Illegal holding of a passport by the UKBA / Home Office….

Illegal holding of a passport….

Ahhh, right… so perhaps… just perhaps….
Subject: Re: FAO: Rob Whiteman – UKBA. – Various Complaints
From: Me @ Mine
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
Date: Sunday, 14 April 2013, 18:37
Mr WP Address
Date: As Emailed
FAO: Rob Whiteman / NWEURO8 Team CC: Nadhim Zahawi (MP) / Paula Scott (Senior Case Worker) / Finnish Solvit
* MP Ref: x * Home Office Ref: (Its a long reference)
Dear Sir(s)
Goodday, I hope that you have enjoyed a nice stressless weekend, at home with your families.
I am sure you were expected to be hearing from myself again without much delay. So I would therefore hate to disappoint yourselves.
Further to the numerous previous messages in which I have requested my wifes passport to be returned. I now provide the following to you.
The case of R (on the Application of Atapattu) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1388 (Admin) (27 May 2011) is an important case that must be taken into consideration at this poit. It concerns the unlawful retention of a passport by an Entry Clearance Officer and a claim for damages for conversion. Conversion is a tort under section1 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 and is basically akin to theft.
The facts were, in short, that the claimant was a Sri Lankan merchant seaman who had successfully applied to undertake a qualification in the UK that would lead to his becoming a ships master. He was twice refused entry clearance but an appeal against the second refusal was allowed. He submitted his passport for endorsement with entry clearance in January 2010 but, despite persistent chasing, the passport was not returned until late August 2010, after the commencement of legal proceedings.
In this case the claimant had written to the ECO demanding return of the passport, which belonged to him, the claimant. The ECO had simply ignored all such correspondence and only returned the passport after the commencement of legal proceedings. The claim for conversion was therefore made out.
Regardless of your “extensive enquiries” into our case, the fact remains that you are unlawfully withholding the passport of my wife.
I would expect that this illegal action is rectified ASAP. I have highlighted previously that the requirement for my passport was to pursue a career in Ireland. I myself had a job lined up ready to commence. My wife was able to work in the same company. However, the negligent and unlawful actions of UKBA prevented us from commencing employment.
From my understanding, the situation is rather simple. Given two reasons:
1) My wife has a legal right to remain in the country by virtue of Zambrano – Case C-34/09.
2) Applications on the basis of this ruling are ENTIRELY OPTIONAL. The right is automatic and UKBA only confirm this right – they do not GRANT the right.

and then further on, I realised something else….

Subject: Re: FAO: Rob Whiteman – Has UKBA lost another document?
From: Me @
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
Date: Sunday, 14 April 2013, 21:30
WP Address
Date: As Emailed
FAO: Rob Whiteman / NWEURO8 Team CC: Nadhim Zahawi (MP) / Paula Scott (Senior Case Worker) / Finnish Solvit
* MP Ref: x * Home Office Ref: (Its a long reference)
Dear Sir(s)
Failure on the side of UKBA to return my wifes passport does make one wonder: Has another very sensitive document got the need to be recorded as “lost”. After all, what does it matter – Its an “expired” document anyway isn’t it… (not like to loose such a sensitive piece of data is a clear violation of the Data Protection Act 1998.)
I query… In response to the loss of my wifes ‘expired’ passport in 2010 (which was infact still valid until 04/12/2012). Can you send me a copy of the report that was submitted to the Information Commissioner in relation to the very real security risk to the person involved from the loss of such a vital piece of confidential information.
From the case outlined in my previous email of this evening, I outline the following:
  • 61. Indeed, the case where the goods are lost or destroyed (rather than merely kept) is also identified by Clerk & Lindsell as a distinct category of conversion: see ยง17-20. At common law, where a defendant, following a demand, failed to return goods, because the goods had been lost or destroyed, the position was as follows. First, if the goods had been lost before demand (or before the lapse of a reasonable time after demand), then the defendant was only liable if the goods were lost as a result of the defendant’s own negligence. The claimant had a claim for breach of bailment and also for detinue. Secondly, if the goods had been lost after the lapse of a reasonable time following demand, then the defendant was strictly liable for their loss; here the claimant had, at least, a claim for detinue. This strict liability for loss after demand was commonly referred to “liability as an insurer”. Thirdly, in either event, there was no claim for conversion, because there was no voluntary act by the defendant. As a result of the abolition of detinue in the 1977 Act, s.2(2) was introduced to make the bailee liable in (statutory) conversion in this situation.
Food for thought, eh?
UKBA Lost Passport
Note: This informaton was aquired here:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *