Subject: RE: Complaint: 248789 – Unplanned Development on River Drive
From: “Customer Advocates”
Date: Fri, September 16, 2016 10:42 am
To: “mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk”
————————————————————————–
This email has been classified as: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Dawson

Thank you for your email and the copy of the letter sent to Mrs Johnson.
Mrs Johnson received your letter on her return to work 12 September and
acknowledges its receipt.
For your information Michaela Green (nee Hamilton) is currently on
secondment and therefore your email will be considered along with the
letter to Mrs Johnson.
You will be contacted in due course following further checks into this
matter.

Yours sincerely
Alison Hoy

Performance and Information Support Officer
Customer Advocacy
————————————————————————–

From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Sent: 03 September 2016 07:27

To: Customer Advocates

Subject: Complaint: 248789 – Unplanned Development on River Drive

Dear Michaela,
South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman

Please excuse me for writing directly to you. I’ve copied you the letter I wrote to Haley Johnson yesterday. I assume you have access to my letter to the Chief Executive 8-Jul and her reply to me 1-Aug.
She has done exactly as my solicitor predicted she would do, she said I
had submitted repeated complaints, essentially regarding the same issue
after the complaints process has been exhausted. There are only two
complaints and I did not raise the one to which she has referred. That was 253539 and raised at Mr Mansbridge’ request and was about enforcement. I do not consider the first closed closed until the Council come clean on the planned height. As far as I am concerned Mr Atkinson conceded the argument about the planned height to me in February 2014.
I did ask her if she had reviewed the original complaint of the
10-Jan-2014 and the correspondence following it up to 13-February, as she would have realised that Mr Atkinson had effectively agreed that the shed was 2.7m too high. He and I were discussing the height of the shed and he could no longer maintain the pretence that 8296/14 referred to the road end. It looks like she did not so I explained to her the ‘not to scale’ misrepresentation and even added a bit to simplify it.
One only has to look at the drawing to see that it is: a) the river end
(note about access for boats) and b) has a height to width ratio of about 5:4 which corresponds with 15:12 not 18:12 whatever the scale of the drawing. Why he went on to say that it was not to scale, was not only irrelevant but appears to be a piece of misinformation designed to get himself out of an embarrassing situation.
He had already mistakenly said that it was the road end.
I was tempted to say that he was digging himself even deeper into a hole
and I helped him out by not commenting upon the scale of it. Instead, I
just told Ms Johnson, “I did not bother to correct the misrepresentation, about drawing 8296/14 not being to scale, with the Planning Manager but that does not make it valid.”
She said, “There is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman.” This was in spite of me giving some very good examples to the Chief Executive. All the misinformation looks deliberate to me.
I have been saying the shed is too high since 10th January 2014. My first thoughts were that she was trying to make out that I was the villain of the piece rather than the Council. I then decided that was too obvious and she was on a ‘fishing expedition’ for the LGO. To extend the metaphor, it looks like Mr Mansbridge came along, fell into the hole and dragged the LGO in after. Ms Johnson is trying to help them out of it.
Whatever it was, it just adds to the amount of misinformation pumped out
by the Council on this development and I can foresee the LGO saying “The
Council have told you that there is no evidence of deliberate
misinformation etc.” and complaint not upheld. That is my problem but I
think the threat of the F Notice will be yours.
Ms Johnson finished by saying she considers the matter closed and should I continue to repeat historic complaint issues in your contacts, the Council
will consider imposing formal restrictions on your contact with the
Council. The threat of a Section F Notice, which you administer, is why I have sent you this covering letter and a copy of my response. It is not clear with what authority she speaks. I consider the matter of the Council misinforming the LGO to be at least a complaint at Stage 3 level, which I believe is your department.

Has Ms Johnson replaced Mr Mansbridge at Stage 2 of the Council’s
Complaint Procedure?

Kind regards
Michael Dawson

South Tyneside Council
Local Government Awards 2014 etc.

South Tyneside Council, Town Hall & Civic Offices, Westoe Road,
South Shields, Tyne & Wear, NE33 2RL, Tel: 0191 427 1717