East Sussex Registration Service
The Register Office
St George’s Place
Hastings
East Sussex

Rupert Clubb
Customer Services and Information Governance Team
Communities, Economy and Transport Department
East Sussex County Council

Telephone: 01273 335864
Date: 28th November 2024

Subject: Response to Correspondence Regarding Injunction Application

IBAC Headquarters
L 1 North Tower
459 Collins Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000
+61 1300 735 135

Subject: Follow-up on Complaint Reference IBAC F243411550406 – Children’s Director Matthew Dunkley

28th December 2024

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Birth Certificate Application Discrepancy – Case Reference: 17707730

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the issues surrounding my birth certificate application for Lauren Louise PETERS daughter of my partner  who shares  a child birth with me historically (reference: RG 0320212), which I believe have not been adequately addressed by your team.

Specifically, I would like to confirm certain details relating to the medical records for Daniel David Cunningham, born on 9th September 1993, as I am researching family connections. I have the following details and would appreciate your assistance in verifying or clarifying them:

1. Address in September 1993:
   I understand that the home address for Daniel David Cunningham, in September 1993, was 12 Luckmore Drive, Lower Earley, Reading RG6 7RP. Could you please confirm or deny if this address is listed in medical records under MXD93F215?
2. Medical Record Details:
   Can you confirm if MXD93F215 corresponds to the medical record of Cathryn Louise Peters (formerly known as Gummerson) or if it is indeed the record for Daniel David Cunningham, born on 9th September 1993?

I am aware that there are privacy and confidentiality considerations, and I respect the limits of information you can provide. However, I am hopeful that you can assist in verifying key details that would help me in confirming family connections and understanding the history of my daughter’s half-sibling.

I would appreciate any information or clarification you can offer. Please let me know if I need to take further steps to assist in this process.

The inconsistencies in identity, timeline, and jurisdiction strongly suggest errors or intentional manipulation in the documentation. Cross-referencing the official records and obtaining independent verification will be crucial to untangling this narrative.  

The discrepancies and contradictions in the timeline strongly suggest either errors or fabrication in social services’ documentation. The use of “Peters” as a name across multiple records appears highly suspicious, as it does not align with Catherine’s known legal identity. Clarifying the origins of this alias and the basis for the social services narrative is critical. Cross-referencing official documents (e.g., birth and marriage certificates) with the reports will be essential to identifying where and how the discrepancies arose.  

Concerns about the discrepancies in official records and the potential for altered or inaccurate information within the General Register Office (GRO) are valid, especially given the irregularities you’ve uncovered.  Concerns about the discrepancies in official records and the potential for altered or inaccurate information within the General Register Office (GRO) are valid, especially given the irregularities you’ve uncovered.  

Timeline

1. 1972: Catherine Louise Gummerson is born in Reading.
2. 1983: At age 11, Catherine is alleged to have entered care (under Social Services).
3. 1993 (September): Daniel David Cunningham is born in Reading, registered with mother’s maiden name as Peters.
4. 1996 (February):
   • Catherine (Gummerson) marries Ali Arif, registered as her first marriage.
   • Ali Arif’s previous marriage is dissolved.
5. 1996 (March):
   • Daniel (aged 3) is accommodated under Section 20 by Newbury Social Services.
   • Described as the son of Catherine Louise Peters.
6. 1996 (May):
   • Paige Marie H Cunningham is born in Harlow, registered with mother’s maiden name as Peters.
   • Daniel is returned to Catherine in August 1996.
7. 1997 (February):
   • Social Services place Paige and Daniel into foster care after Catherine is deemed unable to guarantee their safety.

Background

On 19 August 2023, I submitted an application to your office for a birth certificate for Lauren Louise PETERS. Shortly thereafter, I was contacted by your team, specifically Magdalena Williams, who informed me that the birth entry you had located for Lauren did not match the details I provided. Specifically, the surname on the official record appeared as “MIELLO” rather than “PETERS.”

