Harbour View

Jennifer Brooks is the MP for Berwick’s Constituency Support Manager and it was Hayley Johnson who misinformed the MP when she told the MP in 2015 that we (Mr Dawson and other local residents) were making allegations when we were not.

Nicola was Monitoring Officer who swept everthing to do with UK Docks under the carpet when she kept repeating “It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally”.

Re: Ombudsman Response to MP
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 10/10/2023 (17:14:11 BST)
To:   BROOKS, Jennifer
Cc:   Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Hayley Johnson, Nicola Robason
3 Attachments:	23 09 23 LTR LGO to REP complaint invalid.pdf
		DearJen10-Oct-23.pdf	
		General letter to PA.pdf
Dear Jen

Please see my response to Mr Heath's Final Decision statement, 23 09 23 LTR LGO to REP and the General letter to PA was Mr Lewis' response.

Hopefully I'll post DearJen10-Oct-23 to thehabourview.co.uk over the next couple of days and when I've done that I will copy it to the others who have apparently been making allegations about UK Docks shed.
Hayley is the Corporate Lead who has been giving misinformation to Anne-Marie and Nicola was for a few years the Monitoring Officer for South Tyneside Council. I do not seem to have an email address for Mr Heath

Cheers
Mick Dawson  

Dear Jen,

Thank you for the copy of the letter sent by Mr R Heath, an Inspector for the Ombudsman, to Anne-Marie Trevelyan on the 26th September.

He first tells us that he is acting in line with a code which says:-

The Ombudsman’s enabling legislation allows him to decide which complaints he wishes to pursue. While we aim to help people where we can, and where we decide it is appropriate to do so, the law places restrictions on our work and we operate with limited resources. That means we only look at what we decide are the most significant and serious complaints.

I personally think that giving misinformation/misrepresentation to the Local Government Ombudsman is a very serious offence but he appears to be content to let evidence that South Tyneside Council have been giving them misinformation be destroyed, when he says:-

We no longer hold any documents relating to the complaint, the decision or our consideration ofthe complaint, in line with our data retention policy, and the time for challenging the decision has long since passed.

That was with regard to their investigation 14015052 carried out in 2015 and he fares no better with their second investigation:-

I note Mr Dawson has also previously attempted to challenge the decision as part of another complaint to this Office in 2017 under the reference 17001436 but that we declined to take the matter further at that time. We closed this case more than six years ago on the basis we had already considered and decided the issues raised and again, documents relating to the case have been deleted.

The second Inspector, Mr P Lewis, conflated the complaint that a shipyard slipway enclosure on Tyneside was 3m taller than permitted, with the second complaint, that South Tyneside Council had lied to the first Inspector, when they said that the shed was not taller than any approved document allowed.

Mr Lewis then consigned the separate complaints, that the slipway shed was taller than planned and that South Tyneside Council had been giving misinformation to the Ombudsman to the waste bin:-

I consider that your latest complaint remains that of your previous complaint which has already been determined (whether or not to your satisfaction) and the opportunity to request a review of that decision has passed.

I will treat your complaint therefore as invalid and your complaint will not be investigated.

You said in your covering email of the 5th that Mr Heath’s response would not be the response I was hoping for but I think it only goes to show that the office of the Local Government Ombudsman has been corrupt for some time and the planning officers and their managers of South Tyneside Council were aware (of that) as long as I have had anything to do with them. It started in 2013 or possibly a bit earlier when they left me no choice but to resort to the Ombudsman to establish that an immediate neighbour did not have permission for the redevelopment of his property.

That was water under the bridge but it showed me the importance of keeping an accurate record of drawings and plans and how they were being referenced and here I refer to correspondence between South Tyneside Council and the MP for Berwick in 2015 about the shipyard slipway enclosure or shed on the banks of the Tyne, when I discovered that the Council were using the Ombudsman’s findings to misinform her.

I had suspected that the Council was misinforming the Ombudsman, to push through favoured projects without planning permission but needed some evidence i.e. something in print to back my suspicions. I had explained to the MP for Berwick that the shed was taller than planned but the Council’s Corporate Lead told her otherwise.

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. The matter was ultimately referred by way of complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, the outcome of which was delivered on 14 April 2015.

I repeat, if the approved plan or drawings indicate that a structure is nearly 3m taller than planned it is not an allegation to say it is taller than planned, it is the truth and it is therefore a lie, to tell LGO Inspectors, MPs and others, including myself, that it is not taller than planned.

