|Dates||Details with their URLs|
|8-Jul||I ask you 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. It was not admitted.|
|1-Aug||Denial No. 16 the CEO of South Tyneside directs his Corporate Lead to lie on his behalf – it now clear the the instuctions to misdirect the Ombudsman are coming from the leader, the Chief Executive:
His Corporate says on his behalf: “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman.
He had been asked: “I ask you 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.
|Corporate Lead was told that an independant solicior says that the Council have been giving misinformation to the Ombudsman but she ignores it and so do Customer Advocacy. Please excuse me for writing directly to you. I’ve copied you the letter I wrote to Haley Johnson yesterday. I assume you have access to my letter to the Chief Executive 8-Jul and her reply to me 1-. MD 3-Sep-16.|
|5-Oct||Denial No. 17 – A refined repeat of Denial No. 16.
I can again advise that there is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Fraudulent misinformation is deliberate by its very nature.
They told the MP for Berwick in June 2015 that we were making allegations about the shed which was a straightforward lie but the allegation that the complainants were making allegations had been dropped in the response to the MP for South Shields in September 2017 yet three months later the charge that I was make allegations had reappeared.
Neither the height of the shed nor the plans had changed since 2013!
The argument about the height of the shed should have been between UK Docks ans South Tyneside Council but the planning officer needed to hide the misdemeanours of the building inspector(no inspection of the works from October 2013 to March 2014*) by making it one between the protestors and the Council. The external statements re denial of the truth were being spread to a progressively wider audience and are highlighted in red but over-writing of 248789 (9) and threatening to shoot the messenger(16 and 17) are in a class of their own.
We had sent our petition to the Chief Executive but it appears that it was shredded and it was answered with a lie, see Denial No. 9.
I had on 3 occasions to advise him about the shed being 3m taller than planned but only once did I inform him that his staff had been lying to the Ombudsman.
*the Planning Manager had conceded that the shed was taller than planned on February 13 2014
|26-May||To the Ombudsman’s 2nd Inspector: Please note and I cannot stress it enough. The Council had not been able to provide any approved drawings to support their and UK Dock’s view that the cover was built to the correct height since the development began in September 2013.|
Denial No. 18
The second Inspector to the Local Government was avoiding the truth: However, after having read the decision by the Local Government Ombudsman in 2015, I consider that the matter of which you complain remains that of the lack of enforcement by the Council. The Local Government Ombudsman gave you full and detailed reasons for reaching her decision.
Denial No. 19
Dear Councillor Anglin. Please see letter attached (8-Aug-17). Planning rules are made so that a check is kept on on unruly developments and if you have any regard for them you ought to be supporting the residents and asking the Council to stop the extension of the cover. May we rely on you and your fellow Councillors for support?
|06-Sep||Denial No. 20 – The MP for South Shields responded on behalf of Councillor Anglin. This is highlighted in red as I had not written to either Customer Advocacy or the MP for South Shields.
In her reply, she said:
“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”. This takes us back to 15th April 2015 publication of the Ombudsman’s findings and denial number 12.
Denial No. 21
Dear Alison, Please advise me of email address of the Head of Legal Services. Mr M Harding used to fill this post but I notice in recent correspondence with my former MP that he is now the Monitoring Officer at South Tyneside Council: In relation to the conduct of Cllr John Anglin, unfortunately I have no power to look into this, however if you feel Cllr Anglin’s conduct has fallen short of what you expect or you are unhappy with his behaviour then please may I suggest that you contact the Monitoring Officer at South Tyneside Council, Mike Harding,who you can formally report your concerns to and also make an official complaint if necessary. MP 06-Sept-17.
Denial No. 22
Corporate Lead may not have told Customer Advocacy that a Solicitor had been consulted. The use of [PROTECT] means that were aware – see ignored letter, 2nd or 3rd September 2016.
|Dates||Details with their URLs|
|10-Jan||To ” Customer Advocates”: If you look carefully at the Ombudsman’s findings of the 15-Apr-15 you will see that paragraphs 30-38 are riddled with misrepresentations of the plans and drawings.
Further to “Customer Advocates”: If my letter to Michaela, 2nd or 3rd September 2016 had been referred to your Legal Section rather than passed back to Mrs Johnson for attention, they would have seen that I have already sought legal advice. I took your email of the 9th December 2015 to a firm of solicitors in Sunderland and they were sufficiently interested that I left my binder of all the correspondence from Messrs Cunningham, Atkinson and Mansbridge with them.
|18-Jan||Denial No. 24
From Alison Hoy of Customer Advocates:
Dear Mr Dawson
To confirm the Council’s positon, we will not re-open or open a new complaint regarding this email as the issues are the same as your original complaint to us some years ago.
If you wish to seek legal advice your legal representative should contact our Legal Department as advise previously. I will not be forwarding on your email or drawings as they remain the subject or your historic complaint. If you are unhappy with the Ombudsman’s investigation of your complaint you should raise that with them directly – see Denial No. 15: Questions and avoidance.
|27-Jan||Dear Alison, Thank for your email of the 18th which sadly does not address the problems I have been having with notifying breaches of planning permission.|
Denial No. 25
A list of mostly unanswered emails sent with the comment by the sender: “The letter itself however is still relevant, as it still applies that you have continued to further breach the restrictions in place by raising 11 more contacts than those noted in the letter with requests relating to your historic complaint.
By the beginning of February 2018 it was becoming very clear that Customer Advocacy while not outwardly lying about the height they were doing everything to avoid answering any direct question about whether the 2nd condition had been met: “The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
The denials do not end with No. 25 which refers back to the first cycle of deceit upon which the claim that the shed is approved, rests.
Denial No26. by the Deputy Monitoring Officer is in a class of its own. and my complaint to Monitoring Officer about his Deputy has never been answered.