Alternative Council Complaints Procedure for UK Docks.

If they wish to resolve the issue they will follow the guidelines outlined in their ‘How we will deal with your complaint’ but if the initial responses are not quite straightforward one best assume that they have decided to not follow the guidlines and avoid enforcement action in this case. The footings were laid in 2001 and any structure using them could not be built without breaching building/planning control in respect of both lengthand width. .

They say, “The assistance of the public is often crucial to the success of enforcement action by the Council. Due to the level of building activity being carried out in South Tyneside, it is not possible for the Council to identify all breaches of planning and building control, given the current staffing levels. The Council will encourage the public to provide any information that may assist in resolving an enforcement case.” but in this case they ignored the notifications of the breaches by applying the Alternative Council Complaints Procedure (ACCP) where there are 4 stages:

1. Stage1: they say, “Our focus at Stage 1 is on putting things right;” but this will be difficult if they deny the facts; e.g. they were told was a meter too wide and the planners responded by saying that they had measured it and it was compliant i.e. it was not too wide.
2. Stage 2; they say, “We’ll send you a letter to acknowledge that your complaint has moved to Stage 2 and then send you a full response.” but the officer appointed ignored the outcome of Stage 1; e.g. the structure has been shown to be 3m taller than the approved height and that the planners had tried to say otherwise. He claimed that there was little or no variation in height.
3. Stage 3; they say, “The Chief Executive will appoint a senior colleague to investigate your complaint on their behalf and that person will respond to you directly with their findings.” but the senior colleague ignored the question of height completely, thereby  allowing the argument in Stage 2 that the structure was not too high to stand. She also did nothing to stop the misrepresentation that the approved drawing quoted in Stage 1, was not to scale being repeated to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
4. Stage 4; the LGO was given choice in deciding between two contradictory views in respect of height and chose the Council’s view which was wrong and so she found for them.

When I pointed out to the Chief Executive that the Council had misrepresented the drawings to the LGO the person he appointed said there was no evidence of it and when  I pointed out to the LGO that the Council had not been honest with them they did not dispute it but said I was too late in making them aware!

It appears that there is a subset to Stage 1, a preliminary step to establish what you are going to complain about and if it concerns:

a member of staff
a bad decision made;
an outsourced Council department;
a “vested” interest;
or something of this ilk.

Your complaint is not likely to be addressed but you will soon discover if you are being dealt with under their ACCP with the predicable outcome; the LGO finds for the Council and you are only given a month appeal. Until this cosy relationship between them is exposed there is little we can do about it.