Don't Ya Just Love LCC Management

Following on from the last post.

Doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart the way middle management at Lincolnshire County Council run a magnificently tight fiefdom where they can rework reality and find a scapegoat to take a rap with impunity? I’m wondering what the people at their Highways Customer Service Centre must make of it when one of their own, having provided a real customer-friendly and truthful answer to a member of the public in a telephone conversation, is made the fall guy for a barrel full of dirty trick monkeys by being cast as having lied to that customer – the truth, as relayed by that advisor, being far more painful and dangerous for the council!

Enough to make that advisor go long-term sick? Very likely.

And so, the council are in the embarrassing position of having to feign a lie to conceal a bigger deception! They have to confess to a lie that never was for the bigger picture. Oh the intrigue. But then we have to go down the route, playing along with the game, of pursuing the disciplinary action against the advisor, no doubt nonplussed by the turn of events thrust on him by “the management”. So, with off the scale indignation, we have to call for the dismissal of a member of Lincolnshire County Council staff because of a severe breach of discipline that his managers say he is responsible for – with me so far – but of course he was the innocent fall guy who has been promised that “everything will be OK, we just need you to play the part and go along with the council line for the greater good”.

The game carries on with a call to the council to “do the right thing” to protect confidence in the Customer Service Centre because if this guy lied once maybe they’re all at it all the time. The assertion is extremely valid and only there because “the management” chose this game to play.

When “the management” had their little meeting to discuss how to snuff out this sniffing into the dark corners of Lincolnshire County Council did they think it through? Not their strong suit the thinking department I’d say.

Lincolnshire County Council Lied, They Say So

THE LIE

Referring to a telephone conversation I had with LCC Highways on 17th May 2010 (which I recorded) the authority has, in a letter to me, told me that I was lied to.

Divisional Highways Manager, Boston and South Holland Division, 24th September:

"the advisor ... seemed to take the 'easy option' ... and gave only assumptive (incorrect) information to you."

Council speak for lying because they cannot bring themselves to use plain, unvarnished Queen's english.

THE INSINCERE FOLLOW UP TO ME

"This is clearly not acceptable for which I apologise and has only served to place Lincolnshire County Council and the Customer Service Centre in an embarrassing light ..."

STAFF LYING ...

The advisor:

"seemed to take the 'easy option' ... and gave only assumptive (incorrect) information"

"did not log your call"

"the appropriate management action is being taken with the advisor in question."

... WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES APPARENTLY

This 'action' is unspecified. Is it in the form of disciplinary action and if so what form did this or will this take? Was it merely an informal rebuke for allowing himself to be caught out? Could it have been congratulatory for meeting targets to get rid of customer enquiries in good time to meet targets?

Why won't Lincolnshire County Council lead on restoring confidence that the Customer Service Centre is not rotten to the core where lying is endemic by its advisors? Shouldn't the public be made aware of transgressions and the prompt, decisive disciplinary action taken to maintain the highest standards thus ensuring confidence in the authority's moral high ground? Lead by example!

In the circumstances it seems that a customer advisor, by LCC's own admission, set out to deliberately withhold the truth from a member of the public and I believe that this person should be named and dismissed to restore confidence. I call on the council to do the right thing.

ONLY ALL IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS

… and thereby by hangs a tale (more at chimmyknee.com and 2me2.eu).

Where We Are

Two major problems remain affecting West Drove South. The first being already covered here in this blog: the wrongdoing and cover-up.


