Lucies Farm Data Protection Complaint

T he Data P rotec tion A c t 1998
C omplaint form
You should only use this form to report complaints about possible breaches of the Data
Protection Act 1998. Do not fill in this form until you have read the Data P rotec tion Ac t
1998 – when and how to c omplain.
If you need help to fill in this form, please contact our Helpline on 01625 545 745.
1. Y our details
Title:
Mr
First name:
Craig 
Other names:
Wilkinson
Last name: 
Walsh
Address:
Colletts Green, Worcester
Postcode:
WR2 4RY 
Daytime telephone: 
01905 830 380
Fax: 
01905 676 790
Email: 
craig@hmdp.com
2. P revious c ontac t with the IC O
Please provide any reference number we have already given you.

N/A
This will help us to process your complaint.
I do not have a reference number. This is the first time I have contacted you.
Version 2
April 2006
3. Have you given anyone els e permis s ion to s peak to us about your c omplaint? If
so, please give details.
Title:
First name:

Other names:

Last name:
Address:

Postcode:

Telephone: 
Fax:
Email:

What is their relationship to you? 
4. W ho do you want to c omplain about? (T his will us ually be an organis ation.)

Name: 
Worcestershire County Council and their agent,
Phill Hatton and Phill Hatton Forensic Computing Ltd.
Address:
County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester
Postcode:
WR5 2NP
Telephone:
01905 766 100 
Email: 
Website:
www.worcestershire.whub.org.uk
Version 2
April 2006



5. Y our relations hip with the organis ation
Please describe this relationship, for example, employee, customer, account holder.
Rate payer

Please give any relevant reference numbers they have given you, for example, patient number,
account number.


6. Details of the problem
Please give details of your complaint, explaining what you think the organisation has done wrong,
attaching extra sheets if necessary. Do not just refer us to your supporting documents.
Please see attached statement
7. W hen did you firs t bec ome aware of the problem?
We will not normally contact the organisation if there has been a delay of more than one year.
10 January 2008
8. S upporting doc uments
W e will not be able to inves tigate your c omplaint unles s you provide us with:
• copies of documents describing what has happened; and
• copies of correspondence between you and the organisation or individual

concerned trying to solve the problem. If you only have paper copies of this
correspondence you will need to print this form and post it to us along with your
supporting documents.
S end only doc uments that are direc tly relevant to your c omplaint.
• If you send us too many or irrelevant documents we may send them back and ask you to return
only the relevant ones.
• In the unlikely event that you need to send a large amount of documents, please clearly
mark the relevant parts. If you do not, we may return them and ask you to do this.
• You should also send us copies of relevant correspondence between you and any other
organisation (for example, Citizens Advice, an industry regulator or ombudsman) trying
to solve the problem.
Version 2
April 2006
9. Important information about your s upporting doc uments
Any paper documents will be scanned and held as electronic records. In most cases, we will
destroy the paper documents you send us after six months. You should only send us c opies
of these documents and make sure you keep the originals in case we need these later on.
If you cannot provide us with copies and you would like us to return your documents, please
check this box
Y ou will need to make it c lear eac h time you s end us s omething if you would like us to
return it to you.
10. P leas e lis t the s upporting doc uments you are s ending to s upport your c omplaint.
This will help us check we have all the information you sent us. Do not just write 'see attached'.
11. Dec laration
By sending this form I confirm that;
• I understand that during any necessary investigations, you may need to disclose the
details I have provided to the subject of my complaint to allow them to make a proper
response.
• I have clearly indicated any information which I do not want you to pass on.
• To the best of my knowledge I have given you accurate information relating to this complaint.
• I understand that your policy is to destroy documents relating to complaints after six months. I
have clearly indicated those documents that you should not destroy and should
return to me.
• I have listed all the documents I am sending with this form.
• I have read 'The Data Protection Act 1998 - When and how to complain' leaflet and
understand that you have no powers to punis h an organis ation for any likely breac h
of the Ac t and that you c annot award c ompens ation.
Please check to confirm
Are you the pers on named in s ec tion one of this form? Y es
If no, pleas e make s ure your details are provided in s ec tion three of this form and
c hec k this box to c onfirm you have the permis s ion of the c omplainant to
ac t on their behalf
Version 2
April 2006
12. S ending your c omplaint to us :
Us ing our online enquiry form

If you have electronic copies of the supporting documents you need to send us please
use this online enquiry form to send your complaint to us.
B y regular mail
If you only have paper copies of some of the supporting documents you need to send us,
please print this complaint form and post it, along with all your supporting documents to:
Information Commissioner’s Office

Casework and Advice Division
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Version 2
April 2006
I worcestersh ire
county counci
David DeMaid
William Graham Law Ltd
24 Neptune Court
Ocean Way
Cardiff
CF245PJ RECEIVED
12 February 2008 23 FEB 2008
C & M WALSH
Our Ref: TJB/069574/MT
Ask For: Tracey Blanchard
Dear Mr DeMaid
Re: Your clients Mr & Mrs Walsh/Lucles Farm Ltd
I refer to your letter dated 28 January 2008 regarding your clients named above.
A complaint was received at this service conceming the boarding kennels

business owned by Mr & Mrs Walsh. The nature of the complaint alleges that
although the kennels are licensed for up to 10 dogs at anyone time, there is
evidence to suggest that at times this limit has been exceeded and that dogs
have been kept in the greenhouse, stock trailer, caravan and stable block.
The web site. from which a customer would make their assessment and book,
contains a number of descriptions, which if the above is true, would give rise to
possible offences being committed under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
There could, of course, also be offences committed under The Fraud Act 2006.
There were also complaints made concerning the welfare of the animals on the
premises, which are being dealt with by Paul Hine, Animal Welfare Officer at
Malvern Hills District Council. Paul Hine also obtained the entry warrant for your
clients' premises and therefore, any questions relating to this matter should be
addressed to him.
Under section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an officer of a local

weights and measures authority may, at aU reasonable hours and on production,
if required, of his credentials, exercise the follOwing powers:
Enter any premises. inspect any goods, take copies of any book or document,
seize and detain any goods or documents, which he has reason to believe may
Tracey Blanchard
be required as evidence. An officer entering any premises by virtue of this
Enforcement Officer section may also take with him such other persons and such equipment as may
Trading Standards appear to him necessary.
Service
County Hall
Spetchley Road
WORCESTER
WR52NP
Tel 01905765389 • Fax 01905 765393 • OX 29941 Worcester 2
tblanchard@worceatarshlnt.gov.uk • www.WOR:eS1ershlre.gOY.uk
Due to the information we received, we believed that any records relating to the
kennels business would be held on computer and that is why we took with us a
computer expert in order to obtain any evidence held on the computer.
The points (a - h) you have raised in your letter, I will address as follows:
a. I have enclosed copies of the documents we seized. These were seized

under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and not the Animal Welfare Act.
b. We are still waiting for the report on the computer; once this has been
completed a Copy will be forwarded to you.
c. Photographs were not taken during the raid; however, we did video the
situation - a coy of which is attached.
d. The computer in the office and a lap top upstairs were accessed and
information obtained from them. There was also a lap top in the stable,
and although this was examined, as far as I am aware. no information
was taken from this.
As previously mentioned we are still waiting for a report from our expert
and therefore I am unable to state exactly what information was obtained.
None of the computers have been interfered with in any way that would
enable your clients' activities to be monitored - this as I am sure you are
aware is illegal.
e. I have attached copies of the documents' seized, which relate to the

receipts issued - R4194 and R4195.
f. As the originals are being retained as evidence, I have enclosed

photocopies of the documents seized.
g. Still awaiting report on computer.
h. Any questions you have relating to the warrant should be addresses to

Paul Hine.
As I am sure you can appreciate. once a serious complaint is made, we are

legally bound to investigate it. On this occasion the Animal Welfare Officer had
obtained the warrant and it was an opportune moment for us to deal with this
matter at the same time. with minimal disturbance to your client.
Once we are in possession of the report from our computer expert. I will forward
you a copy. Once this has been received, it may be necessary to formally
interview your clients and I will contact yourself in due course.
Should you wish to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Blanchard
Enforcement Officer
Cc: Paul Hine Animal Welfare Officer

CLAlMANTEXHIBrr~
F.T.A.O: Ms T Blanchard Date: 28th February 2008

Worcestershire County Council
OX: 29941 Your ref: TJB/069574/MT
WORCESTER 2
Our ref: DWD/JSBIWALSH
Dear Ms Blanchard
OUR CLIENTS: MR & MRS WALSH/LUCIES FARM LTD
Thank you for your letter of the 12th February 2008, a copy of which we have forwarded to
our clients for their instructions.
Without commenting at this stage on any other matters, we make the following points:-
1. Section 28(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 clearly excludes an Duly
authorised officer of the Weights & Measures Authority from entering premises which
are used as a dwelling.
Therefore any such entry is illegal, and our clients now intend to obtain Counsel's opinion in
respect of bringing an action against the Worcestershire County Council. They also reserve
their position in terms of whether or not a Criminal Act (burglary) has also been committed.
Whilst writing, our clients have speCifically asked us to enquire as to what extracts were
taken from their computer. Are you saying that you have downloaded the whole of the hard-
drive of their computer, or Simply obtained copies of certain documents. If so, they want to
know which documents specifically. You will appreciate that the computer contains much
personal correspondence and financial details, which have nothing to do with you or your
enquiry.
In respect of the laptop you refer to, our clients seem to recall that the laptop was in the
kitchen. Would you confirm its exact location, particularly as it did not belong to our clients
but to a family relative. In any event, can you please inform us whether or not the Server,
which was upstairs in the bedroom, was accessed in any way.
Yours faithfully
WILLIAM GRAHAM LAW LTD

worcesters hire
county council 2 5 MAR ZOgs
003
CLAIMANTEXHIBITNUMBER~_-
William Graham Law Ltd

SolicHors
24 Neptune Court
Ocean Way RECEIVED
Cardiff
CF245PJ 28 MAR 20GB
19 March 2008
C & M WALSH
Our ref: JM D/069574IWCM
Ask for: John Dell
Dear Sir
Your clients - Lucies Farm Ltd
Further to your letter of the 28 February 2008, I am somewhat astounded by

your threat of action against Worcestershire County Council and would make the I
. I
following comments. I
i
You have clearly misread the content of section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act
1968 Sub--section 1(a) gives an authorized officer the power to enter any
premises other than premises used ONLY as a private dwelling.
I am informed by Tracey Blanchard, the Investigating Officer, that the house

contained an office hOUSingE·~puter for the running of the business and
therefore the premises had duelyse.
-'
Consequently, entry to the h se was certainly not illegal and any form of legal
action against this authority would be futile.
I am also informed that the information taken from the computer related only to
the day to day management of the kennels, details of which will be forwarded to
your client as soon as possible.
I can confirm that the laptop was situated in the kHchen; however, H was not
subject to any type of examination by our computer consultant.
John Dell
Divisional Manager The server in the bedroom was accessed via the network from the main
Trading Standards computer in the office and material was obtained from H. This wiU, of course, be
Service
forwarded to your client as soon as it is possible so to do.
County Hall
Spetchley Road
WORCESTER
WR62NP TeI01905165315 • Fax 01006 765393 • OX 29941 WOl'C8ster 2
jdeIIOwoR:elll8fBlllra.gOll.uk - -.won:eslBnllllnl.lJOY.uk
....
Cert!ficale No. 399194
() ...-..
l'lI/,unt."'Pf:lIIftt
I
f hope this clarifies this situation. This 5eNice will obviously contact your client
once our investigations have been completed.
I
Y:~~:0!~thfuJ I
..,-e d. , dA.
John ell
Divisional Manager
Compliance & Investigation
worcestersh ire
county counc RECE\VED
CLAIMANT EXHlBIT NUMBER. ooq -2SEP 2008
C & M WALSH
12 August 2008
Our ref:
Ask for. Tracey Blanchard
Dear
Trade Descriptions Act 1968
I am currently investigating a complaint concerning Lucies Farm, Powick,

Worcestershire and I am contacting clients I know have previously used the
kennels.
From records, I believe that your , boarded at the ken-

nels from 2006 to 2006.
In order to assist with this investigation, I would be grateful if you could take a
few minutes to complete the attached questionnaire and return it to me in the
self addressed envelope within the next 14 days.
If you have any concerns or wish to seek clarification on this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
· '.
Yours sincerely
ft ,~
... ~
Tracey Blanchard
..
Enforcement Officer
Tracey Blanchard
Enforcement Officer
Trading Standards Ene.
Service
County Hall
Spetchley Road
WORCESTER
WR52NP
Tel 01905765389 • Fax 01905765393 • DX 29941 Worcester 2
IblanchardGwon:ntenshlre.gov.uk • www.worceetershlre.gov.uk
Certllicate No. 399194

Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Complaint re: Lucies Farm

Date: Saturday, August 16, 20087:37 PM
From: Craig W Walsh <IMCEAEX-_O=IEX3_0U=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP
+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CRAIG+5FHMDP@hmdp.com>
To: >
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER OO~
Hi, ---
Thank you for writing this, and sending us a copy. Boy, you're a polemic guy
when you get stirred up!
We have been overwhelmed with the e-mailsandlettersofsupportwe.ve

received from our customers. One customer wrote to the Council to say, "I am
horrified that you send these forms to Lucies clients. You must surely be guilty
of destroying a business with this crass, heavy footed behaviour."
In her cover letter to us, she called the folks "puffed up little pricks in the council
offices." And this is a soft-spoken, little old lady with a Jack Russell.
Many of our customers have been irritated that their dog's name and even dog's
breed are now in some Council database. They clearly understand that the
Council stole this information --- and that we didn't give it to them.
I will be most interested to see if your e-mail to Mr. Dell produces any results.
I've attached some correspondence between our previous solicitor (one that our
legal insurers had us use --- the matter was subsequently transferred to our
long-time solicitors at Bracher Rawlins) and the same Mr. Dell.
We do not have a business office in the house, so there is no "duel" use. Our
barristers have confirmed that the Council's position is wrong, and we are
getting ready to fire off the letter before action.
Mr. Dell talks about sending us the computer report "as soon as it is possible to
do so." They have clearly received some sort of information from their
computer forensic guru, as that is how they got your name and address --- but
we have not been sent the report.
This is all very frustrating for us, since all we've set out to do was to provide the
Page 1 of 4
best possible care and attention for the doggie guests who come and spend
some time with us.
Please let us know --- if you don't mind --- what Mr. Dell tells you. Thank you
again, Malcolm, for all of your support.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd * Col letts Green * Worcester WR2 4RY
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
In the United States: 888-880-1531
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch

Registered in England Company Registration 03521405
****************************************************
From:
Sent: 14 August 2008 10:56
To: Craig W Walsh
Subject: Fwd: Complaint re: Lucies Farm
Dear Craig,
I thought the e-mail below might interest you!
-----Original Message----
From:
To: JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk
Sent: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:53
Subject: Complaint re: Lucies Farm
To: Manager, Complaints and Investigations, Worcesterhsire Trading

Standards
Page 2 of 4
Dear Mr Dell,
I received a questionnaire yesterday from one of your officers, Tracey Blanchard.

This came out of the blue and, to be honest, was quite scary in suggesting some
sort of (undefined) issue concerning the place where we had happily boarded our
dog for a number of years and the direct reference to ourselves was also both
very specific and - out of date! This all just read very oddly. It was also difficult
to tell if there was any procedure for follow up (although I think I have now
worked out the code at the bottom of the form).
Obviously I contacted the owner Mr Craig Walsh for an explanation and am now
writing to you for further clarification. I was concerned to raise with Mr Walsh
how our details were obtained and now understand that there may be a question
nlark as to the legality of your officers actions removing a computer containing
this database. You will appreciate that I take matters of data protection very
seriously - and indeed look to bodies like Trading Standards to protect my
interests - and so would like an assurance that the actions of Worcestershire
County Council and Malvern Hills District Council in obtaining this data were in
fact legal.
I have written to Ms Blanchard to re-inforce my comments on the questionnaire

that we have always been very happy with our service from Lucies Farm. Any
suggestion that any deception was practiced therefore came as a great shock. I
appreciate that you do have to investigate any complaint as it arises but I would
like clarification on the procedures that you have in place within your department
to ensure that any malicious complaints do not escalate beyong bounds of reason.
I ask this because, as a user of Lucies Farm, I could have found the letter /
questionnaire so worrying throuhg its vagueness that I may have cancelled my
custom. This obviously affects my own interests in finding suitable kennels for
our dog and also, presumably, the commercial viability ofLucies Farm.
I look forward to receiving your reply on these two points.
Yours sincerely
Page 3 of 4

Date: Monday, August 18, 20088:11 AM
+20+ 28FYDIBOH F23SPDLT+29_ CN=RECIPI ENTS_CN=CRAIG+5FH MDP@hmdp.com>
To:
CLAIMANT EXHlBITNUMBER 006
Hi, ---
I happened to watch some of the fencing at the Olympics --- but after half an
hour or so of watching men in metal suits buzz and light up, with some French
(or Spanish) guy yelling "En gardel" at them, I gave up. I couldn't figure out if
you wanted the lights to light up, or if it was a bad thing.
No "duels" here --- the joys of a spell checker that does not check grammar or
context.
Thank you for sending me a copy of Mr. Dell's e-mail. Does the fact that he
"would like to assure you that there is no cause for you to cancel your custom at Lucies
Farm" mean that (surprise, surprise) they've not found any wrongdoing on our
part?
When I looked for the copy of the "duel" letter to send to you, I was reminded
that they assured us they would send us a copy of their computer forensic
experts' report as soon as they received it. They've obviously failed to do this:
presume they received his report, as how else would they have obtained your
address and even details?
I've asked our solicitor, Richard Slade, to write to them and ask for a copy of the
report. Assuming it's forthcoming, I will be glad to let you know what it says.
I was also amused by the fact that they don't allow investigations to "escalate
beyond the bounds of reason." We are a small business --- and look after 10
dogs at a time when we are tremendously busy. I understand that most dog
kennels look after 40 or more. Yet the Council had the time to send 15 people
(that's according to their own report) onto our premises in January. And, eight
months later, they have the time to send a questionnaire --- one that almost
looks like a marketing questionnaire --- to virtually all of our customers.
Page 1 of 6
Judging from the many e-mail messages I've received, as well as the telephone
conversations I've had with dozens of our customers and the copies of
questionnaires that have been sent to me, I would think that Ms. Blanchard and
Mr. Dell must --- by now --- understand that we're not deceiving anyone.
Marjorie and I pride ourselves in providing the best possible care and attention
for doggie guests in the country.
Thank you again, , for all of your help and support. This has been
hugely frustrating for us, as you can imagine.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd * Colletts Green * Worcester WR2 4RY
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From:
Sent: 18 August 2008 07:37
To: Craig W Walsh
Subject: Fwd: Complaint re: Lucies Farm
Dear Craig,
Reply to my e-mail of complaint to Mr Dell. I think I am, in official terms,

'confused' by his reply.
I am also intrigued by the possibility that you carry out 'duels' in your kitchen.
Page 2 of 6
Must be quite a long kitchen. I hope that this is not how you deal with dispute
over payment for the kennels.
Regards
From: Dell, John (ES, TSS) <JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>
To:
Sent: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 2:38 pm
Dear ,
Thank you for your email concerning this matter.
I understand your concern with regard to the receipt of the questionnaire and would like
to assure you that there is no cause for you to cancel your custom at Lucies Farm.
We take data protection very seriously and your details will certainly not be divulged to
any other party and will not be held by us indefinitely.
Worcestershire Trading Standards protect the interest of both traders and consumers in
the county and all aspects of our work are monitored by senior managers. When statutory
powers are used it is not done so lightly and I can assure you that it is always done legally.
I am obviously not in a position to divulge information concerning this specific matter,

Page 3 of 6
however. the investigation of complaints are not permitted to escalate beyond the bounds
of reason and we certainly do not react to those which are malicious.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact either myself or Tracey
Blanchard on 01905 765389.
John Dell
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 14 August 2008 10:54

To: Dell, John (ES, TSS)
Subject: Complaint re: Lucies Farm
To: Manager, Complaints and Investigations, Worcesterhsire Trading
Standards
Dear Mr Dell,
I received a questionnaire yesterday from one of your officers, Tracey

Blanchard. This came out of the blue and, to be honest, was quite scary in
suggesting some sort of (undefined) issue concerning the place where we had
happily boarded our dog for a number of years and the direct reference to
ourselves was also both very specific and - out of date! This all just read very
oddly. It was also difficult to tell if there 20 was any procedure for follow up
(although I think I have now worked out the code at the bottom of the form).
Obviously I contacted the owner Mr Craig Walsh for an explanation and am

now writing to you for further clarification. I was concerned to raise with Mr
Walsh how our details were obtained and now understand that there may be a
question mark as to the legality of your officers actions removing a computer
containing this database. You will appreCiate that I take matters of data
protection very seriously - and indeed look to bodies like Trading Standards to
protect my interests - and so would like an assurance that the actions of
Worcestershire County Council and Malvern Hills District Council in obtaining
this data were in fact legal.
I have written to Ms Blanchard to re-inforce my comments on the questionnaire

that we have always been very happy with our service from Lucies Farm. Any
Page 4 of 6
suggestion that any deception was practiced therefore came as a great shock.
I appreciate that you do have to investigate any complaint as it arises but I
would like clarification on the procedures that you have in place within your
department to ensure that any malicious complaints do not escalate beyong
bounds of reason. I ask this because, as a user of Lucies Farm, I could have
found the letter I questionnaire so worrying throuhg20its vagueness that I may
have cancelled my custom. This obviously affects my own interests in finding
suitable kennels for our dog and also, presumably, the commercial viability of
Lucies Farm.
I look forward to receiving your reply on these two points.
Yours sincerely
AOL Email goes Mobilel You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the
move. Sign up <http://info.aol,co.uk/email1 > for a free AOL Email account with
unlimited storage today.
*****************************************************************
*****
Confidentiality Notice
This message and any attachments are private and confidential and may
be subject to legal privilege and copyright. If you are not the
intended recipient please do not publish or copy it to anyone else.
Please contact us by using the reply facility in your email software
and then remove it from your system.
Disclaimer
Although this email and attachments have been scanned for viruses and
malware, Worcestershire County Council accepts no liability for any
loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this communication.
Page 5 of 6
Subject: Re: Your letter and our telephone conversation this morning
Date: Monday, August 18, 20083:17 PM
+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CRAIG+5FHMDP@hmdp.com>
To:
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com> 007
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER
'-----
Hi, ---
Fantastic e-mail. Thank you for sending it to Ms. Blanchard, and thank you
for sending me a copy.
It is interesting that their letter only mentions original, one

night reservation. Marjorie and I thought they'd managed to "crack" into
our system --- despite the fact that it sits on a
password-protected server, and is itself password-protected. But the
District Council told us that we weren't fit to run a dog kennel because we
didn't have a "register of guests." (Which is, of course, patently
nonsensical. )
When we showed the solicitor for the District Council our online
reservations and calendar system, she professed surprise. "Why haven't you
shown this to us before?" To which, of course, the answer was easy --- "You
never asked to see it, and you raided our premises and invaded our home when
we weren't here."
Our reservations system, called RezEasy, would only show a one night
reservation for When his stay was extended from essentially one day
to one year, we would not have gone back into RezEasy to make this change.
Instead, we would have noted this in our online calendar (called Calcium).
The RezEasy system sits on our managed, dedicated internet server at a data
centre in Newark, Delaware. It makes me wonder if the Council somehow
compromised our passwords to log in to this system? But then the plot gets
more convoluted. After they invaded our business and home, we naturally
changed all of the passwords --- including RezEasy. So do they have the new
password? Or if they logged into RezEasy in January, before we changed the
password, why did they wait until n1id-August to send out their offensive
letters?
Page 1 of 4
Sending out these letters in the very middle of our busiest month of the
year is certainly egregious. The cynic in me says that they did this to
maximize the damage to our business.
They assured our then-solicitor (appointed by our legal insurance company)

that they would send us the computer forensic report as they received it.
We haven't received a thing --- yet they're off writing letters to the
majority of our customers, without our prior knowledge and certainly without
our consent, using information that we (and our solicitor and barrister)
contend was stolen from us.
I would be interested --- if you don't mind --- to see a copy of Ms.
Blanchard's reply (if she sends one to you). One of our customers ---
--- sent an e-mail to
the head of Trading Standards, John Dell. Mr. Dell replied on Friday
afternoon to say, "I understand your concern with regard to the receipt of
the questionnaire and would like to assure you that there is no cause for
you to cancel your custom at Lucies Farm./I
This has been very distressing for Marjorie and me. All we have tried to
do, in our little retirement business, is to provide the best possible care
to our doggie guests. I don't understand how we can shuffle dogs off to the
(curses!) stable, or the bat cave, and still allow them to be viewed 24/7 on
the webcam.
I think they've been watching too many episodes of "Mission: Impossible."
sends his love. He was just sitting on the couch watching me type
this, but Marjorie went off to her office so off he's gone --- he doesn't
want to miss anything.
Thank you for your help and your support.
Kind regards,
Craig
Page 2 of 4
Craig W. Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd. * Whitecroft * Colletts Green * Worcester * WR2 4RY
*****************************************************************
***
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*****************************************************************
***
From:
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:37:53 -0700
To: Craig Walsh <craig@hmdp.com>
Subject: Fw: Your letter and our telephone conversation this morning
FYI - 2ND TIME LUCKY

