It was not me abusing the complaints procedure, it was your Corporate Lead.
This is good point to expand upon Part 2 of Shed and Corruption where I finished with a one column table of how the Complaints Procedure was corrupted by nearly all the people I have had to deal with over the years and now is the time to fill it with some examples.
There is a change in order: Denial or contradiction has been moved to the top of the table as this will generally end up being the main item misinformation/misrepresentation given to the Ombudsman, i.e. the shed has been built to the approved height. There are quite a few more but they are there to bolster the big lie, for example, the drawing 8296/14 has not been drawn to scale.
Evasions and denials are variously supported by:
| [1] Denial/contradiction in response: | ||
| Mr Cunningham | 20-Dec13, 13-Jan-14. | |
| Mr Atkinson | 15-Jan-14, 28-Jan-14. | |
| Mr Mansbridge | 2-May-14, 2-Jun-14. | |
| Hayley Johnson | 25-Jun-15, 1-Aug-16, 5-Oct-16 | |
| [2] Complaint not recorded, nor questions answered: | ||
| Mr Cunningham | 13-Sep-13, 25-Nov-13, 20-Dec-13, 13-Jan-14. | |
| Mr Atkinson | 15-Jan-14, 28-Jan-14. | |
| Mr Simmonette | 4-Dec-15, 7-Dec-15, 20-Dec-16. | |
| [3] Conflation of complaints: | ||
| Mr Mansbridge | 12/05/14 | |
| Customer Advocacy | 21/12/16 | |
| Ombudsman | 17/05/17 | |
| [4] Back-pass: | ||
| Mr Cunningham | 13/01/13 | |
| Mr Mansbridge | 04/04/14 | |
| Michaela Hamilton | 24/11/14 | |
| [5] Forward pass or diversion into a dead end; | ||
| Mr Atkinson | 28-Jan-14, 4-Mar-14, 25-Apr-14. | |
| Alison Hoy | See Shed and corruption Part 8. | |
This table is by no means comprehensive but it shows to what length Council staff went to hide what was going on. Mr Mansbridge’ letter of the 12th of May has been put into conflation because he overwrites the original complaint 248789 where Mr Atkinson conceded that the shed was in fact too tall with one of his own making, 253539 thus deleting the admission and enabling him to repeat the outright contradiction that Mr Atkinson had made four months before.
Michaela Hamilton also ignored the fact that the shed was taller than planned when she said: I can confirm that as previously advised, the Council accepts that the structure in question does not have planning permission. She must have been advised to do this to avoid repeating the lie that the shed was not taller than planned.
Councillor Anglin was not representing the interests of the residents of his ward when he asked the Executive of South Tyneside Council (Customer Advocacy) get him off the hook. He had been told, by reference to the authorised drawings from 1996 that the shed was nearly 3m taller than permitted.
It was a simple act of denial when Customer Advocacy said, on his behalf, “Regarding your comments regarding the additional boat shed, this was subject to a separate planning application and the Council’s planning department advise that past issues do not affect the validity of any new planning applications.”
My Email to Cllr Anglin was about existing shed, 8-Aug-17, “I think it probably best to properly involve our MP but please let me know quickly which side you and your fellow Councillors are on as UK Docksare currently preparing to extend the shed and the permission for that was gained by deceit.”