Review of the Shed and Corruption Series

The relevant plans were not produced.

Mr Atkinson produced 8296/1A and 8296/2 and the meeting effectively ended when pointed I pointed out to that 8296/1A showed both ends to have the same height. Mr Atkinson’s failure to bring 8296/14 to the meeting only increased its value in proving Mr Mansbridge to be the willing leader of a pack of liars and I was glad I had written to the Chief Executive the day before.

9

Mr Atkinson’s Stage 2 had ended when he admitted that the residents were correct about the height of the shed with reference to 8296/14 for which I thanked him at the beginning of March 2014.

Mr Mansbridge then set a trap to hide the fact that he had overwritten with his lie that the shed was built to the approved height with reference to 8296/1A in his Stage 2:-

The trap is simple, if I say yes we move to stage 3 of the rewritten complaint 253539 and 248789 is consigned to the bin and the shed stays put.
If I say no the letter to the Chief Executive goes in the bin to join the original complaint that the shed is taller than planned where it was put by Principal Planning Officer on 13-Jan-14.

The first response that letter was from Alison Hoy on behalf of the Chief Executive:- Your letter to the Chief Executive, Martin Swales, was forwarded to our team on 7 July 2014 in accordance with the Councils corporate complaints procedure. Following your email of 10 July to George Mansbridge, in which you confirmed that following your earlier meeting with him you still wished to proceed with your complaint, we have now escalated this to stage 3 of the procedure.

Nowhere in my letter to Mr Swales do I express any desire to escalate Mr Mansbridge’ version of my complaint. I had written to him before the meeting because I suspected it would be a set up like the previous one in the Town Hall in November 2013 where the fraudulent misrepresentation made by UK Docks was repeated.

Maybe Ms Hoy was not aware but all three officers, Cunningham, Atkinson and Mansbridge had corrupted the Councils Complaints Procedure, not only to ensure the shed’s survival but their own as well.

I was well aware that they everything had been rigged so that they could present the lie that the shed had approval to the Ombudsman so that the complaint that was oversize would not be upheld especially when the Ombudsman can write in paragraph 33 of her findings:- “In response to a draft of my decision Mr X says the 15.5 metres height relates to the river end. He considers the land end should be 2.6 metres lower. He says the Council cannot prove 15.5 metres relates to the land end not the river end. I do not agree.

I actually said:- The Council cannot back up the statement that the permitted height at the road end is 15.5m. Please see attachments: drawing 8296/1A.pdf (K) and explanation1A.pdf (L) which I have attached along with drawing 8296/14 (H) and explanation (J). These are central to my proposition that the shed is built 3m higher than planned.

Yet another cycle of deceit but I had taken the caution to write to the MP for South Shields a week or so before setting off on the last cycle. For some reason it was diverted to the MP for Berwick because I had taken up lodgings in Amble but I did not mind because she wasted no time in writing to Mr Swales but while Emma would have known that the shed was built on a slipway, Anne-Marie might not have known and I wrote and 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.

This entry was posted in Abuse of Complaints System, Corruption, Denial, Evasion. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Review of the Shed and Corruption Series

  1. Mick Dawson says:

    When I said “Tyne Slipway and Engineering and its owner, as the only obstacle to the closure of Tyne Dock, in a very powerful position because they had to find a new home on the Tyne and there was only one viable option” I was was rather downplaying the argument as the conditions under which the Wilsons acquired the ownership Tyne Slipway and Engineering business, the one off River Drive, were shrouded in secrecy.
    However they blotted their copy book by giving a set of drawings to the Principal Planning Officer of South Tyneside Council to falsely claim that they had approval for what was to become UK Docks’ shed on River Drive. All they had to do then, was to sit back and let the Council’s Planning Office and their Managers make sure that ‘due’ process did not interfere with their plans for the shed we see today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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