Shed and Corruption - Part 2 Date: 12/04/2021 (11:31:07 BST) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: Cllr David Francis Cc: Melanie Todd, Alison Hoy, Hayley Johnson, Nicola Robason Attachment: Shed and Corruption - 2.pdf
The Shed and Corruption – 2
I have tidied the letter to Melanie of March 12th and saved it the website which has a been a sort of hold-all for some years, as ‘The Shed and Corruption: Part 1‘. Hopefully the worst of the errors in grammar, never one of my strong points, have been corrected.
While attempting to tidy the website it soon became clear that the timeline on which it was built was sound. It was based on the complaints raised by many, including Melanie and myself, that the enclosure (shed) on UK Docks’ slipway off River Drive, was to not built to the approved plans. It was taller by some 3m. The facts behind the letter to Melanie remain the same as do the conclusions one can draw from it and it beggars the question: why did the Council persistently lie about the height of the shed?
The reality lies in the fact that they were never told to remove their shed or rebuild it to the correct height in writing otherwise it would have gone. UK Docks would not have have sought permission retrospectively because the approved plans from 1996 would have had to have been produced and that would have proved that the residents were right about it being taller and wider than planned, and to put it bluntly, that both UK Docks and the Council were lying when they said or implied that approval had been granted for the shed we now see.
UK Docks needed a longer one to make their business on River Drive viable and while they may have got away with a wider one it was unlikely that they would have got away with a taller one and certainly not the longer one. The footings laid in 2001 were for a longer shed.
Until it was lengthened in August 2017 any passer by could have seen the uphill downstream mounting point when it was not covered by a pallet. It was five meters directly in front of the shed door after all.
It appears that the Agents for UK Docks approached the Council during August 2013 about the conditions imposed on them when they were granted permission for their shed in 1996 but the second condition was either not discussed or deliberately set aside and as you will see that it was a serious oversight because it ended with the Council having to lie to the Ombudsman and then using their findings to misdirect MPs and anybody else for that matter about the height of the shed.
The misdirection even included me in Alison Hoy’s email of December 2015 [Part 1: page 9]. That was the email first taken to a Solicitor. Not mine, he did not handle planning matters.
To recap on Part 1: we were onto the discrepancy between, what was built and what was permitted, when Melanie first raised the question of the height in 2013 with the Case Officer, Mr Cunningham. At first I was not concerned, as I naturally assumed that they must have had permission for their shed but it very rapidly became clear that there was none at all, mostly because the dates on the drawings given to us by Mr Cunningham meant there was no possibility of them being authorised in June or July of 1996 by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation.
The same drawings contained inconsistencies, which I have explained in great detail on pages one and two of ‘The Shed and Corruption – 1’ and question the of use of legally by Messrs Haig and Anglin in November 2013:
Michael, I took no minutes as is customary at these informal meetings. For your record I am sure all would agree, The Exec representatives of the Group accepted that the construction had been made legally as per drawings seen.
Mr Cunningham was as much aware as I that it was was probably fraudulent misrepresentation to claim that the shed had been approved by saying the shed had been made legally per drawings seen but he let it go because it distracted everyone from the fact that no approved drawings were produced at the meeting and they even misled the Ombudsman on that: #20. In response to the draft of my decision Mr X says because the foundations are too wide the permission was not lawfully implemented. I did not say anything about them being lawful, I said they were not laid in accordance with the authorised plans.
Page 2. If any approved drawings were shown at the meeting it would have been the end of the shed on River Drive. That is the point I am trying to drive home and why I have made the references again.
Most of the references are from a time-line referenced in a website which was developed after the disappearance of the complaint raised on the 10-Jan-14: When they restarted work after the Town Hall meeting, I was left with no choice but to repeat your(Melanie’s) observation and ask, 10-Jan-14: As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?
Melanie’s and my timelines merged in September 2013 but our troubles with the Council began a good while before that and I think Melanie’s were with the Building Inspector, Mr Mike Telford and she will be able to regale your with plenty of stories about him and while mine included Mr Telford’s dereliction of duty they were mainly concerned with those of the Planning Office.
71 &72 Greens place
This started with a Planning Officer and her misapplication of the planning guidelines, SPD9 which were ignored.
