60/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £25,465.60 + £6,801.60 = £32,267.20/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £22,000 + £6,801.60 = £28,801.60/year

· Construction Worker: £25,000 + £6,801.60 = £31,801.60/year

· Office Assistant: £27,000 + £6,801.60 = £33,801.60/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £43,000 + £13,000 (additional work/overtime) = £56,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £48,000 + £18,000 (additional work/overtime) = £66,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue Pre-COVID: £2,700,000/year

· Adjustment for COVID-19: 50% revenue reduction

· Adjusted Revenue: £2,700,000 * 0.5 = £1,350,000/year

· Costs: £270,000/year (reduced by 10% due to operational changes)

· Lost Opportunities: £675,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £67,500/year

· Total Loss = £1,350,000 - £270,000 + £675,000 + £67,500 = £1,822,500/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2021: 40 years old

· Minimum Wage: £8.91/hour

· Daily Wage: £8.91/hour * 8 hours = £71.28/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £133.65/week

· Annual Overtime: £133.65 * 52 weeks = £6,950.80/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £26,007.20 + £6,950.80 = £32,958/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £22,500 + £6,950.80 = £29,450.80/year

· Construction Worker: £25,500 + £6,950.80 = £32,450.80/year

· Office Assistant: £27,500 + £6,950.80 = £34,450.80/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £44,000 + £13,300 (additional work/overtime) = £57,300/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £49,000 + £18,500 (additional work/overtime) = £67,500/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue Pre-COVID: £2,800,000/year

· Adjustment for COVID-19: 30% revenue reduction

· Adjusted Revenue: £2,800,000 * 0.7 = £1,960,000/year

· Costs: £280,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £700,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £70,000/year

· Total Loss = £1,960,000 - £280,000 + £700,000 + £70,000 = £2,450,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2022: 41 years old

· Minimum Wage: £9.50/hour

· Daily Wage: £9.50/hour * 8 hours = £76.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £142.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £142.50 * 52 weeks = £7,410/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £27,740 + £7,410 = £35,150/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £23,000 + £7,410 = £30,410/year

· Construction Worker: £26,000 + £7,410 = £33,410/year

· Office Assistant: £28,000 + £7,410 = £35,410/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £45,000 + £14,000 (additional work/overtime) = £59,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £50,000 + £19,000 (additional work/overtime) = £69,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,900,000/year

· Costs: £290,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £725,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £72,500/year

· Total Loss = £2,900,000 - £290,000 + £725,000 + £72,500 = £3,407,500/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2023: 42 years old

· Minimum Wage: £10.42/hour

· Daily Wage: £10.42/hour * 8 hours = £83.36/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £156.30/week

· Annual Overtime: £156.30 * 52 weeks = £8,127.60/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £30,440.80 + £8,127.60 = £38,568.40/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £23,500 + £8,127.60 = £31,627.60/year

· Construction Worker: £26,500 + £8,127.60 = £34,627.60/year

· Office Assistant: £28,500 + £8,127.60 = £36,627.60/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £46,000 + £15,000 (additional work/overtime) = £61,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £51,000 + £20,000 (additional work/overtime) = £71,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,800,000/year

· Costs: £280,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £720,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £70,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,800,000 - £280,000 + £720,000 + £70,000 = £3,310,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2024: 43 years old

· Minimum Wage: £11.44/hour

· Daily Wage: £11.44/hour * 8 hours = £91.52/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £171.60/week

· Annual Overtime: £171.60 * 52 weeks = £8,923.20/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £33,408.80 + £8,923.20 = £42,332/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £24,000 + £8,923.20 = £32,923.20/year

· Construction Worker: £27,000 + £8,923.20 = £35,923.20/year

· Office Assistant: £29,000 + £8,923.20 = £37,923.20/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £47,000 + £16,500 (additional work/overtime) = £63,500/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £52,000 + £21,000 (additional work/overtime) = £73,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £2,900,000/year

· Costs: £290,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £750,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £75,000/year