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk
Cc: craig@dog-hotel,co.uk
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2 :28 PM
Subject: Your letter and our telephone conversation this morning
Dear Ms Blanchard,
Following our telephone conversation today, I would like you to confirm your
assurance to me that your office has no 'record' of my credit card payment
to Lucies Farm.
I note from your letter that you have 'acquired' the Internet Booking
details that I made on-line for first night stay. If you acquired
that information from an on-tine booking system, you must have also acquired
the credit card booking data. Please confirm what you have on your
'records'.
Further, , would like to point out that did not stay for one night.
The facilities offered at Lucies Farm were so exceptional that , in
Page 3 of 4
fact, stayed for over 12 months. His preference was to stay in the stable
block as this had the same level of comfort/facilities but a far larger
outdoor area. It therefore concerns me that you say that you have had a
complaint from a customer on the basis that their dog was not in the main
hotel suite block. This would be a ludicrous complaint. The owners at Lucies
Farm could and should charge more for the stable block accommodation but
they don't.
Finally, I am concerned that such good people with such an incredibly high
level of customer service i.e. dog welfare, have been the target of
complaint. I met with many other clients over the 12 month period that
stayed at Lucies Farm. All of these people were returning clients. I
witnessed all of Lucies Farms' services first hand. The care, devotion and
kindness shown to all of their residents throughout the day was truly
exceptional. Due to my hectic business schedule I always arrived unannounced
at all times of the day and night to visit He and all the other dogs
received the most incredible level of care and attention. Before finding
Lucies Farm I visited many dog kennels which, quite frankly, I wouldn't
allow my dog to spend one hour in let alone a whole day. The fact that
spent a whole year at Lucies farm speaks for itself.
Please confirm exactly what data you have 'on record' and how you came to
acquire this information.
Yours sincerely
Page 4 of 4
Subject: RE: Your letter and our telephone conversation this morning
Date: Tuesday, August 19,200812:20 PM
+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDlT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=CRAIG+SFHMDP@hmdp.com>
To:
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, "Slade, Richard" <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>
Hi, ---
CLAIMANTEXHIBITNUMBER 00'8
Thank you for your further detective workl
As I mentioned to you on the 'phone yesterday, the District Council refused to

renew our dog boarding license because we're apparently not "fit" to run a dog
boarding establishment. They initially gave no reasons for this decision. When
pressed by our solicitor, they said it was because we did not keep a register of
the doggie guests. We, of course, do keep detailed records --- including a full
register. And, as you (and our other customers) have seen, this information was
appropriated by the County Council.
How can we, on the one hand, not have a register --- and therefore not be "fit?"
And, on the other hand, have detailed records that needed the help of a
computer forensics expert --- and eight months --- to decipher?
We have appealed the District Council's refusal to renew our license. This
appeal is filed, in the first instance, with the Magistrates' Court. A preliminary
hearing is scheduled for August 28.
Our solicitor is hopeful that the District Council has now had second thoughts
about their decision --- and faced with the prospect of a full appeals hearing in
Magistrates' Court (and the expense involved for all sides) --- will renew our
license. I just heard from our solicitor this morning indicating that the District
Council is having a meeting tomorrow to apparently decide on whether they
wish to issue the renewal license, or continue the battle through the
Magistrates' Court.
If they do issue the license, then our solicitor will move forward with Phase II ---
already approved by our legal insurers --- and send a letter before action to both
Councils relating to their trespass into our home.
Page 1 of 10
As to Mr. Deli's uwhole truth" comment, I find it risible. You know yourself, from
your visits to Lucies Farm, exactly what we do. It all goes back, I'm afraid, to our
neighbour's "bat cave" scenario. And, yes, we haven't told you about the Ubat
cave."
I've copied our solicitor, Richard Slade, on this message --- so he can see Mr.
Deli's reply to you.
I find it interesting that Mr. Dell is e-mailing other customers to say, ""I
understand your concern with regard to the receipt ofthe questionnaire and
would like to assure you that there is no cause for you to cancel your custom
at Lucies Farm. [emphasis added] We take data protection very seriously and
your details will certainly not be divulged to any other party and will not be held
by us indefinitely. [... ] I am obviously not in a position to divulge information
concerning this specific matter, however, the investigation of complaints are not
permitted to escalate beyond the bounds of reason."
Marjorie and I find this all very distressing.
Thank you again, , for all of your support. We really appreciate it.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hote1.co.uk
****************************************************
From:
Sent: 19 August 2008 10:39
To: Craig W Walsh
Page 2 of 10
Dear Both
I am sending you this note NOT to add to your stress but just so that you can pass over
these comments to your SOT for their record.
I have just received a call from John Dell from trading Standards re: my emails to TB.
He wanted to assure me that whatever data they have on their disc is secure and will be
destroyed when their 'investigation' is complete. I asked him when that would be? He
replied he did not know. I then said that, as this has been going on since January, I was not
reassured by his call as they had obviously had my details for some 8 months - who knows
who could be making use of this. He said that he didn't know how long they had had the
disc as it had sent via their 'consultant' who had copied the data in January but who then
had to forward it on to them .... I asked who is this 'consultant' that was able to access
private individual's data? He apparently was employed by them for the task as an "expert
witness" and said that he was totally reliable as he is an ex-trading standards official. I
replied this did not instill me with any confidence. I then asked him why such a lame
complaint was taking up this amount of time and expense. He said he was not at liberty to
discuss the complaint. I reminded him that TB had discussed it and that, as per my email
yesterday, keeping dogs in either the stable or main block was a ludicrous complaint for
any govt body to be wasting time and money on. He replied that, he couldn't comment
because he had not seen the stable block. I asked him why not? As this was supposedly
the reason for complaint, why hadn't he himself seen it before he allowed such an
'investigation' to take place. I told him that I had spoken to you and was aware of what had
happened and that I thought the whole thing was a total disgrace. He replied that. "of
course they may not be telling you the whole truth". I told him I had no doubt that you were
telling the whole truth and again stated that the stable block was not a substandard form of
accommodation. I again asked him how long this was going to go on for as again, I stated,
I was not happy that they body and outside 'consultants' had access to my financial data.
He again said that he was calling to reassure me that this data was secure and that, as
soon as the investigation is complete, it would be destroyed. I thanked him for his call but
said, as we know how well govt officials look after private individuals data, I was not
reassured one bit.
I think your solicitor should get on these people's back and not get off until they cease this
action and make the beggars pay for the invasion of your privacy and attack on your
Page 3 of 10
business ethic .
Take care of yourselves and don't let them get you down ...
Best wishes -
.----- Original Message ----
From: Craig W Walsh <mailto:craig@hmdp.com>
To:
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <mailto:marjorie@hmdp.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 20084:22 PM
Hi, ---
We were told that they took a "mirror copy" of my desktop computer

and of our server. This would mean that they took our personal
financial records, our scanned personal correspondence, financial
information from a company we owned in Hawaii, our personal
photographs, my medical records, etc. There's nothing on my
computer that I wouldn't show my daughter --- but that's not really
the point, is it?
If they have our "customer database," then I can assure you that these
records do contain (as you know) your credit card details. We, at
Lucies Farm Ltd., are fully registered under the provisions of the Data
Protection Act. We thought that we had done everything sensibly
necessary to protect your confidential data, and that of our other
customers. As I mentioned, the computers here are all password-
protected (with passwords that are changed frequently), and our
Page 4 of 10
customer details are kept in Sage accounting software. Our Sage
software is also password-protected, so it would take "cracking" two
sets of passwords to get to your details.
It's amazing that they have a disc in the safe that they haven't fully
accessed. If they didn't access the disc, how did they know what it
contained? How did they isolate our customer contact list from the
other information?
It stretches any sort of credulity.
What about doing a subject access request under the provisions of the
Data Protection Act? We'd be glad to pay the Stg 10.00 fee.
I am truly sorry, , for any distress caused to you. How do you

deal with people who arrogantly talk about having the "power to
seize?"
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd. * Whitecroft * Colletts Green * Worcester
* WR2 4RY
**********************************************************
**********
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
**********************************************************
**********
From:
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 200808:07:54 -0700
To: "Blanchard, Tracy (ES, TSS)" <TBlanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Page 5 of 10
Dear Ms Blanchard
Earlier today, you assured me that you did not have my credit
card details. Now you say you do not know whether your disc
does or does not contain my credit card details.
I wish to make it clear that I object to this information being heidI
accessed and I request that you delete all such details.
Please advise me accordingly
Yours sincerely
----- Original Message -----
From: Blanchard, Tracy (ES, TSS)

<mailto:TBlanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk>
To:
Sent: Monday, August 18, 20083:49 PM
Subject: RE: Your letter and our telephone conversation this morning
Dear
Further to your email and our telephone conversation this

morning. I am able to confirm that under the legislation we
enforce, I have the power to seize or detain any goods or
documents. This is how I have obtained the customer database
for Lucies Farm.
All the information is contained on a disc which is held in secure

storage at the Trading Standards Service, with restricted
access. Information examined has been limited to the customer
Page 6 of 10
contact list. I am therefore unable to tell you whether or not
your credit card details are contained on this disc, but such
information will definitely not be accessed.
I can assure you that once our enquires are complete all
information will be destroyed.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Blanchard
From:
Sent: 18 August 2008 14:28
To: Blanchard, Tracy (ES, TSS)
Cc: craig@dog-hotel.co.uk
Subject: Your letter and our telephone conversation this
morning
Dear Ms Blanchard,
Following our telephone conversation today, I would like you to

confirm your assurance to me that your office has no 'record' of
my credit card payment to Lucies Farm.
I note from your letter that you have 'acquired' the Internet
Booking details that I made on-line for first night stay. If
you acquired that information from an on-line booking system,
you must have also acquired the credit card booking data.
Page 7 of 10
Please confirm what you have on your 'records'.
Further, I would like to point out that did not stay for one
night. The facilities offered at Lucies Farm were so exceptional
that in fact, stayed for over 12 months. His preference
was to stay in the stable block as this had the same level of
comfort/facilities but a far larger outdoor area. It therefore
concerns me that you say that you have had a complaint from a
customer on the basis that their dog was not in the main hotel
suite block. This would be a ludicrous complaint. The owners at
Lucies Farm could and should charge more for the stable block
accommodation but they don't.
Finally, I am concerned that such good people with such an

incredibly high level of customer service i.e. dog welfare, have
been the target of complaint. I met with many other clients over
the 12 month period that stayed at Lucies Farm. All of
these people were returning clients. I witnessed all of Lucies
Farms' services first hand. The care, devotion and kindness
shown to all of their residents throughout the day was truly
exceptional. Due to my hectic business schedule I always
arrived unannounced at all times of the day and night to visit
. He and all the other dogs received the most incredible
level of care and attention. Before finding Lucies Farm I visited
many dog kennels which, quite frankly, I wouldn't allow my dog
to spend one hour in let alone a whole day. The fact that
spent a whole year at Lucies farm speaks for itself.
Please confirm exactly what data you have 'on record' and how
you came to acquire this information.
Page 8 of 10
Yours sincerely
*********************************************************
*************
This message and any attachments are private and confidential and
may
Disclaimer
Although this email and attachments have been scanned for viruses
and
malware Worcestershire County Council accepts no liability for any
l
Monitoring of Email
Worcestershire County Council may monitor traffic data and the
content
of email for lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************
*************
Page 9 of 10
2w [itl,!;' Qll.fl ~t.alUcriJ.
/{Jre ,y);r ,go !
[~1t1\. la'J..; I CLAIMANT EXHmIT NUMBER 00 ~
16/8/08
Dear Ms Blanchard.
Your ref: TJBl
Trade DescriptioD Act 1988
Thank you for your letter of the 121b August; your questionnaire is attached. I wish you wen, but am
bemused by. your investigation into Lucies Fann under the Trade Descriptions Act. My wife and I are
regular users of their 'Iuxwy dog hotel' service and have always found it to be excellent and as
described. Indeed, it is so good that it is one of those rare situations where I would say that the owners..
Craig and Maljorie are not just people to whom we pay for a service, but have now also be become our
friends.
J therefore think that your time (and mine) is being wasted by the complaint that you are investigating.
The service they provide is unique and is generating employment in what is a rather rural part of both the
county and England. I believe it attracts customers such as ourselves fi'om a wide UK catchment,
therefore bringing income into a rural region. Personally, it bas lead to us using various local services in
Worcester whilst visiting Lucies Farm. as well local public houses for food, and we have also started to
use Worcester as our railhead of choice. Surely innovations such as the 'luxury dog hotel' at Lucies
Fann is something that Worcestershire County ColmCil should be encouraging. and holding up as an
exemplar of innovative small business activity in rural areas?
Finally. both my wife and I are very concerned that you appear to have details of our pedigree dog on
your electronic database (presuming that stands for ). Could you please
confinn that you are legally allowed to hold such details without our oonscnt (does the Data Protection
Act not apply?). and that all data will be destroyed at the end of your investigation? You seem to have a
large database of pedigree dogs and their addresses. which would be highly valuable information in the
wrong hands. and given the recent spate ofcentral govenunent loss of databases on CDs and laptops, this
concerns me deeply.
Yours sincerely,
Tracey Blanchard
Enforcement Officer
CLAIMANT BXHIBrrNUMBER_O_'_O_
RECEIVED
Trading Standards Service
County Hall 26 AUG 2008
Spetchley Road
Worcester
WR52NP C & M WALSH
20 August 2008
Lucie', farm, Powlck
Dear Tracey
Further to our telephone conversation about the nature of the complaint made
against lucie's Farm where we board our please find enclosed the
completed questionnaire. As you will see, we have always been absolutely satisfied
with the treatment that - and we - have received at lucie's Farm over the past
three or so years. They provide an excellent and invaluable service, and as I say on
the questionnaire, we would not consider leaving our dog anywhere else while we
areaway.
I am somewhat concerned about how my contact details, and details of my dog,

were obtained. If this was from a database held at Lucie's Farm, then I assume that
other personal information, for example my credit card number. may also have been
accessed, Please could you provide some reassurance that such sensitive information
has remained secure?
Kind Regards
~.
From: Councillor Member of

Telephone No: Newport City Council
FaxNo:
Please reply to:- Civic Centre
Newport
Ad.dress: South Wales
NP204UR
Tel: 01633656656
Stow Hill
WARD, NEWPORT
Your Ref: TJBI

RECEIVED
- 2 SEP 2008
Date: 25 August 2008.
C & M WALSH
Trading Standards Service
County Hall .
Spetchley Road
WORCESTER
WR5 2ZD
F.A.O. Tracey Blanchard
Dear Tracey Blanchard,
Trade Descriptions Act 1.96S
I refer to your letter dated the 12th August 2008 concerning Lucies Farm and am enclosing
the reply form duly completed. ',.
•
I also have to say that I am most concerned' because I understand that you attended Luci~s
Farm premises and impounded records.£Oncerning the fact that we have used the premises
to look after our dog while we are away on holiday. What's more I have been informed that
you impounded details wh ich would give your officers and others information concerning our
banking details. This I believe is strictly against the Data Protection Act and before I take
out a prosecution against Worcester County Council I should be interested to hear your views
on the matter.
I am also concerned that as you have obtained details about the dates we put our dog into the
kennels concerned you will be aware of the time of the year when we are away from our
home and this too could 'cause problems for us and I believe is against the Data Protection
Act.
I look forward to hearing from you by return on this matter.
.Y
w_orC~$ter$h ire
county councli
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBrm 01;)-
MrCWalsh
Lucies Farm
Colletts Green RECEIVED
Powick
Worcestershire - 6 SEP 2008
4 September 2008 C & M WALSH

Our ref: TJ813163/LH
Ask for: Tracey Blanchard
Dear Mr Walsh
Re: Trade Descriptions Act 1968
With reference to our investigation conceming allegations made under the above
legislation conceming your dog boarding business.
Detailed enquiries have been undertaken and I am now in a position to inform

you that there will be no requirement to interview you regarding this matter and
we will not be pursuing this matter further.
With regard to the data recovered from your computer, this was recorded on one
disc, which has been held in a secure location at the Trading Standards office,
with restricted access. Now that the investigation is complete, this disc will be
destroyed.
I have also enclosed the paperwork that was seized from you at the time of the
warrant.
Yours sincerely
2 ---
~~
acey Blanchard
.
Enforcement Officer
Tracey Blanchard
Enforcement Officer Enc.
Trading Standards
Service
County Hall
Spetchley Road
WORCESTER
WR52NP Tel 01905 765389 _ Fax 01905 765393 _ OX 29941 Worcester 2
tblanchard~hire.gov.uk _ _.worceslershlre.gov.uk
!'26 .
Certificate No. 399194
Iworcestershi,re
CLAIMANT RXHIBITNUMBER.____ 013
4 September 2008
Our ref: TJB1

Ask for: Tracey Blanchard
Dear
Re: Lucies Farm, Powlck. Worcester
With regard to our investigation concerning the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and
the above premises.
May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to complete and
return the questionnaire, the infonnation was extremely useful.
I am now in a position to infonn you that our enquiries are complete and we will
be taking no further action with regard to this matter and therefore, for those that
were concemed, there is absolutely no reason why you should not continue to
use the facilities of Lucies Fann.
Please be assured that all data containing personal records will now be
destroyed.
Yours sincerely
Tracey Blanchard
Tracey Blanchard Enforcement Officer
Enforcement Officer
Trading Standards
Service
county Hall
Spetchley Road·
WORCESTER , . . . ~~ . . . . . ~" • • • • • u • • • • • • , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . y . . . . . . . . . . . . - • • U h * . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.U . . H
WR52NP.
'0 • • • • • H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "' •• • •••••• ••••••••••••• ••••••••••• , . . . . . . . . . ,_ ••••••••• , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ' •••• ' .. "-
Tel 01905 765389 • Fax 01905 765393 • DX 29941 Worcester 2

IbllIIlChard@'Nofcntershire.90V.uk • WNW.worc:est8f1rJlire.p.uk
COllllicale No, 399194

saturday, September 20,20082:41 PM
Subject: FW: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH

Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008 7:16 PM
From: Craig Walsh <craig@hmdp.com>
To: <kstilgoe@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: <jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, <jarmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Priority: Highest
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 0 I II

Dear Mr. Stilgoe ---
The copy of my message (below) to Ms. Blanchard produced an automated out-

of-office reply that advised (in part):
If your email involves a request for information under

legislation governing Freedom of Information,
Environmental Information or Data Protection, please
contact Kevin Stilgoe on telephone number 01905 766706
As detailed in my earlier message, please be sure that this data disc is not
destroyed, but is returned to us as a matter of some urgency.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

Sent: 06 September 2008 19:08
To: 'jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk'
Page 1 of 5
Cc: 'slewis@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'ecooper@worcestershire.gov.uk';
'tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'Slade, Richard'; Marjorie J. Walsh;
'jarmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'david.demaid@wglawltd.co.uk'
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Dell---
I acknowledge the safe receipt in today's post of Ms. Blanchard's letter of 4

September 2008, advising me that the Council is "now in a position to inform
we will not be pursuing this matter further."
Ms. Blanchard goes on to say, "With regard to the data recovered from your
computer, this was recorded on one disc, which has been held in a secure
location at the Trading Standards office, with restricted access. Now that the
investigation is complete, this disc will be destroyed."
My wife and I are pleased --- but not at all surprised --- to hear that your
"detailed enquiries" have found no evidence of wrongdoing on our part. I
understand that Ms. Blanchard also wrote to our customers on 4 September
2008 to advise, "I am now in a position to inform you that our enquiries are
complete and we will be taking no further action with regard to this matter and
therefore, for those that were concerned, there is absolutely no reason why you
should not continue to use the facilities of Lucies Farm."
This matter has, as you will imagine, caused Marjorie and me considerable
personal distress, beginning with the invasion of our private residence in
January 2008 and culminating with your office sending the majority of our
customers a questionnaire --- one that resembled a marketing questionnaire ---
along with a covering letter ominously headed, "Trade Descriptions Act 1968."
While expressing their complete confidence in the care that we provide to their
dogs, many of our customers --- as you are fully aware --- have expressed
concerns that their personal data found its way into the Council's possession.
Customers have been upset that the Council has had access to their names,
their addresses, the names of their dogs, the dates of their vacations, and their
credit card details. Many of our customers kindly provided us with copies of
Page 2 of S
their completed questionnaires and letters they sent to your office. Other
customers sent us contemporaneous e-mails detailing their telephone
conversations with you and with Ms. Blanchard.
Marjorie and I have spent many hours on the telephone assuring our customers
that this data was seized from our computer system without our knowledge and
consent, and despite the fact that the data lay behind not one, but two
passwords. We have also retained computer experts of our own to install
impregnable security on our computer systems to allow us to assure our
customers this can never happen again.
One such customer letter to Ms. Blanchard, from Councillor

dated 25 August 2008, says (in part), "I am most concerned because I
understand that you attended lucies Farm premises and impounded records
concerning the fact that we have used the premises to look after our dog while
we are away on holiday. What's more I have been informed that you
impounded details which would give your officers and others information
concerning our banking details. This I believe is strictly against the Data
Protection Act and before I take out a prosecution against Worcester County
Council I should be interested to hear your views on the matter."
In your own letter of 19 March 2008 to the solicitors acting for us at the time
(William Graham law ltd. in Cardiff) you wrote, "I am also informed that the
information taken from the computer related only to the day to day
management of the kennels, details of which will be forwarded to your client
as soon as possible. [emphasis added]" In an earlier letter (12 February 2008)
to William Graham law ltd., Ms. Blanchard wrote, "0 nce we are in possession
of the report from our computer expert, I will forward you a copy." We assumed
that you, and your colleagues, would do precisely that --- yet no details were
forthcoming.
I also understand, from a conversation that you personally had with one of our
customers on 19 August 2008, that "He [you] said that he didn't know how long
they had had the disc as it had [been] sent via their 'consultant' who had copied
the data in January but who then had to forward it on to them. I asked who is
this 'consultant' that was able to access private individual's data? He apparently
was employed by them for the task as an 'expert witness' and said that he was
totally reliable as he is an ex-trading standards official. I replied that this did not
Page 3 of 5
instill me with any confidence."
Ms. Blanchard now indicates this disc, containing our data, "will now be
destroyed." This is at variance with your letter to William Graham Law Ltd of 19
March 2008, and we formally request that the disc not be destroyed, but be
returned to us immediately, along with your absolute assurance that no copies
have been retained by either the Council, your external"consultant," or any
other pa rty.
Please advise me, at your earliest convenience, of the exact date on which "the
report from our computer expert" was received by your office, and please
advise me why a copy was not forwarded to us --- or to our solicitors --- at the
time of receipt.
We have been concerned, as you are well aware, that your "expert" took a
complete copy of the hard drive from my personal computer, containing
information relating to our personal finances, my medical condition, etc. While
there is nothing on my computer that I wouldn't show to my daughter --- I am
extremely uncomfortable that this information, in its entirety, was copied by
your "expert" and was reviewed by him --- and by your colleagues. I am sure
that anyone --- yourself included --- would feel the same way.
My wife and I will be hand-delivering to the Council offices on Monday our

subject access requests for full disclosure under the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA). We will, at the same time, provide proof of our
identity and the requisite fees of £10.00 each. We understand that information
concerning all third parties will need to be redacted, but we expect --- and I am
sure the Council will wish to provide --- full compliance with the provisions of
the DPA. We do not expect wholesale redaction of the file, but appropriate
redaction of third party names and addresses --- nothing more.
We also expect the name of your "consultant" --- as he also held (and may still
hold) our data --- so that a similar subject access request can be sent to him.
Please also consider this a formal complaint under the provisions of your
corporate procedure for the handling of complaints, as outlined on your
website:
Page 4 of 5
http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-cr/wcc-crcorporate-
procedure.htm?hilightTerm=complaint%20procedure#cs-cr-corporate-
procedure-S
As you are (I presume) a "senior manager/' I would imagine that this should
move to Stage 2, and should now be investigated by the Customer Services
Officer, Judy Armitage. I have copied Ms. Armitage on this e-mail, as well as
your colleagues who handle DPA matters.
We look forward to hearing from you within the timeframes under the DPA and
the Council's own complaint procedure.
While I have also copied Mr. DeMaid at William Graham Law on this matter for
his information, please be advised that we have transferred our representation
in this matter to our long-time solicitors, Bracher Rawlins in London. I have also
copied Richard Slade on this e-mail.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
Saturday. September 20, 20082:41 PM
Subject: FW: Ludes Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH

