Corruption 2 – The Back Pass

Where an issue is passed back down the complaints chain, to an earlier link where it was not addressed in the first place. The complaint literally disappears and may as well been chucked in the bin. This is why it is best to not to use the phone or write a letter.  Emails can be used as an audit trail provided they are not deleted from the service provider of course.
This is No. 5 on the list of methods or devices used to corrupt any complaints procedure and is used to evade pertinent questions such as: “Why is that block of flats covered in inflammable cladding?”
In the case of UK Docks it was used to avoid the question of the planned height of the frames, is it 12 or 15.5m? That was long before the complaints procedure was properly under way but was a hint of things to come.
The first well defined use of it is shown below, the Council were advised that the cover was in breach of planning permission:

From: Peter.Cunningham
To: M Dawson
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:19:18 
Subject: FW: Slipway Development - Work Continues [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Mr Dawson, I responded to you this morning as follows:
The queries that you raise are not new, indeed I have been repeating my response to them for some 
time now, and you will recall that I explained the planning aspect of the Council’s position to you regarding this development during our meeting. This meeting included the chair and representatives of your residents group, and Councillors Anglin and McMillan. This meeting was requested by the residents and it was arranged by the Councillors. 
My understanding is that the responses that I had provided to you at this meeting enabled the matter to be closed. 
May I therefore suggest that you speak with the Chair of the residents group in respect of the points that you have raised below, as these have already been discussed and explained. If you are still not satisfied with the Council’s response then you should use the Council’s complaints procedure which has 3 stages. 
Peter Cunningham
Principal Planning Officer

The meeting was not initially requested by us, a minor item of misinformation, but we asked to attend  because some of us did not trust the Chair of the TGA, the Planning Officer nor the Councillor.

The main item of misinformation is saying the complaint has already been addressed.

The complaint was never addressed because the shed is in fact 2.7m taller than planned and it is still there and so is Mr Cunningham thanks to the actions of various senior officers and the Chief Executive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.