72 – I was told by the building inspector, Mr Telford that the single dormer that occupied nearly the whole of the roof width of 72 was not a material consideration but discovered later that was just his opinion. Mr Telford was applying different standards to No 72 to those being applied to No 70. If anyone had bothered to check, the Listing of No 70 was specific to the frontage and the door in particular not to any materials used for modifications to the back. I should have questioned the addition of conditions 3 & 4 but as the planning section’s grudge against the previous owners of No 70 was well known and still hung over the place, I just paid the extra for the bricks which the builder went to some trouble to match. We both agreed that if they tried to enforce metal gutters they would be open to ridicule!
71- When I mentioned that Mr Haig had not even followed the permitted plans, the Ombudsman had said that as I had not taken the complaint thought the Council’s Complaints Procedure (CCP), she was not able to consider it. This was the first indication that the Council and LGO were working in unison.
I had noticed as I progressed through the CCP the basic reasons for my complaint against the Haig’s demolition, and rebuild of 71 Greens Place had disappeared. One of my problems was that Mr Haig had lied to his solicitor when he said that a party wall was in place and I had force him into it – a waste of time and money as it was never honoured and in this he required the assistance of the building inspector, Mr Telford.
I did, however, take Adele, the Ombudsman’s advice and that led to Mr Haig to put in an application for permission to be granted retrospectively. It was a little short on detail although the agent did mention construction of various patio walls (plural – there were two walls under consideration), and this was pointed out in response to the Planning Manager’s view. Note we are still referring to ST/0749/13/FUL which deals with the party wall and retrospective plans. This list was passed to a planning officer and acknowledged on the 12th November.
I mention all this because what had started life as an application for retrospective planning permission by the time Mr Atkinson given it approval on the 5th December 2013, had become one which bore no reference to any retrospective planning application at all.
It had become ST/0749/13/HFUL and its predecessor, ST/0749/13/FUL, had completely disappeared and probably been deleted. Since there is no way the Council will allow ST/0749/13/FUL to be recovered there is very little I can do about 71 Greens Place, with its roof top balcony, except to say that if one wants to view a modest example of the corruption endemic in the Town Hall in South Shield is to just take a stroll down Greens Place. A better and much more visible example is UK Docks’ shed a little way downstream of the Haig’s view from their balcony. This is important to bear in mind because UK Docks should have applied for permission to build the shed we see today sometime between 2001 and 2013. That would have been retrospectively.
Page 3. This example started with a Planning Officer’s misapplication of a the Guideline’s SPD9,the Inspector for the LGO being fed misinformation, continued with thebuilding inspector, Mr Telford ensuring the Party Wall Agreement would fail and finally the variation from the approved plans which needed retrospective consideration and ended with someone deleting that particularapplication (ST/0749/13/FUL)and it all happened on the Mr Atkinson’s watch.
His decision on /HFUL was made on 5-Dec-13, two weeks after Cllr Anglin said he took no minutes at a meeting that was to decide the fate of shed – see page 2 of Part 1.
UK Docks – Stage 1.
Some of those mentioned in the troubles with 71 and 72 Greens Place were involved with maintaining the lie, started by the Principal Planning Officer, Mr Cunningham, when he sent out the pair of drawings given to him by UK Docks on the 6-Sep-2013. The lie is of course that the shed is built to the approved height. I used the more appropriate term, fraud, in the conclusion of my letter of the 12th March (Part 1). Like 71 Greens Place, the complaint about the shed ends up with the LGO being misinformed.
The sequence of events was different with UK Docks’ shed, because they started erecting the framework to support the cladding before the Planning Manager made his decision to approve ST/1146/13/COND, 14-Oct-13, and the elephant in the room is that the Second Condition of ST/0242/96/UD is missing from that decision: The development to which this permission relates shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
In Part 1, I wanted to concentrate on laying down the fact that the shed was 3m taller than planned rather than why the Council kept on repeating that it was not taller than planned.
At the very start of our protest, September 2013, Melanie and I should have known that something was up because Mr Cunningham introduces Mr Telford from Building Control into the mix and he does not register her complaint .
Part 1 mostly deals with the first phase of the shed’s development and that was to get the shed with the larger section past building control/planning and lengthen it later. I picked this up three days after Mr Telford signed off Phase 1, 17-Jun-14, when Gary Craig Associates submitted their plans to convert the boat yard into a shipyard and I pointed out the shortcomings of the proposals.