· Total Loss = £2,900,000 - £290,000 + £750,000 + £75,000 = £3,435,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

a. 2025: 44 years old

· Minimum Wage: £12.50/hour (estimated)

· Daily Wage: £12.50/hour * 8 hours = £100.00/day

· Overtime: 10 hours/week at 1.5x = £187.50/week

· Annual Overtime: £187.50 * 52 weeks = £9,750/year

· Annual Wage (with overtime): £36,500 + £9,750 = £46,250/year

b. Job Types:

· Retail Assistant: £25,000 + £9,750 = £34,750/year

· Construction Worker: £28,000 + £9,750 = £37,750/year

· Office Assistant: £30,000 + £9,750 = £39,750/year

· Self-employed Catering Trailer Owner: £48,000 + £18,000 (additional work/overtime) = £66,000/year

· Self-employed Web Developer and SEO: £54,000 + £22,000 (additional work/overtime) = £76,000/year

c. Self-employed Too Smooth:

· Potential Revenue: £3,000,000/year

· Costs: £300,000/year

· Lost Opportunities: £775,000/year

· Legal and Miscellaneous: £80,000/year

· Total Loss = £3,000,000 - £300,000 + £775,000 + £80,000 = £3,555,000/year

d. Total for Calander Year:

-------

1. Total Estimated Loss for "Work" from 1996 to 2013:

Year | Total Loss

--------|------------

1996 | £

1997 | £

1998 | £

1999 | £

2000 | £

2001 | £

2002 | £

2003 | £

2004 | £

2005 | £

2006 | £

2007 | £

2008 | £

2009 | £

2010 | £

2011 | £

2012 | £

--------|------------

**Total**| £

2. Total Estimated Loss for "Too Smooth" from 2013 to 2025

Year | Total Loss

--------|------------

2013 | £2,350,000

2014 | £2,467,500

2015 | £2,585,000

2016 | £2,703,000

2017 | £2,821,000

2018 | £2,937,500

2019 | £3,055,000

2020 | £1,822,500

2021 | £2,450,000

2022 | £3,407,500

2023 | £3,310,000

2024 | £3,435,000

2025 | £3,555,000

--------|------------

**Total**| **£36,898,000**

· Given this detailed breakdown, the total estimated financial loss for "Too Smooth" entertainment company from 2013 to 2025 is approximately £36,898,000.

