THREAT OF DEFAMATION BY THE CHARITY SANCTUARY HOUSING.

external_leak (1)

Article posted on 23 August 2015

THREAT OF DEFAMATION BY THE CHARITY SANCTUARY HOUSING

Dear Mr David Bennett CBE

Further to my email of 18 August 2015 to Sarah Warren, National Head of Customer Services, Sanctuary Housing, and others, I now address the threat of defamation.

You will recall Sanctuary’s lawyers Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP, was paid by the Charity to ‘act for Sanctuary Housing Association’ and threaten defamation for an article I had written on my business website on 03 January 2015. That although I was clearly the author of the article Wragge & Co, on behalf of the Charity, made the website Hosting Company solely responsible for the article and for it’s accuracy, and threatened to sue the Hosting Company unless the article was removed.

The impact of this threat to sue was immediate and the temporary closure of my business website was threatened by Wragge & Co, on behalf of the Charity, if the article remained.

“That we request that the article in question be removed by 1pm GMT tomorrow (30/01/2015). If the article remains online at that point then we will disable the entire website until this can be resolved”, unquote.

That although the threat of defamation was not made to me directly, despite me being the author of the article and the owner of the website, the Charity did indirectly threaten my business and potential earnings and did impact negatively upon the good relationship I had with the Hosting Company and my website provider.

That the Charity did finance the suppression of Free Speech via the back door, which Wragge & Co went along with, in making the Hosting Company not only responsible for the article but responsible for the accuracy of the article.

In response to the threat of defamation upon the Hosting Company I reluctantly censored parts of the article only and after first copying and pasting it to another website where it has continued to be posted on social media in it’s original and un-censored format.

I will now repeat the parts of the article the Charity and Wragge & Co found objectionable in the hope I will, as the author of the article, be taken to court for defamation and be given the opportunity to substantiate that which I have stated. I quote :

“Featured picture this week, above, comes as a warning to would be Sanctuary tenants. It shows the consequences of external water damage to a 20 year old flat in Timber Close, St Austell. The damage was reported no less than 5 years ago and according to Sanctuary Housing the external water damage is the responsibility of the tenant to put right. The tenant is vulnerable, has long term mental disorder and is on benefits. The damage is very high up and would require special equipment.

Although Sanctuary’s Simon Clark, Managing Director, David Bennett, CEO, Cornwall Council and Stephen Gilbert MP have all long been aware of the problem, the problem remains unresolved thanks largely to the willful blindness and uncaring arrogance of the aforementioned.

This week’s “Mansell Award” is awarded to Sanctuary Housing’s CEO David Bennett who has just recently been awarded a CBE for his services to social housing. Apart from the fact the man is a criminal and the worse kind of rogue landlord in the country the award had nothing to do with the fact he is without honour and is a poor excuse for a decent human being.

For the criminality I have been personally subjected to by Mr Bennett and his perverse staff I think it more fitting if he was sacked, arrested and scrutinized in a court of law for willful fraud and deception”, unquote.

The first 2 quoted paragraphs were not mentioned by the Charity or Wragge & Co but they do serve to demonstrate that while the Charity was prepared to fund legal action it was not prepared to fund the repair of the external water damage which remains to this day, and which I find very perverse and negligent of CEO David Bennett CBE.

The above will be posted on social media and each posting will be numbered to indicate how quickly the Charity resolves this matter. I will use the photo of the water damage from the article whenever possible.

Yours sincerely

Geoff McLaughlin

34 Timber Close, St Austell, Cornwall. PL25 5NZ.

Criminally abused victim and resident of the Charity Sanctuary Housing Association.

Copyright 23/08/2015 – G R McLaughlin.

Advertisements

THE EMAIL SANCTUARY HOUSING WILL NOT ANSWER.

430842_4505122219634_1043898858_n

Blog entered 17 August 2015.

             THE EMAIL SANCTUARY HOUSING WILL NOT ANSWER.

