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Incorrect – they had no record of a complaint of Sunday working from me as it had been replaced by one about noise by Ms Hoy and there were no complaints about UK Docks and Sunday working from me before 18th December 2016 and Ms Hoy would have known that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.

From: Michael Dawson
Sent: 13 February 2017 09:52
To: Customer Advocates
Cc: Mick Dawson
Subject: Fw: Sunday Working UK Docks

Dear Alison,

Please send me a screen print of the registration of 272189, similar to the one you did for 248789 all that time ago.

I felt I was being sent round in circles with this one and as I was in the vicinity, I called in the Town Hall for a copy. The Front Desk quickly established that ‘Gary’ (Mr G Simmonette) of Planning was responsible but he was unavailable to help.*

I spoke to Lynne Brennan over the phone from the front desk but as soon as I said I was talking about UK Docks she mentioned Local Government Ombudsman report. When I said that all wanted was a screen print she said she did not have authority to provide one and I would have to refer to Customer Advocacy – hence this email.

I wanted to ask her whether it was only your office that had the authority but I felt she had already been placed an uncomfortable position.

Let me stress that I have no complaint about either the Council’s Front Desk or Lynne and I only wanted to save you and I much bother.

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

Mr Burrell insisted that 272189 be used to record noise from UK Docks and the Sunday following its closure UK Docks were again at work on a Sunday.

From: Michael Dawson <daw50nmdj@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: 06 February 2017 19:53
To: Kevin Burrell; Customer Advocates
Cc: Mick Dawson
Subject: Re: Noise nuisance complaint - UK Docks.

Dear Mr Burrell

Apologies a) for the typo – it should have been 6-Jan-17 and b) I optimistically thought you were giving me an extension of 7 days. I haven’t heard a peep out of UK Docks since I raised my complaint about Sunday Working on the 20-Dec-16. If you cannot reassign the incident to planning then please close it.

When I asked for the complaint to be passed back to you I should have said pass it to planning and also pass it to your section. When I said, “I wish to complain about the noise as well,” it is implicit that the unnecessary noise is additional to the fact that they were working on Sundays.”

They are two separate things and my last paragraph makes it clear that I consider them so, and to quote, “I will need two separate acknowledgements with their associated feedback numbers.”

If you look further down the list of emails, that you kindly attached, you will see that my complaint 20-Dec-16 is titled ‘Sunday Working by UK Docks, River Drive.’

That is what my original complaint is about and I assumed, rather foolishly in retrospect, that whoever first handled my complaint would have known that it was a planning matter.

Please forward this to Customer Services – If neither incident 272189 nor 300150 can be reassigned to your Planning Section please ensure that both are closed and a new one raised for Sunday working by UK Docks. They were at work again yesterday.

Kind regards
Michael Dawson.