From: Alison Hoy on behalf of Customer Advocates Sent: 14 February 2017 15:07 To: Michael Dawson Subject: Request for screen information
Dear Mr Dawson
The reference number 272189 does not refer to a feedback logged on your behalf but to a 3rd party. This cannot therefore be sent to you.
The timesheet for 272189 was given to me at the insitance of the Environmental Health Officer, Mr Burrell, he did not want me to use 300150, the one given to me by Ms Hoy, as the first record on it would have been for Sunday 16 December 2016.
Officers at the Town Hall were correct in advising you that they could not help you further with complaints regarding Sunday working at UK Docks, as this had been dealt with as part of the historic complaint you made to the Council and to which current contact restrictions apply.
Incorrect – they had no record of a complaint of Sunday working from me as it had been replaced by one about noise by Ms Hoy and there were no complaints about UK Docks and Sunday working from me before 18th December 2016 and Ms Hoy would have known that simple truth as she had been keeping a record of all my correspondence since September 2014, note the PROTECT.*
When she says as this had been dealt with as part of the historic complaint; she is conflating three complaints:-
1. The shed is 3m taller than permitted;
2. That a Senior Planning Officer of STC misinformed the Ombudsman;
3. That UK Docks were using their slipway shed on a Sunday and not beaching or launching a vessel.
In detail:-
1. STC knew that the shed was taller than planned 3 months before my complaint went into Planning Enquiries but it was removed by the Principal Planning Officerso that the question:- “As the applicant has not discharged condition 2 why is there no retrospective planning application?” has never been answered.
2. The Second Inspector for the Ombudsman hid the fact that the Council had lied to the Ombudsman by conflating the 1st; and 2nd complaints when he 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.”
3. Ms Hoy hid the fact that they were using the shed on a Sunday without prior warning by conflating all of the complaints.
yours sincerely
Alison Hoy
Performance and Information Support Office
* the use of PROTECT is to warn others that the author has been unable to check if what she was going to say was a misrepresentation or not. In this case it transpired that she was hiding the truth about the height of the shed.
It was nearly 3 m taller than planned.