Number			Amount
Number	POTENTIAL ANNUAL REVENUE LOSS
1.	Estimated Revenue	£50,000 based on a combination of pro-bono work and potential client charges that I have missed due to the circumstances stemming from my forged record.	£.
2.	Client Database Value, Damaged	Valuation of my client database at £5,000, reflecting the potential revenue that could have been generated if I had been able to establish my own business without the hindrance of a criminal record.	£.
3.	Professional Licensing Complications	If applicable, the forged record may impact my ability to renew or obtain necessary professional licenses or certifications, resulting in additional fees and time lost. Estimated costs:	£.
4.	Market Position Loss	The forged record has hindered my ability to compete effectively in my professional field, driving clients to competitors and diminishing market position, potentially leading to a long-term revenue impact of	£.
5.	Lost Opportunities	Estimated loss of £20,000 due to missed job contracts, professional development opportunities, and other avenues that were reachable had my record not been forged.	£.
6.	Potential Annual Revenue	£50,000 (based on pro bono work and potential charges)	£.
Number	FEES ABOUT PERSON
7.	Reputation Damage	The fabricated record has caused irreparable damage to my personal and professional reputation, leading to a significant decline in opportunities and trust from potential employers and clients.	£.
8.	My Personal Health and Future Impact Medical Fees: Future Impact Fees and Expenses:	Medical Fees: [Specify the amount] incurred due to injuries sustained, including ongoing treatment and rehabilitation expenses related to stress and anxiety caused by this situation. Future Impact Fees and Expenses: This includes potential medical expenses and any long-term care or support that may be necessary as a result of the emotional distress experienced.	£.
9.	Support Services	Due to past negative experiences with previous support services, I have not engaged with them to an extent where it would be logical to trust them. The damage caused has made it difficult to consider them as a viable option. However, a private option may be considered in the future if it is affordable, and trust can be established. As a result, I am now seeking private services that I can trust, which will incur expenses totalling	£.
10.	Emotional and Psychological Impact	The distress and anxiety caused by this situation have significantly affected my quality of life, mental health, and ability to pursue my professional goals, resulting in ongoing psychological suffering.	£.
11.	Impact on Relationships	The emotional toll and stigma associated with the forged record have adversely affected my personal relationships, leading to isolation and reduced social support.	£.
12.	Variable Costs	£15,000 in variable costs comprising supplies and resources essential for securing employment opportunities that have been unattainable due to the circumstances.	£.
Number	FEES FOR DAMAGED GOODS AND LOSSES PERSONAL PROPERTY
13.	Home Damage:	The police raids and harassment have caused extensive damage to my home, including broken doors, windows, Cameras, and other structural damage. The estimated cost of repairs is: --	£.
14.	Personal Belongings	During the raids, several personal belongings were damaged or destroyed, including electronics, furniture, and personal items such as clothing. The estimated cost to replace these items is: --	£.
Number	FEES COMPANY PROPERTY
15.	Office Equipment:	The police actions have resulted in damage to office equipment, including computers, printers, and other essential devices. The estimated cost to replace or repair these items is	£.
16.	Inventory	The raids have also led to the destruction of inventory, including party supplies, equipment, and other products. The estimated cost to replace the inventory is	£.
17.	Website and Online Presence	The disruption caused by the police has led to the loss of my company's online presence, including the website and digital marketing efforts. The estimated cost to rebuild and restore the website and online presence is	£.
Number	LEGAL EXPENSES
18.	Litigation Costs	Legal fees incurred while attempting to rectify the forged record amounting to £3,000.	£.
19.	Additional Legal Fees and Taxes	Anticipated costs associated with ongoing legal representation and other related expenses.	£.
20.	Fixed Costs	Monthly fixed costs amounting to £10,000 for maintaining basic living expenses and operations, which include rent, utilities, and healthcare.	£.
21.	Variable Costs Defence Work	£15,000 (supplies, labour )	£.
22.	Fixed Costs Defence Work	£10,000 (website, equipment, rent)	£.
23.	Travel Defence Work	£	£.
Number	TORCHER ELEMENT
24.	Police Council and Mental Health Services Harassment, Including Unauthorized Involvement of Neighbours and Other Members of the Public	I have experienced relentless harassment from the police, which has severely impaired my ability to work and maintain a normal life. £.	£.
Number	THE SELLING OF COPYRIGHTS
25.	Addendum: Selling of Publishing Rights	As part of my ongoing efforts to mitigate the financial losses and emotional distress caused by the forged criminal record, I am also seeking to sell the publishing rights of any related intellectual property I have developed over these years. This intellectual property includes, but is not limited to, written documents, research, and potential creative content that outline my experience with the injustices stemming from the fabricated record. The decision to sell these publishing rights arises from the need to secure additional financial resources to cover the overwhelming costs associated with the claim detailed above. It will also serve to raise awareness of the impacts of forged criminal records on individuals and their families, potentially aiding others who may find themselves in similar unfortunate situations. Justification for Sale: Financial Recovery: · The sale of these publishing rights is aimed at recouping a portion of my lost income, allowing me to cover ongoing legal fees, medical expenses, and other related costs. Awareness Raising: · By publishing my story, I intend to shed light on the serious ramifications of such injustices, contributing to public discourse and possibly offering support to others impacted by similar circumstances. Reputation Rehabilitation: · This move is also part of my broader objective to rehabilitate my personal narrative and restore my reputation in both the personal and professional spheres.	£.
26.

a. Estimated Value:

· The value of the publishing rights will be determined by market research and based on the anticipated interest from potential publishers or platforms that resonate with the themes of my experiences. I am currently exploring opportunities for collaboration with interested parties to ensure that my story can be told with the respect and visibility it deserves.

