Alison made it very clear that she was writing on behalf Customer Advocacy when she was spouting misinformation so she was probably aware that it was a load of of bull but notice how the primary methods of corrupting the complaints process come naturally all three * and here is a good point to reintroduce the Council’s Corporate Lead who had written to me on the 17-Jan17: You have however continued to email Council officers on several occasions attempting to initiate further investigations into the dimensions of the build of the shed and also the working hours of the site..
Please see shed/site argument above [3 contradiction] and note that she has merged [4 conflation] the first and second conditions.
The first demonstration of her skills in corrupting the system, that came in her response to my letter written to the MP for Berwick in June 2015 which I had copied to the Chief Executive for South Tyneside Council. Do not ask why she was involved, the shed was not in her constituency but someone had picked up the fact that I was lodging in Amble at the time, and I said: You have not specified that the stated height (15.5m) is of the river end of the shelter and it is likely that, Mr Swales, if he follows the arguments of the Planning Manager and the Head of Development Services before him, will say it refers to the road end.
I went on to explain that it was a repeat of a fraudulent misrepresentation although I did not put it in those terms: This drawing, 8296/14, is available on the planning portal for all see (8296/1A is not readily available) and it shows the river end gable with door fittings. It has sufficient detail on it to determine that the height is near enough 15.5m i.e. – nowhere near the 18m of the built height of the river end. It looks like she found what I told Anne-Marie Trevelyan was true but could not admit it. Her response was to denigrate the good people of South Shields: [3 contradiction] The matters and allegations raised by your constituent are well documented and have been subject to a number of enquiries from Mr Dawson and other local residents over a lengthy period of time.
If you look at Shed and Corruption – Part 1 you will find nothing has changed since I wrote to Anne-Marie nearly six years ago. The shed is still nearly 3m taller than planned.
The second demonstration of Mrs Johnson’s skills came with her threat to section me, 1-Aug-16, following my complaint to the Chief Executive that his staff had been giving misinformation to the Ombudsman.
She scores top marks, because not only did she unjustly section me, detail in Shed and Corruption – Part 2: Big Deceit onwards, she did not register the complaint [1], secondly she said there was no evidence [3] and lastly she hid the fact I had told her that I had sought advice from a solicitor to ask for a ‘new’ eter-Dunn-and-Co.pdf”>complaint, 26-Jan-16 [2 is nearest fit].
4
He also suggested a civil court may not be the best way forward but he did say that in his view we needed to raise a new complaint. The new complaint being the misinformation and/or misrepresentation by the Local Authority in supplying information to the LGO.
She ignored that and what was worse she did not tell Customer Advocacy (CA) that I had consulted a solicitor. I tried to make CA aware of this but they passed the email back to the Corporate Lead to answer [2].
Mr Swales has moved on but CA should be able to confirm that there was only one complaint about the Council misleading the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) and when the shed is 3 meters taller than planned, it was entirely reasonable to claim that it was so. I thought I had made the truth of that perfectly clear to him in July 2016, in brief:
Before I go any further I will say that drawings 8296/1A and B have not been authorised by the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation but 8296/2 has. Using the gradient the heights are: river end 16m, landward end 13m.
(Please refer to ‘Shed and Corruption – Part 1’ for a fuller explanation.)
Equally Mrs Johnson was again advised that the shed was taller than planned: The Solicitor’s view, off the record, was that UK Docks, in saying they were building the shed to approved plans when they were not, was probably criminal fraud but the police were unlikely to act on a planning issue. He also suggested a civil court may not be be the best way forward but he did say that in his view we needed to raise a new complaint. The new complaint being the misinformation and/or misrepresentation by the Local Authority in supplying information to the LGO. It so happens I’m using the UK Docks development but I could be using the application for demolition of the Beacon for instance.
CA were copied this as well you must agree that while I over egged the point about the shed being taller than planned it is still true and Alison was wrong to pass it back to Mrs Johnson [2].
I’d long suspected that my incoming mails to Complaints/Planning Enquiries were being diverted, the trap lies in the gobbledegook at the top, so that direct questions like ‘What was the approved planned height’ could be avoided.
Notice Alison was using [PROTECT] when she directed me away from communicating with the Monitoring Officer in this respect. Notice also that she is accusing me of making allegations:
From your email title it would appear to refer your earlier allegations that the Council in some way provided mis-information to the Local Government Ombudsman.
She has been misinformed because they are not allegations at all. The shed is after all 3m taller and a meter wider than permitted, see Parts 1 and 2 of Shed and Corruption. That neatly links Mrs Johnson those giving misinformation to the LGO. Not only Alison has been misinformed but the Head of Legal Services when he was Monitoring Officer as well. That poisoned chalice was passed to the current holder for some reason. For instance if planning officers are content to mislead the LGO they will have no qualms about lying to the Monitoring Officer who ever he or she is.
Before I close, may I remind you the breaches of the fifth condition by UK Docks like those of the second have never been recorded by South Tyne Council so they need take no enforcement action on them and I have explained how this came about with particular attention in the attached document:- Shed and Corruption – Part 3.
I’ll leave you to explain why it came about.
Yours sincerely
Michael Dawson
* Hoy, Simmonette and Burrel
The Fifth Condition specifically applies to the use of the shed on a Sunday. There is no restriction to the use of offices etc. outside standard hours and that still stands. UK Docks never put in a request for it to be reconsidered retrospectively. The issue was referred to the Interim Head of Legal Services because it is obvious and the article of July 2020 was deliberately selected because of the use of the term vexatious. It was first used to describe the activities of a former constituent of the South Shields’ MP by her former husband and his ‘friend’ Mr Palmer in February that year.