Blog entered 29 June 2014
Blog entered 29 June 2014
Blog entered 25 June 2014
Blog entered 20 June 2014
This Cornwall Homechoice Property Ref : 15056 was advertised between 17 to 21 May 2014, and stated the picture was a “Front view” of a “3 Bed House In St Austell”.
In reality it shows a Block of Flats owned by Guinness Hermitage at Barkers Green in St Austell.
The same “3 Bed House in St Austell” was re-advertised between 14 to 18 June 2014, as Cornwall Homechoice Property Ref : 15404, and again showed the same “Front view” of the Block of Flats owned by Guinness Hermitage.
Guinness Hermitage is another one of Cornwall Council’s housing partners, like Sanctuary Housing, who can wilfully mislead Homechoice applicants with Council approval. This because the original advertisement was reported to both Cornwall Council and Guinness Hermitage as being “misleading”.
The only differences between the 2 advertisements is Ref : 15056 only mentioned “Suitable for persons with a disability”.
Ref : 15404 stated “Full wheelchair standard, through floor vertical lift, Wet floor shower (wet room), Wheel chair access inside, Wheelchair access outside. “Preference given to wheelchair users needing adaptions” and “Through floor lift”. Also “Energy Rating : B ( 81 – 91 )”.
So why can’t this property be a different “3 Bed House In St Austell” owned by Guinness Hermitage ?
Firstly the use of the same wilfully misleading picture and secondly because the Council’s “Recent Lets” information on it’s website shows no outcome for property Ref : 15056.
So if Property Ref : 15056 was withdrawn – why was it withdrawn ?
Most probably because it wilfully downplayed any “Preference” to someone with a disability to make the property more attractive and winnable for a couple with 1 or 2 children, without blatantly discriminating against the disabled.
Discrimination is nothing new to Cornwall Council and on issues relating to it not knowing Homechoice Properties had Special Adaptions for the disabled, or that it was not responsible for the continued use of Misleading Homechoice Advertisement Pictures and descriptions, or that it was not responsible for it’s ‘Website (CBL) Recent Lets information being incomplete and not fit for purpose in helping Homechoice applicants make the right decisions, the Council’s only response over the years has been to continue blaming it’s Housing Partners.
The truth is the latter has more to do with Cornwall Council’s wilfull blindness to meet it’s responsibilities unlawfully, and with the help of it’s Housing Partners in crime.
Pictured is Cornwall Council’s CEO Andrew Kerr.
Blog entered 17 June 2014
Logged into my Cornwall Homechoice Account on Saturday 14 June 2014 and I was told there were 19 (CBL) properties I was elegible to bid on. Clicked on the link to view them and was passed to a blank page. Tried again a number of times over the weekend but still no properties.
Sent the Council a series of numbered Tweets over the weekend to find out why and after first checking the Council’s Website for any announcements.
Lodged a formal complaint on the Council’s Website Monday morning and Tweeted the Council to ensure I receive a Ref No. as soon as possible. The Council did respond to my Tweets but did not answer why there was no Homechoice properties and also failed to give me a complaint Ref No.. (+)
Sent Tweets to @andychariots, the Council’s CEO Andrew Kerr, @stephen_gilbert, our MP, @LGOmbudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman, over the day but received no reply or explanation. Tweeted a request to all Cornwall Councillors in the evening but again received not a single reply. Shame on you all.
One would think a service provided for the public would be accountable and would be transparent. That the likes of CEO Andrew Kerr and Stephen Gilbert MP would be accountable to a local resident, tax payer and constituent. That Homechoice applicants should be entitled to expect an explanation or a public announcement.
(+) (The 1st Stage of the Complaints procedure gives the Council 10 days to respond. The Council is wilfully delaying a complaint Ref No. to unfairly extend the amount of time it has to stop it becoming an official complaint. When I lodged the Complaint I received an acknowledgement from the Council which is when I will date the Complaint from. Internal delays should not become an added insult to injury so to speak).
Footnote : If any reader of this would like to key in ‘Cornwall Homechoice’ click on the Link ‘Property Search’ and click on the Link ‘Social Housing’ and let me know what you found I would be extremely grateful. This must be done before the end of Wednesday 18 June 2014, thanks.
Blog entered 12 June 2014.
Blog entered 5 May 2014
Blog entered 5 June 2014.