Despite being advised of this discrepancy, I requested on 28 September 2023 that the certificate be issued with the details I had provided, including the surname “PETERS.” I made this request with the understanding that further clarification was being sought.

The situation indeed raises valid questions regarding the use of the surname Peters, particularly given that Cathryn Louise Gummerson appears to have retained her maiden name until her marriage to Ali Arif in 1996. If this predated her marriage, it could suggest one of the following possibilities:  

 The details for both Daniel David Cunningham and Paige Marie H Cunningham raise a few important questions, particularly regarding the mother’s maiden name (“Peters”) and the registration locations, as well as the potential links between the two registrations.  

Summary of Information Regarding Daniel David Cunningham and Family

1. Daniel David Cunningham – Birth and Early Information

• Full Name: Daniel David Cunningham
• Date of Birth: 9th September 1993
• GRO Reference: Sep 1993, District: Reading and Wokingham, Subdistrict: 3201D
• Mother’s Maiden Name: Peters
• Address (in September 1993): 12 Luckmore Drive, Lower Earley, Reading RG6 7RP (to be confirmed)
• Mother’s Details: Cathryn Louise Peters (formerly known as Gummerson), Reading, Berkshire

2. Paige Marie H Cunningham – Birth and Family Context

• Full Name: Paige Marie H Cunningham
• Date of Birth: 16th May 1996
• GRO Reference: Jun 1996, District: Harlow, Subdistrict: 4721B
• Mother’s Maiden Name: Peters
• GRO Reference Number for Certificate: COL372146/2023
• Order Submitted on: 25th August 2023, Estimated Dispatch Date: 4th September 2023

3. Historical Events and Key Family Information

• Daniel David Cunningham is believed to be the half-brother of your daughter, Emily.
• Cathryn Louise Peters (formerly known as Gummerson) is listed as the mother of both Daniel and Paige.
• There is uncertainty surrounding certain records, such as the GRO birth certificate for Daniel, which appears to have inconsistencies in relation to signatures, surnames, and the presence of a father.
• Mother’s Name Variants: Documents mention “Cathryn” and “Catherine,” with concerns about the use of a different name and possible discrepancies in the records.
• Catherine Louise Gummerson/Arif: In 1996, Cathryn (aged 24) married Ali Arif, whose first marriage had dissolved. This occurred during a time when Daniel was 3 years old and under the care of social services.
• Family Context: Daniel and Paige were both in care during the mid-1990s, with Paige’s birth certificate listing “Peters” as the surname.

Key Observations:

1. Mother’s Maiden Name:
   • Both Daniel and Paige’s records list the mother’s maiden name as Peters. If this is inconsistent with known records of the mother being Catherine Louise Gummerson (later married as Arif), it suggests further investigation into whether Peters is an alias, a clerical error, or a legal name change.
2. Different Registration Districts:
   • Daniel’s birth is registered in Reading and Wokingham, Berkshire (District 3201D), whereas Paige’s is registered in Harlow, Essex (District 4721B). This geographical discrepancy is notable, as it suggests either relocation or differing circumstances for each registration.
3. Timeline of Events:
   • Daniel’s birth (09/09/1993) pre-dates Catherine’s marriage to Ali Arif in February 1996. This suggests Daniel was born when Catherine was unmarried and possibly explains why the father’s name may be absent from his birth record.
   • Paige’s birth (16/05/1996) occurs shortly after Catherine’s marriage, raising questions about why the surname Cunningham is used instead of her marital surname Arif.
4. Matching Dates but Different Districts:
   • While Paige’s registration in Harlow aligns with her inferred birthplace in Essex, Daniel’s registration in Reading seems less aligned with the family’s later presence in Harlow. The reasons for these distinct locations warrant investigation.

Specific Requests to Include in Correspondence:

• Confirmation of Mother’s Name: Was the mother recorded as Catherine Louise Peters, Catherine Louise Cunningham, or any other variant?
• Siblings’ Records: Do Daniel, Lauren, and Paige share consistent maternal details in their birth registrations?
• Inconsistencies in Dates and Locations: Why might the GRO’s Certified Copies differ from other known information, and can this be reconciled?

