Author: ddc

Criminal Damage

by ddc

There is generally no time limit for criminal proceedings whereas civil proceedings are subject to varying time limits.

The criminal law is an institution for censuring people for wrongs not misfortunes and a crime requires a certain consequence to have been caused by the act.

Thus in ‘criminal damage’, the act must cause damage. What constitutes criminal damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the justices, applying their common sense, to decide whether what occurred was damage or not.

When I purchased my property I started from a lawful base.

Dover District Council (DDC) commenced a chain of events that they knew would result in the complete destruction of my home. By a combination of act and word they created and exposed me to a foreseeable risk of excessive damage and loss when they set out to destroy my property and through their instrumentality that event occurred.

DDC had knowledge of the circumstances and foresight of consequences and in addition their conduct was voluntary and wilful.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 relating to Destroying or Damaging property states:

A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

I submit that the ‘defence of lawful excuse’ cannot apply in this case. DDC were responsible for complying with the Town and Country Planning Act and it was incumbent upon them to do it efficiently and accurately. They did not follow the correct procedure as laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act and their omission led to the complete destruction of my home which would not have occurred had DDC acted in performance of their duty.

I can show that DDC committed a malicious act which made a more than negligible contribution to its occurrence. Their action was neither too remote, too trivial nor too accidental to have a joint bearing on their liability or on the gravity of their offence and which was the sole cause of the destruction of my home.

DDC purposely and knowingly caused damage of a high value; the complete destruction of my property.

I can also demonstrate that they omitted to do an act which would have prevented its occurrence and which they were under a duty to do according to law. There was a statutory duty that they wilfully and deliberately left unperformed. A public officer commits a misdemeanour when he wilfully neglects to perform a duty which he is bound by statute to perform. Evidence shows that the neglect was wilful and not merely inadvertent. Culpable in the sense that it was without reasonable excuse or justification.

DDC being specialists in the field of planning law are bound to higher skill and diligence than those who are not specialists. As specialists they owe a duty of care to carry out their procedures correctly and to observe the correct standards. They knowingly and maliciously pursued the incorrect procedure when taking enforcement action against me in the first instance and as a Statutory Public Authority they had both a moral and legal duty to prevent the unlawful appropriation, destruction and damage of my property. A Statutory Public Authority is liable for careless advice or information, for failures to take action to avoid harm and for failures of supervisory or regulatory functions.

DDC carried out a physical act when they destroyed my home and factual causation is established because, ‘but for’ DDC’s conduct the damage would not have resulted.

DDC’s intention was clear; it was to completely destroy my home and that intention to destroy was decided by the Paid Employee Advisers within 3 weeks of my purchasing the property.

In law the term ‘damage’ includes not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness. Various court rulings have held that any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the law and where interference with property amounts to an impairment to the value or the usefulness of the property to the owner, then the necessary damage is established.

Certainly the value of my property was damaged and as the property no longer existed its use in providing living accommodation ceased; it therefore lost its usefulness.

Home

Demolition

by ddc

Knock it down first, then ask questions afterwards

My bungalow, and family home, had been lived in by half a dozen different families during its 50-year life time.

  • It existed during the depression of the 1930’s
  • It survived the Second World War
  • It stood up to numerous severe storms.

But Dover District Council illegally destroyed it in less than one hour.

Criminal Damage by Dover District CouncilOn Monday the 31st July 1989 Council officials arrived, accompanied by an outside contractor with a mechanical digger and a lorry. The Council had engaged the services of W. Brazil, a small firm from Thanet whose main line of business was skip-hire and tree surgery.

The day before the demolition, on the sneaky instructions of Dover District Council, the Electricity Board and Water Board cut off our electricity and water without even consulting us!

