Methods employed by South Tyneside Council in evading an observation or complaint and in the example used the slipway company, had flouted one of the conditions of the original grant – that it be built to an approved set of plans
[1] Denial or unfounded contradiction, made in response;
[2] Complaint not recorded, nor questions answered;
[3] Conflation of complaints;
[4] Backward Pass to a body already in denial;
[5] Forward Pass or diversion into a dead end
This is a rationalisation of the table that began as a postscript to a letter to a Green Councillor in April 2021. The order in the earlier table reflected the date of occurrence, rather than their significance:- [1] Complaint or questions not recorded, [2] Back-pass, [3] Unfounded contradiction, [4] Conflation and [5] Diversion into a dead end.
That letter began with the introduction: While attempting to tidy the website it soon became clear that the timeline on which it was built was sound. It was based on the complaints raised by many, including Melanie and myself, that the enclosure (shed) on UK Docks’ slipway off River Drive, was to not built to the approved plans. It was taller by some 3m. The facts behind the letter to Melanie remain the same as do the conclusions one can draw from it and it beggars the question: why did the Council persistently lie about the height of the shed?
The Timeline was not only shared between Melanie and I but with many in the Council and the MP for South Shields, for instance. I was busy creating Part 3 when I received a message from the Council, less than thee weeks later, that they were going to ‘Shoot the Messenger’.
It was done because if the questions raised had been answered honestly it would have laid bare the corruption endemic throughout South Tyneside Council which was that the council were giving misinformation to the Ombudsman:-
I ask you (the Chief Executive) to look again at this because there is a clear contradiction between what the Council were telling the LGO and what is known. Why your staff should misrepresent the facts to the LGO is for you to determine. That they have misinformed the LGO should be admitted and corrected and that is what this letter is about.
Part 3 was sent to the new Head of Legal Services, via author of the letter from the Council received on the 29th April, because one day he will have to answer the charge that the under the leadership of the Leader of the Council and its Chief Executive, Mr Sawles, the corrupt system of giving misinformation to the Local Government Ombudsman has been finely tuned.
A stop could have been made by his predecessor if he had not allowed a Council Solicitor to repeat many of the misrepresentations given to the Ombudsman in defence of the accusation that Councillor Anglin was the prime mover in hiding the fact that slipway cover being built by UK Docks on their slipway was some 3m taller than planned.
There was no acknowledgment and no response to that letter nor to the reminder sent two months later:-
I wrote to you on the 9th April, telling you I was unhappy with Gill Hayton’s response to my complaint about Cllr Anglin’s conduct over the first meeting I had with the Council, 25-Nov-13. It was about UK Dock’s enclosure (shed) on their slipway off River Drive and I have yet to receive a reply. All you had to do was confirm that the enclosure (shed) on UK Docks slipway was nearly 3m taller than planned and find out why my complaint of 10-Jan-14 had been ignored.
The complaint was still being ignored when I referred it to Building Control when they passed to planning:-
FW: Tyne Slipway & Eng Co Ltd Erection of a Shelter ST/0242 /96
Date: 17/09/2019 (15:12:21 BST)From: Operations & Partnership Officer
Hi Planning
Please see attached and email below which I believe was meant for planning
Regards
Operations & Partnership Officer
Town Hall and Civic Offices, Westoe Road, South Shields, Tyne & Wear, NE33 2RL
Planning did not respond!