Date: 13-10-09
Your ref:08 016
724/B4/JRW/SJP/1c
Dear Mr Purser
I
am in receipt of a disgraceful letter from
Mr White regarding my now closed complaint. Whilst his ridiculous
justification for closing my complaint down beggars belief wrt planning and footpath
regulations, it comes as no real surprise to see my complaint
disregarded in such an unprofessional way. This is from someone
representing an organisation that according to its website allegedly
takes an unbiased, fair and authoritative view on issues concerning
public bodies - oh please!
If
you and your organisation were subject to
the trades descriptions act you would have been wound up long ago - I
don’t masquerade as an authority on planning matters unlike you
and your organisation but even I can understand as a layman, where a
planning decision has been fundamentally screwed up!
I
have tried to phone you to discuss your so
called review but as with your colleagues previously involved with
this case you simply put the phone onto voicemail. I haven’t
bothered leaving a message as I fully expect the same response to
left messages as your colleagues hence this letter. Heaven knows
what your departments personnel do with all the time away from the
office - its patently not visiting sites under investigation.
I
am also totally disgusted that you have not even made the effort or
had the common courtesy to even contact myself or my consultant to
discuss and review the details of my case before coming to a decision
when I specifically and politely
requested you to do so. As with your
colleagues, why show any initiative, due diligence or take pride in
your work by doing so? None of your investigators ( and I truly fail
to see how your organisation does justice to this job title) has
ever initiated a meaningful or unbiased
discussion during the course of my complaint. No doubt you could
explain not contacting me as “not part of your review procedure”. If
that’s the case, that’s all very convenient. I am only left
to assume you were frightened of speaking to someone who actually
knows what they are talking about, fully understands the issues
involved and don’t want to be shown up as part of the crowd of
inept and unaccountable bureaucrats that you really are. How can
you honestly do a proper and fair “review” ( as you call it )
without even speaking to or discussing the details with those
concerned is staggering. Its analogous to a show trial where
evidence is discussed and withheld from the defence and the defendant
then being declared “guilty” by default.
This
whole LGO investigation including the “review” was nothing more
than a sham exercise to make it look like your organisation were
undertaking a public service and then subsequently closing my
complaint down in the most expeditious manner to save my local
council having to spend money and lose face putting right an obvious
and glaring error.
Mrs Watson, yourself and Mr White have all ignored the facts that myself and my consultant ( who has a local authority planning background so he is knowledgeable on this matter) have meticulously put before you. How much evidence do you people need before taking action?
-
You ignore the reason for PD rights removal as per the change of use.
-
You ignore the issue of the planning officers not realising the footpath crossed the paddock – we proved that in my consultants report with a subsequent photo to demonstrate the point! Did you even bother to read it and understand it?
-
You ignore the fact that the planner did his assessment from completely the wrong location.
-
You condone my councils inept planning assessment and subsequent attempt to cover-up their mistake.
-
Mrs Watson could n’t even be bothered to actually see on the ground first hand the facts of the case.
-
As far as I am concerned your previous “investigator” Mrs Watson only wanted to clear her desk before retirement.
-
Its looks like Mr White also wants a clear desk before retiring or moving on to another useless position elsewhere.
For
you to just automatically take the councils version of events without
proper scrutiny of their actions and a cursory examination of our
evidence is bias and tantamount to corruption. I note Mr White has
spent his career in local government of one form or another and the
rest of the LGO likewise tend to have local authority backgrounds.
All very convenient when looking after your own is n’t it?
I
have been reviewing various websites during the course of this
investigation which monitor the activities of the LGO. Unfortunately
my case mirrors those that are on record that have also been
treated in the same off-hand, unprofessional, biased, unauthoritative
and unaccountable manner.
I am only left to assume that you and your organisation simply go
through the motions of moving complaint files from place to place on
your desks and then simply close them down after asking a few weak or
leading questions to the authorities you are supposed to investigate
without taking seriously any of the issues raised to you. I am also
left to assume that you get some sort of sense of satisfaction in
closing off investigations as quickly as possible regardless of
whether a case is actually valid. Maybe you get a bonus for this and
recognition of how “efficient” you are to justify your budget and
your organisations continued existence?
Finally
Mr Purser, you and the organisation you are
part of are nothing less than a complete and utter farce. I will now
make every effort to bring to the attention of the wider community
and the LGO monitoring websites the appalling way you have conducted
your activities concerning my case by offering the details for
publication. That means highlighting you, the previous individuals
involved with my case, your organisation and its head and I will join
in the calls to abolish your organisation as its so obviously a total
waste of time, effort and taxpayers money.
A. Sharp