is rejected from two accounts within seconds:-

Automatic reply: Conduct of South Tyneside Council
From: LEWELL-BUCK, Emma
Date: 20/02/2020 (12:06:28 BST)
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Please note that if you do not provide your full address no further action will be taken on your case.
~~~
Automatic reply: Conduct of South Tyneside Council
From: PALMER, Keith
Date: 20/02/2020 (12:06:30 BST)
To: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
I am out of the office until Monday 24th February 2020.

It still remains unanswered:-

Conduct of South Tyneside Council
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.ukDate: 20/02/2020 (12:06:14 GMT)
To: Keith Palmer
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP,
Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Cllr Anglin,
Graeme Watson [Chair of TGA],
Peter Cunningham [Principal Planning Officer],
Nicola Robason [Monitoring Officer],
Stuart Wright [Head of Environment],
Bcc: Local Residents
2 Attachments:
Dishonesty at the Town Hall: 30-Oct-19
~~~
Destroying Evidence: 20-Feb-20

Dear Mr Palmer,
You appear to be new to your post and so I given you some background to the Council’s early responses to our complaint that the shed was taller and wider than permitted. Please see ‘Destroying Evidence’ which I have attached. It should more properly be labelled ‘Hiding Evidence’ or ‘Sweeping stuff under the Carpet’ but we cannot know that our emails have not been deleted nor our letters put in the bin.
Please see also below the email sent to your office two and a half years ago and the response I had from Emma about 4 hours later giving an account of her discussions with the Council and a meeting with the directors of UK Docks in the spring of 2017. Central to that account are:
/Unfortunately, the Ombudsman’s decision cannot be re-visited. & I have met with the directors of UK Docks and have also liaised with the council and I am certain that no laws have been broken and the council are also discharging their functions correctly in relation to the boat yard and the subsequent containers which have caused concern to residents./

From the first it appears that the Council can give misinformation/misrepresentation (lie) to Ombudsman and there is nothing we can do about it and I would just like to add that when she met with the Directors in the Spring, the containers were not an issue as they were not hoisted on top of each other till August when UK Docks needed the space to assemble the sixth frame. I you look at any of the plans submitted in 1996 there are only 5 and this brings me to the main point of this email.
That she has must have been told that no laws have been broken and that might be true but to say that to mean that the shed is built to the approved plans is fraudulent misrepresentation.

Continue reading Dear Mr Palmer: 20-Feb-20 →

Complaint: 248789 – Inappropriate Development on River Drive
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
Date: 23/01/2020 (17:50:15 BST)
To: Keith Palmer
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP, Buck Simon, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Cllr Anglin, Peter Cunningham, Hayley Johnson

1 Attachment: toKP23-Jan-20_Refs.pdf (81 KB)

23-Jan-20

Dear Mr Palmer,

You seem to have done some homework before our phone call on Monday the 13th but if you had paid attention to the facts rather than opinions based on fraudulent misrepresentations you would have come to the conclusion that UK Dock’s shed is 3 meters taller than planned. This can be confirmed by examination of the authorised drawing 8296/2.

Many of the protesters including me had suspected it was wider as well as taller than planned before the meeting held at the Town Hall in November 2013. I confirmed for myself that it was nearly a meter wider than planned when I measured it for myself shortly after the meeting.

The Gazette 9-Sep-13 reported that UK Docks had said: “All I can say is that we have been through all the controls with the planners, and the work meets all the necessary legal requirements. All we are doing is going ahead with the previous planning permission.” Continue reading To Mr Palmer: 23-Jan-20 →

A mistake in the attached files has been corrected: 
Donottalkabouttheheight.pdf has been corrected - it contained 
toELB20Oct16.pdf. It should have contained toMH02-Sep-16.pdf. 
This email will make more sense now. 

Re: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck
Date: 15/01/2020 (08:52:37 AM GMT)
From: mick.dawson@theharbourview.co.uk
To: BUCK, Simon
Cc: Keith Palmer, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Hayley Johnson, Customer Advocates
Attachments:
DishonestyatTH-Emma30Oct19.pdf (31 KB)
8DLL.pdf (108 KB)
toELB20Oct16.pdf (77 KB)
Donottalkabouttheheight.pdf (28 KB – toMH02-Sep-16.pdf)

Dear Mr Buck,
As far as I remember Mr Palmer was indeed polite and I hope you thought I was as well. Whether he was accurate is another matter. It would have been courteous for Mr Palmer to have introduced himself. I assumed that when I gave you permission to pass my home phone number to him he had become Emma’s new office manager after her re-election. Please see trail below. He very obviously let me assume I was talking her new Office Manager. He did not inform me that you, her actual office manager was listening in. Please let me have any copy of the recording of what was said so that I can check it against the length of my call for any editing.
You will see from the first attachment that the Council have not been honest with either Emma, Angela or myself. You will see from the second attachment that that I have already sought legal advice and Mr Tilbury suggested that we should first ask the Council about misleading the Ombudsman and then approach the Ombudsman and this I did.
The Council said they had not mislead the Ombudsman and if you remember I told Mr Palmer that any complaint against the Local Government Ombudsman was was pointless. They just say the complaint remains that of the first complaint.
When you consider the matter closed, do you mean that the Council can cover up wrongdoing by misleading the Ombudsman is OK? Do you think it OK that they can then use the Ombudsman’s findings to mislead MPs and other enquirers. Mr Palmer certainly gave me that impression he was implying that over the phone. As you can see from the third attachment the Council have been dishonest with everyone for a long time.
When you consider the matter closed you are only repeating what the Principal Planning Manager said on January 13th 2014 and in the six years the Council have consistently lied about the shed having been approved.
You will see, below, that whatever we said over the phone he mislead me into thinking he was Emma’s Office Manager but I see from your email that you are her Office Manager. So who is Mr Palmer? I’m sorry but I cannot help thinking he is dancing to the same tune as those that tried to get Emma deselected.
I have reattached the files i.e. the second and third, that were attached to the notes to Emma, posted below. The fourth is the letter sent to Michaela of Customer Advocacy which was detached from the steam. This was never considered but passed back to the villain of the piece. One of the people mentioned in my email to Emma on 20-Oct-16 and as it it is rude to talk about people behind their backs I have copied this to her and Customer Advocates.
By the way Nicola Robason has confirmed that UK Docks did not put in a retrospective planning request which beggars the question: Why did they tell Angela and Emma that they had.
Perhaps your Mr Palmer can answer the question?
Mr Dawson

The the answer is: "Because the built the shed 5.5m 
longer, 2.7m taller and 1 meter wider than that for which 
they had permission"