Corruption 2 – The Back Pass

Where an issue is passed back down the complaints chain, to an earlier link where it was not addressed in the first place. The complaint literally disappears and may as well been chucked in the bin. This is why it is best to not to use the phone or write a letter.  Emails can be used as an audit trail provided they are not deleted from the service provider of course.
This is No. 5 on the list of methods or devices used to corrupt any complaints procedure and is used to evade pertinent questions such as: “Why is that block of flats covered in inflammable cladding?”
In the case of UK Docks it was used to avoid the question of the planned height of the frames, is it 12 or 15.5m? That was long before the complaints procedure was properly under way but was a hint of things to come.
The first well defined use of it is shown below, the Council were advised that the cover was in breach of planning permission: Continue reading Corruption 2 – The Back Pass

Email to Paul

On 3 Aug 2017, at 17:19, Michael Dawson wrote:
Hi Paul,
Because the landing was a restricted byway it was not really owned by anyone but it was the Council’s responsibility and they needed a Secretary of State’s decision to stop it off. To all intents and purposes the Council have given it to the Port of Tyne. 
Peter Cunningham just happened to be the Case Officer and what I trying to say was that he would have known Tyne Dock Slipway (leased by UK Docks) was going to close years ago and they were going to have to move another site. UK Docks would have to be found a new home when Tyne Dock was closed. Their MOD work specifies it had to be done under cover and the planned shed was not big enough to house an overhead crane and there was no guarantee that the plans for a bigger shed would be approved.  
The River Drive slipway the only suitable one for the pilot boats, border patrol boats and the Shields Ferries on the whole river I believe the UK Docks place on the Wear is suitable but the PoT would not let that happen. Nexus wouldn’t like it either. There is loads of foreshore suitable for another site but a slipway would have to be made.
UK Docks would have known that they could probably got away with the extra width but there is no way the could have got away with the extra length or height so they had to kid the Council that it was the approved height and use a second planning application to lengthen the shed. For that they needed the services of a new planning officer and a new agent, Gary Simmonette and Gary Craig.
The deception, that the shed was built to the correct height, was exposed when the drawings from the agents, Maughan Reynolds Partners, arrived at the Council’s offices. Its ironic that the Planning Manager approved them and then spent the next year and a half trying to devalue them.
I appreciate your commentary because it helps me sort my ideas out when I have to explain them to you.
I’ll stick with bounders although liars or hypocrites would be more accurate.  
Cheers,
Mick