Questions for Investigation:

1. Birth Certificate Records:
   • Obtain certified copies of Daniel’s and Paige’s birth certificates to confirm the mother’s name and any potential discrepancies.
   • Verify if “Peters” appears due to clerical error or deliberate misrepresentation.
2. Marriage Certificate:
   • Catherine’s 1996 marriage certificate should confirm her name at the time of marriage as “Gummerson.”
3. Social Services Documentation:
   • Review the basis for their claims that Catherine was unable to guarantee the safety of the children in 1997.
   • Assess whether these conclusions were supported by independent evaluations or professional assessments.
4. Alias Use (Peters):
   • Was “Peters” introduced by social services or another party? If so, why?
   • Verify Catherine’s ability to access legal documentation (e.g., bank accounts) in Ireland using “Peters.”

Ongoing Concerns and Stage 1 Complaint

After receiving the certificate, I raised concerns regarding its validity. I believe the certificate issued was not only incorrect but may have been fraudulently processed, as it bore the name “MIELLO,” which is not the name on my application. I formally raised these concerns in my Stage 1 complaint submitted on 6 October 2023, which requested a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of this certificate.

Despite the efforts to resolve the matter, I received a response from Mrs. S Allport on 14 October 2023, which explained that both “PETERS” and “MIELLO” were linked to the same birth entry in the national index system. However, this explanation did not satisfactorily address my concerns. In particular, I remain confused as to how the same birth entry could be indexed under two different surnames and why this discrepancy was not corrected before the certificate was issued.

Issues with the Response

The key issues that I believe require further investigation and clarification are as follows:

1. Certificate Issued Under an Incorrect Name: The birth certificate issued bore the name “MIELLO,” which was not the name provided in my original application, causing confusion and concerns about its legitimacy.
2. Inconsistent Explanation of the Indexing Process: While the response from Mrs. Allport cited the national indexing system’s methodology, it failed to provide sufficient clarity on how two different surnames could be linked to the same record without causing potential errors in issuing a certificate.
3. Inadequate Resolution of Concerns: Despite being offered a refund if I returned the certificate, my primary concern remains the validity of the issued certificate. I have not received an adequate resolution regarding this issue.

Request for Further Action

I respectfully request the following actions:

1. A thorough review of the birth entry for Lauren Louise PETERS to confirm that all information in your records is correct and that no errors were made in the indexing or processing of my certificate.