Two MPs, because while I was corresponding with the first Inspector it became obvious that she was being misinformed and I raised the issue about the conduct of the Council’s Planning Officers with the MP for South Shields but someone had noticed that (I) had taken up lodging in Amble and the case ended up with the MP for Berwick.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan then had, not only the case notes given by me to Emma Lewell-Buck in March 2015, but some additional information sent three months later which I had copied to the Chief Executive of South Tyneside Council. I had added, knowing full well there no approved drawings to show that the shed was the permitted height:- “If Mr Swales provides any new plans to show you that I am wrong in my assessment of the development on River Drive by UK Docks please let me know.

As you can see the Chief Executive asked one of his officers to accuse I and others of making allegations about the shed’s height and I was not at all pleased about it and when I moved back to South Shields I decided to challenge him again about his officers giving misinformation to the Ombudsman and wrote to him on the 8th July 2016 explaining that the shed was built without planning permission and asking:-

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.

He was well and truly trapped because he either had to lie about his staff giving misinformation to the Ombudsman or explain why his staff were giving misinformation to the LGO but he played his get out of jail free card by asking his Corporate Lead who had already misinformed Anne-Marie by accusing us of making allegations about the shed, to misuse Section (F) of a Staff Code to remove the need to answer the question:-

I now consider this matter closed. Should you continue to repeat historic complaint issues in your contacts, we will consider imposing formal restrictions on your contact with the Council. Should you continue to repeat this same complaint already investigated by the Council or the Ombudsman, including historical plans or perceived misinformation, we will not acknowledge, or respond to those communications.

Part of the answer is that the Chief Executive and his staff can rely on Inspectors like Messrs Heath and Lewis to make sure that the truth about shed remains hidden and it appears from here that giving misinformation to LGO would be better described as fraudulent misrepresentation.

That in turn raises the question: who profits from giving misinformation/misrepresentation to the Local Government Ombudsman?

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

Full copy of pdf file: STC and Corruption

More than nine years ago, the Planning Manager agreed with me as one of the main protestors that the enclosure, on the slipway, in UK Docks boat repair yard off River Drive was nearly 3 meters taller than permitted. South Tyneside Council had done little but deny the fact that it was taller than planned for five months, by withholding the approved plan which showed the enclosure or shed was 2.7m taller than what had been approved 8296/2, and we decided to raise a Petition:-

3.3.2014 To the Chief Executive STMBC,
The attached signatories are concerned about recent developments at Tyne Slipway and Engineering Ltd, River Drive, South Shields.
We protest at:
1. A lack of relevant information from STMBC
2. A lack of public consultation on the unannounced construction
3. Lack of research and impact surveys
4. Apparent negligence by STMBC
5. Apparent breach of planning law by the developers

We are concerned that by its actions in this case STMBC is in breach of its own Local Development Framework Core Strategy Objectives, eg. "to protect and enhance the boroughs coastline and water frontage; to ensure that the individual and cumulative effects of development do not breach noise, hazardous substances or pollution limits; to increase public involvement in decision making and civic activity".

Local residents wish to live in peace and harmony with appropriate light industry as we have for many years, supporting the cultural heritage and environment of the area for the benefit of residents and visitors. We believe the new development at Tyne Slipway threatens to disrupt this.
Yours sincerely,
Signatories attached

The response to the Petition was not from the Chief Executive but from the Head of Development Services. It was in the form of a letter, sent to addresses in top third of Greens Place on the Lawtop and all of those in Harbour View, South Shields, on the 2nd May 2014 and it contained a lie.

South Tyneside Council and Corruption
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 19/07/2023, 16:56:27 BST
To: Jennifer Brooks
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Nicola Robason, Alison Hoy
2 Attachments: Duplicity Exposed.pdf (80 KB)
Heart of Shed and Corruption.pdf (117 KB)

Jennifer Brooks is the Constituency Manager for the MP for Berwick and the email of the 19th July started with an apology and went on to explain its purpose:- “Please forgive me for leaving this so late in the current session of Parliament for writing to you but I wish to to let you know that that I will be publishing the attached document, ‘Duplicity Exposed’ on my website tomorrow.

It was to let her know in response to a question she had raised in June about giving misinformation to the Ombudsman and that if I had evidence that South Tyneside Council were giving it,  then I should contact the Ombudsman about it and request that my case is looked at again with correct information.

I explained that I had attempted to contact the Local Government Ombudsman directly and it had failed and the main reason was because if the truth had come to light, it would have confirmed that South Tyneside Council had given them misinformation to hide the corruption rooted in the Council’s Planning Office and centred on the duplicity of the Council’s Planning Manager which was explained in the first of the attached documents.

The other attachment was to provide Jennifer with additional information. It stemmed from a letter to Anne-Marie written in 2022 and posted as Part 18 of the Shed and Corruption Series.

