University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Stitched Up Again

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Date: Sunday, 26 March 2006

To: Professor David Austin

Head of School University of Wales Lampeter
Copy sent by fax and recorded delivery.

Cc: The Bishop of St David’s as Visitor to the University of Wales Lampeter.

As advised by Counsel this is breach of contract concerning complaints procedures that comes under Visitorial jurisdiction and part of papers lodged prior to the 29th of March 2004.

And with regard to the vicarious liability of the University for the defamation below.

Kathryn Worsey
For her information concerning my complaint against herself on this issue. 

Dear Professor Austin, 

I am writing in accordance with the pre-action protocol for defamation as laid down by the Civil Procedure Rules. This is an individual responsibility outside the Visitorial process for which the University has in law and because of its action to conceal this matter a vicarious liability and I have sent a copy to the Visitor accordingly so he is aware of the situation. 

I refer to documents that are a recent discovery after requests under the Data Protection Act 1998 to both the University and the Welsh Assembly. They are 

a) An email to the Vice Chancellor Robert Pearce dated 12 November 2003 at 15:39 hours and;

b) An email sent to Kathryn Worsey dated 12th November 2003 11:52 hours

The words in email (a) that are defamatory are these

‘I wish now to lodge a complaint of malicious harassment against this student on the basis of his threats and actions.’ 

This is an allegation against myself having committed a criminal offence in the knowledge that such was not true. You must prove it and the plain fact is you cannot do it. 

It is an allegation that could have led to my arrest and detention to discredit the complaints that I had made against a certain member of staff and to defame my character.

You did this because of your own personal failings in being able to resolve this matter and chose to tell lies and discredit my character instead of facing up to your duties and responsibilities.

You also did it to conceal the fact that you had not only failed to comply with procedures, but you intervened to make sure they did not happen.

You also lied to this effect to the Vice Chancellor who somewhat foolishly believed you to the point whereby he too failed to comply with procedures in support of your lies. 

You did this to prevent any loss to yourself irrespective of any other consideration.

The defamatory words in email (b) are all of it but specifically as follows

The following words are relevant to (a) and reinforce other comments below

‘I have been asked by the Vice-Chancellor to reply direct to you about Trevor Mayes’

I will deal with these briefly as follows, Your email to Ms Worsey was timed at 11:52 that same day. The email (a) was timed at 15:39 and the reply was I believe to see him the following Tuesday. In which case the Vice Chancellor 

You need to prove that you were acting under the VC’s instructions as this assertion appears to be a blatant lie and a deception to give the impression procedures were being complied with and you were action under his authority.

I must put it to you that you were acting on your own volition to defame my character and undermine my complaint, and that these words were used in support. 

I also must put it to you that the substantive part of my complaint concerning the conduct and treatment of myself, that I am professionally qualified to make comment concerning staff behaviour within an educational context and you are not.

You deliberately manipulated a situation to put me in conflict with the Vice Chancellor and the University to conceal the conduct of the member of staff I was complaining about, and your concealment of failure to comply with procedures. 

Other words are as follows. 

‘In dealing with student complaints there is an established process. The complaints must be made first to the person concerned. If then they are unresolved the complaint should by made to the Chair of the Department concerned. If no resolution then it is directed to the Head of School, the line manager who reports directly to the senior management team and the Vice Chancellor. The complaint in this instance has reached my desk’ 

This gives the clear impression that procedures were followed which we both know is untrue and designed to undermine my complaints and defame my character. 

I first submitted a complaint on the 30th of June 2003. Because of your deceit and defamatory comments I received a reply from the Vice Chancellor dated the 2nd December 2003.

According to the complaints procedures which form part of my contract with the University, in the first instance students should ‘generally’ approach the person concerned and not must. This was not a general complaint and therefore inappropriate. It was under the rules perfectly appropriate for me to go to the Head of Department Tony Corner in the first instance. 

Your response was to immediately take the matter out of the hands of the Head of Department Tony Corner and ignore my complaints. 

I have an emails from Tony Corner proving this point. 

You ignored several emails from myself requesting a meeting, copies and dates of which I will produce in evidence. 

You only responded after I walked into Lampeter Police Station to make a complaint under the Telecommunications Act 1984 at the end of September 2003.

You subsequently wrote to me to arrange a meeting. 

I wrote back explaining that according to stated procedures I am not obliged to attend any meeting but that you are required to have written a report and sent it to me some months earlier which you did not do. 

Besides it would have been appropriate for a meeting after the required report was written. 

The issue of the meeting is a red herring designed to again defame my character with regard to failing to turn up to something that was never arranged nor was required under procedures. 

There is a plethora of written evidence in support of what I have said and there is of course Tony Corner as a witness. 

Because of you actions and defamation of my character you have forced me to give up my studies and engaged in legal action against the Visitor for these facts to come to light. The whole of your response to other people with regard to my complaint and my character is unsupportable, it is a total deception. 

You deliberately lied and defamed my character to others to prevent the proper investigation and adjudication of my complaint according to the University’s complaints procedures and the Visitorial process.

In order to make amends for this defamation I require you to do the following. 

a) Write to all those to whom you have told lies on the subject of myself and my complaints with an agreed true account of what took place.

b) You are to write to myself with a full account of the lies you have told other people and a formal unreserved apology.

c) You will pay me a substantial sum of money in compensation for the loss of my studies, my future earning prospects, and the costs of having to take action to bring these facts to light.

I have been advised by Council that this is a matter for the Queens Bench Division of the High Court. If that’s where you want to go then that is fine by me. 

However, according to protocol I am happy to resolve this by independent dispute resolution and fore the same to apply for the vicarious liability of the University. I look forward to hearing from your solicitors accordingly.

You need to ask the University to do the same regarding its vicarious liability. 

You have 14 days from the receipt of this letter starting from the 28th of March to the 11th of April 2006 to agree to admit liability and resolve this matter by independent dispute resolution. 

Should you think that you can simply ignore it and hide behind the University forget it. I will take immediate court action against you.

I would also point out that it is now a public statement of fact that the University failed to comply with procedures for which you are primarily responsible.

Tags: Stitched Up Again