Date: Saturday, September 6,20087:19 PM
To: <dbuckley3@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: <jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>
Priority: Highest
CLAIMANT EXHmIT NUMBER O/S'
Dear Mr. Buckley ---
The copy of my message (below) to Ms. Cooper produced an automated out-of-

office reply that read in part:
If you have a query regarding Data Protection or a Freedom of Information

enquiry please direct to Dennis Buckley 01905 76 6468. Email
dbuckley3@Worcestershire.gov.uk or Vicki Marshall 01905 76 6960 email
vmarshall@Worcestershire.gov.uk
Please be sure that the disc in Ms. Blanchard's letter to us of 4 September 2008
is not destroyed, but is returned to us as a matter of urgency.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

To: 'jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk'
Cc: 'slewis@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'ecooper@worcestershire.gov.uk';
'tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'Slade, Richard'; Marjorie J. Walsh;
'jarmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk'; 'david.demaid@wglawltd.co.uk'
Page 1 of S
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Dell ---

should not continue to use the facilities of lucies Farm."
along with a covering letter ominously headed, "Trade Descriptions Act 1968:'
Page 2 of 5

understand that you attended Lucies Farm premises and impounded records
(William Graham Law Ltd. in Cardiff) you wrote, "I am also informed that the
as soon as possible. [emphasis added]" In an earlier letter (12 February 2008)
to William Graham Law Ltd., Ms. Blanchard wrote, "Once we are in possession
forthcoming.
was employed by them for the task as an lexpert witness' and said that he was
Page 3 of 5
have been retained by either the Council, your external"consultant," or any
other party.
Please advise me, at your earliest convenience, of the exact date on which lithe
time of receipt.

website:
procedure-S
Page 4 of 5
As you are (I presume) a "senior manager," I would imagine that this should
While I have also copied Mr. DeMaid at William Graham law on this matter for
in this matter to our long-time solicitors, Bracher Rawlins in london. I have also
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
Subject: Enforcement Policy - Your Website

Date: Sunday, September 7,20084:28 PM
From: Craig W Walsh <craig@hmdp.com>
To: <jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: <slewis@worcestershire.gov.uk>, <ecooper@worcestershire.gov.uk>,
<tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Marjorie
Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, <jarmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Dea r Mr. Dell --- CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 01"

I am sorry to bother you about another matter.
I have been reviewing your website, as well as doing research on the

Enforcement Concordat on the Principles of Good Enforcement --- to which, I
understand, your department subscribes.
In doing my research, I read the attached page on the Council's website. The
URL is:
http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-ts-index/wcc-ts-about/
wcc-ts-enforcement.htm
At the bottom of this page (not shown on the attached PDF file) is this notation:
Page Information:
Last modification: 11:50:28, 14th October, 2005 by Web Team
Review date: 14th December, 2005
This page indicates that enquiries should be sent to Ms. Renshaw. I used the e-
mail link on that page to send Ms. Renshaw the following e-mail message:
-- -- - --
--
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:02:45 +0100
To: <crenshaw@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Conversation: Trading Standards
Subject: Trading Standards
Dear Ms. Renshaw ---

Page 1 of 9
Your contact details are provided at the bottom of the page on the Council's
website entitled Trading Standards: Enforcement Policy. The URL is:
http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-ts-index/wcc-ts-about/
wcc-ts-enforcement. htm
On that page it states:
"We will draw up clear standards setting out the level of service and
performance that the public and business can expect to receive. We
will publish these standards and our annual performance against them.
The standards will be made available to business and others who are
regulated."
I have been unable to find the published standards and the annual performance
measurements. If this is on the Council's website, I confess it has eluded me.
Please provide me with the URL.
If not published on the website, can you please e-mail this information to me, or
please send it to me in the post?
I look forward to receiving this information in the near future. If there is some
reason why it cannot be provided, notwithstanding the foregoing quotation
from the Council's website, please let me know.
Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Craig W. Walsh
-- - -- --
I received a "bounce back" message immediately:
-- - --
--
Page 2 of 9
From: Microsoft Exchange
<M icrosoftExcha nge32ge 71ecSSae4615 bbc36a b6ce4110ge@hmdp.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 200S 11:02:47 -0400
Subject: Undeliverable: Trading Standards
Your message
To: crenshaw@Worcestershire.gov.uk
Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh
Subject: Trading Standards
Sent: Sun) 7 Sep 200S 11:02:45 -0400
did not reach the following recipient(s):
crenshaw@Worcestershire.gov.uk on Sun) 7 Sep 200S 11:02:47

-0400
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message)
but did not
report a specific reason. Check the address and try again.
If it still
fails) contact your system administrator.
<mailhost.worcestershire.gov.uk #5.0.0 smtp;550 #5.1.0
Address
rejected crenshaw@Worcestershire.gov.uk>
- - - --
It would appear that Ms. Renshaw may no longer be with the County Council,
and the page --- with a review date of 14 December 2005 --- more than 2 1/2
years out-of-date.
Can you, or Ms. Armitage, please pass this to Ms Renshaw's replacement?

assume that the people charged with "enforcing the laws controlling
accuracy" (to quote from this webpage) would wish to have accurate contact
details on their own website.
Page 3 of 9
Please advise me of the name and contact details of the person who will be
(hopefully) sending me the requested information.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Craig W. Walsh
Craiq W. Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd. * Colletts Green * Worcester * WR2 4RY
*******************************************************
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*******************************************************
Sent from my MaeBook

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:07:47 -0400
To: <jdell@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: <slewis@worcestershire.gov.uk>, <ecooper@worcestershire.gov.uk>,
<tblanchard@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Richard Slade
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Marjorie Walsh
<marjorie@hmdp.com>, <jarmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>,
<david.demaid@wglawltd.co.uk>
Subject: lucies Farm ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/lH
Dear Mr. Dell---

Page 4 of 9
should not continue to use the facilities of Lucies Farm."
along with a covering letter ominously headed, "Trade Descriptions Act 1968."

understand that you attended Lucies Farm premises and impounded records
Page 5 of 9
(William Graham Law Ltd. in Cardiff) you wrote, "I am also informed that the
as soon as possible. [emphasis added)" In an earlier letter (12 February 2008)
to William Graham Law Ltd., Ms. Blanchard wrote, "Once we are in possession
forthcoming.
was employed by them for the task as an 'expert witness' and said that he was
have been retained by either the Council, your external "consultant," or any
other party.
Please advise me, at your earliest convenience, of the exact date on which "the
time of receipt.
Page 6 of 9

website:
procedure-S
As you are (I presume) a "senior manager," I would imagine that this should
While I have also copied Mr. DeMaid at William Graham law on this matter for
Page 7 of 9
in this matter to our long-time solicitors, Bracher Rawlins in london. I have also
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
. ,worcestershir,
countycouncl
Enforcement PollcV
rr.. !)f1rt'\"r
t_ "*'
&It'l' M I~ "'4<111 1ttN!4lf'(f, ....,..:4 II ~ DMt"1':'t s~ .-ntll"'f!W"lTl'
",,,,r(II·.h,..l'Iltlll v:..w~ ... .,.o ~jftbl~ tr.QIt'" Tn ''''' *M ,,'&,...,~ hft. Itlhit"", ~t)
..... ~(""(O ItI( pq;.~,~",~" M ",,(On'" 1"r••". ".,,,,,,l!H. '*"91...., .... '1'111 t!"f.... t~ PQI'(:~ ". /I
"",t .1, ""tor(.",....,f'lt ..., ... 'fW} n Uld4'+" lIlIfIat l;Jutift.-":
lit",.
.t.i~~O!Ir.t .-;1 ... ..;,\01 {fi/j ~"'I(" ~'I (&f'!"y
.....,
IllIU'f {l11./I'fnOI: If' WjJ'r,.¥,~o;hi ... (fir, ",.~rt t1(,J'n (1m mtor(il':~"t
~ ,,/~ ti}l'f1l,.AL,. W 1JI"""dJtio;. ,,1'\ ~dl"'nl ..........;1" -with.., rrnlVU;-"'Mnl ~)' tr..tllll"."n ...
"'''1) 'lUI ,,1.11 !j",.~ 1'1 ... .q ... -t.bIoI. pt.,...... lirwt ~!.>f'4I.t:.tlt IJ",hfHt. Tlil . . t'!II.1i1O Ih.. we n..
,<J..~j'j f~ pt'ft'tlt)l<j,;}t (1'1... h.a..)~
r:. '"
• 'Ttl"" rtO.~ tYtlCq I!rt"i~{!1'ft11¥\t 01~<l1'(l.at
• tAc";or'!i ~~ .ftutt<l""ll:,' F'n!'l('(J.I~.
• em""" PtI1t:'C'WII#" SoenI« C4i/'f flV Cr-tlWt1 PTolllUl,Iibn :~~d Oc1.~ 1,100)
11"!"
• fWd ,.f,,!"';'\"1 11'10, ~*;, Nld'. ...
• tfI.Il"PNth R'9l'1tll ""'1 1 " , Itt4 t .... IvrCi\4.t< COoI"'...ntkrl\ ..", ~." JUth!:Ii.
YK will .1kI !.eft'll;d" wttl ."" llilAlAoItoty l'!I'IfoI"'nI~", jlIlac1l'll IOJ<;Il'I til' .~ ~~ lou .II'llIfhd 00....
_. .
t'A"!:tt"C,..#M 1'1 hl't# witt! 0.'" tM'3("tI{iI"
-...-
... ..,HI d' .... \.Ip , . .' 't.l1d~ M'W't ;I:I.I!: tI"Wt.vt'I"
~iQIt.f'Iof pw~ lJ,,,t ~ J:IIM.l
oil,.""
!11M f>oJ<t.lflftl ..-. . . ~, tlf HI.,.r ..... , w. WIll ,..,tuM Ita,. . ....,_d. Md.a\K ~.\ JI!."W~
(fum'" Th. w.!Id• • _1 "" fTi"", ..,.1." tr.> t.J,'"ItIft~ _1'14 qt:h.r. ¥rho.-. r..uffCf,
!If" ""Ill pr(W'IM 1014 rtttlfHl',<f\A1# Inf ... ",~ ~ .""'Ir.. I" .,...,. i.tI'Io-ll&fl' ~ '~It t ....... 1t ~"
'I,,, """ tf*'N. 0)1'\01"'''''.
""""Wf'IW'" .~ ~\M" tid.,." o,.,.....~ ....... U-
t1IW::lJ~~ <jotf'lvtoift •• w.K<t.. 'iIi~Jn.. (Jt j)"~.1tt-. .J\VWI. . . . ~1tWK1rot
~"' ..... w. ..Iit.t_ tc",...1t b\M,",",
*,"' \Iif'! da (jut 1lIoo;;It"l<
",.. ~!""'f$ Nt II"/I'I(''I'N!",", '. kO'i,1 thlP\ fur., ..,d <Nf M~ ~lI[jf{lt". '''.0111'41 HtMtfy ~1l'1i
0\11'" htl'INt$" f .. ilI""'~ ,em 411'\11 A,~I _," 1(j~oII;"4">t' W.... II pr ....,"" • ttllJt't.I'III.K....., .ftftI(.""'.....
'.t14''t'III' ~!f _ ~"";~"'.!J' MAl«" Nt ........ ~.. M.O(I d\tr.t"'T\MI"" """'" It' ... .-- ............ ...
~ ~
I«I .. r",,,... pt'1K1i(\lI!tW•., .,m<>f(<':mI}#A WlIYI"~ ...4t ~ nllf\,"'(I'fely (0 '0I\'hrl~11!d ItJ ft"f!,wmq.,
fl."",
<}\If
1,oI',"....·.~...., I'IW!'W,.1 JtWI flflW'
..,,, ..,/11 IY..JVfI''''~ thf: ioJ1.1 v, (o-'lt*"no;e It.... OIl$/f'NR ""'MINJ' ."<.1 ~'''9 pt'~_1V("
".....""... Ant'J:oy ,.n.",.~ t'f\IIt .JOt .c'hO\"> •• ",.,t.'" .. ~~"lb m. " ... rttr fhf<
~ ...."'.,.'" ,.01 th.. rq<fO!ll''\ .. ~ .,... ~~"""'. A<i fbt .. u.. t•• ~, _ .......,.... ..u"",,. (Jof
Page 9 of 9
Subject: Re: Subject Access Request

Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 10:37 AM
To: <MGingell@worcestershire.gov.uk>
CLAIMANT EXHlBITNUMBER 017
Hi Mark-
Last year, or earlier this year, we were approached by a mother looking

for (I believe) a one week "work study" placement for her daughter. The
young lady was a student at the Chase, and a minor.
This involved a vetting visit by your colleagues: I think they were from the
education sector of the Council.
I hope this is adequate information to answer your question.
Regards
Craig
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd.
** Sent from my Blackberry **
From: Gingell, Mark (ACS, Cultural Services)

To: Craig Walsh
Sent: Tue Sep 09 04:49:24 2008
Subject: Subject Access Request
Dear Mr. Walsh,
I am currently progreSSing your enquiry but I have a query relating to
your request to information held by education colleagues, namely "work
study programmes". I have checked with staff in the Education
department and they are not aware of "work study programmes". They
have asked me to clarify with you what you mean by this term and also
when these programmes took place so they are able to assist you. If you
clarify this point I would be grateful.
Page 1 of 3
Yours sincerely
Mark Gingell
Archivist (Acquisition & Processing)
Adult & Community Services
Corporate Information Management Unit
County Hall
Spetchley Road
Worcester
Worcestershire
WR52NP
Tel. (01905)766694
Fax (01905) 766698
email: mgingell@worcestershire.gov.uk
http://sid:8081/welcome/acs-cul-cimu-infomanmt <http://sid:8081/
welcome/acs-cul-cimu-infomanmt>
*****************************************************************
*****
Disclaimer
Page 2 of 3
Saturday. September 20,20082:37 PM
Subject: RE: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:42 AM
To: <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Tom
Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>
Hi, Judy- CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 0 If
We are n ow back at Whitecroft, and will be here for the remainder of the day.
We look forward to the delivery of the hard drive and disc, as promised.
Please confirm.
Thanks again,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

To: 'JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk'
Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh; 'Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk'; 'talwells@btinternet.com'
Subject: Re: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your
Reference TJB/3163/LH
Hi Judy-
Thank you very much for your continued help.
I'm sorry to nag.
Page 1 of 11
Marjorie and I feel that our home was violated in January, and we want -- and you have
agreed to provide -- the complete return of our data (all of our data) today.
Non-reply from your colleagues in Trading Standards is not (at least in my humble opinion)
acceptable, and we would resectfully ask that you escalate this within the Council if
necessary.
The failure, so far, to provide the name and address of the external "expert" is of some
concern to me. Why the apparent secrecy?
I look forward to the return of our data today, as previously agreed.
Kind regards
Craig
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd.
From: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)

To: Craig Walsh
Sent: Thu Sep 11 03:28:54 2008
Subject: RE: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your
Good morning Mr Walsh,1 did forward your request to Trading Standards but did not
receive a reply. I have done the same with your latest e-mail so that they are aware of
your availability. If I hear anything personally I will contact you. Thanks for supplying details
of your availability today. It is very helpful. Kind regards, Judy Armitage
From: Craig Walsh [mailto:craig@hmdp.com]
To: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)
Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade; Tom Wells
Subject: RE: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. -
Your Reference TJB/3163/LH
Importance: High
Hi, Judy ---
I haven't received a reply to my e-mail sent yesterday afternoon

(copied, below, for your convenience).
Page 2 of l3
We will be available most of the day tomorrow, but will be out in the
morning (9:00 - 11:00-ish). There are always people at Lucies Farm
Ltd. to sign for a delivery, but in view of the nature of this "parcel" I'm
sure you will agree that it would be better if we signed for it
persona lIy.
I will have my Blackberry with me, so will be able to receive --- and
respond --- to e-mail messages.
We could also stop by the Council offices in the morning, while we are
out doing errands, to pick up the hard drive and disc if that would be
more convenient.
We would expect to receive --- please --- the name and contact details
of the external"expert" at the time of the delivery of the data. I have
requested this in a couple of e-mail messages, but so far the
information has not been forthcoming.
I can see no reason for this information to be withheld. We are

entitled to their details (as they have had our personal data in their
possession) under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I
just need their name and address, please.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
Page 3 of 13
- ----------
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade; Tom Wells
Subject: Re: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. -
Dear Judy:
My apologies for the e-mail sent to you at 12:53 PM. I meant to save
it as a draft on my laptop, and my pudgy fingers hit "send" instead.
I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Thank you, and Mr. Wilkes, for undertaking to deliver the hard drive
(containing all of our data) and the disc (containing the report) to
Lucies Farm Ltd. on Thursday of this week. This is convenient for us: it
would be helpful to know the approximate time of delivery so that I
can be at the farm to personally receive the drive and disc.
I was, however, concerned to hear that an external consultant was still

in possession of our data. This is inconsistent with information
provided by Ms. Blanchard and Mr. Dell on numerous occasions to our
customers. In an e-mail to one of our customers sent by Ms.
Blanchard on 18 August 2008 (3:49 PM), and forwarded to me by our
customer, Ms. Blanchard wrote:

for Lucies Farm.

Page 4 of 13
This does not appear to be quite truthful based upon your e-mail this
morning. It now seems that not "all the information is contained on a
disc which is held in secure storage at the Trading Standards Service,
with restricted access." I now understand that your external computer
expert is also holding a copy of our data, and this was certainly the
case on 18 August when Ms. Blanchard sent this e-mail message.
When the drive and disc are returned on Thursday --- or before --- I
would appreciate the Council's simple undertaking that no other
copies of our data have been made or retained.
As I mentioned in earlier messages, my wife and I are particularly

concerned by the involvement of external individuals with the seizure
of our data. We wish to personally file data disclosure requests with
the as-yet-unnamed external expert.
In an undated report by Paul Hine of the Malvern Hills District Council,

providing a "written report of the search under Animal Welfare Act
2006 Schedule 2, Section 13A," Paul wrote that the "multi-agency
visit" included "Phil Hatton Computer Forensic LT. Expert and his
[unnamed] assistant." Paul's report says, liThe IT Forensic Officers
commenced the mirroring and downloading of files relating to the
animal boarding business from the computers found, while the office
[in our residence] was searched for papers relating to the animal
boarding business."
I have searched the Register of Data Controllers on the ICO website ---
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp --- for either Phil
Hatton, Philip Hatton, or Phillip Hatton. The only registration I could
find was for Philip John Hatton in St. Albans --- and he does not appear
to be in the computer forensics business.
Can you please, as a matter of some urgency, provide me with the

Page 5 of 13
name and address of the entity you call "our expert" in your e-mail
message sent to me this morning? We will then be able to confirm
their registration under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and will be
able to send them our disclosure requests.
We would like this information as soon as possible. As you know, the

DPA allows a fixed time for the disclosure of data, so the sooner we an
file our requests the better. I hope this isn't a huge imposition on you
or Mr. Wilkes. I simply need the name of the firm and their address.
Again, my apologies for the incomplete e-mail sent to you earlier.

Thank you again for your assistance in this unfortunate matter.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
Luciea Far.m Ltd. * Colletta Green * Worcester * WR2
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
Sent from my MacBook

Date: Tue, 9 5ep 2008 07:53:30 -0400
To: "Armitage, Judy (C5, Consumer Relations)"
<JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm
Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH

Page 6 of 13
for Lucies Farm.

Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hote1.co.uk

****************************************************

[mailto:JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk]
To: Craig Walsh
Good morning Mr Walsh, I have just heard from Mr Wilkes who tells me that
our expert has a hard drive with the data on, which we will give you, along with
a disc with the report on. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get the hard drive
until Thursday. They have offered to drop it into you at Lucie's Farm. Is this
convenient for you? Kind regards, Judy Armitage
Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade; Gingell, Mark (ACS, Cultural Services);
Tom Wells
Page 7 of 13
Hi, Judy ---
Thank you for your quick reply. I appreciate it.
I understand that Mr. Wilkes has 20 working days, from

yesterday, to respond to my complaints --- and that's fine.
In the meantime, however, we would like our data disc back, as

well as a copy of your computer expert's report. Your colleagues
in Trading Standards said that they would be destroying the disc,
and I don't want them to do that. But on the other hand, we
don't want the disc (and data contained therein) to remain in the
Council's possession any longer than absolutely necessary. I
see no reason why the disc can't be handed over today or
tomorrow.
In addition, we --- quite reasonably --- wish to request disclosure

under the provisions of the Data Protection Act from the external
computer forensic expert(s) employed by the Council. We were
advised by Mr. Dell that the expert's report would be sent to us
"as soon as possible," and that was over five months ago.
So while we accept that the Council will need time to respond

formally to our complaints, we would in the meantime appreciate
the immediate return of our data disc, and a copy of the
computer report (as already promised to us in March).
Can you please arrange for this as a matter of some urgency?
If the Council feels that it can't comply with this simple request
(and non-compliance will, I fear, ultimately be reviewed by the
Local Government Ombudsman), can we at least have the name
and address of the external expert?
We feel that we now have no choice but to involve the

Information Commissioner's Office in this matter, to review the
handling by the Council and its external expert of the data seized
from my computer. We will now reluctantly lodge a complaint
with the ICO and ask them to please independently review the
handling of our data following the seizure to be sure that it was
Page 8 of 13
in full compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act
1998.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd.