The following email was sent to Sarah Warren, National Head of Customer Services, Sanctuary Housing, in reply to Changes to your Rent and Service Charge sent to me on 27 May 2015. The email was copied to Contactus@sanctuary-housing.co.uk, Simon.Clark@ sanctuary-housing.co.uk, heidi.hodgkin@sanctuary-housing.co.uk, claire.griffiths@sanctuary-housing.co.uk, office@stevedouble.org.uk, akerr@cornwall.gov.uk, simon.mansell@cornwall.gov.uk, pubaccom@parliament.uk, Laura Evans, panorama.reply@bbc.co.uk.

(Andrew Kerr, then CEO of Cornwall Council, has since left the Council without resolving one single outstanding issue since he became the CEO).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sanctuary Housing

Estuary House

Peninsula Park

Rydon Lane

Exeter

EX2 7XE

09 June 2015

Pay Ref : ******

Dear Ms Warren

Changes to your Rent and Service Charge.

I refer to your letter dated 27 May 2015.

Before I address the 2015 – 2016 period I would first like to deal with the current 2014 – 2015 period.

With regard to the Grounds Maintenance Specification (GMS) for 2014 – 2015, please provide me with an explanation as to why I did not receive a copy of the GMS despite me asking CEO David Bennett CBE, Managing Director Simon Clark and Group Board member Judge Rosemary Crawley in writing every week since June 2014.

Please also provide me with an explanation as to why “Laundry Equipment – Non Contract Maintenance” appears on the 2014 – 2015 schedule for Timber Close.

Please also provide me with an explanation as to why the current Eligible Service Charge of £3.10 was reduced in March this year to the forthcoming July 2015 – 2016 Eligible Service Charge rate of £2.63, despite myself and the majority of residents still having to pay the higher rate.

With regard to the new 2015 – 2016 Eligible Service Charge period please provide me with a full breakdown of the services and charges indicated in the schedule, and please provide me with the GMS for 2015 – 2016 as soon as possible as well as any other information I am entitled to.

For the sake of clarity I would also like a copy of the Rent/Eligible Service Charge for the 29 houses for the 2014 – 2015 period, and a copy of the 2015 – 2016 period, which, up until a few years ago was provided to every Timber Close resident. Please also provide the same in respect to the houses owned and maintained by the Charity in Gover Road.

Simon Clark has refused to provide me this information in the past because he considers the information would not be classed as my personal data and he is therefore not at liberty to supply it to me. A long winded way of saying what was provided to every resident a few years ago is now confidential. Which is of course pretty disturbing in an age of transparency.

If you are of a similar mind I would ask you to simply provide my MP Steve Double with the requested information.

With regard to the weekly Service Charges you will be aware I have continued to pay this ” Under Protest” since 2009 when the charity ceased to provide a weekly maintenance service for many months despite taking weekly Service Charge payments, then resorted to criminality to cover-up the neglect and fraud.

This then led to an unlawful external mediation Scam funded by the Charity with approval from CEO Bennett, and which remains unresolved to this day. That the Charity has continued to make me a victim of a crime, and has continued to steal from myself and the residents to this day.

Only last week the Charity failed to perform the weekly grounds maintenance tasks specified in the 2013 – 2014 GMS, resulting in the residents paying in excess of £120.00 for the stated 2 hours work which was not carried out.

You should also be aware my current Service Charge payments are paid into an Escrow Account until such time as the Charity resolves outstanding issues since 2009, reimburse me the monies it was not entitled to take or demand, or take me to court.

Whilst I appreciate the Service Charges over recent years have been reduced in recognition of the serious allegations I have been making since 2009, the reductions also confirm myself and the residents have been willfuly, systematically and unlawfully robbed by the Charity.

Before addressing the Rent issue, which has increased every year in contrast to the Service Charge reductions, which I can only assume is not just another creative way of stealing from us, I would like to remind you of the shambolic 2012 – 2013 period. I do so because I still do not understand how a lot of very clever professional employees of the Charity all got it so badly wrong. That if similar mis-information was rolled out through-out the country and was not challenged the Charity would have benefited very nicely from it’s own mis-information.

