LATEST NEWS

17 May 2005 . . . B . . The Local Government Ombudsman investigating this matter.
Ref 04/B/12509 . . writes . . “I have carried out interviews with the relevant officers concerned and I am writing up my investigations. I will contact you again as soon as possible in this regard.”

LATEST NEWS PAGE.

19th May 2005 . . . Received a nice letter from a Trefor Parry. My reply is self explanatory.

Sunday, May 22, 2005
Mr Trefor Parry
Croydon Citizens Advice Bureau
Thornton Heath.

Dear Trefor . . . . Re A3 Planning 243 Portland Road. SE25 4XB . . or (GET THAT BLOODY FLUE
DOWN OFF MY PROPERTY . . . NOW)

Thank you for your kind inquiry, regarding my letters to the Director of Finance Croydon Council. Of the many thousands of copies of them, and now posted on my new web-site www.croydoncouncil.info yours was the only unsolicited offer of help . . . for which I am very grateful.

However it is plain from the rest of your letter that you suspect that I do not necessarily need your help. . . . and you would be entirely correct in that assumption.

Nathan Elvery Dir of Finance wrote 19th April that he would have the matter investigated, which on the surface seemed a reasonable declaration of intent. However despite writing to him many times since . . . that is the last I have heard of him. Apart that is from getting one of his underlings to send off a standard letter to Croydon Planning. I know it is a standard letter because I have its exact twin here in my hand . . the only difference being that one is dated 3rd May and the other the 5th. . . . . Oh! And one other little difference . . . they were sent a year apart. Dyane Malcolm Senior Complaints Officer was given the job of investigating this a year ago . . and yet we are not the slightest bit nearer to resolving any of my complaints. (well LBC are not . . but I am)

I tell a lie . . I have heard from Nathan Elvery . . . a letter on 12 May 2005 which states . . .
“Complaint has been made to me by the Director of Finance that you, being a person liable for a Council Tax, have not paid that sum, “YOU ARE THEREFORE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear before the Magistrate sitting at Croydon Magistrates Court at 1.30PM on THURSDAY 9th June 2005 to show cause why you have not paid the said sum.” . . . . .so much for his efforts to investigate this matter. (More about that further down the page. See latest letter. )

However I am not the least surprised since from a follow up letter inquiring why I had not heard from him I write; “The usual pattern of events in anything to do with this bizarre matter, is that someone DETERMINES to investigate it, and then backs off as soon as they realise the extent of the problem. Namely just how much excrement LBC have managed to get themselves into. Can you reassure me that you are going to buck the trend Sir?” A vain inquiry obviously . .but not unexpected.

Unlike 99% of those that will be appearing for non payment . . . I am positively relishing the chance “to show cause why I have not paid the said sum.” Croydon Council have broken their contract with me on just about every level. They have deliberately excused themselves of their DUTY of CARE. They have ignored their obligations to our STATUTORY RIGHTS. They have conspired against our peaceful interests. They have done all this to the detriment of our HEALTH & SAFETY.
If you take the trouble to go through my web-site you will perhaps see past the humorous and derisive content and see just how SERIOUS this matter is. And is why so many Executives have also ignored this matter in the way that Nathan Elvery is doing now.
As I say Trefor. . . thank you for your welcome offer of help. . . but I’m not really in need of it.

I know a few people at Croydon Council who might need your help though.

Yours Colin Clifford Cole

Tuesday 19th July 2005

Aiden McManus
Divisional Director Development Services
Croydon Council

Dear Aiden re A3 use 243 Portland Road.

Thank you for your letter of 11th July. I am of course pleased that you “have coordinated the Council’s response in relation to rectifying the ductwork at the above address.” . . and that . . “The system installed incorporates measures to eliminate odours using an electrostatic precipitator and odour neutraliser . . . “ . . . However I am even more pleased that the offending ductwork is no longer bolted to my property.

I do not need to go into the circumstances of the offending ductwork’s removal since “previous correspondence” is extremely well documented . . . one might almost say unprecedented.