Expanded Timeline of Events in the Case of Birth Certificate Discrepancy

Date	Event
19 August 2023	Initial Birth Certificate Application: Martin Newbold submits an application for a birth certificate for a child named Lauren Louise PETERS. Reference: RG 0320212. The request specifies the details for Lauren Louise PETERS, and the application is processed by the Liverpool City Council.
19 August 2023	Application Details: The application includes the name “Lauren Louise PETERS,” but the council identifies a mismatch. The names on the mother’s details and the child’s surname in the official index are different from the names provided in the application. Instead of “PETERS,” the child’s surname listed in the national index is “MIELLO.” This discrepancy is noted in the council’s response to Martin.
20 August 2023	Initial Contact (Magdalena Williams): Customer service officer Magdalena Williams contacts Martin Newbold. She explains that while the birth entry has been located in the index, there is a discrepancy with the surname. The child’s surname listed in the official record is “MIELLO,” not “PETERS” as provided in the application. She informs Martin of this difference and advises that he may need to confirm the details before the certificate is issued.
28 September 2023	Follow-up Email from Martin: Martin sends an email expressing dissatisfaction with the situation. He acknowledges the mismatch but insists that the certificate be sent anyway. He requests the certificate despite the differing surnames and the concerns raised by the council.
5 October 2023	Recording of Telephone Call: Martin claims to have recorded a telephone call with Pat Daly, a Team Manager at the Council. During this call, Mrs. Daly reportedly explained how the national index system is compiled and reassured Martin that the certificate was correct based on the official birth entry. The call lasted for a considerable amount of time, during which Mrs. Daly also offered to refund the certificate fee if Martin chose to return the certificate. Martin mentions in his correspondence that he recorded this call without prior knowledge or consent from Mrs. Daly, which becomes a point of contention in later interactions.
6 October 2023	Stage 1 Complaint Filed: Martin formally files a Stage 1 complaint with the council. He states that he believes the issued birth certificate in the name “MIELLO” is incorrect and possibly fraudulent. He requests a detailed explanation as to why the name mismatch exists between the certificate and the details he provided in the original application. He also questions whether the certificate was issued fraudulently or if there has been an error in the processing.
7 October 2023	Additional Correspondence: Martin follows up on his complaint by requesting that the council review their records and confirm the correct birth entry for Lauren Louise PETERS. He insists that the council verify that all information and documents related to the child and her mother, Catherine Peters, are accurate and that the correct birth certificate should be issued based on the application details.
14 October 2023	Stage 1 Response from Mrs. S Allport: Mrs. S Allport, Senior Registration Service Coordinator at Liverpool City Council, responds to Martin’s complaint. In her response, she explains the council’s reasoning for issuing the certificate in the name “MIELLO.” Mrs. Allport clarifies that both “PETERS” and “MIELLO” are linked to the same birth entry, as the national index compiles records under multiple surnames if they appear in different sections of the record. She provides printouts from the Find My Past website showing that both names are associated with the same local reference and entry number, which confirms the validity of the birth record under both surnames.
14 October 2023	Clarification of the National Indexing Process: Mrs. Allport provides a detailed explanation of how birth entries are indexed. The council’s indexing system records names in specific spaces: child’s surname, father’s surname, and mother’s surname. As a result, if discrepancies in names occur, the entry may appear under more than one surname, but it still corresponds to the same unique reference. Mrs. Allport asserts that the birth record for Lauren Louise PETERS and the record for Lauren Louise MIELLO refer to the same birth entry with the unique reference number (0251C, Register Number C39D, Entry Number 098).
15 October 2023	Confusion and Further Inquiry: Martin continues to express confusion about how the national index system works. He questions the legitimacy of the birth certificate issued in the name “MIELLO,” as he believes it does not correspond with the name on the application (“PETERS”). He asks for further clarification from the council, requesting a more detailed explanation about how an official birth entry can feature two different surnames and why this discrepancy occurred in his case.
16 October 2023	Reaffirmation of Discomfort and Concern: Martin writes again to the council, emphasizing his concern about the authenticity of the birth certificate and its potential impact on matters like benefits and official documents. He continues to express his dissatisfaction with the council’s response and requests that the situation be re-examined. He maintains that the issued certificate could be incorrect or possibly fraudulent, and he calls for an official review of the case.
October 2023 (Ongoing)	Investigation and Next Steps: The council continues to investigate the issue and considers the possibility of escalating the matter. Martin is given the option to take the complaint to Stage 2 of the council’s complaints procedure if he is still dissatisfied with the resolution. He is advised that if he decides to move forward with Stage 2, he will need to provide written details outlining why he remains unsatisfied with the Stage 1 response.

