To: Ian De Freitas
From: Lee
Subject: Re The Home Repossession Page

Dear Mr De Freitas,

We were very concerned to hear that our relatively unknown web-site could be triggering lawless individuals to telephone Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) , despite his assurance that he has an ex-directory telephone number.

We have obtained advice on this issue and are pleased to report that Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) may have a strong claim for compensation against BT if it has allowed harassers to obtain his ex-directory telephone number.

We understand, however, that he has not informed BT, nor made use of BT's anti-harassment system, nor informed the police.

We are particularly pleased to report that once he informs BT of the issue, it will obtain the source telephone numbers of any calls to Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) even where the callers have turned off Caller Line Identity (CLI).

As BT begins to investigate his claim - which we can assure you it will, given Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) allegation that BT's ex-directory system is broken - it will narrow down the callers to a set of telephone numbers.

BT should quickly be able to identify the individuals that own the numbers or, failing that, we will be able to help by supplying web access logs that should help the police quickly identify those site visitors that live or move near the locations of the numbers the harassers used. Being able to access such full and detailed evidence so early in this kind of case will be a boon to investigators.

We take very seriously allegations that we are encouraging crime, especially when those are made by a well-respected firm of lawyers such as Paisner, or members of an organisation such as CIFAS.

We would be grateful therefore if you could clarify why Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) and Paisner think The Home Repossession Page is most likely to be responsible for triggering the harassment actions of the individual(s) that have called Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) . We have set out why we are somewhat mystified by your claim by inserting questions into a copy of your email below. Our questions are in bold.

In the above paragraph you imply that people who have a grudge against Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) /CIFAS only stir if they see his name on a web-site.

Examining your implication a little more closely, it sets out that...

when the alleged harasser saw (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) 's -->'s (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) name, they worked out which of the 68 (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) s listed in the UK at that time was he and obtained his telephone number.

They then called.

When the name was blanked out on the web-site, they stopped.

When his name reappeared, they called again.

We feel it is unlikely that these lawless individuals bear a grudge that lies dormant until they see his name and that only on seeing it do they develop the abilities of a seasoned private investigator and set out to find him.

We await your explanation for this.

If we understand this implication correctly it goes thus:

The first harasser - having been aroused from slumber by the sight of Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) name - remembered their grudge against him and had the revelation that they could use publicly available records to find him.

This first harasser is not the second harasser. The first harasser had brains enough to track down Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) without our mentioning that his details were already on the public record. The second harasser did not.

If we understand your claim correctly, the second harasser shares a remarkable number of unlikely traits with the first harasser. Those traits being:

a) criminal tendencies

b) having an otherwise dormant grudge against Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats)

c) either being able to identify simply from the name that the (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) that is executive-director of CIFAS is the (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) against whom he has a grudge, or;

d) that of already knowing who the (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) he has a grudge against works for, but only being spurred to action by the sight of Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) name.

e) a remarkable ability to find an individual's telephone number from among 68 others.

We were mystified when you claimed the above but we were even more mystified when we realised that the second harasser must have had an even more remarkable facility with telephone numbers, for - judging from the date of your email and notwithstanding the points above - he obtained the correct Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) number within seven days of us reposting Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) name even though the number was now:

a) changed,
b) ex-directory.

If we understand the claim you and your client are making, many more members of the public could share both harassers' personality traits.

On receipt of an credible explanation for this, we assure you we will move to ensure that any part we may have played is remedied to the best of our legal liability.

The above claim left us mystified because Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) has told us that he didn't see fit to use BT's free anti-harassment service to block the calls and track down the perpetrator, or tell the police, or supply us with the information we asked for in order to help find the harasser.

In view of there being no logical explanation for the claim that we are encouraging others to harass Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) your claim appears to be superfluous.

What you are attempting to do is hold us responsible for the effects of:

1) Companies House record-keeping - as required by Parliament
2) the criminal actions of others
3) Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) unwillingness to invoke BT's anti-harassment system

At this time we have seen no evidence that we have played a believable role in Mr 's (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) alleged harassment. Only an unsubstantiated - and slightly fanciful - claim.

Obviously, in the light of how inadequate your claims appear to be when analysed, we were unable to understand how we were not acting reasonably and responsibly.

We await your explanation.

In sending us this email in reply to an email from us that stated that all correspondence with us will remain public, you consented to its publication.

Had you seriously wanted to withhold consent to publication, you would have responded to that email with a request for terms on which we would not make your material public.

This claim is a nonsense in the light of you having consented to its publication.

Mr De Freitas,

Unfortunately our society contains elements that attempt to shun the law and the rights of others. The Home Repossession Page was created to expose these lawless elements to public scrutiny. But it cannot be held responsible for their actions.

On our behalf, please do implore Mr (Censored due to Cifas's legal threats) not to ignore his rights and instead to start using the law to track down and stop the perpetrators of the crimes against him.

Please also supply us with explanations for the points we have questioned as soon as is convenient, as we take both Paisner and CIFAS's claims very seriously indeed.

Lee
for The Home Repossession Page