BUT . . . . there is still a problem. Which I can do little better than repeat my letter to Tony Richardson of Thursday, June 02, 2005 to highlight it. I would be pleased for you to give this your most urgent attention since Mr Richardson has not bothered to reply.
Yours Colin

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Tony Richardson
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council

Dear Tony

Re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. Planning application A3 use 03/01860/P

Well it’s so nice to hear from you again after more than a month.

It is even more refreshing to hear that Croydon Council have decided to do what they were required to do by law more than a YEAR AND A HALF ago. Ie . . . Serve a Breach of Condition Notice on the operators of the shop below my property. (see . . I told you it wouldn’t be so difficult and they wouldn’t appeal didn’t I?)
Though I strongly suspect that the only reason you have done so now is because of the extraordinary amount of fuss, determination AND EXPENSE I have had to outlay, to get you to do so. A matter I’m sure you will expect I will be making great issue of at my forthcoming Court appearance next Thursday.

You write that a new duct “is to be installed next week.” and that you will be visiting “at the end of next week to check.”

So I am sure you will not be surprised that I will be taking a great deal of interest in it too. Despite being asked, please note, that nobody has ever had the foresight or indeed courtesy to provide me with any details of any flue that is approved. So naturally there are a number of reassurances . . given what has gone before that I will need before I am satisfied.

You state now that you have been “insistent that the ducting must not extend on to our property.” . . . . can you reassure me that this means exactly the same as . . . “must be contained within her own property.” as you write in your last letter. . . . . in other words not project above the line of demarcation between the downstairs property and our own. ie the plaster line of the original shop before it was altered. . . Because if it does not mean the same, I will be resisting that, every bit as vigorously as I have so far.

I am sure LBC are aware by now . . . and if they are not, (which would not surprise me given the appalling ignorance your ‘knowledgeable officers” as Phillip Goodwin describes them, have shown so far). That any such ducting that does not reach above the eves of the building proper is a far from ideal solution. Therefore special precautions and conditions need to apply. Usually for instance they have to be thoroughly cleaned out twice or more a year.
I have written at great length about the risk of fire, pollution and health hazard not to mention carbon monoxide, from such flues that are not scrupulously maintained, and I have received advice on the subject from London Fire Brigade as I am sure you know. Which is that such flues need to be cleaned regularly according to the manufacturer’s instructions. But the enforcement of this is not a matter for LFB but that of the Local Authority . . ie yourselves.

So naturally my concern is . . .what is the cleaning regime recommended by the manufacturers in this case? . . . is it the same or better than that required by most Council’s in the Country especially your own? . . . and most particularly . . . what system of inspection or documentation does London Borough of Croydon have to enforce the strict standards that these less than ideal flues need? . . I assure you I intend to pursue these question just as vigorously too.

Given how long it takes London Borough of Croydon to enforce its directives, (is it really as long as ago as 12th January that you wrote to these people that they had till 18th February to resolve the issue? DOESN’T TIME FLY?) . . . . . then this is the very least we could expect from you to ensure that we do not have to go through all this on a regular basis in the future.

As we have established now . . the existing flue was “not in any way that approved.” . . . . so given the extraordinary amount of hardship I have had to go through to establish that . . . are you going to prosecute the “contractors from Birmingham who have shown so much reluctance to rectify this problem?” . . . if not . . why not? . . . and can you assure me that the reason is not . . . . that you (LBC) were the ones that told them to put it there in the first place?

Can you assure me that these new contractors are CORGI registered and are aware of the laws on GAS flues, in particular those relating to the siting of GAS flues adjacent to neighboring properties?

And when we have got all this sorted out to my satisfaction you should be aware that I intend to go back to my original complaints about the danger from the risk of rot to my floors, and pursue that matter just as vigorously.

Not to mention the reimbursement of my expenses * solely caused by Croydon Council’s negligence/corruption clearly now demonstrated in this matter. I do hope I do not have to wait another month for your response.

Yours Colin Clifford Cole

* not actually applicable as you will see below.

