GUILTY – Corrupt Social Worker Mark Bednarski

York Social Services (YSS) has been accused in Parliament of defrauding Grandma B,  an 83 year-old invalid of her house, along with corrupt officers of North Yorkshire Police (NYP).

Please see:

Neither the City of York Council, nor NYP, nor North Yorkshire Police Authority, nor the Home Office are denying that corrupt officials and politicians have committed serious criminal offences against a defenceless, old lady.

They have all however refused to uphold the law and arrest, charge and prosecute the criminals involved, despite legal opinion there is more than enough evidence for a successful prosecution.

One of the social workers involved in this abuse and crime is a certain Mark Bednarski. He does not deny committing serious criminal offences against an old lady in his care, and her carer, including conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, perjury and harassment. All in a day’s work for a social worker, eh?

After having been put under tremendous pressure, YSS very reluctantly disciplined him and dismissed him, but only after having found him alternative employment in the York office of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), where he supposedly investigates complaints against social workers. Yes, I am being serious. As we know, the LGO is utterly corrupt and constantly breaks the law to protect corrupt officials.

As such, the criminal Bednarski is still at large and vulnerable people are not safe.

If there are any other of his victims reading this, can they please make themselves known, as we wish to charge and jail him asap.


This pervert abuses defenceless, old people. He was, of course, trained as a social worker. but when he was caught out, he changed jobs to the Local Government Ombudsman, where he supposedly “investigates” complaints against social workers.The record shows he lies to protect them.


Here is some of the correspondence to the criminal Bednarski:
——– Original Message ——–

Subject: FW: Mr Mark Bednarski (BMeiA-GB.4.30.13/0011-IV.1/2011) (OPG Reference 2250548)(
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:35:46 +0200
From: Fraud Investigator
To: <>
CC:  “‘Vereena Jones'”, “‘Marilyn Morgan'”,, “‘Catherine Crompton'”, , “‘Marilyn Morgan'”,, “‘Huw Daniel'”

Dear Mr Bednarski,

I am writing concerning your part in the Hofschroer fraud case, briefly it is alleged that Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer deceived Barbara, Paul and Peter Hofschroer into transferring their homes York, UK and Austria respectively to them without any payment, in return for assurances that they would look after them in their old age or should they need care.  Having secured the transfer they then abandoned them and made aggressive demands for their savings.  It is alleged that you abused your position as a Social Worker and as a member of the Local Government Ombudsman’s Office to assist in both frauds.

When Barbara Hofschroer was taken ill while on holiday in Austria, Inspector Colin Moreton of North Yorkshire Police and yourself issued the attached unsigned letter threatening Peter Hofschroer with arrest, to intimidate them into staying in Austria, thereby leaving their home in York unoccupied.  Inspector Moreton then had police enquiries made to ensure that the house was empty and they entered Mrs Hofschroer’s home in York on a pretext, changed the locks and withheld a key, thereby making her homeless, removed (i.e. stole) her possessions and tried to sell the House in York fraudulently.  Using his powers of attorney, Peter Hofschroer was able to protect his mother and prevent the transfer of Paul and Barbara Hofschroer’s savings and the fraudulent sale of the house in York.  Peter Hofschroer has commenced legal action in Austria to have the transfer annulled in order to pre-empt an attempt to evict Barbara Hofschroer and himself from their home in Austria.  The attached letter was then submitted in evidence in Austria to show bad character and bad faith by Peter Hofschroer and has thus become the key document in a 500,000 Euro international fraud.