As a family, we had barricaded ourselves inside our home and, witnessed by both the BBC and ITV, who were filming the demolition, I asked the Council’s Chief Planning Officer, David Sturt, three main questions:

1. Did I demolish the original bungalow?

After a great deal of hesitation, whilst being pressed for a one word answer, he finally and very reluctantly said, NO, I had not demolished the original bungalow.

2. Did I properly purchase a residential dwelling?

After yet more hesitation and stuttering he finally admitted YES I had properly purchased a residential dwelling.

Was the bungalow rated as a residential property?

3. He finally confirmed YES it was rated as residential property

Vandals In SuitsYet despite publicly admitting the lawful residential status of the bungalow Mr Sturt ordered its destruction.

The Chief Inspector of Dover Police then asked to enter the property, which I agreed to, and after a lengthy discussion we came out for the sake of our two young children.

Then the mechanical digger drove up to the bungalow with its hydraulic arms slowly raising the front bucket. It then repeatedly brought the heavy bucket crashing down on to the roof and literally smashed our home to pieces, making light work of the timber framed bungalow.

We could do nothing but just stand and watch the devastation. Whilst Jim Horn, the Council’s solicitor, and David Sturt, the Council’s Director of Planning, smirked at each other obviously enjoying the experience.

After destroying our home the Council reported in the local press, that they were not obliged to provide accommodation for us because we had ‘made ourselves homeless’.

It was a shock to see them smashing it to pieces because the Council had informed me that they would dismantle my bungalow and then take the materials to their depot and store them. Adding, that if I did not pay their costs for demolishing my own home they would then sell the materials and use the money to pay for the demolition.

This was yet another false statement from the Council. 

What they actually did after they had smashed the bungalow to pieces was to immediately load all the debris onto the back of a lorry. I was later informed by somebody who followed the lorry [name supplied], that it was taken to the refuse tip and dumped.

It was a case of getting rid of the evidence quickly because if a forensic test had been carried out on the timber frame it would have confirmed that it was indeed the original timber frame, as I had repeatedly stated. But maybe that’s why they got rid of it so quickly, to cover up their wrongdoing.

Prior to Dover District Council demolishing my bungalow they falsely stated that I had ‘erected a new bungalow’.  But that was not the case!Daniel aged 5

The fact is that I renovated the bungalow and the original timber frame remained. There was no increase in its size and the renovated bungalow occupied exactly the same footprint.

I purchased my bungalow on the 15th June 1984, yet at a Planning Committee meeting dated Thursday 9th August, just 7 weeks later, the elected members voted to demolish it. The decision was made based solely on false information presented by the paid officials and without considering any representation from me.

There is overwhelming and indisputable evidence to prove that I did not demolish the original bungalow nor erect a new bungalow.

  • David Sturt, who at that time was Dover Council’s Chief Planning Officer, confirmed that the original bungalow was never demolished. He confirmed this on the day of the demolition, witnessed and filmed by both the BBC and ITV.
  • There is written evidence from near neighbours confirming that I did not demolish the original bungalow nor erect a new bungalow
  • There is a statement from the carpenter who carried out work on my home confirming that the original bungalow was not demolished.
  • Also, in a letter dated 8th October 1984, Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services of Dover District Council stated:

“…On the 19th June 1984, Mr Richards, Area Planning Officer, in the company of Mr Johnson, Assistant Building Control Officer, visited the site……the corrugated iron cladding had been removed, exposing all of the timber studwork. A new prefabricated trussed roof had replaced the original roof structure…….…”

  • The above extract of a letter from the Council’s Legal Department proves that the original timber frame remained in-situ throughout the works of renovation thereby confirming that I did not demolish the original bungalow and erect a new one, as the Council wrongly claimed.
  • And of course, there is the final and compelling evidence as Dover Council destroyed the bungalow. It was clear for everyone to see that the timber frame was not new, but the original frame, as I had always stated.