Thursday 2nd June 2005

B Reid for
Nathan Elvery Director of Finance
London Borough of Croydon. . . re is Croydon Council run by a bunch of corrupt crooks?

Dear sir . . . .thank you for your letter of 26th May, it’s so nice to hear from the finance department after all this time, (leaving aside the demand to appear in court next Thursday that is of course.)

Your letter does seem to be missing the point doesn’t it? . . . you write that I am “withholding my payment of Council Tax pending the outcome of my complaint against the Planning Department.” . . . . No I’m not. . . . that could go on for many months more or even years till we get to the bottom of that. And beside the Ombudsman is doing that right now, as you almost certainly know.

I am withholding my payment until The London Borough of Croydon undertake it’s STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS in protecting us and our property. Which they have manifestly failed to do so far. . . . AND until Croydon Council reimburse me with the extraordinary expense that I have incurred in attempting to get them to do so. . . which to date adds up to . . . £716.75 + £293.75 = £1010.50. . . SO FAR. . . . in solicitors fees alone.

And does not include my other expenses including web building software, web hosting and the cost of thousands of FAX’s sent to draw attention to the outrageous behaviour of your Council in general and your Planning Department in particular.

If I am withholding payment pending an investigation . . it would be pending the investigation that your boss Nathan Elvery instigated . . . which like all the others did not materialise. Dribbling into the vast sand bucket that Croydon Council use to avoid such investigations in it’s CORPORATE POLICY of ignoring such complaints that I was informed about so long ago and which turned out to be entirely correct . . . . (I do not include the result of the Stage 3 Inquiry that was so long in coming . . . because all that was . . was a schedule of events . . and included no INVESTIGATION into the circumstances whatsoever.)

Friday 10th June 2005

Brian Miles
Local Government Ombudsman
The Oaks No 2 Westwood Way
Westwood Business Park
Coventry CV4 8JB

Dear Brian . . . re case no 04/B/12509

As you probably know . . . went to Court yesterday . . of course it was a foregone conclusion . . . there is no defence for non payment . . . .(in English Law if Council employees come round your house with a can of petrol and set light to it and you photograph them in the act . . you are still liable for your Council Tax) . . . . but it was worth the crack. . . . besides, they gave me time to pay.

I got a tremendous amount of sympathy from all three magistrates, and all the clerks AND the three Council employees that were there. . . . . AMAZINGLY they sat and listened for nearly an hour while I read out a great deal of my prepared statement. . . . they were genuinely interested and looked at all the photos and asked many questions. . . . and I think a few of them are going to go and look at my websites.

In order to present this case to the Court I had to condense the case against Croydon Council down . (27 pages). . and I don’t think this is too bad an effort. It may well turn out to be at variance to your own report . . but as I point out in it . . you had the luxury of interviewing those concerned.

I am forwarding this to you in case it is of any help. Of course most of it will be well known to you . . . . but there is no harm I think in sending it to you . . . it does have few typo errors in it as it was the draft copy.

Yours Colin

ON THIS PAGE . . LATEST NEWS . . . I’m afraid most of the stuff on this website is way out of date as far as latest news . . The content of the site is still as valid as ever however. . . . For LATEST NEWS you will need to go to say
www.sir-Ian-blair.co.uk and then follow the footprints (literally) from there

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.

NOT

Oct 2005 Amazing Discovery in Croydon. . . . . very rare apology letter . . . Appears to be genuine . . but is unfortunately not by The Master, Davido . . . but by a pupil of the same school. . . Panchoo . . .so is still worth something. . . Click here.

London MET Police give whole new meaning to . . . “Getting a Brazilian”

On a Search on Metacrawler the engine that searches the rest. A search of . . .’ met police croydon’ . . Oct 28 gave Colin’s sites an incredible 13 out of the first 20.
You can find their site No 39 on page 2

Have I Got News For Croydon

Click here

MY CASE
against(LGO) Jerry White Local Government Ombudsman.

Local Government Ombudsman. (LGO) Jerry White washes his report of maladministration.