During your employment as a registered Social Worker responsible for the welfare of Paul and Barbara Hofschroer who were frail and confused old age pensioners, you committed a number of acts, amounting to a campaign of harassment against them and their son and carer Peter Hofschroer and these are recorded below in APPENDIX C.  A complaint of harassment of Peter Hofschroer was  upheld against you by York Council and recently the Local Government Ombudsman has upheld another complaint by Peter Hofschroer concerning your handling of the case.  You know that there have been allegations made in parliament that there has been police and local government corruption in the handling of the case by yourself and Inspector Moreton.  However, my e mail relates to the extension of the campaign of harassment you have waged against Peter and Barbara Hofschroer to Austria:

a)     You gave evidence to the Local Government Ombudsman’s investigation into the Hofschroer case which was sent to Peter and Barbara Hofschroer in Austria, accusing Peter Hofschroer of abusing his mother.  This offensive allegation was distributed on your behalf by Mrs Crompton and Dr Martin of the Local Government Ombudsman’s Office in York, despite the fact that they know it is completely unsupported by evidence.  Clearly it is a most serious, offensive and defamatory allegation to make, which has caused Peter and Barbara Hofschroer grave alarm and distress.

However, you have been unable to support this allegation with any evidence at all.  Further, the council, North Yorkshire Police, Austrian Federal Police, her Doctor, neighbours, friends, advisers and lawyer all confirm that Peter is a good carer of his mother and you personally stated there was no evidence of abuse by Peter of Barbara on the 26th of March 2009, in an initial safeguarding assessment form.  Clearly you have blatantly lied to the investigation and made a false allegation.


b)    Your evidence to an Austrian Civil Court in the attached unsigned document from North Yorkshire Police.

The IPCC have confirmed that the e mails you referred to in the attached document were the property of City of York Council and relate to a complaint of harassment that Peter Hofschroer made against you which was upheld and for which disciplinary action was taken against you.  This being the case it appears you maliciously stole these e mails from your employer to use to harass Peter Hofschroer after you had left the employment of York Council.  Approximately forty requests have been made to yourself, the police and the council to see these e mails and no one will provide them.  In your evidence to the Local Government Ombudsman you sated that you had only complained about a leaflet, not e mails, which contradicts your evidence to the Court in Austria.  Please can resolve this and provide copies of these alleged e mails, or confirm that they are stolen property as per the IPCC report, or that they do not exist.

Peter Hofschroer denies ever distributing a leaflet concerning you, or giving you any leaflet.  I have obtained a copy of the leaflet you provided to the police, (which does not in fact make any remarks about you that constitute harassment) and Peter Hofschroer states that he has never seen it and that it is forged.  The IPCC and the Police are unable to state how you obtained the leaflet.  Please can you confirm how you obtained the leaflet and what it is specifically that you allege constitutes harassment in the leaflet.

It is therefore alleged that you forged the leaflet, fabricated the allegation of e mails in conjunction with Inspector Moreton and supplied the attached document to Martin Hofschroer to be given in evidence in Austria, to assist his application to have the fraudulent transfer of Mr Peter Hofschroer’s home in Austria confirmed by the court, thereby attempting to pervert the course of the justice there.

Clearly, being responsible for Barbara Hofschroer’s welfare and working for the organisation that is investigating her case on the one hand while assisting in making her homeless by giving evidence against her carer on the other is a complete conflict of interest.  In my view your position as a Local Government Ombudsman is untenable, particularly as you have involved some of your colleagues in a serious crime. You are currently the subject of a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman’s Office and this is stated below after APPENDIX C.  I am awaiting Dr Martin’s response on this.  The case is now the subject of an investigation by the Austrian Federal Police and I believe I have enough evidence to support charges of harassment and of attempting to pervert the course of justice in Austria.  Before we go any further I wish to establish that yourself, Dr Martin and Mrs Crompton are aware of this and have had the opportunity of responding to these allegations.  Please respond within twenty one days.