My correspondence was ‘lost’ but I pointed out that the Agent had shown the 2014 shed as the as same length longer one which was corrected two weeks before the final submission before the Planning Committee Meeting, 1-Feb-2016. More importantly Melanie had picked up the fact that something was wrong with building control as well. The Case Officer was Mr Telford.
To emphasise this point, Building Control were, as late as September 2019, still referring questions about the size of the development back to planning; Please see attached and email below which I believe was meant for planning. Regards, Debbie Graham Operations & Partnership Officer.
For six years both the planning officers and building control have avoided taking responsibility for allowing the shed to be built and used without planning permission.
August 2013 – The start of the deception about the shed.
When UK Docks instructed Maughan, Reynolds Partnership Ltd to submit the application they had not told them that the shed they were about to build was 3 meters taller and a meter wider than permitted. Maybe they had, but as I have shown in Part 1, the Agents applied for one of 15.5m x 12.2m i.e. no change in overall dimensions at the river end since 1996. UK Docks were building one of 18.2m x 13.1m while it should be 15.5m x 12.2m.
Like Nos 71 and 72, it appears that the Council then the LGO were hiding the fact that the developer built what he wanted rather than what had been permitted.
Page 4. Mr Cunningham went down to the yard on the 17th December to confirm what we had already guessed, that the stanchions were some three meters longer than permitted. Strange that Building Control had not noticed the length of the stanchions on the 4th September.
The case of 71 Greens Place ended with the Council overwriting the application for permission to be considered retrospectively with one that did not mention any retrospective action. The case agaist UK Docks was brought to an end when the second Inspector for the Ombudsman overwrote of the way the Council handled the complaint with the complaint itself  and said: I consider that your latest complaint remains that of your previous complaint which has already been determined and the opportunity to request a review of that decision has passed.
Our complaint stated that the shed was taller and wider than planned which is true but a Senior Planning Officer told the Ombudsman otherwise: #35. In January 2014 the Council wrote to Mr X about this. Since then the Council has consistently told Mr X the shed is the correct height.
That was not true and they can tell me till they’re blue in their collective faces that the shed is the approved height but it does not make it true. In January 2014 they were told in no uncertain terms that the shed was bigger than planned: The structure is 15.5m high on the south elevation therefore some 18.5m high at the north, the river end. I have estimated that that the width of structure is 13.2m
. . . .
Examination of this drawing number (8296/14) gives a detail of a beam (portal column) width 0.686mtres, with which the height and width of the north elevation can be gauged. The north elevation is 15.6m high with a width of 12.2m.
Those two details were in the introduction to the complaint that there was no retrospective action being considered but Mr Cunningham removed it from Planning Enquiries and referred me back to the TGA  so that he did not have to answer the question. His boss, Mr Atkinson did not wish to answer the question either so he implied that the shed had been approved : The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end.
The drawing does show that, but it was a draughting error, as you can see from Part 1. In fact most of Part 1 was given over to explaining that to say the shed was the correct height was a lie, and I concluded that: Mr Cunningham had to either to admit we were right about the shed or commit fraud.
As I hope I have shown, the fraud actually began with the UK Docks only asking for the conditions 3 and 4 to be considered when they knew that they would be in breach of the second condition as soon as the frame for the portal door was erected and continued when the drawings they gave to the fabricators of the stanchions to be bolted to the slipway were different to the ones drawn by the agents and meant they ended up with ones 2.7m longer than the approved drawings indicated.
It looks like someone in the Council was aware of this fraud and someone with the authority to order UK to stop work on their shed. Most likely they had seen the approved drawing from 1996 that showed the true planned height of the shed. They would have had UK Docks over a barrel if they had seen the pair of drawings [Part 1: Figure 1] passed to Mr Cunningham but it matters not, it appears Mr Cunningham was dispatched to see off the TGA [Part 1: pages 2&3] with the help of a couple of Councillors, and Messrs Haig and Watson. As you can see from the piece on 71 and 72 Greens Place it looks like they owed the Council a favour. Incidentally, the Planning Portal went down on the 25th November and by the time it was recovered, 2 or 3 weeks later the pair of drawing provided by UK Docks had been replaced by the Agent’s drawing. It had been approved and showed the shed was not only wider but taller as well.
