| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Head of Legal Services refuses to pass Formal Complaint on | |
| Posted by: | Victor Mishiku | |
| Date/Time: | 30/09/13 18:58:00 |
| Thank you for writing. The reason why I wished to bring this to the attention of the Local Government Ombudsman was because Mrs Helen Harris only ruled out my Formal Complaint claiming that I had declined to identify the specific codes which I believed had been contravened in fact and/or in spirit. Mrs Harris's statement to this effect is incorrect. It seems to me that what Mrs Harris actually objected to was the format and layout of my 23-page document. I was just wondering how the Polish couple who I helped in a case in Newburgh Road, Acton (Landlord/Tenant), who faced imminent eviction when their Ukrainian Church Landlords's agents had served false papers would have coped on their own. Their Ward Coucillors did not help them. Instead, I helped them write Defences, Witness Statements, attended at Court Hearings where the Judges allowed me to assist them, all of which they won with costs against the Landlords (who were represented by agents, solicitors and barrister). The couple Wojciech & Magdalena (who had a young son) could barely write a good English letter on their own. Mrs Harris does not approve of my letter-writing - how then would she decide when complainants cannot speak or write proper English, what if they have poor English language - does that mean only people who are able to write as Mrs Harris wants can be entertained? It appears that Cllr. Millican's enquiries have also been returned unanswered. He wrote on the Web (Ealing Gazette Online) about "Lack of integrity and transparency" saying: "Probity, integrity and transparency are of such concern that it seems barely a day goes by without a public official being in the news for some form of underhand behaviour. The public puts trust in its elected officials and that trust should be returned. This is not least in the area of planning applications, which are worth a lot of money and have such an influence over the lives of the neighboring community. That is why so many people are concerned about the favours given by the Labour Leader of Ealing Council towards the Labour member, elected to represent the people of Ealing on the Greater London Assembly, for the planning application to extend one of his large houses. On the surface the facts are straightforward. Cllr Julian Bell, Labour Council Leader, personally met with Dr Onkar Sahota, Ealing's Labour GLA member, on site with Ealing Council's most senior planning official to discuss his contentious application to extensively extend his large house. The planning system can be slow and cumbersome, so its not surprising that people are concerned when one senior elected Labour Councillor so blatantly helps another senior elected Labour official. The issue is that most residents have to wait in the long planning queue and can't obtain such personal high level service. However, we have established from the results of an Freedom of Information request we submitted that, when setting up the meeting, Dr Sahota wrote to Cllr Bell asking him to "do the needful" as his planning application had been "registered". We would all love know what that means. Hence, immediately this issue became apparent, I wrote to Cllr Bell asking him to refer himself to the Council's Standards Committee, which has now agreed to investigate the case. So I wrote with a list of questions, to be investigated. I believe that members of the public would like to know why the Leader felt the need to attend personally this initial planning meeting and not any others, and what was so special about it. However another council official has written back to me saying that my straightforward questions are "out of scope" and won't be investigated. So the whole affair has become a farce and a "whitewash". The residents of Ealing deserve better from their publicly elected officials." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I note that Cllr. Millican complains about the lack of contact with planners. This is quite correct. In former days (as still happens in other Councils, such as L.B.Hounslow, L.B.Harrow), members of the public concerned about planning applications were able to telephone the case officer (I recall calling Ms Aileen Jones and speaking to her about the case re. "Westbury" in Ealing when she was a young part-time planning officer almost 20 years ago). Nowadays, any call to a planning officer is intercepted by a general call answering service and you are asked if you wish to leave a message. One resident in Acton who does not use a mobile, stayed in for two days waiting for a call back. In addition to this "remote" method and lack of one to one contact, another obstacle has recently been introduced in the Planning Department. Previously, anyone who needed to ask some questions about Plans or details of the Application Drawings could see a "Duty Planner" at Planning Reception. The Duty Planner would sit down and look at the case and go through matters that were unclear, etc. This has all changed now - if you want to see a Duty Planner, you have to ask for an appointment and come back on another day. One resident of Woodville Road could not understand the Plans (despite being a former property surveyor) which were misleading and incomplete. When this gentleman called at Planning Reception, he was told that he would have to make an appointment to see a Duty Planner. 12 days later when he was finally told that he could see the Duty Planner (meantime the 21 days is ticking away in which to respond), the Duty Planner told him that he could not discuss any specific case Plans. The Duty Planner said his was only allowed to give general advice on planning. The gentleman concerned left none the wiser! |