Mr Bednarski:

  • Alleged (incredibly) that Peter Hofschroer (overweight nearly sixty, never takes any exercise, nonviolent) had attacked you (young, athletic build, black belt in Twae Kwon Do and Kung Fu, martial arts instructor) and thrown him out of his house.  Because there were no bruises and both the witnesses present said that Peter Hofschroer had not done anything to him, the Council accepted that Mr Bednarski’s allegation was false, apologised to Mr Hofschroer for the way that Mr Bednarski had behaved and then took disciplinary action against him.
  • Covertly cancelled the application for sheltered accommodation on made by Peter on behalf of Barbara and Paul on the 14th of November 2008 without reference to Philip or Barbara, thus preventing the sale of the house and protecting Robert Hofschroer’s interest in it.
  • Alleged that Mrs Hofschroer had told him that all of her money had been moved to an offshore account when in fact there was no offshore account and Mrs Hofschroer does not even know what an offshore account is.  She could not therefore have made this remark, which was obviously fabricated by Mr Bednarski.  Mr Bednarski’s concocted allegation of financial abuse was then used to justify trying to move power of attorney from Peter to Robert on the day the house was seized, so that his friend Robert could sell the house fraudulently and the council continued to maintain Mr Bednarski’s falsehood in its evidence to the Ombudsman, even though there is no offshore account or any evidence to support this false allegation originating from Mr Bednarski.
  • Stated that Mr Paul Hofschroer had told him he wanted the house to remain in his friend Robert’s name, thus preventing the sale of the house and protecting Robert Hofschroer’s interest in it, although this was not so and was in any case none of his concern as a Social Worker .
  • Made enquiries on behalf of his friend Robert Hofschroer on the 16th of January 2009 to confirm that Peter had power of attorney and then enquired as to how it could be revoked from Peter Hofschroer (whom according to evidence from Mrs Hofschroer, City of York Council, the Austrian State Police, Mrs Hofschroer’s Doctor, North Yorkshire Police, her solicitor Mr David Niven, her neighbours, her adviser and her occupational therapist is an excellent carer of Mrs Smith) to his friend Robert Hofschroer, (the man that abused Mrs Hofschroer on the day her husband died, seized her home, locked her out, was seen stealing her property and then tried to sell her home) thereby giving him control over her finances so he could sell the house.
  • Made another false complaint to the effect that Peter Hofschroer was harassing him with emails and leaflets to the Police, who then wrote to Peter Hofschroer in an unsigned and undated letter threatening to arrest him on behalf of Mr Bednarski.  This was done to intimidate Peter Hofschroer into staying in Austria, thereby leaving the house empty and available to be seized and then sold fraudulently, thus making Mrs Hofschroer (his client) homeless, but making a profit of 200,000 GBP for Robert Hofschroer (his friend) and his children.
  • Provided a copy of the unsigned and undated letter from the police to his friend Robert Hofschroer so his allegations could be submitted in evidence in a court in Austria, to support the case for transferring Peter Hofschroer’s house in Austria to members of Robert Hofschroer’s family.  It is thus the key document in a 500,000 Euro international criminal fraud.  Upon investigation it transpired that Peter Hofschroer had never had Mr Bednarski’s e mail address and had never sent him any emails and Peter Hofschroer had never seen the leaflet Mr Bednarski supplied to the police -which does not in fact make any actionable remarks about Mr Bednarski- and no one can say how Mr Bednarski obtained it.  It therefore appears that Mr Bednarski forged the leaflet or it was forged by a third party and it is in any case evidentially worthless.
  • Alleged during the Welsh Local Government Ombudsman’s investigation that there was “Big Evidence” that Peter Hofschroer was abusing his parents.  Clearly a most serious, offensive and defamatory allegation to make but which Mr Bednarski has been unable to support with any evidence at all, (“big” or little, or indeed anything), causing enormous upset and anxiety to peter Hofschroer.  Further, the council, North Yorkshire Police, Austrian Federal Police, her Doctor, neighbours, friends, advisers and lawyer all confirm that Peter is a good carer of his mother and Mr Bednarski personally stated there was no evidence of abuse by Peter of Barbara on the 26th of March 2009 in an initial safeguarding assessment form.  Obviously Mr Bednarski has contradicted himself in his evidence and it appears clear that this is yet another of his false allegations.

