by South Tyneside Council Staff.
when the Corporate Lead, the person responsible for the Council’s complaints, can write that there is no evidence of misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman it is plainly wrong. Even their Inspector doesn’t even deny it, he just says it is to late to complain.
It is hypocrisy for the Corporate Lead to say that attempts have been to have complaints considered in ways that are incompatible with their adopted complaints procedure – see list below.
And finally our complaints are now described as allegations which shows you the way that the Council’s Complaint Procedure (CCP) is going under the guidance of the Corporate Lead .
- referring one to the CCP instead of answering enquiries;
- not registering complaints when they are received and/or:
- treating it as an enquiry and referring you again to the CCP;
- passing it on for someone else to respond.
adding misinformation, and it is rare that they miss the opportunity;
Continue reading Misuse of Complaints Procedure
The complaint of 10-Jan was not recorded. The description in 248789 is not the complaint. It reads: Comment: see email to planning 14/1/14.
Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive, South Shields.
The complaint had simply been hidden away and may as well been chucked in the bin. If you read through the entire lot you will see that the Planning Manager conceded that shed had not been built to approved plans and that was with reference to 8296/14.
You will also notice that he has written each of his responses in such a way to support the lie that the shed has approval and that included some fraudulent misrepresentations. The Planning Manager said:
- 28-Jan: “In fact the 15.6m height is the height to River Drive and the height on the river side is some 3m greater when referring my figures on the gable end of the river end;
- 28-Jan: “It is therefore reasonable to say that 8296/1A, 8296/1B, 8296/2 and 8296/4 represent the development which was approved in 1996 – it is not reasonable. ../1A or ../1B give a height of landward end as 15.5m and are not authorised. ../2 is authorised and gives the height as 12.7m
- 13-Feb: The engineer chose to show a gable elevation of the structure (not drawn to scale) on the same drawing – it is to a scale of 1: 100
Continue reading FBR 248789 – the Misepresentations