- Date: 17 July 2025
- Time: 07:07 AM BST
- Incident Type: Formal Complaint with Evidence Submitted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
- Action Taken By: Myself (WASEEM BEY, as ": Waseem: Malik. - Secured Party Creditor").
- Action Directed To: The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
- Subject: Formal Complaint Submission Against a Member of Parliament - Jack Rankin MP
- Details of My Submission to the PHSO:
- Formally submitted the completed PHSO complaint form regarding a serious failure of service and dereliction of duty by my elected representative, Mr. Jack Rankin MP.
- Addressed the Procedural Paradox: The submission included a cover letter explaining that Section 4 of the form (requiring the MP's signature) was marked "Not Applicable" because it is a procedural impossibility and conflict of interest to ask the subject of a complaint to refer that same complaint. I asserted that this paradoxical requirement cannot be a barrier to holding MPs accountable.
- Evidence Submitted: The submission included the completed complaint form and was supported by four key exhibits, which were provided as links:
- Exhibit A: Jack Rankin's letter to me (Log #540).
- Exhibit B: The Magistrates' Court order for the return of my phones (Log #489).
- Exhibit C: The signed witness statement from Shujah Gillani (Log #512).
- Exhibit D: My final response to the MP (Log #541).
- My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
- This action officially commences the regulatory investigation into the conduct of Jack Rankin MP.
- By proactively addressing the procedural issue of the MP's signature, I have pre-empted any attempt by the PHSO to reject the complaint on a technicality.
- The submission of the four key exhibits provides the Ombudsman with an immediate, powerful, and undeniable foundation for my complaint, making it extremely difficult for them to dismiss.
- This completes the process of escalating my grievance against my MP from a direct complaint to a formal regulatory investigation