Sent: 09 September 200808:12
To: Craig Walsh
Good morning Mr Walsh, I have asked Simon Wilkes ( Unit Manager,

Operations) to investigate your complaints.He has 20 working days from
yesterday to respond to you. Kind regards, Judy Armitage
Cc: Dell, John (ES, TSS); Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade;
talwells@btinternet.com
Subject: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your
Importance: High
Dear Ms. Armitage:
You were in the office early this morning --- I see that you read mye-
mail message just before 8:00 AM.
While I appreciate it will take the Council time to reply to my formal

complaint, it shouldn't take long to simply hand over the disc
containing our data and your computer expert's report. Your
colleagues --- Mr. Dell and Ms. Blanchard --- assured our solicitor that
Page 9 of 13
the computer expert's report would "be forwarded to your client as
soon as possible." This undertaking was provided by Mr. Dell on 19
March 2008 --- over five months ago --- but we never received the
report. I have re-confirmed this with Mr. deMaid at William Graham
Law this morning: he advised me, "I can't see I ever received any
report from their expert."
You will appreciate that we do not wish our data disc to remain in the
possession of the Council any longer. So while we acknowledge it will
take you --- or the Senior Manager responsible for the operations of
Trading Standards --- time to provide us with a detailed reply to our
complaint, it won't take more than five minutes to run off a copy of
the expert's report, and to provide us with the original disc. (No
copies of the disc are to be kept --- Trading Standards has already
agreed to that.)
I would, therefore, like to send a messenger to pick up a copy of the

computer expert's report and the disc tomorrow, Tuesday. Please
advise where the messenger should present himself. I will e-mail you
with the name of the messenger, and provide him (or her) with a letter
of authorisation.
In the alternative, a representative from the Council can hand-deliver

this material to Lucies Farm Ltd. We're less than five miles from your
offices.
We have today delivered our personal requests (in Marjorie's and my

name) for disclosure under the provisions of the Data Protection Act,
and the Company's request for disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act. Your colleague receipted our forms and our Stg 20.00
payment, and copied our passports. The 40 day "clock" is now ticking
on these disclosure requests. We have every reason to believe that
the Council will provide us with full disclosure within the letter --- and
spirit --- of the two Acts.
Please let me know (e-mail would be best) where and when the disc
and copy of the report can be picked up.
Page 10 of 13
Thank you, Ms. Armitage, for your kind assistance in this matter. I am
sorry to be (for want of a better word) "pushy," but we have been very
distressed by what we believe was the illegal removal of data from my
personal computer, and I want the data disc back without delay. I
want to see what personal information may have been reviewed by
the Council and its computer forensic expert. I believe that anyone in
my position would feel the same way.
We also need a copy of the report so that we can serve disclosure

requests upon your expert. We understand that he was not a Council
employee.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig' W. Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd. * Colletts Green * Worcester * WR2
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
From: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)"

Date: Mon, 8 Sep 200802:59:35 -0400
Subject: Read: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/LH
Your message
To: Dell, John (ES, TSS)

Page 11 of 13
Cc: lewis, Simon (CS, legal & Dem Servs); Cooper, Elaine (ACS,
Cultural Services); Blanchard, Tracy (ES, TSS); Slade, Richard; Marjorie
J. Walsh; Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations);
david.demaid@wglawltd.co.uk
Subject: lucies Farm ltd. - Your Reference TJB/3163/lH
Sent: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 19:07:47 +0100
was read on Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:59:35 +0100
*********************************************************
*************
may
Disclaimer
and
Monitoring of Email
Worcestershire County Council may monitor traffic data and the
content
*********************************************************
*************
Page 12 of 13
Saturday. September 20,20082:36 PM
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Case 2007-1007 - Second Message I Q

Date: Thursday, September 11, 200810:47 PM CLAIMANTEXHIBITNUMBER.~O I
____
To: <Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk>
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Richard Slade
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, "Dell, John (ES, TSS)"
<JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>, David DeMaid
<david.demaid@wglawltd.co.uk>
Dear Mr. Hatton ---
I have just opened your report on my PC --- instead of my MacBook --- and I now
see that it has an auto-run feature. Your introductory screen shows that this
report was prepared not for the Worcestershire County Council, but for the
Malvern Hills District Council (MHDC).
Here's a screen capture:
Ilyilill luUII UilllllllilllulllillpUr l

Ca.e 2007.107
SUbJect: Lucie. farm Ltd
SUbmitter: Malyem Hili. Dlstlct Council
Prepared by: P. Hatton TD BA(Hon., MTSI MBca

DTS
Information Next Page

UlillUll
I had assumed, prior to seeing this auto-run screen a few minutes ago, that you
were hired by the Worcestershire County Council, and your report submitted
only to their Trading Standards Department. I certainly obtained your report,
today, from the County Council.
It now appears that you may have been hired by the MHDC or may have also
provided your report to them. A report that I now see includes such personal
Page 1 of 6
items as a listing of my wife's jewellery (prepared for our insurance company),
personal medical information, privileged correspondence sent to our solicitors,
etc.
Does this mean that our personal data was also sent to the MHDC? If so, then
Ms. Blanchard's assurance to our customer (sent by her at 3:49 PM on 18 August
2008) becomes even more misleading and inaccurate:
{(All the information is contained on a disc which is held in secure storage at the
Trading Standards Service, with restricted access. Information examined has
been limited to the customer contact list. I am therefore unable to tell you
whether or not your credit card details are contained on this disc, but such
information will definitely not be accessed."
Please immediately confirm if you have also sent your CD-ROM to the District
Council, and, jf so, the name of the person at the MHDC who received this
information. We are entitled to this information under the provisions of the
Data Protection Act 1998 --- your response is not optional. While responding,
please advise the name and contact details of all other parties that may have
received this CD-ROM.
I look forward to hearing from you in response to the foregoing question, and to
my earlier e-mail, as a matter of urgency.
I am, as you may appreciate, incandescent with rage at the manner in which our
personal details have apparently been handled, by someone who hasn't even
taken the time (apparently) to register under the provisions of the Data
Protection Act.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
Page 2 of 6
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

To: Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations); Richard Slade; Marjorie J. Walsh; Dell, John
(ES, TSS); Tom Wells; David DeMaid
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Case 2007-1007
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Hatton ---
We have just received a CD-ROM (labelled "Copy of Report for Mr. C. Walsh-
11-9-08") and a hard drive in a tape cassette box from the Trading Standards
Department at Worcestershire County Council.
Included on the CD-ROM are an undated, unsigned IIStatement of Witness"

apparently prepared by you on 5 May 2008, a copy of your CV dated 9 July 2007,
and your "Standard Terms and Conditions" dated 9 April 2007.
I understand from your "Statement of Witness" that you and your colleague, Mr.
Andrew Turner, came into our residence on 10 January 2008 and --- among
other things --- took copies of many of the files on my computer and the file
server. According to your statement: "I decided that the most appropriate
means of recovering the Outlook PST file containing the calendar data was to
remove that hard drive from system 2007-107-01, connect it to my portable
forensic PC system and perform a preview of the data using Encase software. I
did this and accessed the contents of the drive. I then copied all Outlook files, all
Microsoft Word and Excel documents and data folders for Sage and Quicken
accounts onto a hard drive installed in my PC system. [ ... J I identified material of
potential interest on the PC system identified as POICSERVER. I determined that
this system was the PC tower located in an upstairs bedroom. This system
consisted of an older Dell PC tower and an external data storage device. For a
Page 3 of 6
number of reasons I decided that shutting this system down and imaging or
previewing the drives would not be appropriate and so I accessed the material
via the network connection from system 2007-107-02 and copied it onto an
external storage hard drive I had brought with me."
You then explain, "On 10 January 2008 Mr TURNER copied all the recovered data
onto a laboratory hard drive and made a further archive copy. On 5 May 2008 I
examined the data. I identified the particular Outlook PST file and imported it
into an installation of Outlook which did not contain any data. I determined that
what appeared to be dog's names had been entered on various days from
January 2005 to January 2008. I produced a series of weekly printouts detailing
this information which forms part of appendix B. A version of this listing in
Adobe PDF format is present on the working disc. I then organised the data I had
recovered from system 2007-107-01 by file type (e.g. Word, Excel etc) and
subsequently copied this material to the working disc. I left the material from
system 2007- 107-04 as originally organised and also copied this to the working
disc."
From your statements it seems clear that copies of our data were, at least from
10 January 2008 until 5 May 2008 --- and, more likely, from 10 January 2008
until yesterday or today --- under your control and supervision. As you took
copies of all Word and Excel documents, this included such items as my letters
to the NHS and my solicitors concerning my disability, my letters concerning our
personal finances, etc.
It was my intention to send you a subject access request under the provisions of
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) but I was amazed to note that you do not
appear to be registered as a data controller under the provisions of the DPA. I
have checked register on the Information Commissioner's Office website:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp
using your name, post code, etc., but have not found a registration. Wishing to
give you every benefit of the doubt, I also called the ICO, and they have
confirmed that you are not currently registered, nor were you registered
during the time period in which you were handling our personal data, as well
as data belonging to Lucies Farm Ltd.
Page 4 of 6
There are limited exemptions to registration, but none would seem to apply to
you in this instance.
While our data was in your possession, the Council was advising our customers,
"All the information is contained on a disc which is held in secure storage at the
Trading Standards Service, with restricted access. Information examined has
been limited to the customer contact list. I am therefore unable to tell you
whether or not your credit card details are contained on this disc, but such
information will definitely not be accessed." But it now appears that this was
not completely correct. While one copy of the information may have been held
on the disc "held in secure storage," it is becoming increasingly evident that
another, more extensive copy our data was held by you --- someone not
registered under the DPA.
I would appreciate your confirmation that you do not continue to hold any of
our data, and would appreciate any comment you may wish to make about your
apparent failure to register your business to comply with the DPA.
My wife and I may have no choice other than to file a formal complaint with the
ICO about the handling of our data by you and by the Council. I am sending you
this e-mail in the spirit of fairness, to give you a few days to offer your
comments in the hope that a formallCO complaint will not be necessary.
To illustrate the seriousness of this matter, attached is a copy of a PDF document

that I just downloaded from the ICO website.
I find it incredible that the County Council, while investigating our alleged
violation of various laws, would themselves use an external consultant to handle
our data who appears --- at least based upon the information I've gathered this
afternoon --- to have violated the provisions of the DPA.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Page 5 of 6
Claiming compensation
Mow dol mob _ claim fo,
ilomlNMatlon?
Yov do not lint to "'• • clal.. to.
..,.,1uIfan.....
HUI't 1f... to ...,
you co........ IItioft.. you'-"'-"
......-.a.......... can...,.,
you
... cowt for '.''''In'.Ioft ........ or
~ ..... COIIIIIIIM VOW cIIIIm willi ...
........ to put ...... . , ....MII of ....
Act.
Th4tlnfolmtollOft CommIHloMr AIIA04

Mm'IIc~_""''''
......111I11III111 . . . .....
.......i..lion did ............ Act. Y....

-Ulltlllllntt.............. to.
-'-
V2.0
20.'206
Page 4 of 4
Saturday. September 20, 2008 2:52 PM
r.:LA TMANT EXHTRTT NUMBER 0 20
From: Phill Hatton [mailto:forensic-computing@bulldog-office.com]

To: Craig Walsh
Cc: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations); Slade, Richard; Marjorie J.
Walsh; Dell, John (ES, TSS); Tom Wells; David DeMaid
Subject: Re: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Case 2007-1007 - Second Message
MrWalsh
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In response to your points:
1} I do not need to be registered under the Data Protection Act as I am not a

data controller - I merely process other organisations' data (e.g. police forces
and other enforcement bodies) on their behalf. Any Data Protection requests
should be directed to the organisation siezing the data (in this case
Worcestershire Trading Standards). However a number of exemptions apply
because the information was obtained for the prevention or detection of crime.
2) I have confirmed that I am not required to register under the DPA with the
ICO this morning, although I already knew this was the case.
3) My initial understanding was that Malvern Hills District Council were

employing me for the investigation and commissioning the report. Thus their
name appeared as the submittors. In the event, after the warrant execution, all
my dealings were with Trading Standards and I ultimately sent the report to
them. I have not sent a copy of my report, either electronic or paper, to MHDC.
In my experience this is not an unusual state of affairs when dealing with a
mUlti-agency investigation of this type.
Page 1 of 9
4) You have commented that the witness statement on the disc is not dated or
signed. The signed paper version (dated 5 May 2008) is with Trading Standards.
5) The hard drive with which you have been supplied contains a copy of all the
data recovered from your system (and a copy of the material forming my
report). In general terms the seizure of data not directly related to the case
under investigation is regulated by Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act
2001 which clearly allows such seizure in the circumstances. In any event in this
era of proceeds of crime investigations personal data of many kinds may be
relevant to the case.
6) I have no personal knowledge of any statements made to you or your

customers by Trading Standards staff.and can make no comment on such
matters.
7) I continue to hold two copies of the data recovered from your system. The
material supplied on hard drive to you is a further third copy I have made. I hold
this data on behalf of Trading Standards and will delete it in a secure manner
when instructed to do so by them. I understand that various matters are still on-
going, including requests and complaints made by yourself and that deletion of
the data could prejudice responses to these matters. Any requests for this data
to be deleted should be made directly to Trading Standards and not to me.
8) To anticipate an inevitable further question I hold two copies in case technical

issues or hardware malfunction render one inaccessible.
9) The hard drive supplied contains a copy of ALL the data I have relating to your
case, other than various e-mails etc.to and from Trading Standards and the
physical paper versions of my forms and contemporaneous notes (scanned
copies of which have been supplied).
10) The data I currently hold is being stored in a secure manner at my premises.
I am not prepared to discuss these security arrangements with you but they
have been found appropriate by a range of police and law enforcement clients.
11) In all matters pertaining to this case I have acted as an agent of

Worcestershire Trading Standards and MHDC. I do not believe there is any
Page 2 of 9
further benefit in you communicating directly with me over these matters and
request that further communications, data protection requests etc. be directed
to the appropriate agency. Any issues requiring my action or comment can then
be forwarded to me.
Regards
Phill Hatton
Craig Walsh wrote:
Dear Mr. Hatton ---
I have just opened your report on my PC --- instead of my MacBook ---

and I now see that it has an auto-run feature. Your introductory
screen shows that this report was prepared not for the
Worcestershire County CounGiI, but for the Malvern Hi/Is District
Council (MHDC).
Here's a screen capture:
Page 3 of 9
IIlyl LeallaUtd tlillllllJilllullliapuf L
Ca.e 2007.107
Subject: Lucie. Parm Ltd
Submitter: Malvem Hili. Df.tlct Council
Prepared by: P. Hatton TD BA(Hon.) MTSI MBca

DTS
. "'--Ie
...1-"....
•
Information Next Paee

1111 (lull
I had assumed, prior to seeing this auto-run screen a few minutes

ago, that you were hired by the Worcestershire County Council, and
your report submitted only to their Trading Standards Department. I
certainly obtained your report, today, from the County Council.
It now appears that you may have been hired by the MHDC or may
have also provided your report to them. A report that I now see
includes such personal items as a listing of my wife's jewellery
(prepared for our insurance company), personal medical information,
privileged correspondence sent to our solicitors, etc.
Does this mean that our personal data was also sent to the MHDC? If
so, then Ms. Blanchard's assurance to our customer (sent by her at
3:49 PM on 18 August 2008) becomes even more misleading and
inaccurate:
IlAIl the information is contained on a disc which is held in secure

storage at the Trading Standards Service, with restricted access.
Page 4 of 9
Information examined has been limited to the customer contact list.
I am therefore unable to tell you whether or not your credit card
details are contained on this disc, but such information will definitely
not be accessed."
Please immediately confirm if you have also sent your CD-ROM to the
District Council, and, if so, the name of the person at the MHDC who
received this information. We are entitled to this information under
the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 --- your response is not
optional. While responding, please advise the name and contact
details of all other parties that may have received this CD-ROM.
I look forward to hearing from you in response to the foregoing

question, and to my earlier e-mail, as a matter of urgency.
I am, as you may appreciate, incandescent with rage at the manner in

which our personal details have apparently been handled, by
someone who hasn't even taken the time (apparently) to register
under the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W Walsh
Page 5 of 9
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com <http://www.luciesfarm.com>
www.dog-hotel.co.uk <http://www.dog
hotel.co.uk>
See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch <http://

www.bark.ch>
****************************************************
From: Craig Walsh

To: Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations); Richard Slade; Marjorie J.
Walsh; Dell, John (ES, TSS); Tom Wells; David DeMaid
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. - Case 2007-1007
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Hatton ---
We have just received a CD-ROM (labelled "Copy of Report for Mr. C.

Walsh - 11-9-08") and a hard drive in a tape cassette box from the
Trading Standards Department at Worcestershire County Council.
Included on the CD-ROM are an undated, unsigned "Statement of

Witness" apparently prepared by you on 5 May 2008, a copy of your
CV dated 9 July 2007, and your "Standard Terms and Conditions"
dated 9 April 2007.
Page 6 of 9
I understand from your "Statement of Witness" that you and your
colleague, Mr. Andrew Turner, came into our residence on 10 January
2008 and --- among other things --- took copies of many of the files on
my computer and the file server. According to your statement: "I
decided that the most appropriate means of recovering the Outlook
PST file containing the calendar data was to remove that hard drive
from system 2007-107-01, connect it to my portable forensic PC
system and perform a preview of the data using Encase software. I did
this and accessed the contents of the drive. I then copied all Outlook
files, all Microsoft Word and Excel documents and data folders for
Sage and Quicken accounts onto a hard drive installed in my PC
system. [ ... ] I identified material of potential interest on the PC system
identified as POICSERVER. I determined that this system was the PC
tower located in an upstairs bedroom. This system consisted of an
older Dell PC tower and an external data storage device. For a number
of reasons I decided that shutting this system down and imaging or
previewing the drives would not be appropriate and so I accessed the
material via the network connection from system 2007-107-02 and
copied it onto an external storage hard drive I had brought with me."
You then explain, liOn 10 January 2008 Mr TURNER copied all the
recovered data onto a laboratory hard drive and made a further
archive copy. On 5 May 2008 I examined the data. I identified the
particular Outlook PST file and imported it into an installation of
Outlook which did not contain any data. I determined that what
appeared to be dog's names had been entered on various days from
January 2005 to January 2008. I produced a series of weekly printouts
detailing this information which forms part of appendix B. A version of
this listing in Adobe PDF format is present on the working disc. I then
organised the data I had recovered from system 2007-107-01 by file
type (e.g. Word, Excel etc) and subsequently copied this material to
the working disc. I left the material from system 2007- 107-04 as
originally organised and also copied this to the working disc."
>From your statements it seems clear that copies of our data were, at
least from 10 January 2008 until 5 May 2008 --- and, more likely, from
10 January 2008 until yesterday or today --- under your control and
Page 7 of 9
supervision. As you took copies of all Word and Excel documents, this
included such items as my letters to the NHS and my solicitors
concerning my disability, my letters concerning our personal finances,
etc.
It was my intention to send you a subject access request under the

provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) but I was amazed to
note that you do not appear to be registered as a data controller
under the provisions of the DPA. I have checked register on the
Information Commissioner's Office website:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp
using your name, post code, etc., but have not found a registration.
Wishing to give you every benefit of the doubt, I also called the lCD,
and they have confirmed that you are not currently registered, nor
were you registered during the time period in which you were
handling our personal data, as well as data belonging to Lucies Farm
Ltd.
There are limited exemptions to registration, but none would seem to

apply to you in this instance.
While our data was in your possession, the Council was advising our
customers, "All the information is contained on a disc which is held in
secure storage at the Trading Standards Service, with restricted
contact list. I am therefore unable to tell you whether or not your
credit card details are contained on this disc, but such information
will definitely not be accessed." But it now appears that this was not
completely correct. While one copy of the information may have
been held on the disc "held in secure storage," it is becoming
increasingly evident that another, more extensive copy our data was
held by you --- someone not registered under the DPA.
I would appreciate your confirmation that you do not continue to hold

any of our data, and would appreciate any comment you may wish to
make about your apparent failure to register your business to comply
Page 8 of 9
with the DPA.
My wife and I may have no choice other than to file a formal

complaint with the ICO about the handling of our data by you and by
the Council. I am sending you this e-mail in the spirit of fairness, to
give you a few days to offer your comments in the hope that a formal
ICO complaint will not be necessary.
To illustrate the seriousness of this matter, attached is a copy of a PDF

document that I just downloaded from the ICO website.
I find it incredible that the County Council, while investigating our

alleged viola1jon of various laws, would themselves use an external
consultant to handle our data who appears --- at least based upon the
in/ormation I've gathered this afternoon --- to have violated the
provisions of the DPA.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig- W. Walsh
Lucies Far.m Ltd. * Colletts Green * Worcester * WR2
4RY
******************************************************
*01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
Phill Hatton Forensic Computing Ltd T/A Phill Hatton Forensic Computing - Company Registration Number 5416004 -
VAT Number 834 8927 86
Registered office address 37a Bridgnorth Road, Compton, Wolverhampton WV6 8AF (Accountants)
Director: P. Hatton. Company Secretary: JA Hatton.
Page 9 of 9
Subject: RE: Phill Hatton Forensic Computing

Date: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:07 PM
From: Craig Walsh <craig@hmdp.com> CLAIMANT EXHmITNUMBER O'~I
To: <lindysheppard@f3.org.uk>
Hi, Lindy --

You have gone beyond the call of duty --- thank you for your kind
assistance.
I am, however, a bit confused by your comment that Mr. Hatton is not
required to be registered under the DPA 1998. I had a long conversation
with the Information Commissioner's Office yesterday in which I
explained the role I understood Mr. Hatton had played with the handling
of our personal data. The ICO advised that registration was required.
It would be helpful to me to understand why you indicate his
registration under the DPA is not compulsory. He was an independent
contractor, handling (as best I can tell) our personal data and that of
our many customers in his home in wolverhampton.
I hope you can clarify this point alone --- and then, I promise, I won't
trouble you (or the F3) again.
Thank you again for your help.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: lindysheppard@f3.org.uk [mailto:lindysheppard@f3.org.uk]
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: Re: Phill Hatton Forensic Computing
Dear Mr Walsh
Having spoken with Mr Hatton, who is indeed a member of our
organisation, I
can confirm that when he states:
flI am a member of the F3 computer forensics practitioner group
> and regularly attend training days, workshops, and conferences
arranged
by
> this organization."
Page 1 of 3
he is entirely correct in so saying. You should not be concerned that
Mr
Hatton is not registered under the DPA 1998 as he is not required to
be ...• but could of course register if he so wished.
As for his post nominals, I would suggest you 'Google' them individually
I would appreciate if, as far as I am concerned, this email draws this
matter to a close
Regards
Lindy C Sheppard (Sec, F3)
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:53:48 -0400, Craig Walsh <craig@hmdp.com> wrote:

> Hi, Lindy --
>
> Nice speaking with you this morning.
>
> As discussed, I am checking the references given by Mr. Hatton in a CV
he
> provided to the Worcestershire County Council. The Council has
concluded
> their investigation, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
(Because
we
> weren't doing anything wrong.) The Council has just provided us with
a
> CD-ROM containing Mr. Hatton's report, including his CV and his
marketing
> literature, and have also provided us with the hard drive containing
the
> "mirror" of our data.
>
> To start at the beginning --- 10 January 2008 --- Mr. Hatton and his
> colleague Andrew Turner came into our home (exclusively our home --
we
> have a farm office elsewhere) and took a "mirror" copy of my personal
hard
> drive. As far as I can ascertain, neither Mr. Hatton nor his business
are
> registered under the Data Protection Act 1998.
>
> Our personal data (medical records, letters to our solicitor, personal
> financial correspondence, a spreadsheet showing my wife's jewellery,
etc. )
> was apparently taken back to Mr. Hatton's home. Five months later (in
May)
> he sent his report to the Worcestershire County Council.
Worcestershire
> Trading Standards used his report to write to virtually all of the
farm's
> customers in mid-August. Our customers have been very supportive,
while
at
> the same time asking me, "How did the Council get my name, address,
dog's
> name, and even my dog's breed?"
Page 2 of 3
>
> It appears at all times the "mirror" was in Mr. Hatton's possession,
> presumably in his home.
>
> I am now checking Mr. Hatton's credentials. I am not trying to pry,
but
> simply to confirm the various qualifications he has listed on his cv.
>
> He states, flI am a member of the F3 computer forensics practitioner
group
> and regularly attend training days, workshops, and conferences
arranged
by
> this organization."
>
> I am simply trying to confirm the veracity of this statement.
>
> If possible, I would appreciate your assistance on this point. We, by
the
> way, are registered under the DPA 1998.
>
> I am also trying to figure out what the letters mean after his name
TD
> MTSI MBSC DTS. Any assistance in translating this code would also be
most
> appreciated.
>
> Thank you again for whatever assistance you are able to provide to me.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Craig
>
> Craig W Walsh
> Lucies Farm Ltd * Col letts Green * Worcester WR2 4RY
> ****************************************************
> t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
> In the United States: 888-880-1531
> www.luciesfarm.com
> www.dog-hotel.co.uk
> See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch
> Registered in England Company Registration 03521405
> ****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. and Craig & Marjorie Walsh - Return of Data
Date: Friday, September 12, 2008 S:24 PM
To: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Dell, John (ES, TSS)" <JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, <Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk>,
Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Tom Wells
<talwells@btinternet.com>
Hi, Judy ---

CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBBll 02 ~
We continue to go through the contents of the CD-ROM that was delivered to us

yesterday. My wife, Marjorie, is going through each file --- one by one --- to see
what information was taken from my computer and from the server.
As you can see, below, Marjorie just noted an ominous line in Mr. Hatton's
report about a "further archive copy."
Yesterday your colleague delivered a hard drive to us, as well as a CD-ROM. It is

a bit of a worry that the CD-ROM indicates it's a "copy."
And now there is the concern that Mr. Hatton, or his colleague, may have yet
another copy of our data.
Can you, and your colleagues, once and for all assure us that no copies of our
data have been retained by either the County Councilor by Mr. Hatton, his
company, or any of his associates?
We want to be absolutely certain that all ofour data has been returned to us,
and that no copies have been retained --- anywhere.
I look forward to hearing from you in response to this simple enquiry. Please
bear in mind that in Ms. Blanchard's letter of 4 September 2008 sent to all of our
customers she assured them, "Please be assured that all data containing
personal records will now be destroyed."
It goes without saying that all means just that --- all.
Kind regards,
Craig
Page 1 of 2
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Marjorie J. Walsh

To: Craig Walsh
Subject: Phill Hatton
In his report under "Subsequent Activities" he reports that:
On 10 January 2008 Mr TURNER copied all the recovered data onto a

laboratory hard drive and made a further archive copy.
So, does he have another copy?
Page 2 of 2
Subject: FW: Message is infected: FW: Possible False Positive [KLAB-64841871

Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:38 PM
To! "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Dell, John (ES, TSS)" <JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard
Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, <Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk>
Priority: Highest 0'" ~
Hi Judy --
t":LA1MA~lT EXmBIT NUMBER
'-----
V
Further to my e-mail message sent to you yesterday morning (9:18 AM) we

sent the "suspicious" file from Mr. Hatton's CD-ROM to the Kaspersky
laboratory for analysis.
We use the latest Kaspersky anti-virus software, and it told us a
particular programme on the CD-ROM contained a harmful virus.
Although we received no reply from you or your colleagues to my message,
I am glad to say that Kaspersky has confirmed the virus alert was a
"false positive." (Please scroll down to see their message.)
You will certainly appreciate our concern that the CD-ROM provided to us
by the Worcestershire County Council was initially identified as
contained malware.
I again ask --- and my patience in asking the same question without the
courtesy of a reply is almost exhausted --- for confirmation the neither
the Worcestershire County Council, its independent consultant (Mr.
Hatton), or any other party has retained a copy of the data seized from
our premises on 10 January 2008.
Can you please raise this as a matter of urgency with your colleagues,
and, if necessary, with their line managers or more senior managers?
This is an entirely reasonable question for us to ask, and I would
appreciate the courtesy of a clear, unambiguous response in the next day
or two.
I look forward to hearing from you, Judy, on this point.
If the Council continues to delay in responding to this simple question,
this will (I regret) be a point that we will need to raise with the
Local Government Ombudsman. It will be up to the Ombudsman to then
determine if a delayed response to my simple question was reasonable.
We have no desire, if it can be avoided, to involve the Ombudsman in
this matter. We understand that your colleagues have time to reply to
our formal complaint, and we have confirmed this in earlier
correspondence.
I am not asking them to hurry that reply in any way. I am simply
asking, for the avoidance of doubt, for a simple confirmation --- sent
to us as a matter of urgency --- that no copies of our data have been
kept by the Council, your external consultant, or any other party.
Please give this matter your preferred attention.
Kind regards,
Page 1 of 3
Craig
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: newvirus@kaspersky.com [mailto:newvirus@kaspersky.com]
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: RE: Message is infected : FW: Possible False Positive
[KLAB-6484187]
Hello,
Autoexec.exe
We are sorry, it is false alarm. It will be fixed as soon as possible.
Thank you for your help.
Please quote all when answering.
Best regards, Evgeny Aseev

Virus analyst, Kaspersky Lab.
e-mail: newvirus@kaspersky.com
http://www.kaspersky.com/
http://www.kaspersky.com/virusscanner - free online virus scanner.
http://www.kaspersky.com/helpdesk.html - technical support.
> Attachment: Autoexec.zip
> Gosh, I thought I had sent the possible virus file (zipped) to this
e-mail address.
>
> Here it is again.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig Walsh
>
> Craig W Walsh
> ****************************************************
> t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529

> In the United States: 888-880-1531
> ****************************************************
>
> From: HelpDesk Robot Kaspersky Lab Support
[mailto:support@kaspersky.com]
> Sent: 16 September 2008 10:53
> To: Craig Walsh
> Subject: RE: Possible False Positive
>
> Please send mentioned files to
newvirus@kaspersky.com<mailto:newvirus@kaspersky.com>
>
> From: Craig Walsh [mailto:craig@hmdp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:34 PM
> To: New Virus
> Subject: Possible False Positive
>
> I couldn't figure out how to add a password to the zipped folder --
sorry.
>
> This contains a small programme, and Kaspersky 6.0 for Workstations,
with the latest virus definitions, has identified this as containing a
virus --- Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw
>
> Can you please confirm if the file does, in fact, contain a virus?
If so, can you briefly let me know what the virus is designed to do, if
that can be ascertained?
>
> Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig Walsh
>
> Craig W Walsh
> ****************************************************
> t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
> In the united States: 888-880-1531
> ****************************************************
Subject: FW: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm ltd.

Date: Tuesday, September 16, 20084:12 PM
From: Dell, John (ES, TSS) <.lDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer
Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Dear Mr Walsh,
CLA TMA~1T EXl-ITRITNUMBER ~
Judy Armitage has asked me to respond to your last paragraph.
The current situation is that your data continues to be held on behalf of

this authority by consultant Mr Hatton in order that we are able to respond
to any further enquiries or actions by yourself. The disc of his report is
held under secure storage conditions by this service.
You can remain assured that they are held in a secure manner and they
will be destroyed once we are both satis'fied that this matter has been
concluded.
Yours sincerely,
John Dell Divisional Manager
From: Craig Walsh [mailto:craig@lhmdp.com]
Sent: 15 September 2008 09: 18
Cc: Dell, John (ES, TSS); Richard Slade; Marjorie J. Walsh; Tom Wells
Subject: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm Ltd.
Hi, Judy ---
The CD-ROM we received from the Worcestershire County Council appears to

contain a virus called Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw.
We use Kaspersky anti-virus software for Windows workstations, updated every

hour or so with the latest virus profiles. I left the CD-ROM in my computer
overnight, and during the routine scan of all drives Kaspersky identified this
Page 1 of 4
potential problem.
Here's a copy of the anti-virus alert:
File Anti-Virus Alert
Detected
Trojan program:
(t!1fkd!t~!!~'W1n 37 .ProR~· .cbw
File:
D:\AUTOEXEC .EXE
Action
,
File contains Trojan program
'Backdoor. Win32.ProRat.cbw' and
Delete
cannot be disinfected: write access is
denied.
~kip 1
o Agply to all
I am unable to disinfect the CD-ROM with Kaspersky, simply because the CD-
ROM is read-only. If, however, someone transferred the contents of this CD-
ROM to their own computer it would appear that the virus would be transferred
as well.
I believe Kaspersky looks for "fingerprints" of viruses, so it is possible (I suppose)

that an innocent programme can be misidentified as a virus. I am sure that
Kaspersky errs on the side of caution.
I have performed a Google search for Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw and have

been unable to obtain more detailed information --- just an identification that
this is "malware." Please see:
http://vgrep.viruspool.net/virus.cms?name=Generic2.JUA
I am now doing a "deep scan" of all areas of our network, including the
Page 2 of 4
networked hard drives, to be sure that Marjorie's and my opening this CD-ROM
has not infiltrated our system.
I believe I have no choice but to retain a computer expert of our own to analyse
the CD-ROM and to help us to understand why Kaspersky believes it is infected.
We will keep you advised of our findings with this worrying development.
In the meantime, as I have requested on many occasions, please confirm that

no entities --- Council, Mr. Hatton, anyone --- retains a copy 0/ our data.
Yours sincerely,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
*****************************************************************
*****
Page 3 of 4
Subject: Re: Message is infected: FW: Possible False Positive [KLAB-6484187)

Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:29 PM
From: Phill Hatton <forensic-computing@bulldog-office.com>
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dell, John (ES, TSS)"
<JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade
< Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>
CLAIMANT EXHIBITNtlMBER O~
All on Craig WALSH's distribution list.
I have replied to Mr Walsh's question twice, on Friday and Monday. It appears

he is not receiving my messages. This may be because my outgoing e-mail
address is not the one he is sending messages to (this is a redundant old
address, although I do get e-mail sent to it) or it could be for some other reason
related to Mr Walsh's rather Heath Robinson computer network.
As I have quite openly stated in my witness statement and the two e-mails I
currently hold two copies of all the data obtained from Lucies Farm and will
delete it (securely) when Trading Standards tell me to.
The auto-run menu on the working CD (a copy of which Mr Walsh has) is

sometimes reported as a virus by poorly configured AV systems, purely because
it is an autorun file. Otherwise any viruses on the CD will have originated from
the data recovered from Mr Walsh's system (although my AV system did not
identify any).
If Mr Walsh does not recieve this message I would be grateful if someone will
inform him of this.
As I stated in my original e-mail all further messages from Mr Walsh on this

matter should be directed to Trading Standards rather than me.
Also, to answer a question Mr Walsh put to the secretary of the F3 computer

forensics organsation on Friday, my post nomina Is stand for the following:
TD = Territorial Decoration, BA (Hons) = Bachelor of Arts (Honours), MTSI =

Member of the Trading Standards Institute, MBCS = Member of the British
Computer Society and DTS =Diploma in Trading Standards. Presumably Mr
Walsh will now telephone these organisations and attempt to get them to
confirm that I am a member. He is perfectly free to do so if he wants to waste his
Page 1 of 7
time.
Regards
Phill Hatton
Craig Walsh wrote:
Hi Judy ---
Further to my e-mail message sent to you yesterday morning (9:18

AM) we sent the "suspicious ll file from Mr. Hatton's CD-ROM to the
Kaspersky laboratory for analysis.
We use the latest Kaspersky anti-virus software, and it told us a

particular programme on the CD-ROM contained a harmful virus.
Although we received no reply from you or your colleagues to my

message, I am glad to say that Kaspersky has confirmed the virus alert
was a "false positive. (Please scroll down to see their message.)
II
You will certainly appreciate our concern that the CD-ROM provided to
us by the Worcestershire County Council was initially identified as
contained malware.
I again ask --- and my patience in asking the same question without
the courtesy of a reply is almost exhausted --- for confirmation the
neither the Worcestershire County Council, its independent consultant
(Mr. Hatton), or any other party has retained a copy of the data seized
from our premises on 10 January 2008.
Can you please raise this as a matter of urgency with your colleagues,
and, if necessary, with their line managers or more senior managers?
This is an entirely reasonable question for us to ask, and I would

appreciate the courtesy of a clear, unambiguous response in the next
day or two.
Page 2 of 7
I look forward to hearing from you, Judy, on this point.
If the Council continues to delay in responding to this simple question,

this will (I regret) be a point that we will need to raise with the Local
Government Ombudsman. It will be up to the Ombudsman to then
determine if a delayed response to my simple question was
reasonable.
We have no desire, if it can be avoided, to involve the Ombudsman in

this matter. We understand that your colleagues have time to reply to
our formal complaint, and we have confirmed this in earlier
correspondence.
I am not asking them to hurry that reply in any way. I am simply

asking, for the avoidance of doubt, for a simple confirmation --- sent
to us as a matter of urgency --- that no copies of our data have been
kept by the Council, your external consultant, or any other party.
Please give this matter your preferred attention.
Kind regards,
Craig
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905830380 m 0791 754 0529
www.dog-hotel,co.uk <http://www.dog-hotel,co.uk>
See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch <http://www.bark.ch>
****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
From: newvirus@kaspersky.com [mailto:newvirus@kaspersky.com)
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: RE: Message is infected: FW: Possible False Positive
[KLAB-6484187)
Hello,
Autoexec.exe_
We are sorry, it is false alarm. It will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank

you for your help.
Please quote all when answering.
Best regards, Evgeny Aseev

Virus analyst, Kaspersky Lab.
e-mail: newvirus@kaspersky.com
http://www.kaspersky.com/
http://www.kaspersky.com/virusscanner - free online virus scanner.

http://www.kaspersky.com/helpdesk.html- technical support.
Attachment: Autoexec.zip
Gosh, I thought I had sent the possible virus file (zipped) to

Page 4 of 7
this e-mail address.
Here it is again.
Thanks,
Craig Walsh
Craig W Walsh
*************************************************
***
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 7540529
www.luciesfarm.com <http://
www.luciesfarm.com>
www.dog-hotel.co.uk <http://www.dog-
hotel,co.uk>
www.bark.ch>
*************************************************
***
From: HelpDesk Robot Kaspersky Lab Support

[mailto:support@kaspersky.com]
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: RE: Possible False Positive
Please send mentioned files to

newvirus@kaspersky.com<mailto:newvirus@kaspersky.com
>

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:34 PM
Page 5 of 7
To: New Virus
Subject: Possible False Positive
I couldn't figure out how to add a password to the zipped

folder --- sorry.
This contains a small programme, and Kaspersky 6.0 for

Workstations, with the latest virus definitions, has identified
this as containing a virus --- Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw
Can you please confirm if the file does, in fact, contain a

virus? If so, can you briefly let me know what the virus is
designed to do, if that can be ascertained?
Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Craig Walsh
Craig W Walsh
*************************************************
***
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com <http://
www.luciesfarm.com>
www.dog-hotel.co.uk <http://www.dog-
hotel.co.uk>
www.bark.ch>
*************************************************
***
Page 6 of 7
Phill Hatton Forensic Computing ltd TlA Phill Hatton Forensic Computing - Company Registration Number 5416004 _
VAT Number 834 8927 86
Page 7 of 7
Subject: Re: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm Ltd. ct ~ I

Date: Tuesday, September 16, 20085:45 PM ATMAN'T'mmmrr~
From: Phill Hatton <forensic-computing@bulldog-office.com>

Cc: "Dell, John (ES, TSS)" <JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)"
<SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)"
<JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh
<marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Tom Wells
<talwells@btinternet.com>
All on Mr Walsh's distribution list (except, it appears, Mr Walsh)
Mr Walsh's assumption that I operate from a domestic premises is false

(although I once did and there is no particular reason why I should not,
providing security is adequate). I in fact operate from a business premises and
this is where the data is currently stored. My low profile on Internet search
engines is a deliberate policy to enhance security.
The screen capture from his AV software below shows that his AV issue is with
the autorun.exe file on the CD. This is absolutely not a virus.
Regards
Phill Hatton
Craig Walsh wrote:
Dear Mr. Dell ---
Thank you for your message, just received.
This is not what was agreed at all, and is completely contrary to earlier
assurances given by the Council to us and to our customers.
Page 1 of 12
To refresh your memory, attached is a PDF file.
In her letter to me of 4 September 2008 Ms. Blanchard wrote, "With

regard to the data recovered from your computer, this was recorded
on one disc, which has been held in a secure location at the Trading
Standards office, with restricted access. Now that the investigation is
complete, this disc will be destroyed."
We now know that Ms. Blanchard's statement was untrue. The "data
recovered" was also held by Mr. Hatton, apparently at his home.
There is also some indication that he may also have sent our data to
the Malvern Hills District Council.
In Ms. Blanchard's letter to our customers of 4 September 2008 --- a

redacted copy is attached --- she advised the majority of our
customers, "Please be assured that all data containing personal
records will now be destroyed."
Again, this appears to be untrue. You are now unilaterally continuing

to hold our data at Trading Standards and are continuing to allow Mr.
Hatton to hold a further copy. This is our data --- it does not belong to
the Council or to Mr. Hatton. It largely belongs to me, and the
overwhelming majority of the data is personal and has nothing to do
with the dog kennel or farm operations.
Page 2 of 12
Please confirm, immediately, if Mr. Hatton is holding our data on his
premises. If this is the case, we have been unable to establish that he
has an office, so would believe he would be holding our data in his
home in Wolverhampton. This brings up questions about his lack of
registration under the DPA 1998 and the security arrangements in
place at his residence.
I am so incensed by this that I am minded to instruct our solicitors to

obtain injunctive relief for the return of our data.
Your office has already advised us that your investigation is concluded:

Ms. Blanchard talks about "detailed enquiries." All that now remains is
for us to try to ascertain if the Council acted in an appropriate manner
in the conduct of its investigation, in accordance with the various
policies stated on your website and embodied in the law. It is our
absolute right to do this, as you are no doubt aware.
Please clarify the exact location of our data --- all of our data
--- by return.
I fear that the expense of injunctive relief --- with an order for costs
against the Council and Mr. Hatton --- is looming. This is truly
unfortunate. I have tried to act in a constructive and courteous
manner in lodging my complaint with the Council. My actions have
been met with apparent deception --- and you are now holding our
data effectively to ransom.
Page 3 of 12
I look forward to hearing from you, or from your boss, immediately. I
have copied the Worcester News on this e-mail, and if our data --- all
copies of our data --- is not returned forthwith, we will also send an e-
mail to all of our customers advising them of your volte face, and will
encourage them to file complaints against the Council and Mr. Hatton
with the Information Commissioner's Office.
You and Ms. Blanchard have, I believe, seen how supportive --- and
how vocal --- our customers can be. You can speculate on how vocal
they will be when they learn about Mr. Hatton's involvement, and the
fact that Ms. Blanchard's earlier assurances were apparently
untruthful.
This will be my last e-mail on the subject. You have a very short
period, Mr. Dell, in which to do the right thing. Otherwise we will have
no choice but to seek assistance from the Courts.
Craig Walsh
Craig W Walsh
lucies Farm ltd • Colletts Green • Worcester WR2 4RY
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••**.********************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 7540529
Page 4 of 12
www.dog-hotel.co.uk <http://www.dog-hotel.co.uk>
****************************************************
From: Dell, John (ES, TSS) [mailto:JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk]

To: Craig Walsh
Cc: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS); Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)
Subject: FW: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to lucies Farm ltd.
Dear Mr Walsh,
Page 5 of 12
The current situation is that your data continues to be held on behalf of this authority
by consultant Mr Hatton in order that we are able to respond to any further enquiries
or actions by yourself. The disc of his report is held under secure storage conditions by
this service.
You can remain assured that they are held in a secure manner and they will be
destroyed once we are both satisfied that this matter has been concluded.
Yours sincerely,
Page 6 of 12
Subject: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to ludes Farm ltd.
Hi, Judy ---
The CD-ROM we received from the Worcestershire County Council

appears to contain a virus called Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw.
We use Kaspersky anti-virus software for Windows workstations,

updated every hour or so with the latest virus profiles. I left the CD-
ROM in my computer overnight, and during the routine scan of all
drives Kaspersky identified this potential problem.
Page 7 of 12
File Anti-Yirus Alert
Detected
Trojan program:
U;;1.~kiJ() 0 LYtm32.:Pr9R a t .(~ w
File:
D:\AUTOEXEC.EXE
Action
, ,
'Backdoor. Win32 .ProRat.cbw' and [re[el:~
denied.
S,kip
o Aj2ply to all
I am unable to disinfect the CD-ROM with Kaspersky, simply because

the CD-ROM is read-only. If, however, someone transferred the
contents of this CD-ROM to their own computer it would appear that
the virus would be transferred as well.
I believe Kaspersky looks for "fingerprints" of viruses, so it is possible (I

suppose) that an innocent programme can be misidentified as a virus.
I am sure that Kaspersky errs on the side of caution.
I have performed a Google search for Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw

Page 8 of 12
and have been unable to obtain more detailed information --- just an
identification that this is "malware." Please see:
I am now doing a "deep scan" of all areas of our network, including

the networked hard drives, to be sure that Marjorie's and my opening
this CD-ROM has not infiltrated our system.
I believe I have no choice but to retain a computer expert of our own

to analyse the CD-ROM and to help us to understand why Kaspersky
believes it is infected.
We will keep you advised of our findings with this worrying

development.
In the meantime, as I have requested on many occasions, please

confirm that no entities --- Council, Mr. Hatton, anyone --- retains a
copy of our data.
Yours sincerely,
Craig
Page 9 of 12
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 7540529
****************************************************
*********************************************************
*************
Page 10 of 12
Subject: RE: Lucies Farm Ltd. and Craig & Marjorie Walsh
Date: Wednesday, September 17, 200811:01 AM
To: "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dell, John (ES, TSS)"
<JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>,
, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, Marjorie Walsh
<marjorie@hmdp.com>, Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>
Priority: Highest
Dear Mr. Wilkes: CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 7

0')..
Thank you for your e-mail, just received.
Your current position appears to be at variance with Mr. Dell's position as stated
in his e-mail to me yesterday afternoon (16:13).
Can you now please confirm that your e-mail represents the Council's position?
We are frustrated by moving goal posts --- Ms. Blanchard's letters, Mr. Dell's e-
mail, and your e-mail all contain different views on the handling of what is really
my property. And, having advised us that you have concluded your
investigations, there is absolutely no reason why my data should continue to be
held by the Council.
What I most object to --- as will be painfully obvious from my e-mail messages
--- is the continued retention of two copies of my data by your independent
computer forensic expert. As I have explained on many occasions, the data is
primarily my personal data, having nothing whatsoever to do with the dog
kennel. And, in any event, the Council has completed its enquiry into the
operations of the dog kennel.
As is evident from his report, your computer expert (Mr. Hatton) only found a
couple of test calendars during his trawl through my personal computer and our
network (a network with 2TB of storage --- because we handle a large number of
high-resolution images). Hatton found the Kennel Connection software that
we'd recently purchased. We'd ascertained this software did not meet our
needs and it was never used with "live" data, and Hatton's draft statement
confirms this. He also found an Outlook calendar that we also never used with
"live" data because (even as Hatton observes in his draft statement) it was also
Page 1 of 12
not suited from the purpose.
The reason your expert did not find our calendar/register and reservations
system was because he was looking in the wrong place. The systems are web-
based, and actually sit on our dedicated, managed server in Delaware. The
farm's own registration under the Data Protection Act 1998 (registration
Z1289187) --- available online --- clearly indicates that we make data transfers
to the United States.
But your expert took it upon himself to copy essentially every Word document
and Excel spreadsheet he could find, as well as the databases for our personal
Quicken accounting software, etc. These documents include letters about my
medical condition (I am totally disabled), our personal financial matters, and
other items which are very clearly not related to the farm business. And this
data was seized from inside our residence, from my personal computer.
I strongly object to Mr. Hatton continuing to hold our personal data. He is

holding it in an undisclosed location. Our detailed enquiries have failed to
reveal any business premises for Mr. Hatton. Neither Mr. Hatton nor his
business are apparently registered as data controllers under the Data Protection
Act 1998.
Our data disclosure request was properly served upon the Council and not upon
Mr. Hatton. I will accept that the Council can hold my data until (and only until)
the Council has complied with our Data Protection disclosure requests. As you
will appreciate, our confidence in Trading Standards has been considerably
eroded by this entire incident, so I would ask that the CD-ROM be transferred
out of the care of Mr. Dell and into either your own locked desk, or into the
hands of your colleagues who handle data protection matters.
I expect the Council to immediately advise Mr. Hatton to return all copies of the
data --- my personal data --- to me. His continued retention of this data is, we
believe, a violation of the Data Protection Act 1998, and I can't see how the
Council (as his principal) can continue to justify his retention of my data. I can
see no reason why Mr. Hatton's files cannot be returned to me today --- this
afternoon.
As an aside, have you read Mr. Hatton's recent e-mail messages to me? They are
Page 2 of 12
posted, for your convenience, at http://www.doggie-blog.com/Are you proud
that your consultant has called my computer system "Mr Walsh's rather Heath
Robinson computer network."
Is this the level of professionalism that we may now expect from our local
Trading Standards office?
Sad.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
From: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS) [mailto:SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk]