---

Summary of Key Points and Actions

1. Initial Application and Name Discrepancy (19 August 2023):
   • Martin Newbold applied for a birth certificate for “Lauren Louise PETERS.”
   • The council located a record for a child named “Lauren Louise MIELLO,” which caused a discrepancy between the details Martin provided and the official record.
   • The council informed Martin of the mismatch and asked him to confirm the details.
2. Initial Contact from the Council (20 August 2023):
   • The council informed Martin that the names in the birth record did not match the application details and advised him of this discrepancy.
3. Follow-up from Martin (28 September 2023):
   • Despite being advised of the name mismatch, Martin insisted on receiving the certificate with the details as requested, including the name “MIELLO.”
4. Telephone Call with Pat Daly (5 October 2023):
   • During a phone conversation, Pat Daly, a team manager, explained how the national index compiles records and offered Martin a refund if he wished to return the certificate. Martin recorded the call without Pat Daly’s consent, which later became a point of contention.
5. Stage 1 Complaint (6 October 2023):
   • Martin filed a Stage 1 complaint questioning the legitimacy of the birth certificate and its possible fraudulent nature due to the name discrepancy.
6. Council’s Stage 1 Response (14 October 2023):
   • Mrs. S Allport, Senior Registration Service Coordinator, responded with an explanation of the national indexing system and clarified that both “PETERS” and “MIELLO” are linked to the same birth entry under different surnames, which is why the certificate was issued with “MIELLO.”
7. Further Concerns and Clarification Request (15-16 October 2023):
   • Martin continued to question the authenticity of the certificate and requested further clarification from the council, expressing dissatisfaction with their explanation.
8. Next Steps (October 2023):
   • Martin was advised that he could escalate the issue to Stage 2 of the complaint process if he remained dissatisfied with the resolution from Stage 1.
9. The discrepancies and irregularities in the documentation you have provided indeed raise significant questions. Let’s break it down systematically:Daniel David Cunningham
   • Born in September 1993, Reading and Wokingham district, Berkshire.
   • Mother’s maiden name: Peters.
   • This aligns with Reading being Catherine’s hometown but raises questions about connections to Essex.
   Catherine’s Information
   • Injuries and police report: The report stating Catherine’s injuries were reported in Essex (Harlow Police) conflicts with her apparent links to Reading (Berkshire). Harlow is 65 miles away, suggesting some discrepancy in the jurisdiction or potential movement between locations.
   • Mother’s maiden name: The Peters connection aligns in part, but there is no evidence or reason for Catherine being identified as Peters if she was known as Gummerson at the time of her marriage.
   • Marriage and Age at Marriage: Catherine married as Catheryn Louise Gummerson in 1996, aged 23 or 24, depending on the exact date.
   • Ali Arif’s age and dissolved marriage in the same timeframe (1996-1997) could suggest overlapping or unusual circumstances.
   Issues in Documentation
   1. Birth Registrations:
      • The alignment of Daniel’s birth date with Paige’s birth date is peculiar. If this is correct, it might hint at either misattribution or conflation of records by social services.
      • The geographical mismatch (Reading vs. Essex) further complicates the narrative.
   2. Mother’s Maiden Name and Identity Confusion:
      • Why would Catherine be referred to as Peters when her known legal identity at marriage was Gummerson?
      • Could “Peters” be another familial connection not directly attributed to Catherine herself?
   3. Fictional or Fabricated Elements in Social Services Report:
      • The inconsistencies in locations, dates, and identities suggest either errors or deliberate misrepresentation in documentation.
      • Cross-referencing against independent records (e.g., GRO Birth Index, marriage certificates) might clarify the discrepancies.
   4. Ali Arif’s Timeline:
      • If Ali Arif’s prior marriage dissolved in 1996-1997 while he was marrying Catherine, this is indeed unusual. Did the dissolution and new marriage overlap? Was proper documentation submitted to validate these events?

Request for Further Action

I respectfully request the following actions:

1. A thorough review of the birth entry for Lauren Louise PETERS to confirm that all information in your records is correct and that no errors were made in the indexing or processing of my certificate.
2. A clear and detailed explanation of how two different surnames, “PETERS” and “MIELLO,” were linked to the same birth entry in the national index. This discrepancy seems unusual, and I would like to understand the reasoning behind why both surnames are being connected to the same reference. Additionally, I request an explanation of why this issue was not flagged earlier or corrected before the certificate was issued.
3. The issuance of a corrected birth certificate under the name “PETERS,” which reflects the details I originally provided in my application, as it is essential to the accuracy of my personal records and documentation.

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

Visit my author website