Addressee Only Reg Post WM 1407 5359 3GB
Nick Goodwin acting as CEO Alleged Court Cases L00ED258 and 3BT01335
c/o Jane Billyack Acting as Court Manager RESOLVER RES6359234
Enfield County Court of Record 18-08-2025
HMCTS, D-U-N-S number - 22-549-8526 enquiries.edmonton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
London N18 2TN Crime Number 2405721/15
Nick Goodwin acting as CEO,
Subject: Procedural Irregularities – File View Refusal, Non-Disclosure of Claimant Authority, Misuse of Court Seal, False Arrears Allegation & Systemic Abuse Across Multiple Courts
Following receipt of your correspondence dated 14 August 2025 Complaint number 70640411, I must raise the following procedural and statutory concerns in relation to this matter.
- Continued Refusal to Grant File View
Your refusal to grant me a full file view is both procedurally irregular and obstructive. I have repeatedly requested sight of the entire case file, including:
· The original claim form (N1) showing claimant authority;
· Any warrants or applications allegedly issued;
· All fee receipts for claims and warrants;
· The case management printout (Sections 1, 2, and 3).
The HMCTS guideline for granting a file view is 72 hours from request. In this matter, you are now over two years in continuing contempt of that standard, despite regular follow-up requests.
The only plausible explanation for such prolonged obstruction is concealment — specifically, that the case file would reveal there were no validly issued proceedings and that the purported “orders” and “warrants” are in fact sham documents, issued without lawful process or judicial authority.
It is also of note that you have failed entirely to supply or account for the two fabricated Notices of Eviction and associated “warrants” that were presented to me and which I correctly marked and returned as mail fraud. These purported instruments do not exist in the case file, were never sealed or validly issued, and bear none of the characteristics of an authentic court order under CPR 40.2. Their absence from disclosure, despite being central to the enforcement action threatened against my family, confirms that the court’s records cannot support the documents relied upon in practice. Instead of addressing these fabrications, your Stage 3 response seeks to deflect matters back to local court staff without addressing the proven use of sham documents. This again supports the conclusion that the file itself would reveal no valid warrants or eviction orders, and that counterfeit documents are being circulated and acted upon in conspiracy Video Link – Notice of Illegal Eviction
One such fabricated Notice of Eviction bears a stamp with the wording “Bailiff Evicted - Edmonton C. Court”, carried in the pocket of the alleged bailiff. This stamp does not correspond to the proper designation “Edmonton County Court”, and was applied to an unsigned document despite the fact that no eviction took place. The document falsely records an eviction, cites a non-existent warrant number (1A451619), provides a false claimant’s address and a dead telephone number, and contains no authorised officer’s name - merely the wording “Area One”. This is not an authentic court instrument; it is an unlawful counterfeit designed to intimidate and mislead. The fact that such a document was ever presented, and remains absent from your disclosure, confirms that enforcement in this matter is being carried out on the basis of fabricated paperwork rather than lawful process.
This is not an isolated occurrence. I am aware - in my capacity as a Trading Standards practitioner and campaigner against fraudulent court orders - of multiple other victims of Edmonton County Court (including Julia Roberts, Deborah Sampson, Shahid Ullah, Edith Hayfron, Keeda Wood, Tara Miri, Johnnie Mitchell, Michael Phillipou and others) who have been subjected to the same run around, being denied file views for years at a time, and pushed into making repeated, costly applications that never result in full disclosure.
Any we are aware of you requesting ID for a DSAR regarding Julia Roberts, where you performed the same exercise, to revert her back to the court, supply a few random documents and continue to deny the file view and Caseman Print out which exposes the multiple violent Illegal Eviction of her and a minor, with fake warrans and writs, beyond question.
In each of these cases, the circumstances mirror my own: the absence of any properly issued claim, no valid warrants, no case management record, and no genuine underlying due process. This suggests that in all such cases, the denial of file access is intended to conceal the fact that the “court orders” and “warrants” are counterfeit instruments - documents which have never been created via legitimate proceedings - and are instead used to facilitate violent property interference, theft, and abuse in conspiracy.