From: Fraud Investigator
Sent: jeudi 3 mai 2012 16:51
To: ‘Vereena Jones’
Cc: ‘’
Subject: RE: Mr Mark Bednarski and complaint by P Hofschroer (200901785)

Dear Ms Jones,

Thank you for your e mail of the 2nd of May below.  The evidence referred to is the letter based on Mr Bednarski’s evidence to the police issued at his request contained in the e mail entitled “Harassment”, which was attached to an e mail from Inspector Colin Moreton.  I attach another copy.

To be clear, the facts relating to Mr Bednarski’s evidence and conduct are:

a)     According to the police Mr Bednarski went to Fulford Road Police station in December 2009 and made a complaint, giving evidence to the police that he had been harassed by e mails and a leaflet from Peter Hofschroer, which triggered the attached harassment warning at his request in December 2009, three months after he left City of York Council and after all contact from and any possibility of further alleged harassment by Mr Hofschroer had ceased.

b)    Peter Hofschroer confirms he did distribute a leaflet at a public meeting on the 26th of October 2009, which is a lawful act.  He also confirms that he did not distribute any after that date.  However there was only ever one version of this leaflet (which I have seen) and it does not make any mention of Mr Bednarski.

c)     Peter Hofschroer denies issuing the leaflet that Mr Bednarski subsequently provided to the police which does make some remarks about Mr Bednarski some of which are complementary, or any knowledge of it, or indeed any knowledge of any leaflet mentioning Mr Bednarski.  He denies ever giving any leaflet to Mr Bednarski and denies seeing him after the 28th of November 2008 during the incident referred to as “The Battle of Rosedale Avenue”.

d)    Peter Hofschroer observes that the remarks passed about Mr Bednarski in the second leaflet provided by Mr Bednarski (which Mr Bednarski falsely attributes to Peter Hofschroer) are nevertheless true and had he made them (which he did not), they constitute fair comment on a point of fact and that had Mr Hofschroer issued them (which he did not), this would have been a lawful act within his right of free speech to make and they do not in fact constitute harassment, as established in the Puddick case.

e)     Neither the Police, the IPCC, the Ombudsman, or Mr Bednarski have ever stated how Mr Bednarski obtained the leaflet he provided to the police, or what evidence there is to connect Peter Hofschroer to it.

f)      Peter Hofschroer denies ever sending e mails to Mr Bednarski in his capacity as a private person, or indeed even knowing his private e mail address, should he have one.

g)     The IPCC have confirmed that the alleged e mails were sent to Mr Bednarski at his Council work address.  Peter Hofschroer confirms he did send e mails to Mr Bednarski in his official capacity at York Council, in pursuit of a perfectly valid, reasonable and lawful complaint about Mr Bednarski which was upheld by the Council.  He contends this was a completely lawful act and not harassment, as did the council at the time.

h)    No one can provide the e mails Mr Bednarski alleged he received from Peter Hofschroer, or say what is in them that constitutes harassment, or say how Mr Bednarski obtained them.

i)       In his evidence to the Ombudsman, Mr Bednarski states that he only complained about a leaflet, not e mails.

j)       I went to Fulford Road Police Station in July 2011 and asked the officer commanding Superintendent Winward and PC Homburg to sign the harassment warning and both have refused to.  (I can only conclude this is because they have realised that Mr Bednarski’s allegations are unsupported by any evidence, the letter should never have been written and they do not want to do anything which will retrospectively involve them any further).

k)    I have asked Mr Bednarski for an explanation of these discrepancies and he has failed to respond at all.

l)       The above document quoting Mr Bednarski’s evidence was submitted in evidence in a court in Austria by Martin Hofschroer quoting Mr Bednarski.

m)  I have also notified Mr Bednarski that his remarks have been quoted in evidence in Austria and offered him the opportunity of retracting or correcting his evidence and he has done neither, although he knows the consequences of this could be that Peter and Barbara Hofschroer could be made homeless in Austria, thereby making a profit of about 200,000 Euros for relatives of Robert Hofschroer.  I can only conclude that he is standing by his evidence and it has been submitted into court with his consent, even though he now denies making any complaint about the e mails mentioned in the warning, in his evidence to the Ombudsman.

