📂 Exhibit X1 – Statement of Claim: Misfeasance in Public Office

Claimant: :Waseem: Malik. – Living Man, Sui Juris
Defendant: Ms. Sue Sorce – Agent of Abri Housing Group Ltd
Venue: County Court / High Court (TBC)
Cause of Action: Misfeasance in Public Office
Filing Status: Draft for Pre-Action Protocol (pending endorsement)

🔍 Factual Background

On 18 July 2025, Ms. Sorce, acting in official capacity on behalf of Abri Housing, issued a formal communication (Exhibit G) containing the following ultimatum:

“If you do not agree to attend a meeting with Thames Valley Police and comply with our process, we will have no option but to close your ASB case.”

This threat was directed at the Claimant, a vulnerable tenant and documented victim of a witnessed racist hate crime, in direct defiance of safeguarding obligations and prior High Court protective measures.

⚠️ Allegations of Misfeasance

The Claimant asserts that:

Ms. Sorce knowingly and maliciously abused public authority by conditioning case continuation on compliance with intimidating demands.
The coercive language was intended to obstruct transparency, force unwanted police exposure, and suppress lawful escalation of racial hate crime evidence.
The Defendant acted with targeted malice, or at minimum reckless indifference, toward the psychological and legal safety of the Claimant.
The conduct constitutes misfeasance in public office, actionable in civil court, supported by case law including Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [2003] and Jones v Swansea City Council [1990].

📎 Supporting Evidence

Document	Function
Exhibit G	Threatening email from Abri issued by Defendant
Log #598	Analysis of coercive ultimatum
Exhibit AG	Affidavit of Historical Torture – confirms vulnerability status
Exhibit J	Sealed High Court Protection Order violated by enforcement demands
Exhibit AE	Coordinated Harm Doctrine – institutional motive
Log #586	Final Indictment to Housing Ombudsman – systemic failure explained

📜 Legal Foundations

Human Rights Act 1998 – s.6: Public bodies must act compatibly with ECHR rights
ECHR Article 3: Protection from degrading treatment
ECHR Article 8: Right to private life and personal autonomy
Misfeasance in Public Office (Common Law): Requires (1) abuse of public function, (2) foreseeability of harm, (3) causation of damage

⚔️ Remedy Sought

Formal judicial declaration of misfeasance