To: Craig Walsh
Cc: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations); Dell, John (ES, TSS); Dean, Lucy (ES)
Subject: RE: Lucies Farm Ltd. and Craig & Marjorie Walsh
MrWalsh,
I have taken advice in relation to this data, and I am told that we are not allowed to destroy
or delete any data that is subject to your Data Protection Act request until the response to
this request is completed. As this data is subject to the provisions of your request, the
earliest it can legally be deleted by the Authority and its agent is following the completion of
the response to your request.
Page 3 of 12
Simon Wilkes
Operations Manager
Trading Standards
To: Dell, John (ESt TSS)
Cc: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS); Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations);
kevin.ward@midlands.newsquest.co.uk; Marjorie J. Walsh; Slade, Richard; Tom
Wells; Phill Hatton; jkb@worcesternews.co.uk; Simon Hale
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd. and Craig & Marjorie Walsh
Dear Mr. Dell ---
I have received this message (and one other) from Mr. Hatton.
We expect the immediate return of our data, not the continued

retention by this gentleman and by your office. I find it incredible that
our data is being held in some secret location. Mr. Hatton's business
operates with a P.O. Box and uses the address of his accountant for his
registered office.
Can you imagine how we feel knowing that our personal data --- our
personal financial statements, privileged letters to our solicitors, a
listing of my wife's jewellery collection, etc. --- is being held in an
undisclosed location? Are you not aware of the principles of data
protection in this country?
I repeat --- I want this data, all copies of this data, returned to me
tomorrow.
There is absolutely no reason for my personal data to be retained by

Trading Standards or by this gentleman. Your continued retention of
this data is completely at variance with Ms. Blanchard's letters to me
and to our customers dated 4 September 2008 and the principles of
the Data Protection Act.
Page 4 of 12
Does it not strike you as a tad ironic that Trading Standards essentially
lied in these letters of 4 September 2008?
Please give this matter your immediate attention, and please do the
right thing.
Craig W Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk
****************************************************
From: Phil! Hatton [mailto:forensic-computing@bulldog-office.com]

To: Craig Walsh
Cc: Dell, John (ES, TSS); Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS); Armitage, Judy (CS,
Consumer Relations); Marjorie J.
Walsh; Slade, Richard; Tom Wells
Subject: Re: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm Ltd.
All on Mr Walsh's distribution list (except, it appears, Mr Walsh)
Mr Walsh's assumption that I operate from a domestic premises is

false (although I once did and there is no particular reason why I
should not, providing security is adequate). I in fact operate from a
business premises and this is where the data is currently stored. My
low profile on Internet search engines is a deliberate policy to enhance
security.
The screen capture from his AV software below shows that his AV
issue is with the autorun.exe file on the CD. This is absolutely not a
virus.
Page S of 12
Regards
Phi II Hatton
Craig Walsh wrote:

Dear Mr. Dell ---
Thank you for your message, just received.
This is not what was agreed at all, and is completely contrary to earlier
assurances given by the Council to us and to our customers.
To refresh your memory, attached is a PDF file.
In her letter to me of 4 September 2008 Ms. Blanchard wrote, "With

complete, this disc will be destroyed."
We now know that Ms. Blanchard's statement was untrue. The "data
recovered" was also held by Mr. Hatton, apparently at his home.
There is also some indication that he may also have sent our data to
the Malvern Hills District Council.
In Ms. Blanchard's letter to our customers of 4 September 2008 --- a

redacted copy is attached --- she advised the majority of our
customers, "Please be assured that all data containing personal
records will now be destroyed."
Again, this appears to be untrue. You are now unilaterally continuing

to hold our data at Trading Standards and are continuing to allow Mr.
Hatton to hold a further copy. This is our data --- it does not belong to
the Council or to Mr. Hatton. It largely belongs to me, and the
overwhelming majority of the data is personal and has nothing to do
with the dog kennel or farm operations.
Page 6 of 12
Please confirm, immediately, if Mr. Hatton is holding our data on his
premises. If this is the case, we have been unable to establish that he
has an office, so would believe he would be holding our data in his
home in Wolverhampton. This brings up questions about his lack of
registration under the DPA 1998 and the security arrangements in
place at his residence.
I am so incensed by this that I am minded to instruct our solicitors to

obtain injunctive relief for the return of our data.
Your office has already advised us that your investigation is concluded:

Ms. Blanchard talks about "detailed enquiries." All that now remains
is for us to try to ascertain if the Council acted in an appropriate
manner in the conduct of its investigation, in accordance with the
various policies stated on your website and embodied in the law. It is
our absolute right to do this, as you are no doubt aware.
Please clarify the exact location of our data --- all of our data
--- by return.
I fear that the expense of injunctive relief --- with an order for costs
against the Council and Mr. Hatton --- is looming. This is truly
unfortunate. I have tried to act in a constructive and courteous
manner in lodging my complaint with the Council. My actions have
been met with apparent deception --- and you are now holding our
data effectively to ransom.
I look forward to hearing from you, or from your boss, immediately.

have copied the Worcester News on this e-mail, and if our data --- all
copies of our data --- is not returned forthwith, we will also send an e-
mail to all of our customers advising them of your volte face, and will
encourage them to file complaints against the Council and Mr. Hatton
with the Information Commissioner's Office.
You and Ms. Blanchard have, I believe, seen how supportive --- and
how vocal --- our customers can be. You can speculate on how vocal
they will be when they learn about Mr. Hatton's involvement, and the
Page 7 of 12
fact that Ms. Blanchard's earlier assurances were apparently
untruthful.
This will be my last e-mail on the subject. You have a very short
period, Mr. Dell, in which to do the right thing. Otherwise we will have
no choice but to seek assistance from the Courts.
Craig Walsh
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.bark.ch>
****************************************************
From: Dell, John (ES, TSS) [mailto:JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk]

To: Craig Walsh
Cc: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS); Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)
Subject: FW: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm Ltd.
Dear Mr Walsh,
The current situation is that your data continues to be held on behalf of this
authority by consultant Mr Hatton in order that we are able to respond to any
further enquiries or actions by yourself. The disc of his report is held under
secure storage conditions by this service.
Page 8 of 12
You can remain assured that they are held in a secure manner and they will be
destroyed once we are both satisfied that this matter has been concluded.
Yours sincerely,
Subject: Possible Virus in CD-ROM Provided to Lucies Farm Ltd.
Hi, Judy ---
The CD-ROM we received from the Worcestershire County Council

appears to contain a virus called Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw.
We use Kaspersky anti-virus software for Windows workstations,

updated every hour or so with the latest virus profiles. I left the CD-
ROM in my computer overnight, and during the routine scan of all
drives Kaspersky identified this potential problem.
Page 9 of 12
file Anti-Virus Alert
Detected
Trojan program:
BackdoQr.Win32.ProRat.cbw
file:
D:\AUTOEXEC.EXE
Action
QI5infect
'Backdoor. Win32 .ProRat,cbw' and
Delete
denied. ,
o A(2ply to all
I am unable to disinfect the CD-ROM with Kaspersky} simply because

the CD-ROM is read-only. It however} someone transferred the
contents of this CD-ROM to their own computer it would appear that
the virus would be transferred as well.
I believe Kaspersky looks for "fingerprintsl1 of viruses} so it is possible (I

suppose) that an innocent programme can be misidentified as a virus.
I am sure that Kaspersky errs on the side of caution.
I have performed a Google search for Backdoor.Win32.ProRat.cbw

and have been unable to obtain more detailed information --- just an
identification that this is "malware.11 Please see:
I am now doing a "deep scan}} of all areas of our network} including

the networked hard drives} to be sure that Marjorie}s and my opening
this CD-ROM has not infiltrated our system.
I believe I have no choice but to retain a computer expert of our own

Page 10 of 12
to analyse the CD·ROM and to help us to understand why Kaspersky
believes it is infected.
We will keep you advised of our findings with this worrying

development.
In the meantime, as I have requested on many occasions, please

confirm that no entities ... Council, Mr. Hatton, anyone ... retains a
copy of our data.
Yours sincerely,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.bark.ch>
****************************************************
*********************************************************
*************
may
Page 11 of 12
Subject: FW: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION
REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Date: Wednesday, September 17,20089:15 PM
To: <TJEvans@worcestershire.gov.uk>, <KStilgoe@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh
<marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>,
0"6
CLAIMANT EXHIBIT NUMBER._ ____
Dear John and Kevin ---
I spoke with Lucy this morning on her cell phone. Sorry, I wasn't aware that
she's out of the office.
I have received her automated out-of-office reply. This matter is urgent, and I
would appreciate your handing this in Lucy's absence.
There is absolutely no reason --- and no legal justification --- for M r Hatton to
continue to hold my data. Instead, I believe that his refusal to return my data
may itself be a violation of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. In
continuing to hold my data after my repeated requests that it be returned Mr.
Hatton may be committing a criminal offence.
My data --- all of my data --- held by Mr. Hatton and/or his business is to be
returned to me by the close of business tomorrow, Thursday. We are also to
receive an unambiguous undertaking from the Council that neither Mr. Hatton,
his business, or any other entities --- with the exception of the Worcestershire
County Council--- are holding copies of my data.
I have no objections to the Council holding my data --- provided there is only
one copy, and provided it is held in a secure environment outside of the control
of the Trading Standards office --- until your disclosure under the Data
Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act is completed. At that point we
will expect the Council to also return my data, and not retain any copies.
Failing that, I will have no choice but to file a formal complaint with the
Information Commissioner's Office against both the Council and Mr. Hatton. If
we don't receive the return of the data from Mr. Hatton and the requested
undertaking by close of business tomorrow, I will prepare the ICO complaint
tomorrow night, have it reviewed by my solicitor (Richard Slade) overnight, and
Page 1 of 8
file it electronically with the ICO on Friday.
I had hoped that I was dealing with gentlemen --- people who would follow the
letter and spirit of the law in the process of enforcing it --- and that a referral to
the ICO would not be necessary. But the moving goal posts, and contradictory
explanations given, have undermined what little faith I had left in the Council. In
short, the contradictory statements mean we no longer trust the Council, and
are no longer willing to accept incomplete, vague, or contradictory explanations.
This will be my final e-mail on this subject.
If an ICO complaint is necessary (and I hope to avoid this), we will also be

sending a bulk e-mail to our customers advising them that the Council's earlier
undertakings concerning the handling of their personal data have proven to be
false, and will invite our customers to file their own complaints with the ICO.
We will give them the necessary link to the forms on the ICO website, and assist
them in this process in whatever way we can.
I reiterate that I hope this won't be necessary. To avoid this, the Council merely
has to follow the law, and do the right thing.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
Lucies Far.m Ltd.* Colletts Green * Worcester * WR2 4RY
*******************************************************
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*******************************************************
------ Forwarded Message

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:39:06 +0100
To: "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Page 2 of 8
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer
Conversation: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT
1998 -INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL
ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT
1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL
ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOU RSELVES
Hi, Lucy ---
It was nice speaking with you this morning. Thank you for taking the time to
listen.
I don't mean to nag, but I have not received a reply to my e-mail sent earlier
today. Are we to go yet another day with this unresolved, and with our data still
in the hands of Mr. Hatton?
This is causing Marjorie and me considerable distress --- and I would like the
Council to consider our views in this matter, and to give this priority attention.
I don't wish to be selfish, but I can't see that anything should be more important
to your colleagues in Trading Standards than resolving this. We have dealt with
this for over eight months, and we have had enough.
Can I ask you to please give me an update on the Hatton situation?
Kind regards
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
*******************************************************
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*******************************************************
Page 1 of 8
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 200805:17:48 +0100
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer
Conversation: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT
ON LUCIE1S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT
ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Dear Ms. Dean ---
Thank you for your e-mail. Please excuse my slight delay in responding.
For some reason your message was blocked by an e-mail"filter." I have now
added your e-mail address to my list of approved senders.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I am particularly interested to

ascertain if your colleagues continue to hold any of our data following a "raid"
on our home and farm on 10 January 2008. I have been assured by your
colleagues in Trading Standards that all information has been returned to us.
The CD-ROM is marked "Copy of report ... II which leads mw to believe that a
copy has been retained by the Council, despite assurances that all data seized
would be destroyed upon the completion of the investigation.
I am also deeply concerned by the fact that the Council seems to have employed
an external contractor to handle our data. This consultant, Phill Hatton, does
not seem to be registered under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
It would appear that our personal data may have been held in his home, in
Wolverhampton, for five months --- and possibly as long as nine months. In
Page 4 of 8
August 2008 your colleagues were assuring our customers that their data was
held in a secure area in Trading Standards, with limited access. It would appear
that this was not accurate, as the data also seems to have been held on a hard
drive in the consultant's house and a copy may also have been given to the
Malvern Hills District Council.
I have been advised that the Trading Standards investigation has been
concluded, so would assume that the information is no longer privileged in any
way.
Marjorie Walsh, Lucies Farm Ltd., and I do not grant our blanket consent to your
consulting third parties We accept that there may be a legitimate reason for you
to do so: if this is the case, please contact me ahead of time with more specific
information and we will, of course, be reasonable.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have further questions, or
need any information from us, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
(personally, as agent-in-fact for Marjorie J. Walsh, and as a Director of Lucies

Farm Ltd.)
Craig W. Walsh
*******************************************************
01905-830-380 (Xn USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*******************************************************
From: "Dean, Lucy (ES)II <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>

Page 5 of 8
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:31:58 -0400
Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998-
INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON
LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Dear Mr and Mrs Walsh,
Thank you for contacting Worcestershire County Council.
I acknowledge your request for information received on 8th September 2008.
Your request falls under two information request regimes, Freedom of

Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 1998. The two regimes have
different timescale in which a response must be given, for the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 this is 20 working day, for the Data Protect Act 1998 this is
40 days. We believe that anyone piece of information could fall under both
regimes, but we will not know this until we have collated all the information
together. Therefore we are dealing with your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 timescale of 20 working days. Should this change once we
have collated the information we will contact you again with a revised timescale.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 defines a number of exemptions, which

may prevent release of the information you have asked for. If this is the case we
will write to you and also inform you of your rights of appeal.
In some circumstances Worcestershire County Council (WCC) may make a

charge for this information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This will
be considered and we will tell you if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must
be paid before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day
time limit for responses will be suspended until receipt of the payment and
payment must be made within three months.
In some circumstances WCC may need to consult with third parties (people not
employed by WCC) about the release of information relating to them or their
organisation. Please let me know if you do not wish your name to be released to
any third parties we may need to contact in order to fulfil this request.
Page 6 of 8
If you have any queries or concerns then please contact me on 01905 766785
Yours sincerely
Lucy Dean
Management Support and Information Officer
Environmental Services
Tel: 01905 766785
Mobile:
Fax: 01905 766899
Email: mailto:ldean@worcestershire.gov.uk
*****************************************************************
*****
Disclaimer
Monitoring of Email
Worcestershire County Council may monitor traffic data and the content
Page 7 of 8
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION
REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIES FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:30 PM
To: "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dell, John (ES, TSS)"
<JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services)" <SLewis2@worcestershire.gov.uk>,
Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>,
, <sjclee@tinyonline.co.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)"
<JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>,
<aedavies@worcestershire.gov.uk>, <jeremy@webb79.freeserve.co.uk>
Dear Mr. Wilkes --- CLAIMANTEXHIBIT~
Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate it very much.
I am obviously glad to hear someone finally express a desire not to mislead us.
look forward to the results of your asking your colleagues the question --- again.
I don't understand the reason for this to be delayed until Monday. Why can't
this question be asked tomorrow? Even if your colleagues are not in the office,
certainly they can be reached by telephone --- and I consider this matter
sufficiently important for you to please do so.
I accept, and agree, with the point about piecemeal disclosure. We are, in the
circumstances, prepared to wait for the signed copy of Hutton's report to be
included in the disclosure bundle. I merely make the point --- again --- that the
continued delay in furnishing Hutton's report to us is contrary to the assurances
given by Blanchard and Dell in February and March, and contrary to law.
We absolutely do not consent to the continued storage of our personal data

under the control of Trading Standards. If your Data Protection Officer cannot
find a suitable, alternative storage location, then I would suggest that the data
be stored in a local bank or solicitor's office --- with access to take place only
upon consent of both parties.
If we are not able to view the storage location, we would want some
information about the location of the storage area, and the names and numbers
of the people who will have access. I would like this information to come 'from
your Data Protection Officer, or from someone not involved with Trading
Standards.
Page 1 of 19
Of course, the simplest thing would be to simply return our data. I understand
that information held by the Council about us (personally, and Lucies Farm Ltd.)
is being gathered to comply with our requests under the DPA 1998 and Freedom
of Information Act. I would make the point, however, that this data is different
--- this is not data held by the Council about us. This is my personal data. It's
data that the Council took from our house: we maintain the act of doing so was
a trespass, without authority. Perhaps your Data Protection Officer should take
advice on this point, either from the Council's legal department or the
Information Commissioner's Office.
It is not my intention to insult your colleagues --- I simply reported their own
words in my previous message, and their own words (I believe) speak volumes.
It is their own words, and the manner in which they have provided us with
falsehoods --- that makes me reluctant to accept your own assurances of
safekeeping of my data.
Yours sincerely,
Craig Walsh
Craiq W. Walsh
*******************************************************
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531) 0791-754-0529
*******************************************************
From: "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:58:52 -0400
Cc: "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dell, John (ES, TSS)"
<JDell@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services)"
<SLewis2@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT
Page 2 of 19
ON LUCIES FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Mr Walsh
In relation to your caveats:
1. Since I would not wish to mislead you, I will ask Mr Dell and Mrs
Blanchard the question again on Monday. To my knowledge at this
moment in time, the only copies of your data will be the ones held by the
County Council, once the information has been taken from Mr Hatton.
2. I have asked the Data Protection Officer to investigate the possibliity of

holding this information in a place other than the Trading Standards
secure store. She will not have an answer for me before tomorrow. In any
event I doubt very much that you will be allowed to see the exact location
where this information is to be stored. I will confirm this tomorrow. As far
as a paper copy of Mr Hatton's report is concerned, our Data Protection
Officer has indicated that we will provide you with a paper copy of this
when we disclose the information to which you are entitled. She is
concerned to ensure that you get everything that the law allows, and to
send things out piecemeal will risk something being missed.
I therefore cannot conform with the caveats that you have asked for. I do
however, offer you my assurance that your data will be held in a secure
manner.
Simon Wilkes
Operations Manager
-----Origi nal Message-----

To: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)
Cc: Stilgoe, Kevin (ES); Richard Slade; Armitage, Judy (CS,
Consumer Relations); j ; Stephen Clee;
Davies, Alwyn (CS, Councillor - Chairman of Council); Tom Wells;
Jeremy Webb (Councillor)
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA
Page 1 of 19
PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST
CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIES
FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Wilkes ---
Thank you for your e-mail.
I am in agreement with your approach, but with two important

caveats:
First Caveat:
You provide a clear undertaking on the part of the Worcestershire

County Council that once the Council has received the data back from
Hatton tomorrow that there are no other copies of our data anywhere
but in the custody of the Worcestershire County Council. We have
been very frustrated by the many contradictory statements given by
your colleagues, and this has caused us to have no faith in their
veracity.
Don't believe me? In her letter of 12 February 2008 to our solicitor at

the time, David deMaid, Tracey Blanchard wrote, IIPhotographs were
not taken during the raid."
This is not true.
The Hatton disc contains a folder called Admin/Photos that contains

34 items. I attach a couple of the photos to illustrate my point. One
image (OOOl.jpg) is of my desk, and the second is the computer in the
farm office (0023.jpg). Blanchard was present when these photos
were taken by Hatton, yet she still advised our solicitor llphotographs
were not taken."
Still don't believe me? I his letter of 19 March 2008 to Mr. deMaid's
firm --- a letter that we call the "duel" letter --- John Dell wrote, "I am
also informed that the information taken from the computer related
Page 4 of 19
only to the day to day management of the kennels, details of which
will be forwarded to your client as soon as possible. [ ... ] The server in
the bedroom was accessed via the network from the main computer
in the office and material was obtained from it. This will, of course,
be forwarded to your client as soon as it is possible to do so."
Again, not true.
Mr. Hatton copied every Excel spreadsheet and every Word document
that he could find. Only a tiny proportion of the data on the CD-ROM
relates to the dog kennel, because our scheduling, register, and
reservations software is web-based, and sits on our server in
Delaware. Just a look at the file names of some of the Word files will
indicate what Hatton seized: "Craig Walsh - RLS - Dr. Webster,"
"Mattioli Woods - Transfer of AXA Pensions," "Worcester Primary
Care Trust - Complaint," etc. This is my personal confidential
information, and this data cannot remotely fall into the category of
being "related only to the day to day management of the kennels."
Yet that's what Dell said.
Dell also said we would be sent the computer expert's report lias
soon as possible," and Blanchard said "once we are in possession of
the report from our computer expert, I will forward you a copy."
Untrue.
We now know that Hatton was the previously unnamed computer

expert. In Hatton's e-mail of 12 September 2008 he indicates, "You
have commented that the witness statement on the disc is not dated
or signed. The signed paper version (dated 5 May 2008) is with
Trading Standards."
Why wasn't this report sent to us shortly after 5 May 2008, as both
Blanchard and Dell said would happen? I fact as I type this we still
haven't actually received the report --- since that would be the signed
report. I am sure you will wish to correct this continued oversight ---
see Caveat 2, below.
Page 5 of 19
Still not convinced?
Bye-mail dated 18 August 2008 Blanchard advised one of our

customers, "All [emphasis added] the information is contained on a
disc which is held in secure storage at the Trading Standards service,
with restricted access. Information examined has been limited to the
customer contact list."
Not true.
Blanchard did not advise our customer that Hatton was also holding
not one, but two, copies of our data. And Hatton certainly did not
limit his exarrlination to the customer contact list.
Still can't understand why we don't trust you and your colleagues?
Attached is a PDF file containing letters sent by Blanchard to me and

to our customers on 4 September 2008. She advises me, "With
complete, the disc will be destroyed."
This is --- as we have learned --- absolutely not true.
Blanchard did not mention --- neither to me, nor to any of our
customers --- that Hatton was holding two copies of our data in
Wolverhampton. He is holding such a substantial amount of data that
it doesn't fit on a CD-ROM: it needs a computer hard drive.
It is nothing short of outrageous that your colleagues are entrusted to

investigate whether the descriptions of our business on our web site
are truthful or not --- and, if untruthful, "would give rise to possible
offences being committed under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968
There could, of course, also be offences committed under The Fraud
Act 2006" [to quote from Blanchard's 12 February 2008 letter].
Does it not strike you as ironic that in the process of conducting their
Page 6 of 19
investigations of our veracity, your colleagues have apparently lied to
us and to our customers on numerous occasions? Do you believe that
the end justifies the means, and do you really believe that this
incredible behaviour is acceptable? Do you and your colleagues
believe that the niceties of the law somehow do not apply to how you
handle these investigations?
You are aware that we have also filed a formal complaint with the
Council on the whole issue of how this investigation was handled.
This e-mail is limited to the single issue of the handling of our data.
would imagine that a referral to the Local Government Ombudsman is
inevitable, and wonder how the Ombudsman's office will view the
facts that I have outlined above.
Our customers have sent us copies of all forms, letters, and e-mail
messages sent to Trading Standards in response to the August
questionnaire.
Second Caveat:
For the reasons stated above, we do not trust your colleagues to

continue to hold our data. We would expect that our data --- all of
our data --- be moved from the custody and control of Trading
Standards to the custody and control of your Data Protection
colleagues, or your legal department.
My wife and I wish to come to the Council offices tomorrow, once you
have received the information back from Hatton, and to be shown
where it will be held in the Council offices. At the same time, we will
pick up the original copy of your undertaking, and will pick up the
photocopy of Mr. Hatton's report.
There is, I understand, an obligation to disclose all evidence to us, so

if there are other parts of Hatton's report that have not (as yet) been
disclosed, I am hopeful that you will wish to promptly cure this
oversight.
Please promptly confirm your agreement to these two caveats.

Page 7 of 19
Failing to receive your agreement, I will have no choice but to
reluctantly proceed with my complaint to the ICO, as outlined in my
earlier e-mail message.
I understand you are a busy man, Mr. Wilkes. This investigation has
caused Marjorie and me considerable distress, and I would hope that
you would recognise this and will give this matter your priority
attention. I have tried to be factual and unemotional in this, and
earlier, e-mail messages. I hope you will understand from the
foregoing how incandescent we are with anger over the manner in
which we have been treated, and this investigation handled.
I hope to hear from you by return.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
Craig W. Walsh
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
From: "Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)" <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:26:30 -0400
Page 8 of 19
Craig W Walsh
Lucies Farm Ltd.