The Council’s Solicitor, Mr J. Horne, watched closely as the mechanical digger was crushing the bungalow. My wife approached him and pointed out that it could clearly be seen that the timber frame being destroyed was old timber and obviously the original, as constructed in 1928. His flippant reply that “anyone can make new timber look old” was particularly insensitive and most importantly totally wrong.

It is nonsensical to think anyone would consider making new timber look old if it was to be concealed behind cladding.

The Council’s action has never made any legal or moral sense to me or anyone else who has taken the trouble to scrutinise what they did and how they went about it. Their actions were, and continue to be, totally inconsistent with the facts and indeed unlawful.

The Council stated that I had erected a new dwelling when they knew full well that I hadn’t and this false and misleading information was presented to both the Planning Committee and the Planning Inspectorate. This shows that their motives were malicious, reckless and amounted to deliberate deception.

DDC are the experts in planning law and use the Town and Country Planning Act as the bedrock for what they do and are supposed to be competent in the use of the law, which they use to control others. Therefore they cannot use the excuse that they made a mistake.

Home

1985 Enforcement

by ddc

Dover District Council was hell-bent on destroying my home and they succeeded. In doing so, the Planning Department deceived the Planning Committee by falsely stating that I had erected a new bungalow.

I purchased my bungalow on the 15th June 1984, yet at a Planning Committee meeting on the 12th July 1984, just 4 weeks later, David Sturt, Dover District Council’s Director of Planning, recommended to the elected members that they vote to demolish my home.

He obtained the desired outcome by deceiving the planning committee with a collection of false information, exaggerations and distortions, and they arrived at their decision without considering any representation from me.

Evidence proves that the Planning Committee’s decision to demolish my home was based on false information presented to them by Mr Sturt and this is confirmed by the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator. In his report into my complaint he states:

6.10 After careful consideration of all the files and Documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

6.11 This was maladministration.

In R. v Canterbury City Council ex parte Springimage 1993 it was Held that a decision is void if it is based on information put before a committee that is not correct or is incomplete. It is a general principle in law, that if a body stands by a decision they know to be wrong and should be accountable for, then that accountability may be the subject of review.

It is important to recognise that the 1985 enforcement action was not served in respect of the residential use, which was lawful at that time and therefore exempt from enforcement action. More precisely it was the works of improvement and repair that were the subject of the enforcement action.

The Town & Country Planning Act 1971 c.78 Part III section 23, subsection (9), relevant at that time, stated:

‘Where an enforcement notice has been served in respect of any development of land, planning permission is not required for the use of that land for the purpose for which it could lawfully have been used if that development had not been carried out.’

The bungalow I purchased was never demolished by me, prior to the works of improvement that I carried out, and David Sturt who was the Chief Planning Officer at the time confirmed that fact.

I may have carried out works of improvement or repair that required planning permission but I did not establish a home without planning permission because that already existed and had done so lawfully for 56 years.

If I had not carried out the works of improvement and repair the Council could not have demolished my home and I would still be living in it lawfully today. The fact is that I renovated an existing bungalow and there was no increase in its size and it occupied exactly the same footprint.

There is overwhelming and indisputable evidence to prove that I did not demolish the original bungalow nor erect a new bungalow, as follows:

David Sturt, who at the time was Dover Council’s Chief Planning Officer, confirmed that the original bungalow was never demolished. He confirmed this on the day of the demolition, witnessed and filmed by both the BBC and ITV.

There is written evidence from near neighbours confirming that I did not demolish the original bungalow nor erect a new bungalow.

There is a statement from the carpenter, who carried out work on my home, confirming that the original bungalow was not demolished and that the original timber frame remained throughout.

Also, in a letter dated 8th October 1984, Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services of Dover District Council stated:

“…On the 19th June 1984, Mr Richards, Area Planning Officer, in the company of Mr Johnson, Assistant Building Control Officer, visited the site……cladding had been removed, exposing all of the timber studwork. A new prefabricated trussed roof had replaced the original roof structure…”

The above extract of a letter from the Council’s Legal Department proves that the original timber frame remained in-situ throughout the works of renovation thereby confirming that I did not demolish the original bungalow and erect a new one, as the Council maliciously claimed.

