Neil Wilby Media

Most articles on this Neil Wilby Media website are written in the third person. It maintains consistency, objectivity and readability. For reasons that quickly become obvious, this piece is written in the first person, writes Neil Wilby.

The Origins of a Persistent Campaign

Since February 2023, I have been plagued incessantly by repeated and unwanted conduct that I regard as harassing, highly defamatory, vexatious and giving the appearance of stalking by Paul Ponting, a 55-year-old computer repairer who lives in Ormskirk, West Lancashire. It has left me seriously impaired physically, mentally, professionally, socially and financially. 

A campaign that began on no higher premise than my friendship and professional association with a female lawyer from the Greater Manchester area, whom was also an alleged stalking and harassment target, and had been since 2020 when she turned down a job application from Ponting. She has the benefit of a court anonymity Order and, accordingly, is not named.

Prior to 2023, there had only been one contact between Ponting and myself; in 2017 when he approached me for information about a public official with whom I had professional dealings.

Public Image versus Reality

Paul Ponting presents himself as a publicity-seeking ‘white knight’ figure, variously self-styled as a social media influencer, corruption advocate, legal expert, data protection specialist and “tough guy”. Others, including the anonymous author(s) of The Ormskirk Vigilante website, launched in 2017, regard him, at best, as an arrogant, narcissistic, Walter Mitty character (weblink here). Readers are invited to make up their own mind.

He is also an individual with serious anger issues (a forthcoming article will focus on that single issue), a prolific liar and regarded by critics as a large-scale scammer. Proven many times over by way of court outcomes, notably unpaid costs and damages, and in other Neil Wilby Media articles that have investigated wider misdemeanours, alleged or otherwise, reported upon them without fear or favour and backed them up with hard evidence.

The Phoenix Company Fraud Investigation

For example, an eighteen month, eleven article probe into the collapse of his former company, Danoli Solutions Ltd., and its phoenix successor, Solar IT, exclusively revealed unpaid Danoli creditors of over £100,000 and a Director’s Loan Account with over £85,000 owing. The latter giving rise to substantial tax liabilities whilst remaining unpaid. The Liquidator’s Report, published on the Companies House website and central to the outcome of that investigation, can be read here.

Therein, lie the issues at the heart of the vile, relentless, stop at nothing hate campaign waged against the author of those articles. Paul Ponting asserts that the winding up of Danoli was lawful and there is no public interest in reporting on the missing funds, seemingly misappropriated by a person whom readily criticises the corruption, alleged or otherwise, of many others.

He refuses to provide details over any partial or full  repayment of the loan account or the questionable phoenix transition from Danoli to Solar IT. Same premises, same staff, same equipment, same furniture, same telephone number and email address, same customers. Just a different sign over the door and all the debts wiped away. 

Extreme Reaction to Investigative Reporting

The first Neil Wilby Media article in which Paul Ponting was named was a neutral report of his arrest by Greater Manchester Police (GMP), in March 2023, over allegations of stalking, harassment and assault (read more here), and, in the ensuing months, resulted in Ponting making six different complaints about me to West Yorkshire Police (WYP) and Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs). Five were filed with no further action taken, a sixth is under review by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after an intensive campaign by Ponting to resist that complaint being filed, too.

The complaints to the police essentially, and repeatedly, revolve around the removal of articles that mention him or his wife, Anna Ponting, former Company Secretary of Danoli Solutions Ltd., who aids and abets Paul’s objectionable conduct at every turn. Most notably acting as his McKenzie Friend during many of his regular court appearances encompassing Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court, High Court, Family Court and County Court. She has been linked to at least two pseudonymous accounts on X (formerly Twitter), in both posing as a man: @doe1_john333 and @watts_adam82249, which critics say are used to target individuals associated with her husband’s disputes.

Prolific Appearances in Police Stations and Court Centres

According to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), following enquiries made by Lancashire Constabulary, no-one comes close in the North West (and probably the rest of the country) to matching the number of appearances Paul Ponting makes in courts across their estate. One court clerk says: “He is known to every judge in the region”.

The police say that he has consumed thousands of hours of officer time in police stations, court offices and courtrooms – and £millions of public funds over the past ten years or so. They point to their crime log databases and what is disclosed in other civil proceedings in which they are a party: Over 100,000 entries in which Paul Ponting is mentioned, either as complainant or suspect. Requiring close to 5,000 A4 pages to print off. Those numbers exclude complaints made by, and about, Paul Ponting to other forces including, but not limited to, GMP, WYP, Merseyside Police, West Midlands Police, Bedfordshire Constabulary and Sussex Police. 