Page 5. These last few paragraphs are a summary of the first few pages of Part I (hence the lack of references) and these roughly equate to the first stage of the CCP which Mr Cunningham brought to an end when he referred my request back to Mr Watson of the TGA. Perhaps I should have submitted some observations to counter his response but I suspect that they would have ended up like Melanie’s request four months earlier, unanswered. Lexplanation.pdf was given to the LGO and I should explain that when I said in point 5: While some of the dimensions are foreshortened to accommodate all the elevations. I was wrong, the elevation had been stretched and where I had written 3 and 12m, the scale length of the river end had been lengthened to 21m. I looks like I was going through through similar thought processes as the draughtsman when given conflicting information i.e. both ends the same height at 15.5m where the should be a difference of nearly 3m.
Nothing had changed in that four months except that the Council had published another approved drawing, 8296/14. At the same time the TGA were passed and accepted another unauthorised drawing to replace the one provided by UK Docks and yet UK Docks restarted work on their shed. Lexplanation.pdf with my proviso outlined above applies equally well to 1B as 1A.
When I concluded Part 1, I said: Mr Cunningham had to either to admit we were right about the shed or commit fraud. He chose the latter and that is why South Tyneside Council have gone dreadfully quiet about UK Docks. If look through Part 1 you will see that Mr Cunningham’s part in this saga ends when he attempts to pass the issue back to the TGA .
Stage 2 Disappears – Overwritten by the lie about the height.
Melanie and I had to work it out but I’m fairly sure that Melanie was aware, more than I, that many others knew that the shed was not built to plan and it gave her the confidence to try the MP to get involved as early as 13-Sep-13 [Part 1, Page 3] but that failed because it looks like the Council had been consistently misleading everybody including the MP’s Office in South Shields when they said the shed was the ‘correct’ height. So that they did not have to answer the question raised on the 10-Jan-14 it was removed from Planning Enquiries  and I was referred back to the TGA Chair , Mr Watson.
Once Mr Cunningham had committed himself to repeating the fraud about the height of the shed, each successive officer was stuck with either repeating it or coming clean about the height but the opportunity of doing it receded when the Planning Manager backed him, 15-Jan-14:
Figure 1: Detail of River End 1A
The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A. That shows the overall height of the structure as 15.5m above the foundation level at the landward end.
Up until then, Mr Cunningham could have claimed that he had been misinformed although his back pass to the TGA was a give away but I was aware that his Manager could read plans from my earlier experiences and would have known about the inconsistencies written into 8296/1A. He knew as I did, that drawing 1A showed the river end to be 15.5m as well – Fig 1.
Thus the Head of Development Services, 29-Apr-14 [stage 2 response], 2-May-14 [response to Petition], 2-June-14 [Stage “2” response], Senior Planning Officer [LGO, March 2015] were stuck with repeating it to avoid the question of height.
Page 6. Some chose to ignore it altogether while some asked others to divert attention away from the question of height. Alison Hoy was not the only one to be asked to divert an email, Debbie Graham, for instance was asked to do that as late as September 2019.
Back to the machinations of early 2014, I did not make it clear in Part 1 (Page 4), that Mr Atkinson had rewritten the history of our complaint, when I said: The Planning Manager, Mr Atkinson did nothing to resolve the situation because he sided with Mr Cunningham by saying the shed had been approved: Approved Drawings. The drawing that was submitted on 11th April 1996 with the application is numbered 8296/1A etc.
He had replaced the complaint of 10-Jan-2014 with: see email to planning 14/1/14. Mr Dawson asking various questions relating to the ongoing development at the slipway, River Drive.
We were clearly well into the second stage of our Complaint about the shed when it was exhausted, Council’s word not mine, with the Planning Manager conceding that: the current structure is not built to “approved” plans, 13-Feb-14. We were discussing the Agent’s plan, not the ones given to Mr Cunningham nor 1A and that led to our request that the shed be removed, 4-Mar-14: Thank you also for confirming that the Slipway Shed is not built to the approved 1996 plans.
In Part 1 the emphasis was on the Council disregard of the approved plans in favour of some recovered from their archive that were not authorised and contained an error – ‘the revised height’ at the landward end of (12.5 + 3)m. I make no apologies for labouring this point and for reproducing some of Part 1 again. Two emails in April/May, 2014:
- The Planning Manager washes his hands of 248789: I’m sorry for the delay. Mr Mansbridge is hoping to get a comprehensive response off to residents by the end of next week.
