ICO, Cornwall Council, Sanctuary Housing, LGO.

ico_logo

Blog posted 18 January 2017

The following email was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) this morning.

Dear Ms Flint

Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delay.

For the record : My email to Cornwall Council on 15 December 2016 concerned the Council and it’s housing partner Sanctuary Housing continuing to mislead the public by unlawfully ring-fencing Cornwall Homechoice advertised properties and willfuly deceiving applicants.

The ICO has dealt with this problem before from me up until the ICO agreed with the Council to invoke a vexatious policy against me to prevent me making future FOI requests. A decision by the ICO based on an earlier decision by the LGO in favour of the Council but which was itself based on flawed and misleading information from the Council and the fact the LGO did not have the jurisdiction to investigate the role of Sanctuary Housing. A role the Council has never investigated itself or prosecuted it’s housing partner for, for obvious reasons.

The perversity of the LGO also came in to question when the LGO applied absolute discretion not to investigate all the evidence and perversely closed the complaint in favour of the Council before I, the complainant, had even seen a copy of the Council’s reply to my complaint.

What happened in 2016 involving 3 Homechoice properties, one of which I bid for, happened because the the Council is corrupt and because the ICO has failed to stop the Council and it’s partners continuing to engage in this form of criminality and misinformation upon members of the public. Misinformation which will happen again.

I am also reminded that the ICO closed my complaint last year regarding my complaint against Devon & Cornwall Police Data Protection Office which broke the law by witholding information/evidence for some 6 months after my SAR for information. Closed my complaint despite me not receiving all the information I was entitled to receive under the Act so as to best protect the Police and not the public.

In reply to the ICO wanting to consider the concerns expressed in my email to the Council of 15 December 2016, I can only ask why and if the ICO is seeking only to protect the Council and it’s partners again.

I really do think the ICO has failed me and the public enough.

Yours sincerely

 

Geoff McLaughlin

Advertisements

Sanctuary Housing – Fly Tipping

15192633_1187735024642759_6778667587061340610_n

Blog posted 25 November 2016

                        SANCTUARY HOUSING – FLY TIPPING

Noticed the above flyer, no pun intended, on Face Book yesterday and was reminded that in Cornwall Sanctuary Housing do things differently.

Rather than promote the above propaganda Sanctuary actually prefers not to prevent or stop fly-tipping in Cornwall despite my pleas to both Sanctuary and its housing partner Cornwall Council.

Instead Sanctuary seeks to profit from fly-tipping whenever possible at the tenants/Council tax payers expense.

Example : Last year 2 items were dumped on our estate which Sanctuary eventually removed after I reported it in writing. Sanctuary charged the tenants/Council tax payers £95.00 for the removal of both items. See 4th insertion down on the following chart provided to me by Sanctuary.

fly-tipping

As if £95.00 is not bad enough Sanctuary actually knew who fly-tipped the stated “armchair from outside no 33” because it belonged to the tenant at no 33. Had Sanctuary told the tenant to have it removed by the Council it would have cost the tenant less than £25.00 rather than the £47.50 the tenants/Council tax payers had to pay in order for Sanctuary to profiteer from fly-tipping.

Unfortunately, Cornwall Council knows all about the above and about Sanctuary’s fraudulent and criminal methods in Cornwall but chooses to protect Sanctuary no matter what. I recall once saying that the Council and Sanctuary are so far up each other it would take a week in surgery to separate them. Sadly, nothing has changed.

Sanctuary Housing and how it profits from fly tipping.

 

image-2

Pictured is Sanctuary’s Simon Clark, Group Director, Housing and Support.

Blog posted 29 September 2016

          Sanctuary Housing and how it profits from fly tipping

Fly tipping is trending at the moment in Cornwall so I thought I would add my own thoughts on the matter with regard to Cornwall Council’s housing partner and my landlord Sanctuary Housing Association.

We all know how the Council deals with fly tipping so how does Sanctuary Housing.

As a tenant without my own transport and with an old or worn out item/s to dispose of I would contact the Council and, for a fee, have the item/s collected. This I have done in the past and all the details and fees will be found on the Council’s website.

When items have been abandoned on our estate in Timber Close, St Austell, Sanctuary Housing has eventually removed the item/s. This has taken anything between a few weeks to many months despite written reminders.

Sanctuary Housing has recently stopped providing me with information on the costs of fly tipping “Communal Cleaning Costs” on our estate so I will report what I do know and before my landlord became less transparent.

The following scan was sent to me via email on 22 June 2016 from Sanctuary Housing following a request to Sanctuary’s Simon Clark, Group Director, Housing and Support.

 

fly-tipping

Of the 5 entries the 1 that interests me the most at this time is Works order 5791056/1, the 4th entry down.

2 items were removed from Timber Close around 26/11/15 at a cost of £95.00.

The white good’s item had been dumped on the estate months before it was eventually removed and despite the grounds maintenance man ignoring the item during his many weekly visits.

The armchair from outside No 33 was photographed by the grounds maintenance man on 13 November and before the armchair then found its way into the bin store. The reference to the armchair being “dumped by persons unknown” is grossly dishonest because Sanctuary must have known it belonged to No 33.

The tenant of No 33 should have been advised to contact the relevant department at the Council and arrange to have the armchair removed for approximately £22.50 and which included 3 other items. The tenant has since dumped other items outside No 33, which have also ended up in the bin store and have also been removed by Sanctuary.

So what’s it all about ?

It’s about Sanctuary Housing profiteering from fly tipping. That Sanctuary removed an armchair for £47.50 which the tenants and the Council covered the cost of via the “Communal Cleaning Costs” and that Cornwall Council would have charged £22.50. This is but one example.

According to Sanctuary Housing the total cost of removing items between 22/5/15 to 05/2/16 was £445.50.

I believe this profiteering is the reason why Sanctuary Housing refuses to put a sign on the bin store door advising tenants not to dump items in the store or send out flyers, no pun intended, advising tenants of the consequences of fly tipping on the estate.

This Week’s S.H.I.T. Award.

dscf0675

Blog posted 26 September 2016

                                            This Week’s S.H.I.T. Award

The S.H.I.T. Awards began some years ago on my personal website and the term stands for the Sanctuary Housing Idiot Trophy.

Unfortunately Sanctuary’s idiots are still at it so I have reintroduced the Award.

The picture shows one of the hazard’s left on our estate in Timber Close, St Austell, Cornwall, a number of week’s ago because Cornwall Council’s dustmen rightly refused to take it. It is a Health & Safety Issue because it obstructs a pathway.

Last Friday 23 September no less than 3 Sanctuary Grounds Maintenance Team Members visited the estate each in their own Sanctuary vehicle. One had an opened backed van for removing items for disposal. Despite a number of discarded items being previously reported in writing, including the above, and despite 1 of the men taking photos of it the other week and picking up litter from around it during their visit on Friday 23, this item and everything else reported weeks ago still remains on site as I write.

According to Sanctuary’s Grounds Maintenance Specification these discarded and hazardous items should have been removed weeks ago because Sanctuary is paid a weekly Service Charge to maintain the grounds every week. I am again reminded of the “F” word, no not that one but “Fraud”.

If you have your own Sanctuary recipient why not give him/her an Award.

 

RING-FENCED CORNWALL COUNCIL HOMECHOICE DRINKING DEN SCAM

CORNWALL HOMECHOICE SPECIAL.

 

Blog entered 19 January 2015

RING-FENCED CORNWALL COUNCIL HOMECHOICE DRINKING DEN SCAM

THE DRINKING DEN WAS BORN OUT OF DECEPTION BY CORNWALL COUNCIL AND IT’S HOUSING PARTNER SANCTUARY HOUSING WHEN IT WAS ADVERTISED AS HOMECHOICE PROPERTY REF : 6690, IN FEBRUARY 2012. UNBEKNOWN TO HOMECHOICE BIDDERS THE PROPERTY WAS RING-FENCED AND WAS FULLY FURNISHED WHEN IT WAS ADVERTISED WITHOUT ANY PREFERENCES. THE DECEPTION GOT RUMBLED, THE PROPERTY WAS CLEARED AND WAS LATER PREPARED BY SANCTUARY MAINTENANCE FOR OCCUPATION. IN MARCH 2012 THE PROPERTY BECAME A DRINKING DEN.