Sent: 09 September 200808:12
To: Craig Walsh
Subject: RE: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your
Good morning Mr Walsh, I have asked Simon Wilkes ( Unit Manager, Operations) to
investigate your complaints.He has 20 working days from yesterday to respond to you.
Kind regards, Judy Armitage
Cc: Dell, John (ES, TSS); Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade; talwells@btinternet.com
Subject: Picking Up Data Disc & Computer Report -- Lucies Farm Ltd. - Your Reference
TJB/3163/LH
Importance: High
Dear Ms. Armitage:
You were in the office early this morning --- I see that you read my e-mail
message just before 8:00 AM.
While I appreciate it will take the Council time to reply to my formal complaint,
it shouldn't take long to simply hand over the disc containing our data and your
computer expert's report. Your colleagues --- Mr. Dell and Ms. Blanchard ---
assured our solicitor that the computer expert's report would "be forwarded to
your client as soon as possible." This undertaking was provided by Mr. Dell on
19 March 2008 --- over five months ago --- but we never received the report. I
have re-confirmed this with Mr. deMaid at William Graham Law this morning:
he advised me, "I can't see I ever received any report from their expert."
You will appreciate that we do not wish our data disc to remain in the
possession of the Council any longer. So while we acknowledge it will take you
Page 7 of 10
Cc: "Stilgoe, Kevin (ES)" <KStilgoe@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA
PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL
DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Mr Walsh,
To ease your concerns regarding secure data storage, I have

arranged with Mr Hatton to take the data from him. It will be
collected from Mr Hatton and returned to the County Council
tomorrow. Two copies will be held in case of the failure of one of
the holding devices. I think this is reasonable. Mr Hatton will
remove the data from his systems once the transfer is complete.
He will then hold none of your data.
Simon Wilkes
Operations Manager
From: Stilgoe, Kevin (ES)
To: Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS)
Subject: FW: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA
CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S.

To: Evans, John (ES, BP & P); Stilgoe, Kevin (ES)
Cc: Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations); Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard
Slade; jkb@worcesternews.co.lJk
Subject: FW: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION
ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE
Page 9 of 19
COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Dear John and Kevin ---
I spoke with Lucy this morning on her cell phone.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that she's out of the office.
I have received her automated out-of-office reply. This

matter is urgent, and I would appreciate your handing
this in Lucy's absence.
There is absolutely no reason --- and no legal

justification --- for Mr Hatton to continue to hold my
data. Instead, I believe that his refusal to return my
data may itself be a violation of the provisions of the
Data Protection Act 1998. In continuing to hold my data
after my repeated requests that it be returned Mr.
Hatton may be committing a criminal offence.
My data --- all of my data --- held by Mr. Hatton and/or

his business is to be returned to me by the close of
business tomorrow, Thursday. We are also to receive
an unambiguous undertaking from the Council that
neither Mr. Hatton, his business, or any other entities ---
with the exception of the Worcestershire County Council
--- are holding copies of my data.
I have no objections to the Council holding my data ---

provided there is only one copy, and provided it is held
in a secure environment outside of the control of the
Trading Standards office --- until your disclosure under
the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act
is completed. At that point we will expect the Council to
also return my data, and not retain any copies.
Failing that, I will have no choice but to file a formal

complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office
against both the Council and Mr. Hatton. If we don't
Page 10 of 19
receive the return of the data from Mr. Hatton and the
requested undertaking by close of business tomorrow, I
will prepare the ICO complaint tomorrow night, have it
reviewed by my solicitor (Richard Slade) overnight, and
file it electronically with the ICO on Friday.
I had hoped that I was dealing with gentlemen ---

people who would follow the letter and spirit of the law
in the process of enforcing it --- and that a referral to
the ICO would not be necessary. But the moving goal
posts, and contradictory explanations given, have
undermined what little faith I had left in the Council. In
short, the contradictory statements mean we no longer
trust the Council, and are no longer willing to accept
incomplete, vague, or contradictory explanations.
This will be my final e-mail on this subject.
If an ICO complaint is necessary (and I hope to avoid

this), we will also be sending a bulk e-mail to our
customers advising them that the Council's earlier
undertakings concerning the handling of their personal
data have proven to be false, and will invite our
customers to file their own complaints with the ICO.
We will give them the necessary link to the forms on
the ICO website, and assist them in this process in
whatever way we can.
I reiterate that I hope this won't be necessary. To avoid

this, the Council merely has to follow the law, and do
the right thing.
Kind regards,
Craig
Page 11 of 19
Craig W. Walsh
Lucies Far.m Ltd. * Co11etts Green * Worcester * WR2
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
------ Forwarded Message

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:39:06 +0100
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard
Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>,
IIArmitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)"
Conversation: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
& DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION
REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 &
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST
CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON
Hi, Lucy ---
It was nice speaking with you this morning. Thank you

for taking the time to listen.
I don't mean to nag, but I have not received a reply to

my e-mail sent earlier today. Are we to go yet another
day with this unresolved, and with our data still in the
hands of Mr. Hatton?
Page 12 of 19
This is causing Marjorie and me considerable distress ---
and I would like the Council to consider our views in
this matter, and to give this priority attention.
I don't wish to be selfish, but I can't see that anything

should be more important to your colleagues in Trading
Standards than resolving this. We have dealt with this
for over eight months, and we have had enough.
Can I ask you to please give me an update on the

Hatton situation?
Kind regards
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05: 17:48 +0100
Cc: Marjorie Walsh <marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard
Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>,
"Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)"
Page 13 of 19
Conversation: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
& DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION
REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 &
Dear Ms. Dean ---
Thank you for your e-mail. Please excuse my slight

delay in responding.
For some reason your message was blocked by an e-

mail "filter." I have now added your e-mail address to
my list of approved senders.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I am

particularly interested to ascertain if your colleagues
continue to hold any of our data following a "raid" on
our home and farm on 10 January 2008. I have been
assured by your colleagues in Trading Standards that all
information has been returned to us. The CD-ROM is
marked "Copy of report ... " which leads mw to
believe that a copy has been retained by the Council,
despite assurances that all data seized would be
destroyed upon the completion of the investigation.
I am also deeply concerned by the fact that the Council

seems to have employed an external contractor to
handle our data. This consultant, Phill Hatton, does not
seem to be registered under the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998. It would appear that our personal
data may have been held in his home, in
Wolverhampton, for five months --- and possibly as long
as nine months. In August 2008 your colleagues were
assuring our customers that their data was held in a
Page 14 of 19
secure area in Trading Standards, with limited access.
It would appear that this was not accurate, as the data
also seems to have been held on a hard drive in the
consultant's house and a copy may also have been
given to the Malvern Hills District Council.
I have been advised that the Trading Standards

investigation has been concluded, so would assume
that the information is no longer privileged in any way.
Marjorie Walsh, Lucies Farm Ltd., and I do not grant our

blanket consent to your consulting third parties We
accept that there may be a legitimate reason for you to
do so: if this is the case, please contact me ahead of
time with more specific information and we will, of
course, be reasonable.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you

have further questions, or need any information from
us, please don't hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
(personally, as agent-in-fact for Marjorie J. Walsh, and

as a Director of Lucies Farm Ltd.)
Craig W. Wa~sh
Lucies Farm Ltd. * Co~~etts Green * Worcester * WR2
4RY
******************************************************
* (In USA 888-880-1531)
01905-830-380
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
Page 15 of 19
From: "Dean, Lucy (ES)"
<LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:31:58 -0400
Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 &

Thank you for contacting Worcestershire County

Council.
I acknowledge your request for information received on

8th September 2008.
Your request falls under two information request

regimes, Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Data
Protection Act 1998. The two regimes have different
timescale in which a response must be given, for the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 this is 20 working
day, for the Data Protect Act 1998 this is 40 days. We
believe that anyone piece of information could fall
under both regimes, but we will not know this until we
have collated all the information together. Therefore
we are dealing with your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 timescale of 20 working days.
Should this change once we have collated the
information we will contact you again with a revised
timescale.
Page 16 of 19
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 defines a number
of exemptions, which may prevent release of the
information you have asked for. If this is the case we
will write to you and also inform you of your rights of
appeal.
In some circumstances Worcestershire County Council

(WCC) may make a charge for this information under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This will be
considered and we will tell you if a fee is payable. In this
event the fee must be paid before the information is
processed and released. The 20 working day time limit
for responses will be suspended until receipt of the
payment and payment must be made within three
months.
In some circumstances WCC may need to consult with

third parties (people not employed by WCC) about the
release of information relating to them or their
organisation. Please let me know if you do not wish your
name to be released to any third parties we may need
to contact in order to fulfil this request.
If you have any queries or concerns then please contact

me on 01905 766785
Yours sincerely
Lucy Dean
Tel: 01905 766785
Mobile:
Fax: 01905 766899
Email: mailto: Idean@worcestershire.gov.uk
Page 17 of 19
Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:27PM
Subject: RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 - INFORMATION
REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Date: Friday, September 19, 20089:17 AM
Priority: Highest
Hi, Lucy --- f'::LAIM ANT 'EXHIBIT NUMBER 03 (J

Thank you for your message, Lucy.
I understand, and don't wish to be unreasonable --- but, essentially, no.
This has really caused Marjorie and me a lot of angst, and I would hate that to
continue through the week-end as well when the solution is so very easy --- just
hand back my data.
This has had Marjorie in tears, and there have been times when even I have felt
like a good sob.
I don't want you to come into the office today --- looks sunny outside, and hope
you have the day off. In your absence, is there someone else who could handle
this? Perhaps your boss? Someone in the Council's legal department? Who is
the Council's "Information Access Officer?" Can he/she pick this up in your
absence?
Marjorie and I are just heading out the door to pick up a doggie guest in
Birmingham. I will have my Blackberry with me --- part of my Heath Robinson
set-up --- and we will be at the farm all afternoon.
We could come over on ten minutes' notice to pick up my data. I don't want to
go another ten seconds without this being returned to me, although I can wait
until this afternoon. I don't want to go another week-end, however.
I will, if I must, spend the week-end gathering all my e-mail messages, etc., and
bundling them together to submit my complaint to the ICO. As you can see from
my messages, I have tried everything possible to avoid doing that.
But enough is really enough.
Page 1 of 12
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Dean, Lucy (ES) [mailto:LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk]

To: Craig Walsh
Subject: RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 -
INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S
Good Morning Craig,
I'm afraid I'm not in the office today and feel that a lot of work went on yesterday when I
was on leave, so really need to catch up with Simon Wilkes and our Information Access
Officer before I can say to you to come in. I would hate for you to have a wasted journey.
Would it be ok with you if I contact you on Monday once I've had a chance to be updated?
many thanks
Lucy
Page 2 of 12
To: Dean, Lucy (ES)
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION
ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE
Importance: High
Hi, Lucy ---
Gosh, Lucy, you're working later
There was an exchange of e-mail messages today, and I thought Simon

copied you on these. I posted them in my blog at www.doggie-
blog.com if you haven't received them.
I understand, and accept, that the Council needs to retain its data on
Marjorie, on me and on Lucies Farm Ltd. The Council's data belongs to
the Council, and I accept that I generally have no right to come in and
say, "Lucy, I want you to please erase this./I I have no real problem
with that --- except I don't trust your colleagues in Trading Standards
based upon their contradictory, and false, statements to me. I wish it
were otherwise, Lucy, but it isn't --- and the Council can't go back and
change what's already been done.
But I feel that my data --- the data on Hutton's hard drives and on the
CD-ROM --- is totally different. I can't understand why the Council
won't accept that the ownership of this data vests with me, and not
with the Council. It's my data, not the Council's data.
And as the owner --- clearly the owner --- of the data, I should be able
to specify what happens to that data.
And I specify that it be returned to me without delay, and with

confirmation that no copies have been retained by anyone (H utton,
WCC, MHDC --- anyone).
I accept that the Council can retain (for example) a copy of Hutton's
report should it wish to do so. But the data that Hutton took from my
computer is not part of his report --- it's my data.
Page 3 of 12
Another way around this, I suppose, would be for Marjorie and me to
formally withdraw our disclosure requests under the DPA 1998, and
lucies Farm ltd. to formally withdraw its disclosure request under the
Freedom of Information Act. I understand from Simon's earlier
message that once the disclosure requests are satisfied, the Council
would return my data. And our withdrawal of the requests would
presumably satisfy them.
So Marjorie and I could stop by your office tomorrow afternoon,

formally withdraw the two DPA 1998 and one Freedom of Information
Act requests, and you could hand over my data.
We would then, of course, simply file fresh DPA 1998 and Freedom of
Information Act disclosure requests. We're entitled to do this. We'd
do these the next business, and are happy to pay a fresh Stg 20.00 fee
to the Council.
Seems convoluted, but it is absolutely consistent with Simon's earlier

assurance.
I hope that common sense can prevail and that the Council, instead of
continuing to display total arrogance, will simply apologise for all of
the contradictory statements made by Trading Standards officers,
hand over all copies of my data, and give us a simple letter confirming
that no copies of my data have been retained by anyone.
If I complain to the lCD, do you honestly think they will see it any
other way? Or when this is (almost inevitably) reviewed by the local
Government Ombudsman, do you think they will be pleased with the
Council's actions in this matter?
It should also be apparent from the cc's on my earlier messages that

the Worcester Evening News is about to do a story on this whole
unpleasant affair. We are also working on getting the Telegraph
interested in covering this. Do you think the ratepayers of
Worcestershire will think that the Council had a right to continue to
hold my data: my medical records, personal financial records, etc.?
Page 4 of 12
also don't want you, and your colleagues, sifting through my data.
You're a nice lady, but the contents of my files are personal and I don't
want Council officials --- nice or nasty --- reading them.
I haven't copied anyone else on this message, Lucy. I can imagine that
life in the Council is pretty political, and that you have to deal with all
sorts of egos and levels of bureaucracy.
I just want the Council to do the right thing --- hand me back my data
tomorrow.
Will 3:30 PM work for you?
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W. Walsh
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
From: "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:47:21-0400
Subject: RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA
Hi Craig
Page 5 of 12
Sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. I was out of the
office yesterday afternoon, and on leave today and Simon
Wilkes was at the court yesterday on a case, so unfortunately I
didn't get to speak to him until after I had left the office. We did
catch up when he returned to the office, over a phone call, and
he was going to looking into moving your data to a secure
holding within County Hall. As I have been on leave today I
haven't had chance to catch up with him, but I will try to get an
update tomorrow and will then you.
Kind Regards
Lucy
To: Dean, Lucy (ES)
Cc: Marjorie J. Walsh; Richard Slade; Armitage, Judy (CS,
Consumer Relations)
CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S
Hi, Lucy ---
It was nice speaking with you this morning. Thank you for taking the
time to listen.
I don't mean to nagl but I have not received a reply to my e-mail sent
earlier today. Are we to go yet another day with this unresolved, and
with our data still in the hands of Mr. Hatton?
This is causing Marjorie and me considerable distress --- and I would

like the Council to consider our views in this matter, and to give this
priority attention.
Page 6 of 12
I don't wish to be selfish, but I can't see that anything should be more
important to your colleagues in Trading Standards than resolving this.
We have dealt with this for over eight months, and we have had
enough.
Can I ask you to please give me an update on the Hatton situation?
Kind regards
Craig
Craig- W. Walsh
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:17:48 +0100
<Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>, "Armitage, Judy (CS,
Consumer Relations)1I <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Conversation: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA
Page 7 of 12
Dear Ms. Dean ---
Thank you for your e-mail. Please excuse my slight delay in

responding.
For some reason your message was blocked by an e-mail "filter." I

have now added your e-mail address to my list of approved senders.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I am particularly interested

to ascertain if your colleagues continue to hold any of our data
following a "raid" on our home and farm on 10 January 2008. I have
been assured by your colleagues in Trading Standards that all
information has been returned to us. The CD-ROM is marked "Copy
of report ... which leads mw to believe that a copy has been
/I
retained by the Council, despite assurances that all data seized would
be destroyed upon the completion of the investigation.
I am also deeply concerned by the fact that the Council seems to have
employed an external contractor to handle our data. This consultant,
Phill Hatton, does not seem to be registered under the provisions of
the Data Protection Act 1998. It would appear that our personal data
may have been held in his home, in Wolverhampton, for five months
--- and possibly as long as nine months. In August 2008 your
colleagues were assuring our customers that their data was held in a
secure area in Trading Standards, with limited access. It would appear
that this was not accurate, as the data also seems to have been held
on a hard drive in the consultant's house and a copy may also have
been given to the Malvern Hills District Council.
I have been advised that the Trading Standards investigation has been
concluded, so would assume that the information is no longer
privileged in any way.
Marjorie Walsh, Lucies Farm Ltd., and I do not grant our blanket
consent to your consulting third parties We accept that there may be
Page 8 of 12
a legitimate reason for you to do so: if this is the case, please contact
me ahead of time with more specific information and we will, of
course, be reasonable.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have further
questions, or need any information from us, please don't hesitate to
get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Craig W. Walsh
(personally, as agent-in-fact for Marjorie J. Walsh, and as a Director of

Lucies Farm Ltd.)
Craig W. Walsh
4RY
******************************************************
*
01905-830-380 (In USA 888-880-1531)
0791-754-0529
******************************************************
*
From: "Dean, Lucy (ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk>

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:31:58 -0400
Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 & DATA PROTECTION
ACT 1998 - INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING ALL DATA HELD BY
THE COUNCIL ON LUCIE'S FARM LTD. & YOURSELVES
Page 9 of 12
Thank you for contacting Worcestershire County Council.
I acknowledge your request for information received on 8th

September 2008.
Your request falls under two information request regimes} Freedom of

Information Act 2000 and Data Protection Act 1998. The two regimes
have different timescale in which a response must be given, for the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 this is 20 working day} for the Data
Protect Act 1998 this is 40 days. We believe that anyone piece of
information could fall under both regimes, but we will not know this
until we have collated all the information together. Therefore we are
dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 timescale of 20 working days. Should this change once we have
collated the information we will contact you again with a revised
timescale.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 defines a number of

exemptions} which may prevent release of the information you have
asked for. If this is the case we will write to you and also inform you of
your rights of appeal.
In some circumstances Worcestershire County Council (WCC) may

make a charge for this information under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. This will be considered and we will tell you if a fee is
payable. In this event the fee must be paid before the information is
processed and released. The 20 working day time limit for responses
will be suspended until receipt of the payment and payment must be
made within three months.
In some circumstances WCC may need to consult with third parties

(people not employed by WCC) about the release of information
relating to them or their organisation. Please let me know if you do
not wish your name to be released to any third parties we may need
to contact in order to fulfil this request.
Page 10 of 12
If you have any queries or concerns then please contact me on 01905
766785
Yours sincerely
Lucy Dean
Tel: 01905 766785
Mobile:
Fax: 01905 766899
Email: mailto:ldean@worcestershire.gov.uk
*********************************************************
*************
may
Disclaimer
and
Page 11 of 12
Saturday. September 20, 2008 2:26 PM
Subject: RE: Information held

Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:50 PM
To: "Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services)" <SLewis2@worcestershire.gov.uk>
Cc: "Armitage, Judy (CS, Consumer Relations)" <JArmitage@worcestershire.gov.uk>, Marjorie Walsh
<marjorie@hmdp.com>, Richard Slade <Richard.Slade@bracherrawlins.co.uk>,
"Wilkes, Simon (ES, TSS) " <SWilkes2@worcestershire.gov.uk>, "Dean, Lucy
(ES)" <LDean@worcestershire.gov.uk> 03/
CLAIMANT EXHmIT NUMBER'---_ _
Dear Sarah:
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon, and for your
follow-up e-mail.
Yes, it is my wish --- and that of my wife, Marjorie (I am her attorney-in-fact),

and that of Lucies Farm Ltd. (I am a director of the Company) --- that this bag
remain sealed, that it absolutely not be considered as part of our pending
subject access requests, and that the sealed bag be returned to us as soon as
possible.
We can see no reason why the sealed bag cannot be returned to us as early as
Monday.
You have given me your undertaking that this sealed bag is not under the control
of Trading Standards, and that nobody will open the bag without our prior
consent. For the record, andfor the avoidance of any doubt, can you please e-
mail me with the serial number on the seal?
I have had a nice chat with Ms. Smith, and she has promised to call me back
today. My other calls --- to Rosemary Robinson in Ms. Haines' office and to
Judith in your legal department --- have not resulted in the promised call-backs.
More broken promises, I'm afraid, from the Worcestershire County Council.
Kind regards,
Craig
Craig W Walsh
****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
t 01905 830 380 m 0791 754 0529
www.luciesfarm.com
www.dog-hotel.co.uk

****************************************************
From: Lewis, Sarah (ACS, Cultural Services) [mailto:SLewis2@worcestershire.gov.uk]

To: Craig Walsh
Subject: Information held
Dear Mr Walsh
Further to our conversation this afternoon, I can confirm that the data returned by Mr
Hatton is in a box in a sealed bag that is held securely in the Corporate Information
Management Unit at County Hall.
You stated on the phone that you do not wish anyone to open the sealed bag and to have
access to this information, and that you do not wish the information held within the bag to
be considered as part of your Subject Access Request. Please can you confirm by return
email that this is the case.
Yours sincerely
Sarah
Sarah Lewis
Information Access Officer
County Hall
Spetchley Road
Worcester
WR52NP
Tel: 01905 728544
Fax: 01905 766698
http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/records <http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk!
records>
'Worcestershire Record Office - Celebrating 60 Years of Preserving and Promoting 900

Years of Worcestershire History'. Please see our website for further details.
Page 2 of 3
Brief CV:
1975 -1982: Wolverhampton Grammar School

Various O levels, History, Geography and Economics A levels
1982-1983: Gap year. General Studies and Computer Science A levels at

Wulfrun College, voluntary work and touring in Europe.
1983-1987: St David’s University College, Lampeter

BA (Hons) in Philosophy (2:2)
1987 -1991: Trainee Trading Standards Officer with Wolverhampton Council.

Completed Diploma in Trading Standards at Manchester
Polytechnic. This Diploma is the recognised professional
qualification for Trading Standards Officers and is one of the
accepted qualifications for membership of the Trading Standards
Institute (TSI)
1991-1993: Trading Standards Officer with Wolverhampton Council

Responsible for Fair Trading enforcement, including investigations
into the unauthorised production of computer software.
1993-1999: Senior Trading Standards Officer with Wolverhampton Council.