- On the 12th May, 10 days after Mr Mansbridge repeats Mr Atkinson’s lie to the residents of the top half of Greens Place and all of Harbour View, he write to me under reference 253539: I will now investigate your complaint and send you a response within 15 working days.
Remember, the complaint started with Melanie asking Mr Cunningham about what she called the revised height and when I had added the extra width into the mix and wrote to Planning Enquiries we were looking at Stage 2. Logically, when Mr Atkinson passes the ‘Complaint’ on, we were being passed to the next Stage (3) per the Council’s own guide on how to make a complaint, and the first thing Mr Mansbridge does, is to overwrite stages one and two: Planning enforcement of Tyne Slipway boat shed Letter to GM following previous letter dated 4th April. Not happy with G. Atkinsons response at Stage 1. Letter to be dealt with at Stage 2.
In this way our complaint, I say our complaint because there were about 300 signatories to the Petition, that the shed was nearly 3m taller than planned, was replaced with the lie that that we were not happy with Mr Atkinson’s response. I personally, was delighted when I had got him to admit that the structure had not been approved. We were discussing 8296/14 as part of Stage 2 at the time (not either 1A or 1B) and that how the meeting the Sailing Club, 3-Mar-14, came to be organised.
When Mr Mansbridge received my letter on the 4th April he notified me that 248789 had been updated but not told me that he had passed my letter back to Mr Atkinson. I had written to him because the article in the local press was based on misinformation provided by the Council.
When I saw his response to our Petition, it became more obvious what the Council had no intention of admitting that they were in the wrong. That they allowed UK Docks to restart work on the structure in January 2014. had already given their intentions away and as the tried and tested method of hiding wrong-doing was to misinform the Ombudsman they had a problem because the second stage was exhausted. I needed to be persuaded back into the complaints procedure.
Page 7. Contrived Stage 2 – The real Stage 3.
The desire by those in control to get the ‘Complaint’ to the Ombudsman must have been overwhelming because they persuaded Mr Mansbridge into creating a new complaint at Stage 2.
In this way the second stage of our complaint, the first stage having been over written by by the Planning Manager with his introduction of 248789, was overwritten again by 253539 and they could present their complaint to the Ombudsman in place of ours which had been exhausted with Planning Manager’s concession that we were correct about the height of the shed removed.
With the removal the 2nd Stage and the evidence that went with it as good as deleted, the Council needed a second stage or there would not be a 3rd to present misinformation to the Ombudsman and Mr Mansbridge was the man best placed for this task. He had already been compromised by his response to our Petition.
The resetting of Stage 2 also saved him having to send out the apology for misleading the residents especially as UK Docks had been labouring away at completing the cladding for a month or so.
It also saved him from having to do something about errant Planning Officers, Messrs Cunningham and Atkinson: If I had followed the suggestions by these officers there would have been no admission by the planning office that the slipway shed on River Drive had not been built to plan and it ill behoves you to refer my email to the formal complaints procedure as well. Work continues in the slipway shed as I write this so if you have not written to the operator to stop, as you intended to, then please do so.
Mr Mansbridge invited me to the Town Hall to review the Agent’s Drawing, 8296/14, but it was never brought it to the meeting and I was a bit annoyed to say the least but at least I had the forethought to write to the Chief Executive beforehand. I thought it would not be produced because he invited the Planning Manager to attend as well and my fears were confirmed and I later told the Chief Executive’s office of this but it was ignored. The meeting only went to confirm that to use the Agent’s drawing to show that the shed was too tall could not be dismissed, anddrawing 8296/1A favoured by the Planning Manager was only used to back the fraudulent claim that the shed had been approved.
It would explain why Michaela’s response was marked [PROTECT].
It was significant the question of the height of shed was avoided altogether in her so called ‘third’ stage response and it is more than a coincidence that the Ombudsman did not mention the height in her first draft of her findings either.
The Diversion into a Dead End or Switch
Alison Hoy, was the person deployed to do that with her email to me on the 9th December 2015 . One of the first people to do this was the planner in charge of phase 2 and he did that by giving her similar pieces of misinformation, to what they gave to the Ombudsman. It was her email that I took to the Peter Dunn and co. in Sunderland. There were two instances:
1. used by Mr Simmonette to avoid getting into difficulties about the height of the shed – I had hammered the point about the height, home in my email 30 September and enforcement is implied only because the shed is taller than planned and nothing has been done about it; when (he) wrote to residents in the same letter to say that although the shed was built without planning permission he was taking no action. He said that the drawing to say that the steelwork at the road end is clearly marked as 15.5m. It is significant that he does not attach the drawing to his letter because the river end is also clearly marked as 15.5m.