Co-operating with the Police Investigations

Contrary to what Ponting has posted incessantly on social media, including mocking up ‘Wanted’ posters featuring my photograph in a burglar outfit, and repeatedly circulating them on social media, I have co-operated with all of the criminal investigations and attended voluntary interview, along with my solicitor, twice; in August 2023 at Holmfirth Police Station and in November 2024 at Preston Police Station.

In both interviews, each lasting around three hours, I was repeatedly questioned on assertion, hearsay, innuendo, conspiracy theory and at times, childish fantasy, which included the repeated proposition that all the Neil Wilby Media articles that featured the Pontings were written on the instructions of the previously mentioned female lawyer.

Facts and hard evidence, by way of specific challenge to any of the articles, were in short supply. My lawyer’s view was emphatic, at the end of each interview, that there was no prospect, whatsoever, of the CPS bringing charges based on those Ponting complaints.

The Liverpool Injunction Application

The Pontings have supplemented those reports of alleged crime to the police with two threatened civil actions, by way of formal pre-action Letters before Claim. Both quickly abandoned after robust rebuttals from me, and an Application, filed without notice at Liverpool County Court on 16th October 2024, whilst they knew I was abroad in North Africa, that sought an interim injunction to prevent me reporting any further misdemeanours or the many court appearances and, yet again, the removal of every article and social media post in which they are mentioned.

That Application for an interim injunction failed because District Judge John Baldwin was not persuaded that, even if the application had merit and was compliant with court rules, which on plain reading it did not, there was the necessary urgency in ordering the removal of articles that were first published nineteen months ago. The most recent article to which the Pontings pointed, in the various versions of their witness statements supporting their Application, was three months old.

At a subsequent hearing in the same court, five days later and at which I was present remotely, Her Honour Judge Catherine Howells transferred the injunction application from Liverpool to the High Court in London, despite the absence of a required and accompanying Part 7 claim. Both Paul and Anna Ponting objected, in successive oral submissions to HHJ Howells, to the change of jurisdiction. They wanted their claim to remain in the County Court, close to their home, despite later claiming repeatedly to the contrary on social media.

At the time, I agreed with the judge, on the limited information with which I had been provided by the court and the Pontings, that the King’s Bench Media and Communications List at the Royal Courts of Justice was, very likely, the correct forum. It was also a familiar court reporting venue for me, where first time visitors can be overawed by the sheer scale and grandeur of one of the must-see architectural sights in London.

However, to say that both judges in Liverpool gave undue, and unwarranted, procedural latitude to the Pontings would be substantially understating the case: The injunction application should have been thrown out, by either one of them, at first sight. It was hopelessly misconceived and their pleaded remedies misplaced: The best they could hope for was that any article deemed objectionable—based on hard evidence, rather than discomfort with the truth, or the forensic exposure of wrongdoing—would be amended through mutual agreement, line by line or paragraph by paragraph. Not erased entirely.

The Pontings’ inadequately argued concept of wholesale removal of public interest articles on this Neil Wilby Media website, many of them bringing to wider attention court appearances, either civil or criminal, serious misdemeanours involving public funds or repeated breaches of court orders, on the broad brush premise that they are all ‘malicious and a pack of lies’ was, and still is, simply not sustainable in law.

The fact that they took nineteen months to issue any form of court action against the subject articles, and provided not a shred of evidence in terms of causal link to their alleged harm and distress, also counts heavily against them.

The High Court Collapse

The events between the Liverpool court hearing on 21st October 2024 and 22nd July 2025 when matters finally came before Deputy High Court Judge Eardley KC in Court 16 at the Royal Courts of Justice (the ancient and ornate Lord Chancellor’s Court, no less), is a very lengthy story for another day – and one in which the Pontings will emerge, yet again, with no credit.

What did happen at that RCJ hearing last month could, in one way and very shortly, be told thus: The Pontings, despite extraordinary judicial indulgence in both Liverpool and London, repeatedly made submissions that the court found unconvincing, and which conflicted with documentary records, and still lost twice in the same court day: My application to strike out their defective Part 7 claim succeeded in the morning session and the Pontings’ injunction application against me was dismissed at the close of the day’s proceedings.