Further, on 30 July 2024, I filed a Notice of Discontinuance in this matter, sent both by email and by registered post (Royal Mail tracking reference: WM1407 5361 6GB). Under CPR 38.3(1), the court is required to record the discontinuance and serve it on the other parties. I have received no acknowledgment of receipt, no confirmation of entry on the record, and no evidence that service on the claimant or their representatives has taken place.
The failure to acknowledge and process a properly filed Notice of Discontinuance is yet another indication of systemic procedural obstruction and concealment. If the case had been legitimately issued, this filing should have brought the matter to an immediate conclusion. The absence of any acknowledgement is entirely consistent with my contention that there were no valid proceedings to discontinue, and that the documents relied upon have been counterfeit from the outset.
This also explains why your numerous bailiffs and agents cannot lawfully identify themselves, you cannot identify them, and neither you nor they can produce any valid warrants to which you make repeated claims, yet are able to assert - without hesitation - that the police will assist them and will not arrest them. Such a stance is only possible where there is an improper pre-determined arrangement with the police, as documented in multiple other victims’ cases and in my own prior matters.
For example, in one of my previous cases at Barnet County Court - which, like Edmonton, is under your management - it was confirmed in writing (after the Lord Chancellor’s intervention) that there was no judgment and no warrant in existence. Nevertheless, enforcement proceeded using a counterfeit document falsely labelled as a “warrant” - specifically an N49 form, which is not an official court document. This N49 was presented and executed as if it were a lawful warrant. A copy of that counterfeited document remains publicly available here: https://bit.ly/badwar.
This is not theoretical. In a separate matter at Hertford County Court, a bailiff - Christopher Paul Phantis - was struck off for harassing my family on the basis of a false claim to a warrant. The official outcome and supporting details of that matter remain publicly available here: https://bit.ly/bailiffdown. This precedent reinforces my position that counterfeit warrants and unlawful enforcement are not isolated incidents, but part of a sustained pattern of misconduct by individuals and entities acting under colour of law without lawful authority.
Accordingly, I now require, within 7 days:
- Full and unrestricted file disclosure as originally requested; or
- A written admission that no proceedings were ever issued by the court via legitimate process and that any documents purporting to be court orders were not created following lawful case issue, allocation, and case management procedures.
- Failure to Provide Claimant’s Authority
Despite repeated requests, the court has not produced any evidence that the claimant - listed in various forms as “Sue Joy & Stuart Jones acting as Joint LPA Receivers” - has lawful standing to bring this claim.
No Deed of Appointment, valid Power of Attorney, or Deed of Assignment from the alleged lender has been disclosed. Without these instruments, there is no proof of a legitimate interest or standing to issue proceedings.
Given that the lender is claimed to be Topaz Finance Ltd, an entity I do not recognise and with whom I have no arrears, this omission is critical. I have already noted that Topaz Finance Ltd previously failed to supply a valid appointment of receivers in response to a DSAR, citing “commercial sensitivity” - a position wholly incompatible with the conduct of enforcement actions.
Furthermore, in court on 8 July 2025, the so-called “solicitor’s agent” - whose authority and rights of audience remain unproven - falsely stated that I was in mortgage arrears. No documentary evidence of any arrears was produced, nor could it have been lawfully produced, given that these individuals have no proven lawful access to my personal financial data in accordance with UK GDPR Article 6 or a valid instrument of authority from the claimant.
In reality, there have been no arrears for over two years. The only plausible purpose of making this knowingly false statement was to create a pretext for continuing enforcement activity. This is consistent with the pattern of misrepresentation and fabrication in similar cases, and falls within the statutory definition of fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
It is further of note that Enfield Council - the local authority for the property concerned - has launched an official investigation into the actions taken in this matter and has formally requested documents from the claimant, their representatives, and associated court officers to verify the authority under which such enforcement has been conducted. This investigation is recorded under Resolver Reference RES458457.
To date, not a single document, name, or instrument of authority has been supplied to the council to substantiate any action taken or to identify the numerous individuals responsible, despite video evidence. This failure to cooperate with a lawful local authority investigation, especially where children and vulnerable family members are concerned, raises serious concerns of deliberate concealment and obstruction of justice.
In addition, Sue Joy and Stuart Jones - the alleged fixed charge receivers in this matter - are from Savills. The Property Redress Scheme (PRS) formally requested from me a copy of the contract under which Savills acted. I immediately communicated this request to Savills directly by email, post and resolver RES10747954, yet was met with complete silence.