Blog entered 3 June 2014.
For the last 2 years or so I have sent a weekly email to Sanctuary Housing’s Managing Director Simon Clark, ex Group Director Rosemary Crawley and CEO David Bennett, which now runs to 12 pages. Stephen Gilbert MP was sent the full 12 page copy and Cornwall Council’s Fraud Benefit Office was sent the following part entry because it involves Fraud by Sanctuary Housing again. I quote :
“2 June 2014, I today report receiving a further letter from Ms Harding dated 28 May 2014 against my expressed wishes of 8 April 2014, because Ms Harding, like her boss Richard Keeley, is a liar and is untrustworthy. The following reply to her letter, in paragraph form, is therefore addressed to you Mr Clark and the CEO to answer. I assume the reason you are still using Harding is because she is expendible.
Paragraph 1, While the gardener continues to maintain the Play Area within the allocated time, as is the case, the residents continue to be deceived into paying for something they never agreed last year.
Paragraph 2, I have made no up-dates on the void property since 19 May 2014, because I believe it may be occupied. Why would I not believe you ? Because you all habitually lie about things – I take your point.
Paragraph 3, I refer you to the answer I gave in paragraph 1. In answer to the “allocated general scheme attendance times”, perhaps you, or the CEO, will explain Mr Clark why no maintenance visit was made to Timber Close by the Estate Team w/e 1 June 2014. Why increased litter and rubbish from children being off school still remains around the scheme ? Why “Bennetts Rubbish Dump” looks and smells as big a health hazard as it did the previous week when it also was not cleaned ? Why the residents paid Sanctuary in excess of £140.00 for nothing ? , and why I must report the matter to Cornwall Council, Stephen Gilbert MP and others.
Paragraph 4, I am well aware a scheme inspection was carried out on 13 May 2014 by an Officer who spent much of her time at No 2 Timber Close with, presumably, the Housing Officer. Although the Officer did briefly walked around the flats communal area she did not inspect “Bennetts Rubbish Dump”. Had she done so she probably would have thrown-up. The reason she observed no significant rubbish around the scheme that afternoon was because the Estates Team, all one of him, picked up any litter and rubbish soon after he arrived earlier at 12.20pm.
Given the articles covered in the Voice magazine for Spring 2014, the aforementioned ‘paragraphs’ are a disgraceful testament of how you Mr Clark and your corrupt boss CEO Bennett go about your business”, unquote.
Blog entered 3 June 2014.
Email dated Thurs 29 May 201, and was the result of me seeking clarification about the IPCC’s decision to do little about the corrupt collective conduct of a Sargeant and 2 Officers based at St Austell Police Station, Cornwall, and another Sargeant, the Investigating Officer (I/O), who investigated them on behalf of the same Devon & Cornwall Constabulary. The Appeal took some 15 months to conclude and was a whitewash. The Sargeant and 2 Officers were each given “Management Action” and the IPCC disagreed with aspects of the I/O’s Investigation.
Dear Ms V******
Thanks for the fuller explanation.
Let’s be clear, what happened on the day I was arrested and detained demonstrates a catalogue of collective errors and wilfull misconduct by the Sargeant and 2 Officers, and a wilfull failure by the I/O not to properly investigate the evidence and to cover up what went on.
I am particularly annoyed that you did not re-investigate the complaint with regards to the evidence I submitted, and which remains un-investigated and un-resolved, but you did re-investigate the complaint in allowing the Officers an opportunity to defend themselves against the complaint.
Do you honestly believe the Sareant when he stated he was of the opinion I was “unemployed”, having spent weeks investigating Blogs on a website called “Geoff’s Cameras” which had photographic equipment for sale ? A website you yourself acknowledged was called “Geoff’s Cameras” and was a “business” website.
Do you honestly believe the I/O was telling the truth about the Complainant’s written complaint being dated 5 April 2012, when internal documents show I was under investigation weeks before then ?
I have already analized your correspondence of 9 May 2014 and completed a Summary which has been sent to a law firm specialising in complaints against the police. If they are not interested I will try others. If they are not interested I will try every law firm in the country. If that fails I will lobby every MP and Lord in Parliament.
The crux of the matter is 3 Officers collectively and wilfully did things they should not have done and an I/O attempted to wilfully cover it up.
G R McLaughlin