And of course, there is the final and compelling evidence as Dover Council destroyed the bungalow. It was clear for everyone to see that the timber frame was not new, but the original frame, as I had always stated.

The Council completely ignored the long-standing and lawful residential use of the bungalow and acted as if I had taken a bare field and constructed a new dwelling upon it. Consequently they applied the wrong policies and their unlawful action was taken in the full knowledge of documents held, and which proved their action was wrong.

The Council’s action has never made any legal or moral sense and continues to be, totally inconsistent with the facts.

Home

Letters of Evidence

by ddc

The following are transcripts from letters received from nearby residents.

All of them confirm the continuous and long-standing residential history of my bungalow.

This evidence was presented to the Council and ignored. Copies of the original letters with full names and addresses are held on file.

Hungaria
Warren Lane
Lydden
Dover
Kent.

10/4/1988

To whom it may concern.

I purchased my land of 3.5 acres, from Mr J C Pearce in 1956. I built a bungalow on the land where I have lived until the present time. When I purchased my land ‘The Oaks’ was lived in by a Mr & Mrs Pickard. Mr Pickard was a miner and he rented the property from Mr Pearce. Some time in the 1956 the bungalow was purchased by a Mr Gibbs he lived in the bungalow for a few years and sometime in the mid sixties the place was sold to a Miss Dickinson who was a school teacher. As far as I can recall the last time she lived in the bungalow was 1981. In the few years up until that time she used it regularly for holidays and weekends.  I well remember her asking me when she wanted to sell the place to clear the garden as it was very overgrown. She had to sell the place as her health was failing and she could not keep the place on. The bungalow was then empty for about three years until the present owner moved in. I urge that planning permission be granted so that the residential use of the land known as ‘The Oaks’ can continue.

Yours sincerely
Z. Farkas

 

Lyoak Wood Farm
Ewell Minnis
Warren Lane
Lydden

16th April 1988

To whom it may concern

Re: ‘The Oaks’ formerly known as ‘The Bungalow’ Warren Lane, Lydden  Having farmed in Warren Lane for the past forty-two years. I have always known the property as a residential dwelling. Occupied in 1947 by the Pickard family until I think about 1956 then owned by a Mr Gibbs who sold it in 1965 to the Dickinson family and used as a holiday home by Miss Dickinson until approx 1981 when due to illness the property was sold to the present owner Mr P. Moulder. Who has my wholehearted support for his planning application to continue the residential use.

Yours faithfully
Bryan E. R. Cake.

Chalksole Farm
Alkham

11-4-1988

 To whom it may concern

I have lived at Chalksole Farm since 1920 and have farmed the land adjoining The Oaks since 1928.

The bungalow has been lived in by various families since 1928 until it became empty approx 7 years ago until the present owner moved in.

I have been a Parish Councillor for the past 45 years, 30 years as chairman.

Yours faithfully
George Kirby

 

58 Beaufoy Road
Dover
CT17 0HT

2/2/1988

 Distribution:
Mr. Jim Horne (Council Solicitor)
Mr. Moulder

Dear Sir,

I read the report in Dover Express 29/1/88 concerning THE OAKS, Warren Lane, LYDDEN and I feel I must put the record straight about the bungalow being lived in.

My wife and her parents moved into the bungalow about 1934 and her parents lived there continually until about 1956 or 57. It was known as The Bungalow, Little London, Ewell Minnis.

Rent was paid to the owner, Mr Pearce, Wellington House, Lydden.

The ground was fully cultivated with lawns and hedges kept trim and tidy. It wasn’t until the family moved that the bungalow and its ground deteriorated.  Another family moved out for our family to move in. I am surprised this information has never been found before.

Maybe at this late hour it may prove useful.

