Heritage Slush
Fund
Fund
Hope nobody
emembers
Dave told me “to undertake
a thorough review of this case” back in April Good job I didn’t let
anything slip at that time
either.
emembers
Dave told me “to undertake
a thorough review of this case” back in April Good job I didn’t let
anything slip at that time
either.
BLANK
REPORT
REPORT
What we’ve decided to do is. Take your merit badge away.
Make you stand in
the corner. And you can write out 100 lines.
“I must not ignore
a serious complaint
unless told to by
my boss”
Make you stand in
the corner. And you can write out 100 lines.
“I must not ignore
a serious complaint
unless told to by
my boss”
CROYDON COUNCIL
“We aim to provide a high
standard of service and we
rely on you to tell us how
we’re doing.” . . . I’m doing my best.
“We aim to provide a high
standard of service and we
rely on you to tell us how
we’re doing.” . . . I’m doing my best.
Dec 20004 David Wechsler CEO lives up to his name and welshes on his promise to ‘investigate’ this matter yet again. He claims that he cannot investigate it this time because the Ombudsman is investigating LBC now . . . . So what was his excuse in July? Or August? Or September? Or October? Or November?
CROYDON COUNCIL DO THE LOTTERY?
READ ON
READ ON
Right that’s it! I had enough of this slack behaviour. It’s a good job you don’t work for a proper Council otherwise you would get the sack. You do realise thatis is a serious breach of our Charter don’t you?
Phil Goodwin and Dave Wechsler, (Dir of Planning and CEO ) are furious with Nasreen Panchoo Corporate Complaints for not completing a few days work in less than five months. He writes Thursday, 16 December 2004“Mr Cole has taken his complaint to the Ombudsman and therefore we will not follow up the stage 3 complaint, the lack of a reply from Corporate Services is part of the reason for the referral.” . . . So it’s her fault now?. . . . He writes as if she is in another Company over which he has no control. . . . THEY SHARED THE SAME FAX MACHINE AT THAT TIME FOR GOODNESS SAKE. . . . .020 8760 5797
He can’t even take responsibility for that, and is willing to blame his staff.
Phillip Goodwin you are a disgrace to your profession and should be sacked forthwith.
He can’t even take responsibility for that, and is willing to blame his staff.
Phillip Goodwin you are a disgrace to your profession and should be sacked forthwith.
Visit Local Government Ombudsman Watch , or L.G.O Watch the site that tells you the truth about this corrupt biased toothless lot who are supposed to oversee the Local Councils
Click here http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/
Read about the dirty tricks of these charlatans at the LGO
http://www.bushywood.com/local_government_ombudsman
_dirty_tricks.htm
Click here http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/
Read about the dirty tricks of these charlatans at the LGO
http://www.bushywood.com/local_government_ombudsman
_dirty_tricks.htm
ON THIS PAGE . . CROYDON COUNCIL PLANNING OFFICERS claim they did not collude in the siting of the nuisance flue . as unlikely as winning the LOTTERY.
Friday, November 26, 200404
Tony Richardson
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council
Fax 020 8760 5797
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council
Fax 020 8760 5797
Dear Mr Richardson
Re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. Planning application 03/01860/P
Thank you for your letter received today. I am pleased that Phillip Goodwin Dir of Planning has decided to take this matter seriously at last, and has asked you to inform me of what the Council are DOING about this duct.
First let us clear up the matter of my headline. “Is Croydon Council run by a Bunch of Corrupt Crooks?” I do not apologise for it in the least. Sometimes you need a good headline to get through the rhino skin of some people, and get their attention. . . . . . and that one usually works for me. When people act secretively and refuse to answer perfectly reasonable questions it is entirely reasonable to suspect the very worst of them. And when they promise to conduct an investigation that is supposed to take 5 weeks, or at least give a reason why not, and complete ignore that promise you are entitled to think even worse of them. (That was nearly 4 months ago by the way.)
So sometimes you have to take extraordinary measures to get them to do so.
You claim that “there is no collusion between officers of the Council and the owner (and I presume proprietor . . . they are different) of the shop.” Well I am afraid the evidence so far does not support your claim.
