Survivors of clerical sexual abuse in the Church of England are stepping up their campaign for accountability after a damning independent review last month which said senior Anglican figures had colluded to downplay criminal offences.

Survivors have called for a body without links to the church to take over its safeguarding process, prompting an offer from Lambeth Palace to meet survivors to discuss their proposals.

Graham Sawyer, a survivor, told the Guardian: “I fear that until it does so this is going to become worse and worse as matters have simply gone too far now.”

Another, Matt Ineson – previously known as “Michael” – has waived his anonymity to tell of his alleged rape as a teenager by a vicar. He has made his identity public as part of a campaign for justice sent to almost 500 members of the C of E’s ruling body, the synod, which meets in York this weekend.

Ineson, who plans to protest outside York Minster on Sunday, has demanded the dismissal of several bishops and an independent review of the way the church handled his disclosures.

There is no debate on clerical sexual abuse, or the C of E’s shortcomings in dealing with cases, scheduled during the four-day synod meeting which starts on Friday.

Last week Ineson wrote to Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, for the 13th time, saying: “The Church of England has made me fight at every step to try to achieve both justice and the further prevention of abuse by my abuser.

“By doing this, you have added to my abuse. The bishops have actively colluded together to attempt to ignore, discredit and get rid of me.”

In 2016 he lodged formal complaints with the C of E against John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, and four other serving bishops for allegedly failing to act on his disclosures of abuse.

The complaints were dismissed by the C of E for being filed outside a time limit of one year. One other complaint, against a retired bishop, is still being considered.

Ineson’s alleged rapist, priest Trevor Devamanikkam, killed himself last month on the day he was due to appear in court on three charges of rape and three of indecent assault on a child.

This week, after Ineson circulated his account, Graham Tilby, the C of E’s national safeguarding officer, wrote to synod members to say Ineson had met Welby last year and had “been offered support and will continue to be offered support, although to this date he has not wanted this from the church”.

Tilby urged members to consult diocesan safeguarding advisers before responding directly to Ineson.

In response to the email, Ineson wrote to Tilby saying the support he had been offered was “too little too late” and he no longer trusted the church.

He added: “I have been quite overwhelmed by the support received over the past 24 hours, and many members of synod have indicated that they do intend to come out of the Minster to speak to us on Sunday.”

Meanwhile, two survivors of sexual abuse committed by Peter Ball, the former bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, and their lawyers have called for a criminal investigation into George Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, over whether he deliberately concealed evidence.

Carey was heavily criticised in an independent review of the Ball case carried out by Dame Moira Gibb. It found that Carey had received seven letters in the early 1990s raising concerns about Ball’s activity, but had passed only one – the least damning – to the police.

This gave “rise to a perception of deliberate concealment,” the report said.

After the publication of the Gibb report, Carey quit as honorary assistant bishop at Welby’s behest.

The survivors, Sawyer and Phil Johnson, and their lawyers have also called for a mandatory reporting law, requiring that knowledge or suspicion of abuse be reported to the authorities.

Johnson told the Guardian: “Over the past decade there have been numerous high profile ‘independent’ reviews into sexual abuse cases in the C of E. The striking similarity in these reports is that in almost every case the abuse allegations had been known about by multiple bishops and senior officials for many years, and they had failed to report them to the police.

“There appears to be an institutional instinct to ‘deal with things’ internally and minimise any damage to the image of the church rather than support the victims. This must change.”

Survivors of abuse allegedly carried out by John Smyth, a QC and evangelical who ran Christian summer camps in the 1970s and 80s, have drawn attention to possible parallels with the Ball case.

After the Smyth allegations emerged, Welby, who attended some camps and knew the QC, issued an “unreserved and unequivocal” apology on behalf of the C of E, admitting it had “failed terribly” to tackle institutional abuse.

But survivors say questions remain about how much senior figures in the church knew about Smyth’s activities. “If Carey should be stepped down because of Ball, shouldn’t Welby be stepped down because of Smyth?” one survivor wrote in an email to the Guardian.

In March last year, another independent review of the C of E’s handling of the case of “Joe” highlighted the “deeply disturbing” failure of those in senior positions to record or take action on his disclosures over almost four decades. Among those Joe says he told of his abuse were two men currently serving as bishops.

Alan Wilson, bishop of Buckingham, said although the C of E had “made some progress with safeguarding over the past few years, there is still a long way to go if it is to become a safe place”.

The C of E must “stop dragging its feet, be honest, take responsibility and become a leader” in the area of sexual abuse, he said.

A C of E spokesperson said the Gibb report “reveals attitudes that disgrace the church in every possible way. The church has tightened its systems enormously and considerable resources have been designated to tackling the issue and supporting survivors. This does not alleviate the horrible suffering of those affected, but does show that we have started to learn some lessons, though there is still a long way to go.

“The report affirms the direction and steps that we have taken to improve the consistency, robustness and rigour of our practice, but progress has been too slow and we are committed to implementing all of the robust recommendations.”