Continue reading →

The legal chief, Mr John Rumney, was speaking at a Standards Committee meeting, four years ago and in response to a question from Coun Doreen Purvis about the complaints process potentially being “weaponised”, he said:- “The [complaints] process itself provides for complaints or communications, that are described as being complaints but mainly aren’t, to be rejected fairly early on if they’re considered to be tit for tat, politically motivated or ‘vexatious’”

It appears that it has been South Tyneside Council’s perspective, since at least since 28 February 2019 when the article by C Binding first appeared. It was the first record of any complaint being called vexatious. Mr Buck’s claim and threat of the 24 February 2020, the threat being in closing paragraph, appears to have  been dictated to him by someone from the Town the Hall.

Chris Binding’s article first appeared nearly a year before Mr Buck’s threat. *

180 complaints alleging councillors’ misconduct sent to South Tyneside Council – Chief fears process is being ‘weaponised’

Claims complainants are “weaponising” council processes as reports of alleged councillor misconduct soar in South Tyneside.

By Chris Binding
Published 28th Feb 2019, 14:03 GMT- 4 min read
Updated 7th Jul 2020, 15:07 GMT

A large spike in complaints against councillors could be linked to a “weaponisation” of council processes, legal chiefs have said.

Since January 2020, South Tyneside Council’s monitoring officer has received a total of 178 emails, letters or calls from potential complainants.

This included complainants expressing a wish to make a complaint or sharing information in respect of “perceived elected member misconduct.”

Of this number, only 23 complainants provided further information to support their complaint, with several cases rejected or resolved without the need for investigation.

A total of 13 complaints are currently ongoing, with many nearing conclusion following delays caused by Covid-19, the meeting heard.

“The [complaints] process itself provides for complaints or communications, that are described as being complaints but mainly aren’t, to be rejected fairly early on if they’re considered to be tit for tat, politically motivated or ‘vexatious’,” Interim Head of Legal Services, John Rumney, said.

“That said, I do think the weaponisation of the process may account for the large numbers that we have seen in recent months.

“But it is certainly nothing new and the process does provide for them [complaints] to be dealt with appropriately.”

The legal chief was speaking at a Standards Committee meeting on July 6 in response to a question from Coun Doreen Purvis about the complaints process potentially being “weaponised”.

Coun Purvis said examples could include a complaint against a councillor(s) being posted on social media and staying in the public domain, regardless of whether the complaint is pursued.

At the meeting, which was broadcast live on the council’s YouTube page, councillors heard about recent steps that have been taken to improve the complaints process.

This included the introduction of a new ‘complaints form’ which helps complainants to structure their complaint and provide necessary information and evidence.

Despite the large number of complaints, no cases have progressed to the final stage so far such as a formal hearing and/or sanction.

Independent chair of the Standards Committee, Professor Grahame Wright, said that the complaints figure of 178 may be “ a little bit misleading”.

But he noted a “significant number of complaints” were still under active consideration, pending any decision to investigate further.

Coun Anne Hetherington added that the complaints figures showed “a very serious issue”and asked if there was any previous data to look at comparisons and trends.

“I know the process for dealing with complaints against elected members since some legal reforms are a bit of a toothless tiger,” she said.

“But there are means in the council’s constitution where members can be sanctioned to a degree if a complaint is found to be proven and I would like to see that we’re actually following that through and dealing with complaints to the full extent that we’re able to.

“Particularly if we’re recieving complaints from residents that they see we’re addressing these complaints because we can’t put ourselves above the law that is there to supervise our behaviour as elected members.”

Legal officer Mr Rumney, responding, confirmed council bosses are recording complaints to allow for statistical analysis in future.

But he warned that records for previous complaints may not be available to build a historical picture.

He told the meeting: “The plan is going forward that each complaint which is reviewed and found to be capable of proceeding within the process will be given a number.

“We have already started numbering complaints so that they can be logged and outcomes recorded so statistical analysis can take place in the future.

“Whether it’s possible to go back beyond the beginning of this year or late 2019 I’m not sure that the records will be there I’m afraid.”

Standards Committee chair, Prof Wright, added: “If you see some of the complaints that we get they’re extremely difficult to work out what exactly it is the councillor has meant to have done wrong.

“It’s more that somebody is just angry and they want to blame somebody so one of the reasons we have this [complaints] form is to try and guide people so if they have a complaint they can make clear what the nature of that complaint is.”

For more information on South Tyneside Council’s complaints process, visit: https://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/5489/Complaints-against-councillors
https://www.southtyneside.gov.uk/article/5491/Ombudsman

* the details of Chris’ Bindings article have been edited to make it appear that it was published after Mr Buck’s threat.

A message from the Editor of the Gazette:
Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.
In order for us to continue to provide high quality and trusted local news on this free-to-read site, I am asking you to also please purchase a copy of our newspaper.