2. the 5th paragraph is a perfect example of why they mislead the Ombudsman: We have also responded to a further enquiry made to the Council via your then local MP Anne-Marie Trevelyan, dated 1 June 2015, which claimed you had not been able to locate any details from the Council on why the shed had been approved despite the breach in planning conditions, even though at that time you had received complaint responses from both the Council and the Ombudsman.
The 3rd ‘complaint’ was not a complaint but request for information and Alison helped me with it. The results were the screen prints for 248789 and 253539 and I have never understood why it was a complaint but one must not look a gift horse in the eye and I never grumbled because those two screen prints show exactly they could corrupt any complaints procedure and make an audit of it impossible.
The first draught to Mr Tilbury was about 10 pages full of much of the things referenced in Part 1 and by the time it was refined, it was obvious that it could be sent directly to the Chief Executive. He got Mrs Hayley Johnson to say that I was a persistent and unreasonable complainant so the main the question raised at the heart of letter still remains unanswered: 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.
If Mrs Johnson had checked, she would have found that only one complaint to the Chief Executive about his staff misleading the Ombudsman had been sent and you can see that it describes in some detail how the planning officer, 8-July-16, had deceived the Ombudsman. For me to say that the shed was too tall when it was too tall was not unreasonable.
Needless to say my complaint to him about Mrs Johnson’s behaviour in this respect remains on file and probably explains why UK Docks got away with with their bigger shed: The answer to the question was that his staff had to misrepresent the facts to the LGO to hide that fact that shed was 3 meters taller than planned so that when the application to lengthen it came in, everything appeared to be above board.
Her response was to threaten me with the misapplication of part of a staff code, Section F.
Not only did the letter from the Solicitor confirm that the Council were misleading the LGO it confirmed that the Council were also manipulating the complaints system to hide ‘things’ else why would he have said: Hopefully this can be dealt with as a “new” matter. If this complaint is not dealt with by South Tyneside Council, and it may well be that they say it relates to the old complaint, then I believe it justifies going straight to the Local Government Ombudsman.
In fact it was the LGO’s second inspector that claimed it related to an old complaint  – item 4 in Mr Lewis’ excuses [ref: page 3] but it is a manipulation of the complaints procedure by both the Council and the LGO that lie at the centre of the corruption. Conflation of complaints was to be the mainstay apart from the non-registration when we get into the second phase of the shed’s development. Mrs Johnson did not raise a “new” complaint which means that the will be no record of her threat to section me but more importantly no record of my letter to Mr Swales.
I was alert to this method of rigging the complaints procedure of not recording a complaint: Mr Cunningham had used it in September 2013 against Melanie when he sent her a ‘How to make a Complaint’ and did much the same in January 2014 when he removed the complaint of 10-Jan-2014 from Planning Enquiries so that he did not have to answer the question: As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?
Page 9. Mrs Johnson repeated the lie that there was no evidence of the Council misleading the LGO and carried out her threat of the “Section” on October 5th 2016 which meant she did not have to answer the question I asked of the Chief Executive: Why your staff should misrepresent the facts to the LGO is for you to determine.
I had anticipated something of this sort would happen and that was why I copied Michaela Hamilton of Customer Advocacy but she had moved on. It was passed it back to Mrs Johnson instead of being answered . What appears to be gobbledygook at the beginning of Alison’s response is a trap, “7124fsu_trap_87727_65406080016102”, set against mail sent from mick.dawson@theharbourview so it can be diverted from the addressee to wherever who ordered the trap to be set demands. It then, need not be answered.
This Part, like Part 1, is just for information: a meeting arranged by your fellow Councillor to pass off unapproved plans as approved ones in 2013 had still not been addressed by 2017 and they still have to apologise for misinforming the residents of Greens Place and Harbour view in 2014 and more generally the good citizens of South Shields for accusing them of making allegations in 2016.
Until I get an apology for being unjustly Sectioned, I will continue to remind people of how South Tyneside Council corrupt their complaints procedure.
Part 3 to follow.
Post Script:- Evasion is supported by variously by:
 Complaint or questions not recorded
 Unfounded contradiction
 Diversion into a dead end