The afternoon session only went ahead because the Pontings repeatedly assured the judge, in oral submissions, that, after their Part 7 claim had been struck out, they would, ‘very promptly’, issue a second claim. Otherwise, their injunction application, parasitic upon the now defunct Part 7 claim, would automatically fail.

Instinctively, I knew that their indication of a second claim was a desperate and outrageous lie then, and so it has turned out to be, as events have unfolded since. It was also a further procedural indulgence from the Bench when the Pontings’ propensity to lie, or deceive, both in their pleaded case and their witness statements – and the procedural calamities inflicted on both the court and myself, as defendant, in the preceding nine months, should have enabled the judge to bring proceedings to a close after the strike-out.

The judge, Aidan Eardley KC, one of the top barristers in the country, sitting, on this occasion, as a Deputy (part-time) High Court Judge, side-stepped, for reasons that are still not clear, the very lengthy, and utterly compelling, list of evidential and legal defects within that injunction application and Part 7 claim that meant, procedurally, it should not be allowed to be heard on that day without undue prejudice to me; but, more crucially, the chances of its success in the form they were presented, could fairly, and objectively, be characterised as close to zero.

The parallel argument that the Neil Wilby Media articles about which Paul Ponting complains are prejudicial to his much-delayed criminal trial, now listed to open at Burnley Crown Court in April 2026 (read more here), and breached his Article 6 Convention Rights, was given short thrift by the judge, drawing on his wider experience of sitting as a Recorder (part-time circuit judge) in criminal courts. Aligning with the lack of action taken against me by the Attorney General, following a contempt of court complaint made by Anna Ponting in March 2025.

The judge also weighed the fact-specific Article 8 rights of the Pontings against the Article 10 rights of an accredited journalist, for whom an injunction would have a particularly chilling effect. Not just on freedom of speech but the shackling of the press and presumption against public interest reporting without fear or favour.

DHCJ Eardley KC was not persuaded by the Pontings’ argument that, in essence, they were just a quiet, contented couple from a backwater town, running a small business, who just wanted to get on with their life unimpeded by enquiring journalists.

Costs and Prior Judgments

At the conclusion of what had been two excruciatingly embarrassing and painful court sessions, the judge also awarded £1,700 in costs against the Pontings, reduced from over £3,000 claimed, which are yet to be paid.

The portents are not particularly promising regarding payment as costs of £30,000 (plus interest) ordered against him in March 2020, following stalking and harassment action taken against him by Lancashire Constabulary, resulting in a lifetime injunction, remain unpaid (read full judgment here). As do £26,400 (also plus interest) costs and damages ordered against Paul Ponting in April 2024 at the conclusion of another stalking and harassment claim brought against him by two female lawyers.

I was a witness in those later proceedings, and referred to as such in the concluding judgment (the redacted version can be read here). The final hearing of the injunction application was most notable for the judge being called a ‘police informant’ by Paul Ponting and him, when storming out of the court with Anna in his wake, making a cut throat gesture towards a member of the public sat at the back of the court.

Turning the Tables

What has happened since the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice has seen the Pontings weighed down, and eventually overwhelmed, under the mounting burden of their own deceit.

On 24th July 2025, just two days after the RCJ debacle, a pre-emptive legal strike was issued against Paul and Anna Ponting to protect against the possibility that I was wrong about their intentions to issue a second court claim. It was a pre-action letter that followed the court’s King’s Bench Guidance and the Civil Procedure Rules very precisely, forcing the Pontings to follow those directives before filing another procedurally deficient, time-wasting claim. 

In response to the first claim they brought against me, a ‘softly-softly’ approach had been taken, maintaining a reasonable and understated legal posture, contrasting sharply with the chaotic and wildly exaggerated claims made by the Pontings.

Whilst I was ultimately successful in resisting that claim, the overarching and residual thought on leaving London on that day was that both the courts, and the Claimants, had interpreted those tactics as weakness.

That mistake was not going to be repeated a second time: The gloves were metaphorically off – and every ounce of litigation muscle would be exercised to turn the tables and ensure that justice and appropriate remedies would, at the next stage of this long-running saga, be sought on my terms, not theirs.

The aforementioned pre-action letter signalled my opposition to any contemplated second claim and set out calmly and clearly, but in sufficiently robust terms, that such a claim would be opposed from the very outset, on solid legal sounds, as an abuse of process.