It is therefore alleged that:

  1. Your colleague Mr Bednarski concocted his complaint, not for the lawful purpose of preventing any further alleged harassment (given that no further alleged harassment was possible, because he had left York Council’s employment and Peter Hofschroer had ceased to have any contact with him of any sort whatsoever), but for the unlawful pre-meditated purposes of:

i)                   Providing an excuse to threaten Mr Peter Hofschroer with arrest, so that he would be intimidated into staying in Austria instead of returning to the UK, thereby leaving Mrs Hofschroer’s home vacant, making it vulnerable for sale fraudulently.

ii)                Submitting it in legal proceedings in the UK to assist in having Mr Peter Hofschroer framed for harassment.

iii)              Submitting it in legal proceedings in Austria to assist in having Mr Peter Hofschroer’s home in Austria transferred fraudulently to Martin and Diane Hofschroer.

iv)              Using it to undermine the credibility of Mr Peter Hofschroer in any subsequent investigation.

v)                Pursuing the campaign of harassment he had been prosecuting against Mrs Barbara Hofschroer and Mr Peter Hofschroer for some time before.

and that he made this complaint as part of a deliberate, pre-meditated, well planned, joint enterprise with Robert, Diane and Martin Hofschroer to assist them in perpetrating a serious criminal fraud on Mrs Barbara Hofschroer and Mr Peter Hofschroer, and perverting the course of legal proceedings in the UK and Austria.

  1. Mr Bednarski made his complaint as part of an ongoing campaign of harassment detailed elsewhere, during which Mr Bednarski had previously tried to frame Mr Peter Hofschroer with false allegations of a criminal offence, by alleging Peter Hofschroer (overweight, late fifties, takes no exercise, no history of violence, couldn’t punch his way out of a wet paper bag) attacked Mr Bednarski, (better known publicly as “Sifu Bednarski” a highly experienced Kung Fu and Twae Kwon Do instructor  described as young with a powerful athletic build) overpowered him and threw him out of his parents’ on the 28th of November 2008 by force.
  2. The leaflet provided to the police by Mr Bednarski is forged, either by Mr Bednarski or by a third party who provided the leaflet to him.
  3. That Mr Bednarski lied to the police and told them that he had received the leaflet from Mr Hofschroer when in fact he had not.
  4. Mr Bednarski stole e mails sent to him at York Council by Peter Hofschroer which were the property of City of York Council and had been sent to Mr Bednarski as part of a lawful complaint when he was employed by the council and that Mr Bednarski stole these e mails from City of York Council and retained them unlawfully, to make the false complaint at a time when it was convenient for Robert Hofschroer to execute a fraud.
  5. Mr Bednarski deceived the police when he made his complaint and did not tell them that he had stolen the e mails, that the complaint had been upheld or that Peter Hofschroer’s allegations contained in the e mails were true and therefore did not constitute harassment.
  6. Mr Bednarski provided a copy of the letter from the police to Martin Hofschroer and gave his consent to its use in the Austrian court proceedings, so the false allegations contained in the letter could be submitted as evidence of Peter Hofschroer’s bad character to a court in Austria, to support the fraudulent transfer of Peter Hofschroer’s house in Austria to members of Robert Hofschroer’s family as it is contended he had always intended.
  7. In his evidence to the Ombudsman, Mr Bednarski stated that he went to the police over the leaflet only and does not make any reference to complaining about the e mails, obviously because he did not want to admit that he had stolen the e mails and wanted to withhold any reference to them from the investigation.  This was a material fact that he had a duty to reveal to the investigation and he did not, in an attempt to mislead it.
  8. On the 10th of June 2011, the above evidence originating from Mark Bednarski as to Peter Hofschroer’s bad character was presented in Court in Austria on behalf of Robert Hofschroer’s children to assist Diane and Martin Hofschroer in obtaining control over Peter Hofschroer’s home in Austria, as had always been intended.  Mr Bednarski’s evidence was key to trying to establish bad faith on behalf of Peter Hofschroer, to justify the confirmation of the transfer of his home and this was obviously his intention when he gave his evidence to the police and passed it to Martin Hofschroer.  At the time he was employed by the York Ombudsman and the fact that he was giving evidence against Peter Hofschroer in Austria was again a material fact that he had a duty to reveal to the investigation and he did not, in an attempt to mislead it.
  9. Mr Bednarski should also have notified you that he was a quoted in evidence in civil proceedings against a person who the Ombudsman was investigating and whom he had given evidence against.  Particularly as they related to a case that was under investigation by the Welsh Ombudsman on behalf of your office.  This was a very serious breach of discipline and trust on his part.
  10. Having had these matters put to him in writing separately and been given the opportunity to correct his evidence, Mr Bednarski has not responded at all, is apparently unable to refute the allegations made but will not retract his evidence and consequently it appears he has knowingly and deliberately perjured himself in evidence in Austria.

