|
|
                 |
12 June 2008 There
was an interesting article in Dover District Council’s quarterly newsletter
this month, which highlights their double standards. In the article they boast
about how they are working hard to create new homes across the district by
recycling empty properties, which cause a blight on local neighbourhoods. They
even have a dedicated ‘empty property officer’, John Day. This
of course is an excellent and very worthwhile idea but the reasons the Council
give for taking this positive action are the exact same reasons they used to
support the demolition of my home. In
the article the
Council refer to a house in Dover, which had been empty for ten years, had been
vandalised and fallen into disrepair, but has now been returned to use.
Yet in my case they argued that because my home had been empty for a few years
it had ceased to be a dwelling. 8 January 2008 I have withdrawn my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman as I am finally convinced they serve only to assist Councils in covering up maladministration. I was warned by many people that I was wasting my time complaining to the LGO and how right they were. We should not be surprised by their ineptitude as they do, after all, feed at the same trough and share the same career structure. Their political masters must look at their statistics and agree what a fantastic job they are doing, fostering incompetence, causing delays and saving millions in compensation. Amazing that so many electors within our democracy are so wrong when assessing the actions of paid employees of the state. If anyone needs convincing whether or not the Local
Government Ombudsman is dishonest, underhand and pro Council biased, then
check out the following link: http://local-government-ombudsman-lgo.blogspot.com/ 12 October 2007 Since making a formal complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman I have received numerous letters and emails alerting me of the dangers of complaining to the LGO and advising me to reconsider my action. I am obviously concerned about these warnings because of the amount of evidence that suggests the Ombudsman is biased in favour of councils. A worrying statistic is that the LGO only finds maladministration in less than 2% of the complaints within jurisdiction that are submitted to him. If
the warnings are correct, I risk suffering further injustice from the LGO to add
to the injustice I have already experienced through the illegal and gross
persecution from the DDC over the past twenty-three years. Moreover,
Dover District Council could then use the Ombudsman's possible unfair findings
to justify their own wrongful actions, which would further undermine my case. I presented my concerns to the Ombudsman and he has explained that the assertion that the Ombudsman finds maladministration in only 2% of complaints is not an accurate representation of what the Ombudsman’s office achieves. He said " The 2% statistic refers only to the number of public reports issued by the Ombudsman. Most cases are not decided this way. In fact, in the year 2006/07 our office arranged a remedy or settlement in 3,088 cases, 29 per cent of complaints investigated. In the overwhelming majority of cases where fault is found, the Ombudsmen decide the case by letter rather than by report, having agreed what action the Council should take to provide the complainant with redress for the injustice caused". The Ombudsman has assured me that my complaint, as any other, will be considered carefully and thoroughly so I have decided to press ahead with my complaint. My hope is that the irrefutable evidence, which proves Dover Council are clearly guilty of maladministration, will be rightly and properly considered and that I will get a fair hearing. 11 August 2007 Almost three months have elapsed during which time I have not heard from the LGO. Today I received a letter informing me that my complaint has now been allocated to Jon Stanley an LGO Investigator. 21 May 2007 Copy of Mr Grieve's report sent to LGO. I also informed them that Mr Grieve has been off 'sick' for many months (since soon after his report was published) A local District Councillor informed me that according to the Council's Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, Mr Grieve is unlikely to return to work for the Council. 16 May 2007 LGO request copy of Mr Grieve's report. 15 May 2007 LGO acknowledge receipt of my complaint. 8
May 2007 I decided to take District Judge
Parnell's advice and made a formal complaint to the Local
Government Ombudsman (LGO) about the way that Dover District Council rejected the findings of their own
Professional Standards Officer . However I am not overly optimistic about the
outcome. Statistics show that 98.4%
of complainants find it a complete waste of time with many people complaining of
pro-council bias. I have decided to find out for myself just to see if I
actually do get a fair hearing. When Dover Council's CE, Nadeem Aziz, wrote to me on the 8 December 2006
rejecting my complaint about maladministration in his planning department, he
told me that I could refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman if I was
dissatisfied. He also advised me that: ‘it may be that the Ombudsman will be unable to
reach a decision on this matter’. 18 April 2007 Day of the hearing. Judge Parnell asked Lee May the Council solicitor why, when an independent Investigator had found maladministration with the way my application was processed the Council would not refund my planning fee. He was told that there is nothing in the legislation that provides for a refund. In other words, the Council can process a planning application as abysmally and corruptly as they like and even though found guilty of maladministration by their own investigation they are not required to refund the planning fee. Judge Parnell said that even though he accepted my claim was valid and he sympathised with my situation he was not able to order the Council to repay my wasted planning fee. The
courts should be a place where justice is served, not where the Council's
wrongful actions are covered up. However,
District Judge Parnell recommended that I progress my complaint against the
Council with the Local Government Ombudsman. 20 March 2007
The Court inform me that the hearing
for my claim to be struck out will be held at Dover Magistrates Court County
Court on the 18 April. I fear some 'funny handshakes' may be involved. 16 March 2007
The Council submit an application to
the Court for my claim to be struck out. 8 March 2007
The Court sent me a 'Request for
Judgement' form because the council had not replied to my claim by the deadline
of 5 March. As advised by the Court I submitted the form requesting that
the Court order the council to pay. The Court wrote back to me saying the
council had now filed an 'Acknowledgement of Service' on 8 March. I would
question why the Court gives a deadline by when the Defendant must respond and
then allow them to be 3 days late. I'm not sure the private individual would be
extended the same privilege and the Council have no excuse for being late
considering they have their own in-house solicitors. The Court has now given the
Council until the 17 March to file their defence. 5 March 2007
Deadline by when DDC must dispute my claim. 2 March
2007
I was invited to take part in the Jeremy Vine Programme on Radio 2 today which
was about contentious planning issues. I only had about three minutes but had
the opportunity to convey some relevant aspects of my case and the feedback has
been favourable. 17 February 2007
Summons served on Dover District Council. 15 February 2007
Lodged my claim against the Council at Canterbury County Court. 6 December 2006
My second letter to Nadeem Aziz the Council's Chief Executive. Once more I
requested a refund of my planning fee and informed him that if I did not receive
a refund I would seek a judgement in the County Court. Once again Mr Aziz ignored
my letter. 19 November 2006
I wrote to Nadeem Aziz the Council's Chief Executive politely requesting a
refund of my planning application fee. Previously, I had withdrawn my planning
application before it was determined because the Council had tampered with it.
Subsequently the Council's Professional Standards Investigator found them guilty
of maladministration in the way in which my application had been dealt with. I
was therefore fully justified in receiving a refund. As usual, Mr Aziz ignored my letter.
|