South Tyneside Council evade a complaint by not registering it, and then giving misinformation to the Local Government Ombudsman and rely on the Investigator for the Ombudsman to base his or her in findings on the misinformation rather than the simple truth.

They then use those findings to tell enquirers that there was nothing wrong with the development and the people protesting were making allegations.

When you complain to the Ombudsman that the Council have been giving misinformation to them the Second Inspector conflates the first complaint with the second:- “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.”

Then he adds, “I will treat your complaint therefore as invalid and your complaint will not be investigated. Yours sincerely”

Critical Review of the First Ombudsman’s Summary

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 2001.¹ Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed.² However,the developer built it almost a metre wider than he should have done.³ 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.⁴ It kept residents informed throughout the process.⁵ The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be.⁶ The Council says it is not.⁷ There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.⁸

• • 1. any structure built on the footings laid in 2001 would have been a meter wider than planned according to all the plans seen since September 2013 and therefore built without permission;
  • 2. the local residents raised their concerns that the shed was taller than planned in September 2013 and the Council must have agreed with them because by 23rd September 2013 UK Docks were forced to stop work on the shed;
  • 3. True, the Council found the shed to be 13.1m wide and all the plans said it should be 12.2m;
  • 4. There were numerous lies made by Planners and Management to hide the fact that the UK Docks had built their shed nearly 3m taller and a meter wider than permitted and some evidence of fault is given on Page 4, of Shed and Corruption 14;
  • 5. It kept the residents misinformed as soon as we queried its height. It was why  we revived the TGA;
  • 6. True, the shed is 15.5m at the landward end but the approved plan said it should be 12.7m, a difference of 2.8m;
  • 7. The Council says it is not;
  • 8. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.

  Logic dictates that 7 and 8 are both outright lies – see 6.

• Evasion and denial  is supported variously by:

  [1] Denial/contradiction in response;
  [2] Complaint not recorded, nor questions answered;
  [3] Conflation of complaints;
  [4] Forward Pass;
  [5] Back-pass.

  All turn out to be powerful methods of corrupting a complaints procedure and one can be certain that South Shields Council did not invent it but they have devised a get out of jail free card for use by the people running their version of the complaints procedure and then relying on the Local Government Ombudsman to bury the truth.

  I understand that all complaints procedures regarding this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.

  O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!