The first draft came to 10 about pages and just repeated what I had told the solicitor so I decided to write directly to the CEO simply stating the main facts, the approved drawings state 22m x 12.2m x 12.7m(15.5m):
The dimensions measured by the Council in September are as follows: length 22.254m, width 13.1m, height at the landward end 15.5m and height at the river end 18m. The gradient is 2.7m and there was no dispute about the planned width of 12.2m. There are four drawings available to determine the planned height. Logic rather than opinion dictates that the landward or road end is 13m or less and the river end is 15.5m
The CEO appointed his Corporate Lead to respond and she declared there was no misinformation given to the Ombudsman.
A misrepresentation in itself but the CEO has given her authority to use subsection F (Unreasonable and/or Persistent Complainants. ) of some code to sanction me but it fails on two counts:
- There is only one instance from me telling the CEO that the Council have been misleading to the Ombudsman;
- it is entirely reasonable to tell him that it is taller than the one approved when it is taller than the one approved.
In my letter to Ms Hoy asking for a copy of your letter to the MP I said was I waiting to hear from the MP, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, before I complained to the LGO about their Inspector’s report. I have not yet complained. I consulted a solicitor about Ms Hoy’s letter because I felt that she was being used by Mr Simmonette to avoid answering the question of the planned height of the shed.
Ms Hoy was being used by Mr Simmonette to avoid answering the question of height and the Corporate Lead has gone further by denying there is anything wrong with the height.
I did complain to the CEO about the conduct of the pair (Mr Simmonette and Mrs Johnson, not Ms Hoy) but my letter remains on file unanswered because he deliberately conflates the complaint with the way the complaint was handled.