Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:40:40 -0000
Subject: Cllr A: Slipway Development – River Drive
To: “Angela Hamilton”
Cc: “Andrew Tilbury”
“Emma Lewell-Buck MP”
“Stephen Hepburn MP”
“Anne-marie Trevelyan MP”
“Gill Hayton (Solicitor)”
“Graeme Watson”, Chair of TGA
Copy of main letter attachment.
I have retrieved my original complaint from the ‘bin’ this morning. The mighty servers at Microsoft have been looking after it for me for all these years. I would resubmit it but would only get a response similar to the one from Gill Hayton, 12-Dec-18 or one like Emma relayed, 6-Sep-17, when had I pointed out another one of Cllrs Anglin’s transgressions:The previous issues relating to the boat yard have in fact now been looked at by the Local Government Ombudsman and they found no issue with the yard or anything relating to its development. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman’s decision cannot be re-visited.
The attached letter started of as a response to Monitoring (putting it in writing to her boss Mr M Harding was not an option considering how much ink and paper I would have to use especially as, on current form it is going to get ‘binned’).
I quickly realised that I would immediately fall into the trap set for me by Gill Hayton. The bait is the misinformation about the height coupled with the invitation to write again to the Monitoring Officer and the trap is sprung by writing to them again. It is a set piece and was used on me when I complained about the development of 71 Greens place. Then, I did not gather what was going on.
I was more prepared for it when it was tried by Planning in late 2013/early 2014, the bait being repetition of misinformation given at the meeting by Mr Cunningham and the trap being sprung when I wrote to his Manager. Mr Atkinson re-baited the trap with a rather wordy version of of what the Head of Development Services wrote:
“The approved dimensions of the steelwork are: Proposed height
15.5m at the River Drive end.” and invited me to write to the Head of Development Services, where, as you can see, the trap was reloaded.
I tried various devices to avoid this trap but they just
keep on baiting with variations of that lie until we get Gill Hayton
quoting the Ombudsman directly.
I did take Mr Tilbury’s advice: referred to on page 6 of the attached letter.
My view is that we need to raise a “new complaint” so that the Local Authority shall deal with it, and if not, the Local Government Ombudsman can deal with it. The new complaint being the misinformation and/or misrepresentation by the Local Authority in supplying information to the Local Government Ombudsman. Hopefully this can be dealt with as a “new” matter. If this complaint is not dealt with by South Tyneside Council, and it may well be that they say it relates to the old complaint, then I believe it justifies going straight to the Local Government Ombudsman.
and wrote to the Chief Executive but a ‘new’ complaint was not raised the reason given being that; “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman”. I personally would believe Mr Tilbury rather than someone chosen by the Chief Executive of South Tyneside Council.
It was actually the second inspector for the Ombudsman that said; “I consider that your latest complaint remains that of your previous complaint which has already been determined (whether or not to your satisfaction) and the opportunity to request a
review of that decision has passed.”
Notice he said nothing about the Council misleading the Ombudsman, but that I was too late in reporting it. I believe the period to challenge what a Council has told
them is now a month.
The shed is still 3m taller and 1m wider than planned and the Council have still not responded to my complaint made in January 2014. Please ask them nicely to pull their finger out and respond properly to it – see complaint below.