Advice from solicitor 26-Jan-16

Pdf copy of letter from Peter Dunn and Co.

The first draft came to 10 about pages and just repeated what I had told the solicitor so I decided to write directly to the CEO simply stating the main facts, the approved drawings state 22m x 12.2m x 12.7m(15.5m): 

The dimensions measured by the Council in September are as follows: length 22.254m, width 13.1m, height at the landward end 15.5m and height at the river end 18m. The gradient is 2.7m and there was no dispute about the planned width of 12.2m. There are four drawings available to determine the planned height. Logic rather than opinion dictates that the landward or road end is 13m or less and the river end is 15.5m

The CEO appointed his Corporate Lead to respond and she declared there was no misinformation  given to the Ombudsman.
A misrepresentation  in itself but the CEO has given her authority to use  subsection F (Unreasonable and/or Persistent Complainants. ) of some code to sanction me but it fails on two counts:

  1. There is only one instance from me  telling the CEO that the Council have been misleading to the Ombudsman;
  2. it is entirely reasonable to tell him that it is taller than the one approved  when it is taller than the one approved.

Naturally I point this out to her and also advise her that I sought a solicitors advice:

In my letter to Ms Hoy asking for a copy of your letter to the MP I said was I waiting to hear from the MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, before I complained to the LGO about their Inspector’s report. I have not yet complained. I consulted a solicitor about Ms Hoy’s letter because I felt that she was being used by Mr Simmonette to avoid answering the question of the planned height of the shed.

Ms Hoy was being used by Mr Simmonette to avoid answering the question of height and the Corporate Lead has gone further by denying there is anything wrong with the height.

I did complain to the CEO about the conduct of the pair (Mr Simmonette and Mrs Johnson, not Ms Hoy) but my letter remains on file unanswered because he deliberately conflates the complaint with the way the complaint was handled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.