The falsehood and unreliability over Mr Bednarski’s evidence is absolutely blatant.  His concocted harassment warning was the first planned step in the seizure of Paul and Barbara Hofschroer’s home and the process by which an attempt was made to sell it fraudulently, and is the key document entered into civil proceedings in Austria apparently with Mr Bednarski’s full consent and connivance to make Mrs Hofschroer homeless there as well.  He is thus the key figure in a major international criminal fraud which he conducted while he was employed by the City of York Council, where he was charged with responsibility for protecting Mrs Hofschroer, (not assisting to make her homeless).  Further he has betrayed the trust of his employer by lying and withholding material facts to pervert the course of the investigation into the case while he was employed at the Ombudsman’s office, (which was charged with investigating the allegations against him), as he did with City of York Council when he abused a position of trust to make false allegations of a criminal offence against Mr Peter Hofschroer and stole e mails to be used against Peter Hofschroer as part of this fraud.

To resolve these issues, essentially it appears to me that Mr Bednarski must either:

Produce the e mails, say how he got them and how they constitute harassment, given that the complaint was upheld and the council do not allege harassment.

  1. Say how he obtained the leaflet and what it is in it that he considers is harassment, given that no one denies it is all true.
  2. Explain why he waited until after the alleged harassment had stopped and he had no further contact with Peter Hofschroer to make the complaint.
  3. Revise his evidence to the investigation so that it is honest and complete.
  4. State how Martin Hofschroer obtained his evidence for submission in Austria.
  5. Confirm that he did not consent to be quoted in evidence in Austria and withdraw his evidence.

Or accept that I am going to have him arrested in the UK for conspiracy to defraud, misconduct in public office, attempting to pervert the course of justice and harassment, and for perjury, harassment and attempting to pervert the course of justice in Austria.  There is already a complaint concerning this in Austria with the CID at Graz and the central anti corruption police in Vienna (E1/1034/2012-taf) and you will see more correspondence on this aspect over the next few days.

I have copied this to Mr Bednarski to be fair to him, so he has the opportunity of considering my concerns and responding to them openly, which I hope is helpful.  I would be grateful if you would put these questions to Mr Bednarski and if he is unable to come up with a convincing response I would again ask that he is suspended from duty pending a resolution, to prevent the theft of any more documents, or the destruction of any evidence.


Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. GRANDMA B UPDATE 11 MARCH 13 | The MUSA CASE, MAURICE KIRK, NORMAN SCARTH, THE BAYLIS FAMILY, THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE – VICTIMS OF THE STATE…this site is being interfered with – pls check the archives on the right for relavent past article

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: