Colin Cole
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Mr David Wechsler CEO Croydon Council
Dear David  . . . . . re 243a Portland Rd.
Just received a letter from Aiden McManus Divisional Director regarding the ‘questions’ I have put to Croydon Council. Please thank him for his valiant effort, and most particularly for his promptitude.  . . . especially the promptitude.
Dealing with the replies as presented.
Mr McManus . . .  I am extremely pleased with your assurance that Mrs Dyer was not reimbursed from the public purse. . . whilst this fact may not be too significant to you . . it is of great importance to me . . . and I think you will find that Ingram Winter Green Solicitors acting for Fineland Properties will be aware of why I asked that question.   I am however totally surprised by your next statement . . in fact gob-smacked would be a more appropriate term . . .
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
wp4613efc4.png
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
ON THIS PAGE a reply. . . . on the previous page David Wechsler CEO apologises and promises to get his Planning Officers to answer my questions. A reply is received as promised from Aiden McManus Divisional Director Development Services & Management Systems. So . . It’s OFFICIAL  . . . CROYDON COUNCIL ARE “NOT RESPONSIBLE” FOR BUILDING CONTROL . . .
Unfortunately David Wechsler’s on his promise YET AGAIN. I have received a “response” as promised . . but a “response” without the ANSWERS that really matter. . . see if you can see why?
CROYDON COUNCIL indemnify my property 09 November 2005.
Aiden McManus Divisional Director Development Services & Management Systems. . . The Insurance Company will be pleased I’m sure when I inform them  . . they promised to sue anyone responsible for causing rot in my floors. . . now they will know who to sue. . . . . I have received a two page letter from Mr McManus . . I’m not going to post it here per se, since I will be quoting from it almost in its entirety, here in my reply.
The Law Society’s Dirty Tricks Page.
 In association with Solicitor Richard Hegarty of Solicitors Hegarty & Co Peterborough. Consulting Matt Jacob of  Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
Richard Hegarty is Chair of the Solicitors Compliance Board for The Law Society.
. . and this guy is having a go at “LEGAL BULLIES”
 FDC Law, Solicitors.
Faulkner Daniel & Cruttwell, Midsomer Norton . . . .featuring  Catriona “Merciless” Duthie @ St John’s Chambers, Bristol
SEE  WHAT SIR IAN BLAIR  SAYS ABOUT HIS TWAT TEAM IN THE MET POLICE CROYDON? OR GUN THREAT IS NOT A CRIME IF YOU ARE BLACK IN CROYDON? “This is not a matter for the Police” . . . Mark Stockford Crime Manager
(Talking about “conspiracy of silence”)
READ THE RESULT OF THE PROMISED INVESTIGATION THAT MARK STOCKFORD, MADE INTO THE DISGRACEFUL “MATTER” OF THE  BEHAVIOUR OF HIS OFFICERS IN CROYDON
 CLICK HERE
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
  It is true that the GAS installation (the flue part) is NOT covered by Corgi . .  I now discover. . . it is NOT TRUE that you are not responsible.
The HSE . . that’s the Health and Safety Executive in case you haven’t heard of them . . tell me categorically that any new building works are the responsibility of the LA . . that’s you in case you didn’t realise. It is true that they are responsible for prosecution of offenders but you have to report them first. . . and ‘you’ in the case of NEW installations, is Planning CONTROL . . that’s one of Croydon Council’s Depts  in case you didn’t know , is responsible.  (which makes sense . . you took the money)
From their HSE book . . . ‘Safety in Installation & Use in Gas Systems & Appliances – Gas Safety & Use 1998 Approved Code & Practice & Guidance . . Para 182 . . . there are a whole raft of regs and stuff . . . . especially and particularly relating to positioning ANY gas outlet WHATSOEVER near to windows or neighbours. . . and if any of those regulations are breached it is the DUTY of the LA to report it to the HSE for prosecution. . . . . . (same applies to any flue emitting waste gasses, from gas, oil or even coal)
But you knew that all along didn’t you? . . . your blasé statement that GAS regs in relation to CORGI are nothing to do with LA is completely disingenuous . . . especially when you knew there are other regs that do apply. . . . the problem I suspect is . . . and why LBC have never been able to reply honestly and correctly . . or worse ignore and ignore and ignore . . is you should have prosecuted yourselves . . . Q6 is that or is that not the case?

You mention your  “experienced” Building Control Officers. So I’m  asking of course if “experienced” is the same as Phillip Goodwin’s laughable phrase  “knowledgeable Officers” . . (I did ask David to make sure your reply did not include the description “knowledgeable” since that has been so soundly disproved). . . . my problem with the word “experienced” is. I was chatting to an “experienced” chap the other day down the pub . . and he didn’t seem to know much about wood rot . . . but then he’s a Postman. . . . But even so with a beer mat and a pencil he was able to grasp the theory of AIRBRICKS.
What I will need to know is . . . are any of them QUALIFIED . . . as in, with letters after their name . . . acronyms for words like wood, timber, rot, or even building would be nice. The chap that advises me, Ray, is . . . . . FFB, CSRT . . and quite frankly I know who I believe especially as he is not trying to defend a ridiculous position. I am delighted however with your statement on behalf of Croydon Council “that my property is NOT at risk” as I foresee that being very useful in Court one day . . . not only if my Property rots.  But ANY property in Croydon that does where similar work has been carried out since my first WARNINGS TO DAVID WECHSLER PERSONALLY back in 2003. . . . all my warnings will be placed on the inter-net and any astute Lawyer from any good Insurance Co should be able to make GOOD USE OF THEM. . . . . lack of hindsight will NOT apply.
I would suspect that if Mr and Mrs Lee had had such a statement
From . . . .     http://www.lgo.org.uk/planning.htm
Findings of maladministration and injustice
East Lindsey District Council (04/C/12529) . . . . would have had to pay out 100% and not the 1/3rd  they were found to be responsible for.
Little tip Aiden . . the reason my friend Ray does not correspond directly on my behalf . . is because he is retired . . . that don’t mean he can’t do the work . . it means he has no indemnity insurance to guarantee his opinion . . . but of course that is not necessary now because I now have Croydon Council’s indemnity. . . . “My Property is NOT at risk.”
LET’S BE CLEAR . . . I do know what the Building regs say . . and I do know that they do not provide for the scenario I describe . . . BUT THAT DON’T MAKE IT RIGHT.
If Building Regs were right . . they wouldn’t need to change them every week would they? . . . ALL building regs say is what they think best practice is this Wednesday . . on Friday someone has a better Idea or someone’s rafters fell in and Roofers Slate is no longer the be all and end all it was the week before.
 I have provided page after page of technical argument, supported by real examples and all I have received from you is Jack This (anag). A ludicrous paragraph from Phillip Goodwin and now a similar one from you saying we know best.
Until someone with some proper qualifications can explain to me why in Croydon  . . . alone from the rest of the planet,  . . . . soaking wet fiberglass in an AIRTIGHT box will not rot my floors. I am going to belittle and berate you as the blind obedience morons that you are.
THINK ABOUT IT FOR GOODNESS SAKE. It’s not Rocket Science. Get someone with some PROPER qualifications to write to me . . I promise I will not be worried by the big words. . . . . this is no more than anyone should expect of you . . given that you (LBC) failed to inform us at the outset as you should have done and did NOT give us the opportunity to argue this TECHNICAL matter. . . . THAT is why they have the Party Wall Act. . . . for QUALIFIED people to present argument . . not single paragraphs of dismissal.
Your statement . . experienced officers in that context is laughable . . . can you see it?
Perry Mason . . “Could you state your name please?”
Tommy Rot  . . . “Tommy Rot”
Perry Mason . . . “Could you state to the Court your credentials?”
Tommy Rot . . . . “I’m an experienced Officer”  

Ridiculous . . experienced knowledgeable officers do not sign off and approve a flue that later has to be pulled down because it did not in fact meet the requirement . . . . or do they Mr McManus ?. . . or do they? . . . that is still a very big question is it not?
Yours Colin Clifford Cole
CC all the usual.
I should also have pointed out that when I sent exactly the same sort of technical information and argument to Croydon Planning about the FLUE in June 2004. . . It was completely ignored by Croydon Council for 6 months even though they were asked to investigate the matter by two MPs and the Local Government Ombudsman . . Ignored despite the fact that my presentations were entirely correct and nearly A YEAR after I complained they finally had to remove it . . . And most reluctantly too . . . These are the sort of “experienced knowledgeable officers” Aiden McManus tells me I should accept the opinion of now.
Croydon Council Planning have never once acted in our interests on any matter whatsoever of their own free will or according to the law. They have not done a single thing in our interests unless they were made to . . or embarrassed into doing.  . . I have no reason to be confident that they intend to do so now or in the future. . . . Not on the bases of this reply anyway . . I asked them the simplest of questions . . Who manufactured the new flue . . what was the recommended cleaning program . .but  LBC even want to conceal that information from us.

All they can come up with is . . . “The most likely action is maintenance would be carried out . . . “ . . yeah right. . . . that’ll put my mind at rest.
wp7df8ebf1.png
But after considerable complaint by myself,  Derek Conway MP, Geraint Davis MP, Andrew Pelling (now)MP we find out that
“recent inspection showed that there was still a nuisance and that the ducting is still extended beyond her property and thus is still unauthorised”
 ( “not in any way that approved” LBC Dec 2004)
From LBC report to The Ombudsman describing the planning implementation.
 “the case officer visited the property, engaged the advice of the Specialist Pollution Team where necessary wrote a report and came to a recommendation consistent with due regard to the issues”
 (Approved LBC Dec 2003)
As to the matter of a conspiracy . . I can see now why you claim that there could not have been one. . . if no one at Croydon Council had anything to do with the flue . . therefore did not pass the system as complying with the planning permission I can see what you are getting at . . . . where were they all . . . down the pub?
But that is total nonsense isn’t it? . . . somebody (AS MRS DYER SAYS) from Croydon Council told her it would be all right to put it there. On the basis of that she spent £8,800. The alternative is that no control whatsoever was given during this building works as I facetiously indicate above.  
So lets not prevaricate again Mr McManus . . . Q 2 . . did some one oversee this project or did they not? . . . and if they did . . . . Q 3 . . did they sign this off as being fit and approve the finished scheme or not? . . they are simple yes or no answers and should not take too long to answer.
Unfortunately and that seems to be the sticking point for you giving me straight answers to very straight questions . . if the latter answers are in affirmative . . . then some one passed this scheme and signed it off KNOWING FULL WELL that the flue DID NOT “meet the requirements of the condition that needed to be remedied” . . . and if that is the case . . and we were indeed in the Banana Republic of Croydonia there could only be one explanation couldn’t there? . . . its called a back-hander . . . or a bit of grease to smooth the palm. . . . . and it remains my belief until it is shown reasonably to me otherwise that that would be the most likely scenario. . . you just denying it don’t make it so I’m afraid. . . . . WHY ELSE WOULD THEY PASS IT?
My questions about maintenance is very clear . . . given that it took Croydon Council the best part of a year to make the operators of the shop ‘comply’ with regulations. It is reasonable of me to be fearful that your statement that any further breaches of say the ‘”control of Pollution Act” could be remedied by “the issue of a notice”. . . . . we all saw what good that was last time. . . . you say you have not imposed a reasonable regime for the cleaning and inspection of the flue . . . . Well why not? Given the track record of these people.
You mention that in Croydon Council submissions to the Ombudsman that “at the time of installation of the ducting. . . . . . the Council did not have the staff to engage in such proactive enforcement work” . . . . . well I’m very sorry to hear that. . . . do you suppose that say . . .  British Airways could get away with . . “we are very sorry the plane crashed we didn’t have enough staff to fly the plane . . so we took off with a few less crew than usual?”
Your statements so far add up to . . Croydon Council does not mind collecting the planning fees . . . but don’t expect to get someone to inspect your works for the money . . and if it all goes wrong we won’t be taking any “responsibility for the initial incorrect installation”. . . and don’t worry if you install it on the property of the guy next door. . . . doesn’t it? . .
If you haven’t got the staff to carry out planning inspections you shouldn’t accept any until you do . . and you certainly shouldn’t be collecting fees for the privilege of not inspecting them. . . (refer you to Q2) What this adds up to . . . is we have had to suffer two years of misery and concern . .  loss of income . . loss of capital worth because Croydon Council wanted to save a few quid on not providing enough staff . . . .Q5 is this true or not?  . . . . yes or no will do. . . but no will need qualification.
You also state that Nasreen Panchoo “explains” as late as 14th October 2005 “how we are responding to this” lack of resources. “responding” as opposed to responded, means that in the two years this has been going on. AND despite my vigorous complaining nothing has actually been done since the time you were aware of this insufficiency two years ago, up to and including now. Or are you saying that you were not aware at that time but managed to be aware by the time the Ombudsman came to question you all?
Unless you show otherwise convincingly Croydon Council have been taking money for planning control under false pretenses have they not?
OH! OH! DISCREPANCY ALERT.
. are you sure????. . . most Councils in the Country assume that any new installation requiring planning permission is their responsibility.  . . (first the Gas we’ll get to that later) . . and now “not responsible” for new works requiring planning and Building Control?. . . . . didn’t Mrs Dyer or Patel pay you fees to cover inspections and the like. . . . who the hell is “responsible” in Croydon Council then?
Q1 . . did either Mrs  Dyer  . .or Patel . . or their agents pay you fees for the overseeing and inspection works or not? . . . yes or no will do. . . . I thought you collected them up front.
“The Council was not responsible for the incorrect installation”????
David Wechsler’s on his promises yet again.
All through this dispute . .. at various times David Wasteofmoney Wechsler has promised me all sorts of things (and only because of my persistence). . . . mostly to do with “investigating the matter”. The reality is that either the investigation was totally ignored, (for seven months)  the action promised was totally ignored (for 5 months) or the answers promised are not given. (for ever so  far) Which means that either David Wechsler does not know what is going on in his Council or he does know and is just as corrupt as his officers. The letter from Aiden McManus is a response as promised but it carefully does not answer a single important question. AND HE KNOWS IT
Croydon Ratepayers against Croydon Council
http://www.cracc.co.uk
Colin’ newest site.
The Great british gas home care con. See if you can guess what that’s all about?
http://www.british-gas.org