· I kindly urge [Insurance Company Name] to consider the financial implications associated with the sale of these rights as part of my broader claim for compensation. The ongoing damages I have suffered due to the forged criminal record, as outlined, have resulted in not only immediate financial hardship but also significant long-term impacts that require appropriate restitution.

b. Total Compensation

· The total compensation for the loss of income and suffering from 1997 to 2025 is as follows: -£1,631,091.20.

c. Conclusion

· In total, I am seeking compensation for the outlined damages and losses, which amount to a comprehensive recalibration of my situation, both financially and emotionally, after enduring this injustice for 27 years so, I kindly request that you review my claim and provide the appropriate compensation for the financial and emotional suffering I have endured due to the forged criminal record. I have attached all relevant documents and evidence to support my claim.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

· When making a claim for past damages, it's important to provide realistic and justifiable calculations. Calculating potential lost wages based on 24 hours a day wouldn't be considered realistic or fair, as it doesn't reflect a typical work schedule and may not be accepted by authorities or courts reviewing your case.

· Here's a more reasonable approach to calculate potential lost wages:

1. Average Work Hours: Use a standard workweek of 40 hours (or another reasonable amount based on your industry). This provides a realistic estimate of your potential earnings.
2. Overtime: If you typically worked overtime, could you add a reasonable amount of extra hours per week. For example, an additional 10-15 hours of overtime per week at an overtime pay rate (often 1.5 times the regular rate).
3. Multiple Jobs: If you would have taken on extra jobs, estimate the additional income based on industry standards and typical work hours for those roles.

Example Calculation:

Let's assume:

• Average Work Hours: 40 hours per week
• Overtime: 10 hours per week (at 1.5 times the regular rate)
• Regular Pay: £15/hour

Weekly Earnings:

• Regular Hours: 40 hours * £15/hour = £600
• Overtime Hours: 10 hours * (£15 * 1.5) = £225

Total Weekly Earnings: £600 (regular) + £225 (overtime) = £825

Annual Earnings:

· £825 * 52 weeks = £42,900

This approach provides a realistic estimate of potential lost wages, considering regular hours, overtime, and additional jobs.

First email date I could find short search

Subject: Re: Simon Cordell Errors on Cases.

Mr. Simon Paul Cordell 109 Burncroft Road Enfield Middlesex EN3 7JQ 18/02/2014

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this email as I have an ongoing case at Woolwich Crown Court, and I have noticed some errors in my PNC record which the police printed of at around 25/06/2013.

First dates from Acro and PNC Printout

Acro Report: Address 75 - Date At: 14/01/97 - Last Updated: 21/04/97

Acro Report: Address 76 - Date At: 14/01/97 - Last Updated: 21/04/97

Acro Report: Occupation 24 - Date At: 14/01/97 - Last Updated: 21/04/97

Acro Report: Address 74. Date At: 15/01/97 - Last Updated: 13/03/97

PNC Printout: On 17/01/97 (Plea: Not Known)

PNC Printout: On 24/01/97 (Plea: Not Known)

Acro Report: Remand. Description: REMANDED ON BAIL ON 28/02/97 - At: AT 01YF. - To Appear At: NEXT APPEARING ON 16/04/97

Acro Report: Arrest/Summons Ref: 97/0000/00/193878F. - Process Stage: CHARGED ON 28/02/97 16:51 - Last Updated: 02/11/01

Acro Report: Occupation 23. Date: 18/03/97. - Last Updated: 25/03/97

Acro Report: Other Detail 1 - Last Updated: 21/04/97

PNC Printout: On 22/05/97 (Plea: Not Known)

Acro Report: Offence Date(s): 22/05/97 08:45 to 22/05/97 16:20 = Disposal (Court) / 2017 Acro = 97/0000/00/768545U

Acro Report: Address 70 Date At: 29/05/97 - Last Updated: 11/06/97

PNC Printout: 21/08/97 Date Last Reprimanded/Warned/Cautioned

PNC Printout: On 21/09/97 (Plea: Guilty)

PNC Printout: On 17/09/97 (Plea Not Known)

PNC Printout: On 03/11/97 (Plea: Not Known)