The Pontings were also informed that a Security for Costs order would be sought from the court requiring them to deposit a sum £20,000 alongside such a claim. The fact that two substantial sums remain unpaid by Paul Ponting, amounting with interest to around £70,000, from the two injunction hearings referenced earlier in this article, plus his reliance on legal aid defending the ongoing criminal proceedings against him and ‘Help With Fees (HWF)’ concessions in the county courts, would mean a near certain granting of such an order. At a level , of course, that the court would deem just.

ADR and the Sound of Silence

But the main purpose of the letter, and subsidiary to pointing out the further financial pitfalls they now face, was to invite the Pontings to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid further litigation. Courts are now very strict on this point and there may be substantial costs penalties for any party who absents themselves from such a mediation process.

It was necessary to update that letter as other relevant information, and proof of more deceit before the court by the Pontings, emerged. The most compelling of which cannot be explored further in this article because of privacy and other legal restrictions.

An amended letter was issued on 28th July 2025, along with draft Grounds for Counterclaim. With the inclusion of the latter, legal battle was well and truly joined at that point.

Anna Ponting responded thus: “As Paul made clear in Court, the possibility of undertakings you mentioned in court, is something we will consider if you are still agreeable to this. Until or unless we issue a fresh claim, please refrain from contacting us unless it is in relation to ADR.”

The matter of undertakings was, indeed, raised in court by me, but the counter-proposal made by Paul Ponting at that time: Cross-undertakings to be considered provided the fifty-three Neil Wilby Media articles complained of were all removed, together with erasure of any social media posts mentioning him and Anna, was a waste of his breath and the court’s and my time. But, at that point in the hearing, Paul still thought he had the upper hand and could bluster and lie his way to obtaining an interim injunction against me.

However, as at Liverpool County Court nine months earlier, he signally failed to make out the case for urgency and the matter of the proposed cross-undertakings fell away.

Following Anna Ponting’s 28th July email, which was taken, loosely, and in accordance with the applicable Guidance and Rules to be consent to ADR negotiations. they were sent a further letter on 3rd August 2025, setting out my terms to settle the claim which included sensible, and workable, proposals for cross-undertakings.

As the offer letter was sent on a ‘Without Prejudice Save As To Costs’ basis it remains legally privileged and its precise content cannot be discussed here.

Suffice to say the WPSATC letter, upon advice, was well-crafted and presented the Ponting’s with a clear and very reasonable exit from what is now a long, dark and expensive legal tunnel for them both. Despite the clear obligation to respond, by the stated deadline of deadline of 12th August 2025,  the sound of silence signals a couple now facing substantial legal difficulties of their own making. It also appears to clearly signal, to both the courts and the police, that neither of the Pontings want their harassment campaigns to end.

What Happens Next

Paul Ponting, who always likes to control the narrative, attempting to bully and threaten litigation opponents into submission, now has to deal with a legal boot being on the other foot.

Along with Anna Ponting, a clumsy injunction plot was hatched, whilst I was 2,200 miles away, hoping that they would get a freak result before a district judge who might have been weary from the largely petty squabbles that is the daily diet of a small claims court in which they, mostly, sit.

It didn’t work and, however much they try to bluff and bluster otherwise, they now have to reap what they sowed back in October 2024.

Shortly after the deadline for the Pontings’ ADR response, on 12th August 2025, a further letter was sent to them, formally ending the ADR process and giving notice that the intended Counterclaim, about which they were notified earlier in the month, would now become a stand-alone Claim, accompanying a formal Application for an interim injunction, and costs, against both Paul and Anna Ponting.

A combination of inconsistent evidence, weak legal arguments and refusal to compromise, and a litigation opponent who would not surrender to their bullying, has seen the tables completely turned on the Pontings. They face some challenging, and time-consuming, weeks and months ahead as the injunction application and accompanying harassment claim against them proceeds through the courts.

A judicial ruling is awaited as to whether that forum is the Royal Courts of Justice or the County Court.

As with every article published by Neil Wilby Media, any person mentioned is afforded the courtesy of right of reply. Any lawful response from the Pontings would have been published here by way of an update.

UPDATE – 19th July 2025

Both Anna and Paul have chosen to remain silent which is, of course, their prerogative but will harm any defence they may wish to later raise in defence of my injunction application.

A number of other persons affected by the Pontings’ behaviour, in one form or another, have come forward to express dismay, and fear, over their refusal to mediate and bring an end this particular harassment campaign when there is every sound legal and financial reason to do so.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Tuesday 19th August 2025 at 12h50

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image Credits: NWM

© Neil Wilby 2015–2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.