The second big issue is the building of 6 affordable houses on just about the most stupid place that could be found. Properties potentially housing 18 maybe more children on a single track country lane with no street lights and no footpath. SHDC & LCC, the Dumb and Dumber of councils, now won't acknowledge the traffic hazard they have created. Petitioning to have the ridiculous speed limit of 40mph lowered has been dismissed out of hand - the residents who live there and even the MP John Hayes all agree the limit is too high but the faceless bureaucrats won't have any of it. And then there's the footpath that will be built 'because it was part of the planning permission'. A footpath along a single track country lane up tight against shrubs and trees whose roots will cause damage to the path fabric in short order, a path that will be unusable for weeks on end from the regrowth of vegetation, a path nobody will guarantee will afford double buggies and wheelchairs full use of unrestricted by street furniture! So why waste council tax money on a white elephant? Pedestrians will be forced to use the remaining roadway when the footpath is unusable so what point are these councils trying to make? Dumb and Dumber is probably on the kind side!

Ah Yes, The LGO ...

The Local Government Ombudsman is an ... enigma. If it has a function that is worthwhile and cost effective then I'm baffled because they hide it well! Going a little further I'd suggest their interpretation of "independent" is out of the same dictionary the Liberal Democrats pull there definition of "pledge" from!


This blog has already referenced the LGO inasmuch as it has played a walk-on silent part in theatre of this production but here goes a rounder interpretation of their role here and how the critics, this blog, are panning it.



In a telephone conversation with their organisation prior to a full submission to them citing misdeeds at South Holland District and Lincolnshire County Councils there was little to inspire confidence as they had no statutory sanctions that they could apply to miscreant authorities - merely recommendations and reports they could publish against councils added to which a council could choose to ignore the findings of the LGO if it wished! Further perusal of their website provided interesting reading particularly on the subject of "training", that is, training council staff - direct face to face training with personnel that they may have to investigate at a future date which raises questions of conflict of interest with the introduction of a "chumminess" factor. One's entitled to pose the question, "shouldn't a professional, arm's length process be the order of the day?" Looking too at the structure of the LGO findings process one wonders whether a relationship with authorities is weighted against full reports towards councils through suggesting Local Settlements and the clear opportunity this provides councils to 'coerce' complainants into a less than fair settlement? At the end of the day the number of full reports against councils is pitifully low compared to the number of complaints and, I would suggest, there must be a predisposition in the LGO to 'actively look' for the easiest option - not to proceed - even if this means overlooking key information!



The West Drove South complaint against SHDC & LCC was referred to the LGO in an 18 page submission together with copies of all relevant correspondence. Some weeks later the organisation telephoned and made it clear from the outset that they were not going to pursue the complaint. The essence of the call was that there had been no injustice and no maladministration however the key issue here was that the DVD I had supplied with the relevant recordings had not been viewed because "there was nothing on it" which I find hard to believe BUT I had supplied Internet locations in the document where the same recordings could be viewed [as LCC had managed successfully to do which can be seen in their document reproduced in the Appendices post!!!]



The conversation became heated after apparently dismissing the evidence on the DVD and the links in the document that both councils lied about. It was suggested that perhaps there was a 'chummy' relationship with SHDC which was denied. Further it was observed that there hadn't been any reports against SHDC which was immediately countered with "there have been many reports against SHDC". I knew then that this process was doomed for I had previously determined from the Freedom of Information website Whatdotheyknow in 2 posts that there had been 'no reports' against SHDC in the last 10 years!



There was a determination, or so it seems, not to proceed with my complaint come what may. If the document had been scrupulously examined then the crucial Internet links to evidence (as used by LCC) could have been brought into play if indeed the DVD was 'faulty'. The LGO were provided with all the dots, connected 1 to 3 and gave up for reasons only they can provide.



As I wrote in that submission to them I had a concern that they may not proceed and also wrote in that event alternative avenues to pursue the councils would be found. I approached a supposedly independent ombudsman and was failed by them. What followed was interesting in itself. Both councils were confronted with a recording of the phone conversation with an LCC official in which he stated that 'speed limit signs were to be moved in West Drove South' together with film of paint marks on the road (the position of which was HIGHLY significant). Remember that both councils had categorically disputed any plans ever to move the speed limit signs in complaint responses! Now check appendix C in the Appendices post for responses to this evidence. Very, very significant.

Chimmy Knee

I want to acknowledge the immense contribution that my very good friend and local recording artist Chimmy Knee is bringing to the cause. Selflessly devoting a lot of time to create an album to be released on December 1st, he feels equally as let down by the ethical and moral vacuum we find ourselves in from public servants who have taken their eyes off the ball bigtime. He has also promised, in between other commitments, to release a further album on April 1st 2011 - to commemorate "All Fools Day" - and as he said, "no better day to shine a very bright light under a very murky stone."


Thank you Chimmy.



PS Catch the Chimmy Knee channel on YouTube HERE

An Open Invitation

There is clearly a story to be told here. It would be in the public interest for an assiduous investigation into these matters and for any reputable organisation looking to undertake this task all documents and recordings will be made available.

WHISTLEBLOWERS! There must be people out there that have inside knowledge on what these councils have been up to here - so please come forward and do the right thing. OK it's understandable that that might be difficult for council staff whose jobs are on the line and rely on their knowledge as leverage to keep those jobs but there must be contractors staff and others who know enough to make an investigation meaningful. If so please get in touch with local news gathering agencies. Why should councils be able to get away anything an individual would be crucified for? WHY? They are NOT laws unto themselves and they ARE accountable

Appendices to Previous Post

Appendix A - time line of events

Appendix B - the suspected original intentions of the councils indicative of the planning process being a sham


Appendix C - 2 very different responses from the 2 councils when confronted with the evidence that they contrived misleading complaint rebuttals!

Letter to Leaders of SHDC & LCC Councils

SENT October 2010



There has been a cover up of wrongdoing involving SHDC Planning Dept & LCC Highways for some months now with members of staff at different levels becoming aware as time passed that there was something untoward within the organisation but still the ranks closed and the ‘conspiracy theory’ has been fed.

I maintain that the building of six affordable homes in West Drove South, Gedney Hill was a precursor to a further 16 homes, “agreed” secretly, to follow on along the same parcel of horticultural land.

There are several circumstantial pieces of evidence that I draw the reader to in Appendix D. However I will now concentrate on the specific points that need to be addressed.

1. At the beginning of May paint marks were first noticed in West Drove South the positioning of which was highly significant in that it tied in perfectly with an extension of the lane’s speed limit (if that indeed was their meaning) to conveniently now include ALL of a parcel of horticultural land a small proportion of which was then being utilised to build 6 affordable homes.

There was no obvious reason as to why paint marks, indeed these specific marks, would be necessary and none has been proffered.

2. On May 17th I telephoned Highways and was told that yes the speed limit signs were to be moved and the limit would be the same. I was further told that this was ‘down as a job’ and that whilst the reason was not known the work would be done in about a month after legal requirements were sorted. This conversation contained no ambiguity, there was clear evidence that facts were being checked by the official and it is apparently clearly presented information in a transparent truthful fashion and I believe that any right thinking person would come to that conclusion. This conversation was recorded by myself.

3. On May 17th I telephoned Highways and in the guise of a potential purchaser of property in Gedney Hill sought information that a purchaser might normally seek whilst house hunting. The outcome of this conversation was pretty unsavoury in terms of confidence building regarding a house purchase in West Drove South where it’s pretty obvious that over and above those being built now more had been “agreed”. The phone call then seemed to die from the officials end as if having let the cat out of the bag and realising he had put his foot in it after being suckered he was speechless! This conversation was recorded by myself.

4. A complaint was made to SHDC without the recordings being included.

5. A complaint was made to LCC without the recordings being included.

6. SHDC denied any secret agreement to build more houses in their response to the complaint. They also, combined in the stage 2 rebuttal and a subsequent email exchange, denied there were any plans to move the speed limit signs and nor had there been.

7. LCC denied any plans to alter speed limit signs past, present or future in their response to the complaint.

8. LCC denied any plans to alter speed limit signs past, present or future in a Freedom of Information request.

9. I made a submission to the LGO who decided for reasons they will ultimately have to explain that they would not consider the recording evidence and that, as I have not been the victim of an injustice (which I dispute), they would not proceed.

