Job No 274396 (EIR for Screen Prints)

Initiation.

Copied to my mailbox because the Council tend to ignore complaints they do not wish to answer and the original complaint will no longer exist. If they do respond, it will not be to answer the question or help resolve a complaint and experience has shown that the response is at best irrelevant but more likely to be a misrepresentation and a fraudulent one at that. This happens when dealing with corrupt bodies such as South Tyneside Council or the Local Government Ombudsman and it is a wise precaution to make a secure copy of the original complaint.

Subject: Request copy first stage case 248789 and Complaint 253539
From: “Mick Dawson – hotmail” <daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Fri, July 3, 2015 4:09 pm
To: “MD at H’View” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Feedback case 248789 and Complaint 253539. I have tried to look these up and failed.
They are a follow up to a complaint I made in January 2014 about the height and width of a shelter built on River Drive in South Shields. They were not raised by me but by LB for George Mansbridge and I fear that they failed to mention the height as the first draft by the LGO also failed to mention the height. I would like to see a copy of what was first said on my behalf when these were raised by LB.

1st Response.

All my correspondence is now directed through Customer Advocacy since Job Number (FBR) 266782. I suspect it might be because it is me but it may be because I mentioned River Drive. UK docks is on River Drive. Control freakery which ever way you look at it.

Subject: 274396 – River Drive Boat Shed query [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
From: “Customer Advocates” <Customer.Advocates@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, July 13, 2015 9:46 am
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mr Dawson
We have received your feedback reference 274396 regarding previous corporate complaints on reference numbers 248789 and 253539. I can find no feedback relating to your contact of 3 July 2015 on the corporate feedback system regarding this matter.
I can confirm that your complaint regarding the boat shed on River Drive is closed and we had received the Local Governments Ombudsman’s decision on the complaint on 15 April 2015, which was that they found no fault with the Council’s investigation of the complaint which was not upheld. Due to this there will be no further complaint response on this issue and I have amended your latest contact on 274396 to a request for service and this is the response to that enquiry.
Your sincerely
Alison Hoy
Performance and Information Support Officer

To date 266782 was the only observation/complaint that started properly but it soon went off the rails and it was the first time I became aware that staff used Alison to misrepresent what was going on and more annoyingly to introduce more misrepresentations regarding the original complaint.

Repost.

Subject: Re: 274396 – River Drive Boat Shed query [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
From: “Mick Dawson – hotmail” <daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Wed, July 15, 2015 5:55 am
To: “MD at H’View” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Dear Alison,
Thank you for your reply to my feedback reference 274396.
It appears that I did not complete submission of the ‘complaint form’ entry on 3 July 2015 and for that I apologise.
The full message I had hoped to submit was:

Feedback case 248789 and Complaint 253539. I have tried to look these up and failed. They are a follow up to a complaint I made in January 2014 about the height and width of a shelter built on River Drive in South Shields. They were not raised by me but by LB for George Mansbridge and I fear that they failed to mention the height as the first draft by the LGO also failed to mention the height. I would like to see a copy of what was first said on my behalf when these were raised by LB

You confirm that my complaint regarding the boat shed River Drive 253539 is closed.
The first time that this reference was used was in a Stage II reply from Mr Mansbridge. There was no Stage I. If there had been a Stage I then the height of the shed would have been the main subject. Please see attached copy of the email to Planning Enquiries, 10th Jan, taking note of paragraph 6.

When looking at the three drawings and the photo I have forwarded, it is obvious that there is a complete miss match. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the current structure has not been built to the ‘approved plans’ as provided by Council, i.e. 1A,1B nor does the drawing of the cladding/door fixing detail match what exists, for example the structure is 3 metres higher and 1 metre wider than shown on 8296/14.

I can only speculate how the Local Governments Ombudsman arrived at:

The Ombudsman’s draft decision (first draft)
Summary: This complaint is not upheld. In 2013 a developer resumed building a boat shed for which he had planning permission and had started building in 2001. Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed. However, he had built it almost a metre wider than he should have done. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. It kept residents informed throughout the process.

Speculation is not good enough – I need to know what was first said in the complaint 253539 at the outset.
However complaint 248789 should about the about the Council providing misleading facts to the local press which is a different matter. If it is subsequently proven that the journalist has misrepresented the facts as provided by the Council then I will write to the Press Complaints Commission about this matter.*
However before I go to the Press Complaints Commission I need to be very clear about what was said and when. I need to know what was first said in the feedback case 248789 at the outset.
I raised neither feedback case 248789 nor complaint 253539 and require sight of their contents.
Please arrange for me to have a copy of the opening pages of these cases and hopefully I need trouble you no more about the boat shed on River Drive.

2nd Response.
The important thing is that my request for screenshots has been addressed and point to the abuse of the complaints system by the Council Staff. Note that the escalation of 248789 is to stage I but that that in 253539 is to the Ombudsman not stage 2 or 3. This is no casual mistake. I made no escalation from Stage 1 made because none was needed – the Council, or rather the Planning Manager had conceded that the enclosure was nearly 3m taller than planned.

Subject: RE: 274396 – Access to Initiation of FBC 248787 and Complaint 253539
From: “Customer Advocates” <Customer.Advocates@southtyneside.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, July 22, 2015 1:04 pm
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk” <mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Options:
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mr Dawson
I have attached screen shots of the Councils corporate complaint system for these complaints. Both records were logged following contact from yourself which the service team recorded as complaints:
248789 refers to an email sent by you to Planning on 14.1.14
253539 refers to a reply you had sent to George Mansbridge in response to a letter of 4.4.14
The main complaint on 253539 has been escalated through the Council’s complaints procedure and you had taken the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman who have investigated and decided the complaint too.
yours sincerely
Alison Hoy.

Screen Prints:

  1. 248789

  2. 253539

* I thought originally that 248789 had been generated by LB for Mr Mansbridge in response to my letter to him of 4-Apr-14. I had told him in no uncertain terms that the shed was too high:

To cap it all there was an article in the local paper on Apr 1st showing most flattering photograph of the offending shed saying that it was only 36ft high. The author of the article may have got away with saying that in September but not now. You should know that it is over 50 ft high and that is what we have been saying for months now. It’s planned height is about 42ft.

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.