Yours faithfully
Mr E R Holmes

.. Siberts Close
Sheperdswell
Nr Dover
Kent. CT15 …

23 February 1988

 Dear Sir,

Having read recently in the Dover Express the intentions of Dover District Council to make Mr Peter Moulder of The Oaks, Warren Lane, Lydden to demolish his home.

I would like to point out that my family farmed for many years in Warren Lane and have always known ‘The Oaks’ (formerly The Bungalow) to have been residential dwellings.

Yours faithfully
V J S…….

 

Little London Farm,
Warren Lane,
Lydden,
Dover,
Kent. CT15 7EB

Department of the Environment,
Room 908,
Tollgate House,
Houlton Street,
Bristol BS2 9DJ.

Yr.ref. APP/X2220/C/85/885.

2nd September 1985

 Dear Sir,

The Oaks (formerly The Bungalow), Warren Lane, Lydden, Dover, Kent.

While recognising absolutely the need for planning regulations, particularly in respect of development in rural areas, I am of the opinion that due regard should be given to the historic use made of any particular area and the fate that may befall it should the traditional use be abandoned.

The site known as ‘The Oaks’ has traditionally been the location of a dwelling which in recent years has been used only as holiday accommodation. In the immediate past it has not been occupied at all.

It seems to me that in repeatedly refusing to grant planning permission for the site, Dover District Council has sought to change the status of that small area without offering any satisfactory explanation for its action and is now seeking to prevent its rehabilitation by means of renovation. To remove the residential status of a property by virtue of the fact that it is unoccupied, without establishing abandonment and/or, its unsuitability for human habitation and seeking a closing order, is to create a precedent that will cause concern to all owners of unoccupied property in the area.

While recognising the desirability of not adding to the rural population by allowing developments for residential use I can see no justification for contributing to de-population in what is already a sparsely populated area.

As I have indicated the property has, in recent times, been used as a holiday home by virtue of which it has been unoccupied for much of the year. A fact which has become known and has led to the property being broken into on a number of occasions, a situation that has in turn led to the adjacent property, itself unoccupied for much of the year, and my own property to be visited by thieves.

Since ‘The Oaks’ has been occupied there have been fewer incidents.  In the event that the Enforcement Notice is upheld I fear the abandoned site will be used as a dumping ground for household refuse as have so many similar sites in remote rural areas.

The site is wedge shaped and surrounded by mature oaks which would have to be removed if the site were to be brought into agricultural use, such a course would be uneconomic and detrimental to the environment.

Should it be decided that the work carried out on ‘The Oaks’ requires Planning Permission, I urge that it be granted retrospectively in order that the ‘status quo’ be maintained and the problems I have outlined, avoided.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Finnis

Home

Lawful Use

by ddc

My bungalow had been in continuous lawful residential use for 56 years
at the time I purchased it in 1984

1928 was the year ‘The Bungalow’ was built and a Transfer of Legal Charge, attached to the property’s deeds, states the following:

THE SCHEDULE

2. A piece of land with bungalow in course of construction thron situate in Lydden afsd being the premises firstly convd to the Testator by Deed dated 13th August 1925 and made between Henry Gray (1) and the Testator (2)

DULY EXECUTED by the Borrowers and the parties thrto of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th parts.

TRANSFER of Legal Charge of this date (endorsed on before abstd Legal Charge) between within-named Ernest Edward Pain


At the time of purchase the use of the land was lawful for residential purposes and the bungalow was deemed to have planning permission by virtue of the fact that it was built before the 1st July 1948 (the ‘Appointed Day’ for the Town & Country Planning Act 1947).

This is a Statutory Right that applies to every building in England which was built before 1st July 1948, and thus does not require a specific permission from its District Council.