Continued in Fair Trading enforcement with increasing focus on
offences involving new technology.
1999-2004: Developed and managed Forensic Computing Facility for

Wolverhampton Trading Standards. During this period I examined
and reported on several hundred computer systems and also
other digital media such as CDs, floppy discs, mobile telephone
SIM cards etc.
Qualifications during this period as follows:
Royal Military College of Science/Cranfield

University Foundation Course in Forensic Computing.
University Network Forensics Course
University Forensic Internet Course
The RMCS courses are all examined to MSc level and moderated
by Cranfield University
FBI “ACES” Computer Forensics course

Guidance Software Advanced EnCase course, Leesburg VA
2004 to date: Established own business as Forensic Computing Consultant in

January 2004
In addition I have lectured to students at Manchester Metropolitan

University on computer crime and devised and partly delivered a
course for the Trading Standards Institute on computer seizure
and Internet investigations. I have provided Internet Investigations
training for the Office of Fair Trading and regularly deliver training
on all aspects of computer related crime to Trading Standards
services.
I am a professional member of the British Computer Society.
I am a member of the F3 computer forensics practitioner group

and regularly attend training days, workshops and conferences
arranged by this organisation.
I have completed and passed a training and accreditation course

for expert witnesses run by the Bond Solon legal training
organisation and Cardiff University (2005/06)
I have served with the Territorial Army since 1984 and am

currently a major in the Land Information Assurance Group. This
is a specialist unit composed of IT professionals from various
disciplines. In this capacity I served during the second Gulf war
with the 513rd Military Intelligence Brigade (US Army) as technical
manager of the theatre collection point for digital media, operating
in Northern Kuwait and Baghdad. I was responsible for the
operation of a multi-national team of military forensic computing
specialists exploiting captured Iraqi media on behalf of a number
of coalition national level agencies. This unit examined over 5000
items of media and provided significant intelligence input. I was
awarded the US Army Achievement Medal for my services in the
Gulf War.
I have also deployed on forensics-based information assurance

tasks in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Basra, Gibraltar, Cyprus, the
Falkland Islands and the UK. I have instructed in computer
forensics and incident response at the Royal School of Signals,
Blandford.
Contact Details: Phillip Hatton TD BA(Hons) MTSI MBCS DTS
Forensic-computing@blueyonder.co.uk
PO Box 4523
Wolverhampton WV1 9BR
Digital Media Examination Report
Case Number: 2007-107
Subject: Lucies Farm Ltd
Submitter: Malvern Hills District Council
Prepared by: Mr. P. HATTON TD BA(Hons)

MTSI MBCS DTS
PO Box 4523
Wolverhampton
WV1 9BR
Table of Contents:
Witness Statement:
1) Introduction First Page
2) Experience and Qualifications First Page
3) Conclusions Continuation Sheet 2
4) Scope of Examination Continuation Sheet 3
5) Events of 10 January 2008 Continuation Sheet 3
6) Subsequent activities Continuation Sheet 11
7) Continuity Continuation Sheet 12
8) Statement of Compliance Continuation Sheet 13

Appendices:
Appendix A: CV for P. HATTON
Appendix B: Printed Material
PH-1: Print out from Kennel Connections produced 10 January

2008
PH-2: Weekly Outlook Calendar print-out
Appendix C: Glossary of Useful Terms and Concepts
Appendix D: Working Disc

Please note that the Witness Statement and Exhibits comprising the bulk of the
paper version of this report are intended as a summary for court and similar use.
A significant amount of additional material is present on the Working Disc or
Discs appended to the statement, particularly in terms of detailing the procedures
followed and technical information about the media examined and the imaging
process. Additionally some significant items, such as databases or spreadsheets,
may only be presented in electronic form as presentation in printed form may be
inappropriate.
Report Produced by Phill Hatton Forensic Computing Ltd T/A Phill Hatton
Forensic Computing. Company Registration Number 5416004.
Registered office address: 37a Bridgnorth Road, Compton, Wolverhampton WV6
8AF (Accountants Office).
Director: P. Hatton. Company Secretary JA. Hatton.
Working Disc:
The Working Disc or Discs are supplied on one or more CDs or in some cases
on DVD. A reasonably modern PC with a screen resolution of at least 800x600
should be used. A Windows operating system with MS Office, Open Office (an
open source application allowing Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint files to
be accessed) or Quick View Plus (a multi-format file viewer) should be available.
Files not accessible using these applications will generally also be available in a
form that is.
The disc should run automatically. If autorun has been disabled on your PC you
will need to manually start the interactive menu from the “My Computer” view.
A list of material present on the Working Disc is included below. It is intended

that digital versions of all evidence and unused material are included to satisfy
disclosure requirements.
Part One (material primarily of use to investigators and the courts):
Electronic Versions of Witness Statements
Photographs – Photographs of equipment taken during the investigation

presented as an Encase Gallery
Access to folder structure of disc – A link to the various folders on the

working disc.
Part Two (material of use primarily to forensic computing practitioners):
Scanned copies of all contemporaneous notes, including submission

forms and other similar documentation.
Photographs – Photographs of equipment taken during the investigation

with supporting data presented as an Encase Bookmark Index.
Standard Terms and Conditions
1. My current hourly fee for Trading Standards cases is £55 for all time spent on the case.
2. This rate applies to all work undertaken during normal office hours (0800 to 1800 Monday to
Friday excluding public holidays). Submitters requiring work to be expedited will be charged an
additional 20% for all hours undertaken outside the above hours at my discretion.
3. An additional charge of £25 per 100 gb of data archived is also made in standard cases.
4. Fixed price trade mark/copyright cases are charged at £320 for the first PC, £90 for each
additional PC and £25 for each copying tower (discounts may be applied for large submissions).
Other items will be charged based on their estimated hourly cost. At my discretion fixed price
cases will revert to standard hourly rate cases in the following circumstances:
a. When the total size of recovered image sets in the case exceeds 400Gb.
b. When systems with operating systems other than Microsoft Windows are submitted.
5. Fixed price cases will be conducted in accordance with our published criteria and submitters must
be aware that the scope of what is examined and reported on is narrower than in a standard case.
6. Cases will be examined in approximately the order submitted subject to this being conducive to
the efficient use of my equipment and time. Expedited cases will be subject to the 20% surcharge
detailed above for all hours performed in advance of previously submitted cases.
7. My charge for traveling is £33 per hour plus 40p per mile. In general a daily rate for on-site
assistance will be agreed in advance.
8. Discounted rates apply to anti-piracy bodies and other bulk submitters.
9. My daily rate for attending court is £385 plus traveling time and mileage as above. I expect
payment even if I do not give oral evidence.
10. I will also invoice you for any reasonable expenses at cost. Copies of receipts will be provided
should they be requested.
11. Unless otherwise agreed I aim to complete all work within six weeks of submission. At busy times I
will make it clear to submitters if this is unlikely to be achieved. Should cases appear likely to take
longer than agreed I will contact the case officer as soon as possible to discuss the situation.
12. All cases must be accompanied by a completed submission form detailing the background and
focus of the case.
13. Please keep me informed about the progress of cases, particular cases which are discontinued or
proceed by way of a formal caution. Re-use of case and archive storage hard drives is essential to
maintaining my current price structure. At my discretion case and archive drives for cases will be
securely wiped twelve months after completion of my report unless I have been informed that a
case is still pending. For fixed price cases, which are not archived, the case drive will be reused at
my discretion after three months unless I have been informed that the case is still pending.
14. All charges are subject to VAT at 17.5%.
15. I expect payment within 60 days of receipt of my invoices, unless otherwise agreed. I have the
right to charge interest on unpaid invoices at the rate of 2% a month, or part of month, until full
payment is received.
16. All equipment submitted remains the responsibility of the submitting authority, although I will take
all reasonable steps to ensure equipment remains safe and secure. In certain circumstances I will
accept liability for submitted equipment at an extra charge. My liability in any event shall be limited
to the value of the contract.
17. I strongly advise against the use of couriers to transport evidence. Should you choose to use a
courier to deliver evidence you will also need to arrange collection following the examination. I
accept no responsibility for any loss or damage to any evidence transported by courier.
18. I will use my experience, care and skill in fulfilling your instructions to the best of my ability.
However you must be aware that it is essential to the credibility of my evidence that I am an
independent expert witness and my primary duty is ultimately to the court rather than my
customer.
19. Submission of equipment for examination following receipt of these terms and conditions will
signify agreement with them.
Phill Hatton Forensic Computing Ltd T/A Phill Hatton Forensic Computing
Company Registration Number 5416004
Statement of Witness
(Criminal Procedure Rules, r 27.1(1); Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 9,
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.5B)
STATEMENT of Phillip HATTON

(Full Name)
Age of Witness Over 18

(if over 18 enter ‘over 18’)
Occupation of Witness Forensic Computing Consultant
This statement, (consisting of pages each signed by me,) is

true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing
that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I
have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not
believe to be true.
Dated this day of 2008
Signed ..............................................................
1) Introduction
I am an independent forensic computing consultant operating from
PO Box 4523, Wolverhampton WV1 9BR. In this capacity I examine
computers and digital media on behalf of a variety of organisations
and produce reports detailing my findings.
This statement relates to the examination of computer equipment at
Lucies Farm, Malvern, on 10 January 2008.
2) Experience and Qualifications
From 1987 to 2004 I was employed in the Trading Standards
Division of Wolverhampton City Council and I have been involved in
the investigation of computer related crime since 1991. From 1999
to 2004 I first established and then was responsible for the operation
Signed ..............................................................
NOTE. Wherever possible statements should be on foolscap paper. If statements are typed
double spacing should be used. One side only of the paper should be used; a space should be
left at the top of the first page for headings to be entered by the clerk of the court [justices’
chief executive for the court]; and each page should have a wide margin on the left.
Continuation Sheet No 1
of the Division’s forensic computing facility and during this period I
examined several hundred PC systems and also other related
media including cellular telephones. In January 2004 I left the city
council and established my own forensic computing consultancy.
Between January 2004 and the end of March 2008 I was involved in
490 separate cases involving the forensic examination of computer
equipment or mobile telephones. I am a Territorial Army officer and
serve in the Land Information Assurance Group based at Corsham,
Wiltshire. This is a specialist TA unit comprised of Information
Technology professionals from various disciplines. From February
2003 to July 2003 I was mobilised for service in Kuwait and Iraq.
During this period I was technical manager of the theatre collection
point for digital media operated as part of the 513th Military
Intelligence Brigade, US Army.
I am a member of the Trading Standards Institute and a professional
member of the British Computer Society. In addition I have attended
and passed a variety of forensic computing courses at Cranfield
University/Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham. I have
also completed an Advanced EnCase Methodology Course held by
Guidance Software Inc, In Leesburg, Virginia and have undertaken
other software specific courses. I have completed and passed a
training and accreditation course for expert witnesses run by the
Bond Solon legal training organisation and Cardiff University.
Signed ..............................................................
Additionally I have completed and passed a course in mobile
telephone examination run by Microsystemation AB at the National
Policing Improvement Agency, Wyboston.
I have been responsible for training delivered via the Trading
Standards Institute and the Midlands Co-ordinating Organisation for
Trading Standards (MidCOTS) on the law relating to digital evidence
and computer seizure and also a variety of training delivered directly
to individual Trading Standards services.
I am familiar with, and a regular user of, a wide variety of computer
hardware, software, operating systems, interfaces and
environments.
A CV detailing qualifications and experience is appended as
Appendix A.
3) Conclusions
• The PC configuration at Lucies Farm was unusually complex
for such an environment and a significant quantity of data
was present. This had implications for how evidence was
recovered.
• A proprietary kennel management application, Kennel
Connection, had been purchased and was installed on one
system. However it did not appear to be in use in January
2008 and what little data had been entered was for test
purposes only.
Signed ..............................................................
• A total of twelve locations or “runs” had been entered into the
software.
• Since January 2005 Microsoft Outlook’s calendar/diary
feature had been used to record incoming and outgoing dogs.
Dogs present were entered into Outlook as a multi-day
“event” and thus the names of various dogs appeared each
day. On some days more than ten dog’s names appear and
on many days more than four dog’s names or pairs of dog’s
names appear.
4) Scope of Examination
I had been briefed that it was suspected that at various times more
dogs had been present at the Lucies Farm kennels than the
business was licensed for and that some dogs had been
accommodated in various locations other than the purpose-built
kennels. Thus the focus of my examination was to recover data from
any kennel management software or similar detailing how many
dogs were present at a particular time and where they were
accommodated. I was also to recover any general administrative
documentation relating to the operation of the kennels.
I had also been briefed that we were to have as little impact on the
legitimate activities of the business as possible.
5) Events of 10 January 2008
On 10 January 2008 I accompanied officers from Worcestershire
Signed ..............................................................
County Council Trading Standards, Malvern Hills District Council,
West Mercia Constabulary and the Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals to premises identified to me as Lucies Farm,
Collets Green, Malvern.
Accompanied by my technician, Mr Andrew TURNER, I entered the
premises at 1030. Initially we were shown to an area used as an
office where computers were installed. Mr TURNER and I set up our
equipment in an adjacent conservatory.
Two PC systems were identified in the office area, along with a
significant quantity of external data storage devices. I subsequently
also examined a PC system located in a stables area and a further
PC system located in an upstairs bedroom. I allocated item numbers
to the equipment as follows:
Item Location Notes

Number
2007-107-01 Office Dell PC tower base unit – main
server
2007-107-02 Office Dell PC tower base unit
2007-107-03 Stables
2007-107-04 Bedroom PC tower base unit (poicserver)
2007-107-04- Bedroom Lacie data storage device
01
2007-107-05 Office Network data storage device
2007-107-06 Office Lacie data storage device (large)
2007-107-07 Office Lacie data storage device (small)
2007-107-08 Office Maxtor data storage device
I commenced a contemporaneous log for the case which I have
retained. Scanned copies of the notes are included in the working
disc appended to this statement. Mr TURNER and I also took
Signed ..............................................................
various digital photographs of the equipment which are also present
on the working disc.
The owner of the business was not present at the time of our visit
and none of the employees who were present appeared to have any
knowledge of the operation of the computer equipment other than
the system located in the stables (2007-107-03).
The equipment present in the office area consisted of two PC tower
systems connected via a switch to a single keyboard, mouse and
monitor. Also connected were three Lacie external data storage
devices, a small Canon printer, an HP Color Laserjet Printer and two
scanners. I produced a diagram detailing the equipment but due to
general desk clutter I did not determine exactly how the devices
were connected. An additional Maxtor data storage device was also
Signed ..............................................................
present.
From my initial survey of the equipment present in the office area I
concluded that there would be insufficient time to create forensic
images of all of the data storage devices present. I also concluded
that the manner in which the various systems interrelated would be
of significance to the investigation. Because the owner was not
present turning off any of the systems would, in all probability, result
in me being unable to run them up again due to password
protection. Consequently I decided that the best approach would be
to access the various systems directly and, in particular, to attempt
to determine the network configuration and the relationships
between the various systems. I had also been shown an invoice for
a proprietary kennel management application, Kennel Connection,
which I suspected would contain the evidence required.
In accessing the equipment I had full regard for Principle Two of the
ACPO best practice guide for computer based electronic evidence
which states “Where a person finds it necessary to access original
data held on a computer or storage media, that person must be
competent to do so and give evidence explaining the relevance and
the implications of their actions.”.
I initially accessed PC system 2007-107-01. This system consisted
of a Dell PWS 670 PC tower. Microsoft Outlook E-mail/diary
software was open as was an application used for web site
Signed ..............................................................
administration. Also open was Adobe Photoshop, an image editing
and enhancement application. Photoshop was displaying a
photograph of a dog, which I saved at 1055 before shutting down
the application.
I examined the drive configuration of the system via the My
Computer window. The local drive (actually installed inside the PC
tower) had a capacity of 465 GB. In addition other drives attached to
the network were accessible as follows:
Drive R: Lacie 4 (1.36 TB)
Drive S: Don Craig Dell (37 GB)
Drive T: Lacie 2 (372 GB)
Drive U: Lacie 1 (372 GB)
Drive V: Common on Poicserver (30 GB)
Drive X: Craig-Walsh on Poicserver (30 GB)
Drive Y: PC files on Poicserver (30 GB)
Drive Z: Lacie 3 (461 GB)
I did not at this point attempt to link the drive letters and names with
actual physical equipment.
The total data storage capacity accessible to the system was over 3
TB (1 TB equals 1024 GB). This is a significant amount of data
storage and could not have been imaged in the time available.
I also identified that the application Kennel Connection was installed
on the system.
Signed ..............................................................
I then discussed the situation with the Trading Standards and
Animal Health officers and indicated that a conventional image of all
the data (which had been my initial aim) was not possible in the time
available. I indicated that the ideal solution would be to seize all the
equipment and image it in my laboratory. However I understood that
seizure was likely to have such a serious impact on the operation of
the business that this option was not open to us. I suggested that
the data concerning kennel occupancy was likely to be present
within the Kennel Connection application and that I could access
this and potentially produce reports detailing this information. This
course of action was agreed and at 1133 I accessed Kennel
Connection. I found that the program had not been used to any
degree in connection with actual kennel management and only
appeared to have been recently installed. Some test data had been
entered and some entries for late December 2007 were present. I
printed a table containing all of this data which is included as part of
appendix B to this report. This table includes rows for various runs
identified as CONSERV, GH-1, GH-2, LAUND, STABLE-1,
STABLE-2, STABLE-3, STABLE-4, SUITE 1, SUITE 2, SUITE 3 and
SUITE 4.
I then considered various other options for how kennel occupancy
had been managed and recorded. At this point I discussed the use
of a work scheduling/time-recording system with one of the
Signed ..............................................................
employees and briefly examined a PC system located in a stables
area (2007-107-03).
This system ran an application called Dovico Timesheet. This was a
web-based application used to allocate tasks to employees and also
to record time spent on various tasks. I examined some completed
time sheets and determined that they did not appear to record
kennel occupancy. I also identified that the system was used for
Internet telephony (Skype) and instant messaging, apparently by
various employees.
I then returned to my examination of PC system 2007-107-01 in the
office.
From the PC system I performed searches for various types of file
such as spreadsheets and databases in an attempt to identify how
Signed ..............................................................
kennel occupancy had been managed and recorded. I also looked
at installed applications to determine whether other proprietary
software had been installed for this purpose. The Sage accounts
package had been installed. I was unable to access this application
because of password protection. I felt it was however unlikely that
Sage would have been used to manage kennel occupancy.
I then examined Microsoft Outlook and determined that the
diary/scheduling feature of this application appeared to have been
used, with incoming and outgoing entries for dogs and listing
resident names (apparently of dogs) as a multi-day “event”. This is a
relatively unusual use for Outlook and I suspect that this was not a
particularly efficient way of managing the kennels, hence the
purchase of Kennel Connection.
I decided that the most appropriate means of recovering the Outlook
PST file containing the calendar data was to remove that hard drive
from system 2007-107-01, connect it to my portable forensic PC
system and perform a preview of the data using Encase software. I
did this and accessed the contents of the drive. I then copied all
Outlook files, all Microsoft Word and Excel documents and data
folders for Sage and Quicken accounts onto a hard drive installed in
my PC system.
I was shown an Apple laptop which had been recovered from
another part of the farm. This system was not examined.
Signed ..............................................................
I then continued to examine the data stored on the various other
devices for further documentation relating to kennel administration
and also for any further means of recording the numbers and
locations of dogs at any given time. I used system 2007-107-02 (a
Dell PWS 340 tower base unit) for this purpose. I identified material
of potential interest on the PC system identified as POICSERVER. I
determined that this system was the PC tower located in an upstairs
bedroom. This system consisted of an older Dell PC tower and an
external data storage device. For a number of reasons I decided
that shutting this system down and imaging or previewing the drives
would not be appropriate and so I accessed the material via the
network connection from system 2007-107-02 and copied it onto an
external storage hard drive I had brought with me.
Mr TURNER and I then packed up our equipment and we left the
premises at 1310.
6) Subsequent activities
On 10 January 2008 Mr TURNER copied all the recovered data onto
a laboratory hard drive and made a further archive copy.
On 5 May 2008 I examined the data. I identified the particular
Outlook PST file and imported it into an installation of Outlook which
did not contain any data. I determined that what appeared to be
dog’s names had been entered on various days from January 2005
to January 2008. I produced a series of weekly printouts detailing
Signed ..............................................................
this information which forms part of appendix B. A version of this
listing in Adobe PDF format is present on the working disc.
I then organised the data I had recovered from system 2007-107-01
by file type (e.g. Word, Excel etc) and subsequently copied this
material to the working disc. I left the material from system 2007-
107-04 as originally organised and also copied this to the working
disc.
It should be noted that because the material was copied, rather than
being recovered from an image, date and time information
associated with the material is likely to have been changed.
However internally stored data present within Microsoft Office
documents is likely to be accurate.
Various other Outlook mailboxes had been recovered. These were
not examined and are not included on the working disc.
Additionally as the data required was present within the Outlook
data produced no attempt to examine the Sage and Quicken
accounts packages was made. If required further examination of
both Outlook and accounting packages can be performed.
7) Continuity
I produce the following Exhibits, all signed and dated by me, which
were created as part of the examination and are appended to the
statement as indicated:
Exhibit Annex: Description:

Number:
Signed ..............................................................
PH-1 B Kennel Connections table printed on 10

January 2008
PH-2 B Outlook Calendar entries Jan 2005 to Jan
2008
PH-3 C Glossary of useful words and concepts
PH-4 D Working Disc
8) Statement of Compliance (Includes requirements under the
Criminal Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2006)
During the examination all equipment functioned correctly or, in
instances in which it did not, this did not in any way affect the results
ultimately produced.
All activities were performed in accordance with the Association of
Chief Police Officers Good Practice Guidance for Computer based
Electronic Evidence, a copy of which is present on the Working Disc
appended to this statement.
All trade marks used within the statement and associated
documentation are acknowledged.
I am responsible for the maintenance and storage of all written and
digital records and documents produced during the operation of my
business.
Some procedures were performed under my supervision by my
technician, Andrew TURNER, from whom a statement can be
obtained if required. Activities performed by Mr TURNER are
identified in the Procedures file present on the Working Disc. Mr
TURNER has been employed by me since April 2007 and has
Signed ..............................................................
received in-house training and regularly attends seminars and
workshops arranged by computer forensics practitioner bodies.
I understand my duty as an expert witness is to the court. I have
complied and will continue to comply with that duty. This statement
includes all matters relevant to the issues on which my expert
evidence is given. I have given details in this statement of any
matters which might affect the validity of my findings. Any
conclusions I have drawn or opinions I have expressed represent
my true and complete professional opinion.
Signed ..............................................................

Lucies Farm Data Protection Complaint

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Lucies Farm Data Protection Complaint

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

T he Data P rotec tion A c t 1998

2. P revious c ontac t with the IC O

Please provide any reference number we have already given you.

This will help us to process your complaint.

4. W ho do you want to c omplain about? (T his will us ually be an organis ation.)

Please see attached statement

7. W hen did you firs t bec ome aware of the problem?

8. S upporting doc uments

• copies of documents describing what has happened; and

• copies of correspondence between you and the organisation or individual

11. Dec laration

By sending this form I confirm that;

• I have listed all the documents I am sending with this form.

Please check to confirm

Are you the pers on named in s ec tion one of this form? Y es

Us ing our online enquiry form

Information Commissioner’s Office

Re: Your clients Mr & Mrs Walsh/Lucles Farm Ltd

A complaint was received at this service conceming the boarding kennels

Under section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, an officer of a local

a. I have enclosed copies of the documents we seized. These were seized

e. I have attached copies of the documents' seized, which relate to the

f. As the originals are being retained as evidence, I have enclosed

g. Still awaiting report on computer.

h. Any questions you have relating to the warrant should be addresses to

As I am sure you can appreciate. once a serious complaint is made, we are

Cc: Paul Hine Animal Welfare Officer

F.T.A.O: Ms T Blanchard Date: 28th February 2008

OUR CLIENTS: MR & MRS WALSH/LUCIES FARM LTD

WILLIAM GRAHAM LAW LTD

William Graham Law Ltd

Your clients - Lucies Farm Ltd

Further to your letter of the 28 February 2008, I am somewhat astounded by

I am informed by Tracey Blanchard, the Investigating Officer, that the house

Trade Descriptions Act 1968

I am currently investigating a complaint concerning Lucies Farm, Powick,

From records, I believe that your , boarded at the ken-

Certllicate No. 399194

Subject: RE: Complaint re: Lucies Farm

We have been overwhelmed with the e-mailsandlettersofsupportwe.ve

See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch

I thought the e-mail below might interest you!

To: Manager, Complaints and Investigations, Worcesterhsire Trading

I received a questionnaire yesterday from one of your officers, Tracey Blanchard.

I have written to Ms Blanchard to re-inforce my comments on the questionnaire

I look forward to receiving your reply on these two points.

Subject: RE: Complaint re: Lucies Farm

See our online photo gallery at www.bark.ch

Reply to my e-mail of complaint to Mr Dell. I think I am, in official terms,

Thank you for your email concerning this matter.

I am obviously not in a position to divulge information concerning this specific matter,

Sent: 14 August 2008 10:54

I received a questionnaire yesterday from one of your officers, Tracey

Obviously I contacted the owner Mr Craig Walsh for an explanation and am

I have written to Ms Blanchard to re-inforce my comments on the questionnaire

I look forward to receiving your reply on these two points.

It is interesting that their letter only mentions original, one

They assured our then-solicitor (appointed by our legal insurance company)

I think they've been watching too many episodes of "Mission: Impossible."

Thank you for your help and your support.

FYI - 2ND TIME LUCKY

As I mentioned to you on the 'phone yesterday, the District Council refused to

Marjorie and I find this all very distressing.

.----- Original Message ----