I suppose the litmus test, metaphorically speaking, must always be that if mistakes and errors constantly benefit the one making the mistakes and errors it is probably more by design than by accident, like most cases of fraud.

You will recall soon after the introduction of the shambolic 2012 – 2013 period in June/July 2012, I challenged it and the Eligible Service Charge of £4.24 then had to be fully reviewed and was eventually reduced to £3.70, due partly to the inclusion of “Lifts – Engineering Inspection, Laundry Equipment – Non Contract Maintenance”, on the schedule, neither of which were applicable to Timber Close, and that an internal memo later suggested the reduction should have been more than 54 pence p/w per resident.

I can only assume the following 2013 -2014 period reduction of the Eligible Service Charge from £3.70 to £3.13, had more to do with that memo and that myself and the residents should have received a more accurate and honest reduction during the 2012 – 2013 period.

It cannot surely be lawful for the Charity not to correct and fully compensate residents soon after mistakes are realised rather than pocket some or all of the proceeds of that mistake. Reducing the Service Charge in the next period and reducing services or charging extra for services which were previously covered cannot make it right in the eyes of the law.

With regard to the Rent Increase of 2015 – 2016 I disagree with this increase for the same reasons I disagreed with the 2014 – 2015 rent increase in writing to CEO Bennett, Simon Clark and Judge Rosemary Crawley on 16 June 2014.

Specifically that I do not find it acceptable for the Charity to increase Rents when it has willfuly wasted many thousands of pounds keeping properties empty for too long in Timber Close due to it’s unlawful ‘ringfencing’ and deception activities for Cornwall Council.

Only recently another flat in Timber Close was willfuly kept empty for 6 months despite numerous complaints and a housing waiting list of nearly 30,000 applicants and few properties available to offer them.

With regard to the new Eligible Service Charge schedule for the 2015 – 2016 period I totally disagree with the introduction of “Communal Service Costs. Repairs to Communal Lighting inc Bulbs” with a Budget of £50.96.  Since when did existing responsibilities become new chargeable responsibilities ?

You may be aware I lodged a written complaint to CEO Bennett, Simon Clark and my then MP Stephen Gilbert in January 2015, concerning some of the flats communal solar lights not working. That I considered it a Health & Safety issue and that the lady resident below me nearly fell over one evening due to the solar light nearest to her flat not working.

When my neighbour complained to the Charity about this she was told the solar lighting was not the responsibility of the Charity.

According to my records Sanctuary’s Michael Howarth, Community Developement Officer, accepted responsibility for the solar lighting in 2009, on behalf of the Charity, when he stated  “In addition we plan to provide solar security lighting for Residents safety & convenience”, unquote.

My main gripe with the inclusion of this is that the largest and probably one of the richest social housing landlords in the country cannot take it’s existing Health & Safety responsibilities seriously until after it can be entered into the next Rent/Service Charge period.

When I worked for corporations £50.96 would have been considered petty cash and Health & Safety issues were never delayed.

What I find even more offensive is CEO Bennett is paid in the region of £314,000 a year for abdicating responsibilities such as this, not to mention the Charity money he has squandered protecting criminality by himself and his staff.

I also think it relevant to mention that a quarter of the flat residents are vulnerable single women who have all been subjected to the consequences of the covert and toxic human waste dump unlawfully created by the Charity for Cornwall Council. That throughout most of 2014 the police had to visit the flats community most weeks due to anti-social problems and criminality arising from the toxic mix of drunks and junkies constantly coming and going day and night.

I can assure you Sarah venturing out in the evening darkness with drunks and junkies roaming around in the shadows because some of the solar lights do not work would deter most male residents popping outside let alone female ones.

I am sure CEO Bennett, Simon Clark and Judge Rosemary Crawley will never forget my weekly written warnings in 2014 that someone would die here if something was not done, only for a young 30 year old woman to die here nearly 8 months later.

Perhaps they have already forgotten but I will never forget the sight of a black ambulance and the removal of a young woman in a body bag.