The ‘Appointed Day’ is sufficient evidence by itself to confirm the lawful use, but is further substantiated by indisputable evidence from DDC’s Head of Legal Services, the Planning Inspectorate, by statements from neighbours and from Mr Grieve, the Professional Standards Investigator, who concluded:

“There is a record of residential use of the site from 1928 to 31st July 1989”

The Investigator also stated:

“After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.”

He added:

“This was maladministration.”

Further evidence can be found in conveyance documentation, sales particulars and by the fact that the property was rated as a residential bungalow at the time of purchase.

On file there are a number of  letters from nearby residents, which all confirm the long-standing residential use of the bungalow. Please click here to to read them.

Additional confirmation and acceptance of the lawful residential status of the bungalow came from the Planning Inspector, Richard W. Pratt, who stated:

“A bungalow was built on the site in about 1928, and remained in use as a dwelling house up to the time of the appellant’s acquisition of the land in 1984… I accept that, at that time, the residential use of the building would have been lawful, because it pre-dated the Appointed Day, 1 July 1948”.

The deeds categorically prove that my bungalow was constructed in 1928 and this is confirmed in written evidence from the late George Kirby of Chalksole Farm, Warren Lane who remembered the property being built. Mr Kirby was a member of Alkham Parish Council for 45 years, 30 years as its Chairman.

Mr Kirby, who farmed the land adjoining my property, also gave written evidence, along with other neighbours, that my bungalow was lived in from 1928 until 1981 albeit for the latter few years for holiday periods and at weekends. However, even if only used latterly for holiday accommodation, planning law confirms that this would still constitute a residential use.

Mr and Mrs Pickard and their daughter lived in the bungalow from 1934 until 1956 and rented the property from a Mr Pearce. In 1956 the Pickards moved out and the new tenant, Mr Gibbs, moved in and lived there until 1967 at which time Miss Dickinson purchased the bungalow.

Miss Dickinson lived there until 1981, although latterly only at weekends and holiday times. According to the neighbours Miss Dickinson was slightly eccentric and for one thing she painted the bungalow pink!

It is absolutely clear that at the time I purchased my bungalow it benefited from lawful residential use and there is no doubt that the residential use had not been abandoned. This guaranteed me specific statutory rights, which Dover District Council blatantly, and knowingly, ignored.

It is clear that both the Council’s legal department and planning department were fully aware of the lawful residential status of my property. Despite that, they went ahead with their intended action under the pretext that the residential use had ceased. The Chief Planning Officer gave deceptive and confusing advice to the Planning Committee, and later to the Planning Inspectorate, with the result that my bungalow was unlawfully demolished.

Home

My 40-year struggle for justice against Dover District Council, who unlawfully demolished my home

by ddc

Dover District Council acted dishonestly and unlawfully when they destroyed my home. And that is a fact which is confirmed by the outcome of their own investigation.

My property has been in continuous lawful residential use for 96 years!

And to put into perspective how long my personal dispute with DDC has endured, I was 34 years old when I purchased my home, and I’m now 74. Throughout that period of time Dover District Council officials have lied, manipulated the regulations, deceived successive planning committees and systematically done its best to wreck my life. They continue to do so to this day. And it’s all done to cover up the vindictive actions of the original administration, which was corrupt to the core.

I purchased my property through an estate agent in June 1984 and employed the services of a local solicitor who carried out all the necessary searches and enquiries.

At the time of purchase the bungalow had been in lawful residential use since 1928.

Yet, at a meeting less than 4 weeks later David Sturt, the Council’s Director of Planning, deceived the planning Committee by presenting incorrect and misleading information to support his recommendation that my home be demolished.

Criminal Damage By DDC

Dover District Council demolished my home even though it had been a lawful residence for over 60 years, and therefore had  permission for residential use

Evidence proves that the decision to demolish the bungalow was based on a combination of confusion, half-truths, manufactured evidence  and downright lies from Dover District Council officers.

Dishonesty, corruption and covert manipulation of the rules by Council officials has ruined many lives. None more so than in the case of the notorious killer Albert Dryden.