The proprietor Pauline Dyer tells me that she spent £9,000 on that flue, and it was ok’d at every stage by Croydon Council. What you asking me to believe is . . . that, if that was not the case . . . she spent £9,000 . . . on the off chance that nobody would notice. That when the Council came round and signed off the planning application as complete, someone just accepted that, never mind it projected 2 meters over the boundary of my property, it will do.
The proprietor Pauline Dyer tells me that she spent £9,000 on that flue, and it was ok’d at every stage by Croydon Council. What you asking me to believe is . . . that, if that was not the case . . . she spent £9,000 . . . on the off chance that nobody would notice. That when the Council came round and signed off the planning application as complete, someone just accepted that, never mind it projected 2 meters over the boundary of my property, it will do.
Well even if what she says is untrue. That Croydon Council Planners did not ok it. Can you explain this? Since as you put it so neatly in your letter. “a condition of the planning permission required approval of a scheme of control of odours, smoke and grease BEFORE any food was cooked on the premises.”
Well . . . do I have to spell it out? The shop has been open for 11 months. So either a Croydon Planning Inspector came round and looked at it and said, “Yup . . that looks like the one in the drawing” . . . or . . . . he inspected it with his white stick and got his guide dog to check for smells . . . . .or . . . NOBODY BOTHERED TO HAVE A LOOK AT ALL.
But worse than that . . . . when I sent a picture of the flue to your CEO David Wechsler, and pointed out that who ever put it there committed a criminal offense, and everything else that was wrong with it as pointed out to me by a proper Planning Officer from a neighboring Council.
HE DID ABSOLUTELY SWEET FANNY ADAMS ABOUT IT.
And even worse than that . . . I have had to go to these extraordinary lengths just to get ANYBODY to reply at all.
What I want to know is this? If as you say the drawings of the duct approved by you bear no relation to the one that is there on my property. WHY IS THE SHOP TRADING AT ALL? You have plenty of powers in the Nuisance Acts to prevent it until such time as a proper scheme is implemented. We have had to put up with the nuisance of this for nearly a year now . . . all because of your (LBC) negligence, and/or corruption.
And until Croydon’s reluctance to actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, is satisfactorily explained to me. I’m afraid I am not convinced that “there is no collusion between officers of the Council and the owner of the shop.” . . . just by ignoring this in the manner you are today . . . . . . so I am informed . . . you Sir are committing a criminal offense right now.
Somebody knows what went on. And so far . . . . nothing I have been told adds up at all.
And when we have sorted out this problem . . . I want to go on to the matter of my floors. Why they have been allowed to be put in jeopardy of rot . . again by the negligence of your Planners.
Yours Sincerely Colin Clifford Cole
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Tony Richardson
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council
Dear Tony
Tony Richardson
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council
Dear Tony
Re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. Planning application 03/01860/P (or is Croydon Council run by a bunch of corrupt crooks?)
Well I thought I would give you a few days to think over what I ‘said’. Are you convinced?
Almost certainly not I suspect. But then that is because you look at this from a disadvantaged position . . . you work for Croydon Council. You claim as I have pointed out that, “there is no collusion between officers of the Council and the owner (and I presume proprietor) of the shop.” . . . and I have stated that the evidence does not support your claim. So let’s examine that evidence shall we?
Almost certainly not I suspect. But then that is because you look at this from a disadvantaged position . . . you work for Croydon Council. You claim as I have pointed out that, “there is no collusion between officers of the Council and the owner (and I presume proprietor) of the shop.” . . . and I have stated that the evidence does not support your claim. So let’s examine that evidence shall we?
Do you do the Lottery? Probably not because the odds are so great. Well lets talk about odds shall we? Odds that is . . . . . in respect of the flue that Croydon Council allowed to be put on my property.
The proprietor Pauline Dyer tells me that she spent £9,000 on that flue, and it was OK’d at every stage by Croydon Council. If that was not the case . . . what we have to believe is . . . that she spent £9,000 . . . on the off chance that nobody would notice. . . . . and what are the odds of that happening? . . . . and she needs to get it right doesn’t she? . . . or it could be very costly indeed. . . . . £9,000 costly.