In closing, please also provide me with a full explanation of the new 2015 – 2016 entry “Communal Cleaning Costs. Internal Cleaning, Fly Tipping and Waste Removal”, costed at £160.16. To my knowledge “Communal Cleaning” is already provided free of charge by God when it rains, unless of course Bennett is hoping to capitalize on it.

I trust you will provide me excellent customer service Sarah Warren, National Head of Customer Services, it being the fundamental aim of what you do, and that you will be open and honest with me every step of the way to deliver a really personable service. That I am not just a number and that you will get my issues resolved.

Yours sincerely

Geoff McLaughlin

34 Timber Close, St Austell, Cornwall. PL25 5NZ

Criminally abused victim and resident of the Charity Sanctuary Housing Association.

CORNWALL COUNCIL ADMITS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFUSAL WAS WRONG.

Council_badge

From: Geoff McLaughlin

7 August 2015

Dear Cornwall Council

Dear Mr Simon Mansell MBE

I refer to your email dated 4 August 2015 regarding an Internal
review of case number IAR-101002188636 under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

I acknowledge the Council’s acceptance that it’s reasons for
refusing the above FOI request was wrong.

I further acknowledge the Council’s reasons for refusing the FOI
review.

Whilst I disagree with the Council ‘moving the goal post’ so to
speak, I welcome the further opportunity to put the record
straight.

With regard to (Unreasonable persistence) – I do not recall my FOI
request referring to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), and find
it’s introduction by the Council, to avoid answering my request and
review, as unhelpful. Unhelpful in the same way the Council would
find it unhelpful if I introduced issues into the FOI review that
were not mentioned in the original FOI request.

I am also bound to say that had the LGO spent less time determining
welfare and medical issues than investigating actual
maladministration by Cornwall Council the complaint may actually
have been resolved.

For the record, one of the biggest problems when the LGO applied
absolute discretion to protect Cornwall Council, and as a
consequence the NHS Trust also, was that serious allegations were
not investigated or resolved properly or in the best interest of
the public. As a result I have had to continue gathering evidence
which the Council and others would prefer to remain buried.

It is generally accepted today that most of the so called
independent public advocates set up by government to protect the
public interest are now only protecting local government bodies and
central government from failures resulting from negligence,
corruption and austerity.

Even Parliament has accepted something needs to be done about this
continuing injustice but has no great desire to change something
which makes central and local government bodies appear more
competent and less negligent and corrupt.

I am reminded of the following quote which I understand was made in
Parliament and which sums up the current state of affairs with
regards to the LGO, who “Operate the most perverse and publicly
criticised system of administrative justice in the world”, unquote.

An even greater problem for Parliament to address is what happens
when you have more than one public body colluding with one another
and relying on the fact that no individual Ombudsman can
investigate them both, or would want to be seen to contradict,
challenge or over-turn a decision made by a fellow Ombudsman.

Precisely why I am seeking an Enquiry and which appears to have
been somewhat delayed until after out-going Council CEO Andrew Kerr
had packed his bags.

So you see Mr Mansell when the LGO applied absolute discretion to
protect the Council, and as a consequence the NHS Trust also, the
LGO failed to resolve anything. That the Council and the NHS Trust
benefited from cheating in the same way some athletes win medals.

That the LGO did not even have the decency or professional
correctness to provide me with a copy of the Council’s reply to my
complaint until after the LGO had ruled in the Council’s favour.
How unfair, perverse and unjust was that.

Since the Council has seen fit to introduce the LGO I feel it more
relevant and appropriate to introduce the Parliamentary Health
Service Ombudsman (PHSO) who provided some of the evidence directly
associated with my FOI request, and who unwittingly contradicted a
number of statements made by the Council. I refer to the Council’s
written advice to me that (cannot be named for legal reasons) was a “Community Psychiatric Nurse”, was a “representative” from the “Mental Health team”, and
who had authority to sign himself as the “Mental Health Team
Representative” on the Council’s official Welfare Assessment Panel
Form.