There are certain individuals controlling Dover District Council who don’t give a jot about the impact that their perverse decisions have on peoples lives. These disreputable ‘people’ are not concerned with the truth and continue to suppress the evidence that supports the long-standing residential use of my… more

Hopefully this web site will enlighten people as to the unsavoury tactics used by district council officials. It appears that council corruption may be widespread in this country and consequently the number of web sites exposing maladministration and injustice is increasing.

To find out more you can read about How it all started

RIP The Truth web
Home

Links

by ddc

www.whistleblowerinfo.com

Name-n-Shame An excellent web site set up with the express purpose of tackling corruption and dishonesty in Local Authorities. People generally contact them once they have discovered that there really is no justice in the accepted channels.

Quote from their web site:

“Local authorities tend to pursue their own agenda. The only solution is to have honest elected councillors who are prepared to fight corruption … and they are as rare as rocking horse s***!

 

Judge blasts Council for ‘nonsense’ garden case… more

 

Rotten Borough is a web site dedicated to exposing Council corruption. The site owner, Ian Johnston, is a former Councillor so he is well placed to know what goes on within.

An extract from his website, reproduced below, certainly echoes my own experience of Dover District Council:

“As you may know, a council is run by a combination of councillors and officers. The councillors are volunteers who are elected by the local residents to serve for four years. They are paid expenses but, until recently, no salary. They are supposed to decide the policy of the council by democratic vote.

Council officers are paid employees. They are supposed to put the policy determined by the councillors into action. They also provide specialist advice to the councillors.

Unfortunately, most councillors seem to have little idea of what is really going on at the council, never mind in the locality they are supposed to represent. Instead of using their own judgement, they vote the way that their party political leaders tell them to. This usually involves “Rubber-stamping” the recommendations made by the officers.

Therefore it is the officers who are really deciding the policy of the council, for whatever reasons they see fit. As the councillors fail to make them accountable to the electorate, they are free to maximise their pay and perks, and minimise their workload.

Officers have little incentive to see that taxpayers’ money is well spent, or that staff or contractors do their jobs properly. Poor workmanship is rewarded by full pay.”

You can view the Rotten Borough website by clicking here

 

www.seered.co.uk/ An interesting web site written by a scientist who finally decided ‘enough was enough’ when faced with the incompetence and malevolence of local councils in England. SeeRed covers a wide range of topics including town planning and general local government incompetence.

 

www.rottencouncil.co.uk/

Council Maladministration and Injustice. Abuse of Power and Misconduct.

 

Amy Hunter

Amy Hunter was a fragile 87 year old lady who over the last few years of her life had to suffer substantial injustice because of Council maladministration, which was further compounded by the local government ombudsman’s failure to do anything about it.

Councils committing acts of maladministration are one thing but when the Ombudsman stands idly by whilst they do it, then tries to help them bury the fact, means there is a total lack of justice for people like Amy.

This is just one example of how useless and uncaring the Local Government Ombudsman is. Their refusal to do anything about council maladministration had a serious impact on Amy Hunter’s quality of life.

Sadly Amy died on Saturday the 17th November but at least the Council will no longer be able to abuse her Human Rights. However, her family are still suffering from the Council’s abuse of power, whilst the Local Government Ombudsman conveniently looks the other way.

 

www.local-government-ombudsman-lgo.blogspot.com/

If anyone needs convincing whether or not the Local Government Ombudsman is dishonest, underhand and pro-Council biased, then check out this site.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman

 

 

 

 

What is Maladministration?

 

Planning Sanity

 

Common Sense

 

Whistleblowers

The law that protects whistleblowers is for the public interest – so people are encouraged to speak out if they find malpractice in an organisation. They can do so knowing they’re protected from losing their job and/or being victimised. Blowing the whistle is more formally known as ‘making a disclosure in the public interest’.

Home