If this application had been implemented entirely properly. That flue shouldn’t have been there for more than a week given that Croydon Council admit in their letter of 16th November to Cllr Pelling GLA. “The details submitted showed a type of ducting designed to stop odours within the equipment . . . . . and . . . . . This suggests that the equipment installed is not in any way that approved. . . . etc etc” If you are honest . . . you know that the shop should never have even opened . . . should it?
The proprietor Pauline Dyer tells me that she spent £9,000 on that flue, and it was OK’d at every stage by Croydon Council. If that was not the case . . . what we have to believe is . . . that she spent £9,000 . . . on the off chance that nobody would notice. . . . . and what are the odds of that happening? . . . . and she needs to get it right doesn’t she? . . . or it could be very costly indeed. . . . . £9,000 costly.
If this application had been implemented entirely properly. That flue shouldn’t have been there for more than a week given that Croydon Council admit in their letter of 16th November to Cllr Pelling GLA. “The details submitted showed a type of ducting designed to stop odours within the equipment . . . . . and . . . . . This suggests that the equipment installed is not in any way that approved. . . . etc etc” If you are honest . . . you know that the shop should never have even opened . . . should it?
So there are only two options aren’t there? Either she took a chance, or, what she claims, is indeed correct. But bearing in mind that the flue that is there now . . . . . is probably the one that was proposed and turned down in the original application. As indicted from that same letter “Reason: The vent approved as part of the application is inadequate to cope with the odours arising from frying.” . . . (which I have to say is about as ambiguous a statement as you can get. . . . approved? . . but inadequate?) . . . . anyway . . . . it should have been a very slim chance of success indeed . . . . . . . if chance it were.
First of all she needs to find the one Local Authority in the Country that has Planning Inspectors that would come round and look at it and say, “Yup . . that looks like the one in the drawing” . . . or depending on their efforts to employ the disabled . . . . send round an inspector who will inspect it with his white stick. . . . .or . . . one that doesn’t bother to send round inspectors at all.
Do you know what the odds on that are Sir? Apparently there are five hundred such authorities. So that makes odds of 500 to 1. Not very good odds to risk £9,000 I think you will agree . . . . . no? . . . . well actually they are fantastic odds compared to the real odds. . . . . . . the real odds are these: She then had to find the one Planning Dept in the country . . . . who when the neighbours complain about such a flue . . . that “is not in any way that approved.” . . . . will just ignore that fact . . . and do absolutely nothing about it . . . worse in fact . . . will deliberately ignore the complaint. Well that makes the odds 500 x 500 . . . which equals 250,000 to one. . . . well you can see that with odds like that . . . her £9,000 is looking very risky indeed . . . . don’t you think?
Do you know what the odds on that are Sir? Apparently there are five hundred such authorities. So that makes odds of 500 to 1. Not very good odds to risk £9,000 I think you will agree . . . . . no? . . . . well actually they are fantastic odds compared to the real odds. . . . . . . the real odds are these: She then had to find the one Planning Dept in the country . . . . who when the neighbours complain about such a flue . . . that “is not in any way that approved.” . . . . will just ignore that fact . . . and do absolutely nothing about it . . . worse in fact . . . will deliberately ignore the complaint. Well that makes the odds 500 x 500 . . . which equals 250,000 to one. . . . well you can see that with odds like that . . . her £9,000 is looking very risky indeed . . . . don’t you think?
Well not really when you think of it . . . the odds are much worse than that. . . . not only does all the above have to apply. She also has to find the one Authority in the Country that has a Chief Executive that doesn’t give a toss about whether his planning officers allow dangerous flues, that are “not in any way that approved.” . . . . or whether the people who pay his salary are being poisoned or in danger of fire . . . or not . . . . and will just ignore the fact when he is informed of it. Instead of . . . storming down stairs to his Planning Department with that photograph . . . .and saying to those involved “What the f****** ing hell is THIS load of crap?” . . . . as he should have done.
