The Misrepresentation: 13-Jan-20

That UK Docks have permission for their shed.

Event List:

Hi Mick,
I appreciate your arguments, but this far down the line there is
nothing we can do. Angela has talked to several relevant people,
and the point is the council gave retrospective planning. Which
they are allowed to do. We are working with Angela to negate
further issues with the site. It’s all we can do now: limit noise
and any other issues If they occur. Regards Julie
‘Dishonesty at the Town Hall’ is published. A copy sent to Emma’s Office elicited the response “Please note that if you do not provide your full address no further action will be taken on your case.” the first such message for many years.

Monitoring Officer confirms no retrospective permission for Shed but concludes:
“I understand that all complaints procedures regarding this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally.”
That is what she has been told by Senior Managers of South Tyneside Council but they are hiding the fact that they mislead the Ombudsman to cover up the misuse of the complaints procedure and use that in turn to cover up the corruption in Building Control.
Advise Cllrs Hamilton and others that UK docks were not granted retrospective permission for their shed. Copied to Emma’s private email not to her office. I was aware that she was not seeing emails to her parliamentary office for some reason. Phone call to Mr Palmer at  Emma’s office on 13th January established why .
Receive acknowledgement from Emma: Good afternoon Mick, I am aware Angela and David are dealing with this, please can you let me know if there is anything needed from me. Best wishes, hope you have a lovely Christmas
To Emma: Thank you for responding to my email to Angela and the offer of help.
This orderly  and cordial if not amiable proceedings  were interrupted an email requesting my home phone number from Simon Buck ( to pass to a colleague Keith Palmer ( – see 19-Dec-19.
Give home and mobile number to Simon Buck in good faith because I assumed Mr Palmer wished to talk about UK Docks lie about being granted permission for their shed – see exchange 23- & 24-Dec-19.
Returned phone call to Mr Palmer to discover he did not want to discuss the maladministration  by the Council re  UK Docks at all. Quite the opposite, he wanted to close down all conversation about UK Docks completely.
I then realised it was a mistake to have returned the call as he insinuated that I was sending vexatious emails to Emma’s Office. That call was the first time in all the years of my dealings with the Town Hall or the MP’s Office they have they been described as vexatious and says more about Mr Palmer than myself.
I therefore wish to find out what is going on in her office from Emma herself: toELBatMP13-Jan-20.pdf – Complaint sent to MP about how Mr Palmer hinted at, expensive litigation, vexatious complaints and presenting new evidence to the LGO.  What I really needed from Emma’s Office was their support, see offer 24-Dec-19,  and Mr Palmer has indicated by our exchange over the phone that he was not prepared to give it.
I also attached the Solicitor’s letter from Peter Dunn and Co. to show that is was the Council that had lied to the Ombudsman and not Mr X i.e. me.
It was blocked or bounced by an autoreply13-Jan-20.pdf and it was likely that Mr Palmer had carried out his threat. That is not the expected response from an MP’s office  with whom I have been corresponding cordially if not amiably for some years especially as we were both encountering the same problems with the Town Hall.
The contagion (evasive behaviour) has spread from the Town Hall to the Office of the MP and the agent appears to be Mr Palmer.
Noticing the block I sent toELBatMP14-Jan-20.pdf in morning. Adding address etc. to message, more details and attach case ZA4803 which has been with her for many years. This also bounces with the auto response, “Please note that if you do not provide your full address no further action will be taken on your case,” confirming that Mr Palmer has carried out his threat.
However it is Mr Buck who responds to my email to Emma of Monday night toELBatMP13-Jan-20.pdf making out it is a response to to the one sent on a Tuesday morning:-  from SB_OfficeELB14-Jan.pdf  “Thank you for your email sent this morning following from Mr Palmer’s telephone conversation to you yesterday afternoon.”  By this means the first email  to Emma and the charges in it have been overwritten.
More importantly there is now no trace of the Solicitor’s letter that I attached to Monday’s email. I had invited Mr Palmer to read it along with the equally ‘lost’ email to Customer Advocacy 02 September 2016 (typo 03-Sep in the email).
I copied the 1st email to Mr Palmer and the three Cllrs and the 2nd to Mr Palmer and the Monitoring Officer and her predecessor, neither were copied to Mr Buck so he will not have seen either the solicitor’s letter nor Case Ref: ZA4803 – an email to ELB 20-Oct-16 .
How come it is Mr Buck who is thanking me and not Mr Palmer?
It is beginning to appear that Mr Palmer had set up Mr Buck as well as yours truly  when he tried to provoke me into vexatious comments over the phone.  Was it recorded ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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