Savills have produced neither the requested contract nor any valid Deed of Appointment or Power of Attorney authorising Sue Joy or Stuart Jones to act as receivers in this matter. The PRS has since “closed” the matter for reasons unknown, but this does not discharge Savills’ duty to provide the authority under which they acted.
This failure is consistent with the wider pattern of concealment by all parties involved, and raises further concerns that neither the receivers, the claimant, nor their agents have ever possessed a lawful instrument of authority to initiate or continue these proceedings.
Misuse of Court Seal – Potential Breach of s.135 County Courts Act 1984
Your letter of 14 August 2025, signed by Adrian Bolovan, bears the official court stamp/seal on each page. Under Civil Procedure Rule 40.2 and Practice Direction 40B, the court seal is reserved for authenticating formal court orders, judgments, and other documents carrying judicial authority. Administrative correspondence should not bear the seal, as this risks misleading the recipient as to the document’s status.
Section 135 of the County Courts Act 1984 makes it a criminal offence to knowingly and falsely present a document as issued under the authority of the court when it is not. If the seal was applied without lawful basis, this could fall within the scope of s.135.
It is further of concern that your said letter of 14 August 2025 directs me only to the Citizens Advice Bureau and various internal HMCTS and civil complaint channels. In light of the clear evidence of violent threats, forged court documents, and child abuse, these are matters requiring urgent referral to agencies with statutory prosecution powers, such as the police, the local authority’s safeguarding unit, and relevant regulatory bodies. The omission of these appropriate channels amounts to mis-direction and may constitute deliberate obstruction or concealment of criminal conduct.
It is also troubling that there appears to have been no referral of this matter to HMCTS’s own Anti-Fraud & Internal Investigations Team, despite the obvious indicators of fraudulent documentation, counterfeit warrants, and misrepresentation. The absence of such a referral - in a case involving violent threats against a vulnerable family and children - raises a reasonable suspicion of deliberate non-engagement to avoid triggering formal investigation processes.Required Action
Please provide within 7 days:
· A full file view of the case without further delay or fee demand;
· Copies of all documents establishing the claimant’s standing;
· Written clarification of the seal issue.
In the event that any of the above documents do not exist, you are hereby required to draft and serve an administrative order declaring the proceedings void ab initio, with costs and aggravated damages to be determined at a separate, fully minuted costs hearing.Next Steps if Unresolved
Additionally, I am aware from communications with Enfield Council that there is an apparent intention to seek a High Court writ in connection with this matter. This is wholly inapplicable to me as a homeowner, particularly where there is no valid underlying judgment or warrant and where a Notice of Discontinuance has already been filed and served (Royal Mail reference: WM1407 5361 6GB).
Further, we have previously been subjected to enforcement based on a fake writ, which is documented in full video evidence here: https://bit.ly/FakeWrit. The solicitors responsible for issuing and relying upon that false instrument have since been closed down and are presently on trial for fraud and counterfeiting. This forms part of the same overall pattern of unlawful enforcement based on counterfeit court instruments, where no valid proceedings, warrants, or judgments exist.
A formal warning letter has already been issued to Enfield Council making clear that such a writ would be unlawful and unenforceable in the absence of lawful authority. Should any attempt nevertheless be made to proceed, all participating parties - including council officers, agents, and contractors - will be held personally and corporately liable in trespass, conversion, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy to defraud, and offences under the Fraud Act 2006.
If these matters remain unresolved, I will escalate to:
· The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office;
· The CEO of HMCTS, Nic Williams;
· The Lord Chancellor as the vicariously liable authority for RE-Intervention
· The Serious Fraud Office for addition to existing prosecution
· Criminal investigation into the counterfeiting of court instruments with intent to commit violent property interference and harm to children.Yours Sincerely Anthony Badaloo dipPFS ACPA Cc to Enfield Council and to whom it may concern – All Rights Reserved
We invite you to join Boris Johnson, Lord Prem Sikha and Chris Evans to support the campaign against Court Order Scams www.ScamBuster.TV
Attached – Notice of Discontinuance filed 30-07-2025
False Notice of Eviction