So that makes 500 x 250,000 . . . . which equals 12.5 million to one. . . . hang on a minute. . . . . . isn’t that where we came in? . . . . the same odds as winning the lottery. And I’m not going to even talk about the odds of finding an Authority that has a policy of ignoring it’s Corporate Complaints as well. Well of course . . . . as we know . . . that is exactly what happened? Now . . . . I would have been perfectly willing to accept the 500 to one shot, knowing what I now know about Croydon Council. . . . .and how negligent they have been in every part of this matter . . . . but 12.5 million to one? NO SIR . . . . . the evidence does not support your claim in the least. Mrs Dyer was informed that the flue that is there now, would be ‘OK’. . . . there is not the slightest doubt of that in my mind. And I think any impartial observer would agree. . . NOBODY spends £9,000 on those odds. The only questions are . . . . . what was the motive to so inform her? . . . . and who did?
Oh . . . by the way . . . I’m not saying that Mrs Dyer did not know that the flue was “not in any way that approved.” . . . . . in fact I have some pretty good evidence that she did.
I’m saying that she was told it be ‘OK’ . . . . regardless . . . . . . . you know ‘OK’ as in ‘nudge nudge wink wink . . . a nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat’ . . . sort of ‘OK’. And I’m saying . . . she was given to understand . . . that Croydon Council would ignore the fact that the flue was “not in any way that approved.” . . . . . and would ignore any complaints that arose from that too. . . . . . . . BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID DO.
I’m saying that she was told it be ‘OK’ . . . . regardless . . . . . . . you know ‘OK’ as in ‘nudge nudge wink wink . . . a nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat’ . . . sort of ‘OK’. And I’m saying . . . she was given to understand . . . that Croydon Council would ignore the fact that the flue was “not in any way that approved.” . . . . . and would ignore any complaints that arose from that too. . . . . . . . BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID DO.
That bit is not refutable. Now you should find out Sir . . . how such a thing is possible. Or find a far better explanation than the one I have put forward . . . . because if you do not . . then my headline of . “Is Croydon Council run by a Bunch of Corrupt Crooks?” . . . will not be as easy to ‘challenge’ as you put it . . . . . . as you might have thought when you wrote that.
We’ve already established that 50% of it is correct. Whoever allowed that thing to be put up was corrupt in some form. And even if that could be put down to negligence. The behaviour of your Executives in ignoring the blindingly obvious for month after month for their own purposes, whatever they were, to the danger and detriment of others, cannot be seen any other way. And if you find out the motives Sir, we might be able to fill in the rest of the headline . . . . . . . . without the question mark that you noted. . . . . and right now by my reckoning the odds are not in your favour . . . . in fact 12.5 million to one against.
You cannot deny that Croydon have acted like a bunch of corrupt crooks . . . . . . so you shouldn’t really complain about ‘headlines’.
We’ve already established that 50% of it is correct. Whoever allowed that thing to be put up was corrupt in some form. And even if that could be put down to negligence. The behaviour of your Executives in ignoring the blindingly obvious for month after month for their own purposes, whatever they were, to the danger and detriment of others, cannot be seen any other way. And if you find out the motives Sir, we might be able to fill in the rest of the headline . . . . . . . . without the question mark that you noted. . . . . and right now by my reckoning the odds are not in your favour . . . . in fact 12.5 million to one against.
You cannot deny that Croydon have acted like a bunch of corrupt crooks . . . . . . so you shouldn’t really complain about ‘headlines’.
If I had put that flue there, I would have been told to take it down long ago. Just ask yourself why she hasn’t had to? And you might start getting some answers. It is that “reluctance to actually do something” that convinces me I’m afraid.
Yours most sincerely Colin
THE TOTALLY UNAUTHORISED SITE THAT TELLS YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT REGIME @ THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON. . . . WWW.CROYDONCOUNCIL.INFO
THE Croydon Council information site.
THE Croydon Council information site.
London MET Police give whole new meaning to . . . “Getting a Brazilian”
NEW
Croydon Council’s Dirty Tricks Page.
Croydon Council’s Dirty Tricks Page.
Have I Got News For Croydon
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross Auctioneers. We laugh at money laundering forms.
www.barnett-