You will recall Mr Mansell it was the NHS Trust who explained to
the PHSO in 2014 that the NHS Trust provided the Council with a
‘support worker’ only and “although he was employed by the Trust,
he was not acting in an NHS capacity whilst he was a Panel member”,
unquote.

Bizarrely the PHSO was not curious to know in what capacity the NHS
Trust employed ‘support worker’ was acting whilst he was a Panel
member, and neither the Council or the NHS Trust have shown any
willingness to clarify this issue since 2012, and as demonstrated
once again in reply the above FOI request and review.

To limit the damage caused by the PHSO’s shared information the
PHSO then bizarrely decided not to accept my complaint against the
NHS Trust on the grounds the complaint was not about ‘care’
provided by the NHS Trust. I believe this was a willful attempt by
the PHSO to protect the NHS Trust, to protect and avoid having to
contradict the LGO, and to protect and avoid having to contradict
the Council further.

That although the PHSO was fully aware my late wife had recognised
mental disorders going back 30 years and lived alone so came under
the ‘care and support’ umbrella of the NHS Trust since 2002, and
that her mental health was known to be deteriorating and that she
was more isolated in her home because the Trust had reduced her
weekly attendances to the mental health day-centre she had attended
for some 20 years, the PHSO could find nothing wrong in how the NHS
Trust abused and witheld the care and support my late wife should
have received from the NHS Trust prior to the Welfare Priority
Assessments, during the Welfare Priority Assessments, and up until
she died the following year. That in some way the NHS Trust had no
‘Duty of Care’ to my late wife whatsoever.

When Council employees Jon Warner, Cornwall Council Homechoice
Representative, and Angela White, Occupational Therapist, Cornwall
Council, were made fully aware of the above information in July
2012, I assume this is when the Council decided to protect it’s
partner the NHS Trust rather than properly address my late wife’s
Welfare and Medical needs. I believe this contributed to my late
wife’s death because her deteriorating mental health remained
unaddressed and cancer was not discovered until it was too late in
May 2013.

It does not require any degree of rocket science to work out that
the Council and the NHS Trust have been willfuly abusing and
discriminating against the mentally ill and the vulnerable at
Cornwall Homechoice Welfare Priority Assessments, and have been
willfuly blind to Council Policies and procedures. The only real
question is how many victims there are, apart from my late wife,
and over what period of time the abuse and discrimination of the
mentally ill and the vulnerable has been going on.

This is also the case with regard to the Council and Sanctuary
Housing willfuly and unlawfully ‘ringfencing’ Homechoice properties
advertised without a preference and deceiving the public as a
result. Another issue the LGO failed to investigate properly or in
the public interest.

I suspect it is now only a matter of time before the independence
and integrity of the ICO is also threatened.

With regard to (Personal Grudges) – I refer you to the explanation
above. I would only add that the sooner the Council acts upon it’s
Letter of Defamation the better. I can think of nothing more
insulting to the employees concerned than having an employer who
threatens legal action but has no intention of acting upon it or
defending their reputations.

Equally I can think of nothing more offensive than employees who
have knowingly put themselves and their careers before the health
and well being of the mentally ill and the vulnerable, despite
their individual and collective ‘Duty of Care’ to them.

Before continuing would you please confirm if the Council is now
claiming (cannot be named for legal reasons) was an employee of the Council and not the NHS Trust. You have twice referred to “7 Council employees”.

With regard to (Unfounded Accusations) – I refer you to the
explanation above. The Council’s decision not to answer
questions/requests does not make an accusation unfounded. If the
Council continues not to answer questions/requests the only likely
outcome will be the Council will itself substantiate the
accusations. The Council should stop wasting time and public money
smearing my character as ‘vexatious’ and prove my accusations
unfounded.

With regard to (Deliberate intention) to cause annoyance – I refer
you to the explanation above.

In conclusion therefore, I have determined your reasons for
refusing the review and have rejected them for the reasons set out
above.

I will inform the ICO.

Yours faithfully

Geoff McLaughlin

To read the actual FOI request and replies please click on the follow link   via