10. Put into the position of seeking justice myself I made the contents of the Highways recording know to SHDC, LCC and the Mr A, Head of Planning and Development
South Holland District Council, who was seemingly quite up for a feisty email exchange previously.

11. SHDC response was ‘go tell LGO’! See the full failure to acknowledge SHDC failure in Appendix C

12. Mr A suddenly dried up and wouldn’t enter into an email exchange when I not unreasonably enquired why he misled me in his stage 2 dissertation after he was in possession of the recording. Strange that.

13. LCC was the most bizarre. If you like works of fiction then you have a budding HG Wells on your staff. I won’t dignify it with an acknowledgement. Just listen to the phone call again and read your staffer’s letter …

There are conclusions I draw from these shenanigans along the lines:

· Both SHDC & LCC complaint procedures are deeply flawed. Not fit for purpose through covering up wrongdoing or incompetence.

· When confronted with evidence of my being ‘misled’ by their staff Highways go for a nuclear stupidity option.

· If we’re to believe that staff just feed people tosh to get rid of them where does that leave council ethics and credibility? This applies to both councils and I refer here to my version of a call with SHDC not recorded earlier this year which was in my stage 2 complaint and completely rubbished by Head of Planning & Development – a resume of this is in Appendix A!

· Was the response referenced in item 13 above a calculated lie to protect the voracity of items 7 & 8 above?

· If these plans to expand the area of speed restriction are real, as I believe and the evidence suggests, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the secret agreement to build more homes was a done deal irrespective of any planning consultation. Added to which the 6 houses currently under construction were never going to be anything other than built – so the 6 complainants wasted their time!

· Paint marks in the road? The only reference I’ve had to these are, “anyone can put paint marks on a road”! But mostly everybody is ignoring my references to them in letters and film and most notably in 13 above. Why is that? Why haven’t Highways gone the whole lying hog and absolutely denied any responsibility for them being in West Drove South at that particular location?

The fact that the road signs were not subsequently moved is irrelevant to my case. I can only assume alterations to plans were made after my interest and that’s not to say I take any credit for that.

I’m not holding my breath for satisfaction as I’m thinking both councils are in too deep to come clean now and that toughing it out continues to be plan A with probably no plan B.

I, however, have been exercising parallel planning and it is my intention to get to the bottom of these matters. In a meeting recently with other WDS residents attended by John Hayes MP there was talk of ‘corruption’ by some present so SHDC & LCC have made an impression albeit a pretty abject one. Mr Hayes was in agreement on issues like the speed limit of 40 being too high and had concerns over the proposed footpath – issues I have already raised with SHDC & LCC.

I enclose a DVD of relevant recordings and, in the event of problems with the DVD, there are Internet links in Appendix A to all of them.



Appendices follow as additional posts

What's Going On

This blog has been designed to augment a parallel strategy of seeking the truth from 2 councils, South Holland District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, in connection with their determinations for a country lane in Gedney Hill, South Lincolnshire - West Drove South.


These 2 councils have connived to obfuscate and cover-up their actions during this year in order to avoid their being called to account. This blog seeks to call these councils to account directly by the contents shaming them into doing the right thing or indirectly by generating the interest of national or international news organisations or other bona fide investigative agencies who would have the expertise and wherewithal to really get to the truth - and of course I would be happy to provide all documents and recordings to an organisation I had confidence could meet these aims.



The saga, for that is what it has become because of the actions of these 2 councils, centres on recordings of 2 phone conversations and film footage which the councils denied the contents of in responses to formal complaints (that did not have copies of this 'hard' evidence enclosed). The Local Government Ombudsman then chose not to look at the recordings, for reasons they will have to explain, therefore allowing them to 'not pursue' these councils. The councils were then confronted with the recordings ...