THE DRINKING DEN CREATED MANY PROBLEMS SINCE 2012 AND THE POLICE WERE REGULAR VISITORS. THE MOST POLICE CARS OBSERVED AT ANY ONE TIME WAS AROUND 5 IN NUMBER. SANCTUARY WAS AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND RELIED UPON THE POLICE TO MANAGE THINGS AS IT REDUCED IT’S HOUSING OFFICER VISITS TO THE ESTATE DESPITE IT’S OBLIGATIONS TO ALL IT’S TENANTS.

DESPITE WRITTEN WARNINGS TO SANCTUARY’S CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR IN 2014, THAT SOMEONE WOULD DIE HERE SOONER OR LATER, THE DRINKING DEN CONTINUED TO CAUSE PROBLEMS AND CONTINUED TO RECEIVE POLICE VISITS.

IN NOVEMBER THAT YEAR A 30 YEAR OLD WOMAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRINKING DEN WAS REMOVED IN A BODY BAG AND WITHIN DAYS A “NOTICE TO QUIT” WAS SERVED ON THE REGISTERED TENANT OF 40 TIMBER CLOSE ON BEHALF OF SANCTUARY GROUP. THAT THE TENANT HAD TO DELIVER UP POSSESSION TO SANCTUARY ON 2ND DECEMBER 2014.

OBVIOUSLY THE TENANT WAS RE-HOUSED AND THE PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED UP BY 2ND DECEMBER 2014.

DESPITE THE AMOUNT OF APPLICANTS ON THE COUNCIL’S WAITING LIST LOOKING FOR A HOME THIS HOMECHOICE PROPERTY HAS REMAINED EMPTY TO THIS DAY AND IS STILL IN NEED OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE BEFORE IT CAN BE ADVERTISED AND OCCUPIED. SINCE 2ND DECEMBER THE GLASS DOOR PANEL STILL HAS A HOLE IN IT WHERE DRINKERS USED TO LET THEMSELVES IN AND THE BEDROOM WINDOW HAS REMAINED FULLY OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS AND INTERNAL RAIN DAMAGE DESPITE A VULNERABLE TENANT LIVING BELOW, WHICH SANCTUARY’S CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HAD BEEN MADE FULLY AWARE OF.

DESPITE SANCTUARY HOUSING BEING A CHARITY, AND DESPITE THE COUNCIL’S ENORMOUS HOUSING WAITING LIST, 2 OTHER SANCTUARY HOMECHOICE PROPERTIES REMAINED EMPTY AT TIMBER CLOSE FOR A TOTAL OF 6 MONTHS DURING 2014.

WHILE IT WOULD BE NICE TO RECEIVE A COMMENT IN REPLY FROM THE COUNCIL, I THINK IT IS UNLIKELY. AS UNLIKELY AS RECEIVING A COMMENT FROM ANY OF THE PARASITIC CORNISH COUNCILLORS WHO APPEAR PREOCCUPIED WITH THEIR OWN SELF IMPORTANCE AND DOGGY DOO ISSUES RATHER THAN WHAT THE COUNCIL IS UNLAWFULLY DOING TO THE VERY PEOPLE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT AND NOT JUST THEIR FRIENDS, THE INFLUENTIAL AND THE WEALTHY.

I WILL UPDATE THIS BLOG AS AND WHEN MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

“The most commonly requested property size is 1 bedroom properties”, Cornwall Council.

40_Ad_1a

Blog entered 10 July 2015

“The most commonly requested property size is 1 bedroom properties”, unquote.

The above statement was made by Cornwall Housing Ltd on 5 February 2015, in reply to a Freedom of Information request.

At the same time Cornwall Housing made this statement it was aware of a 1 bedroom Homechoice property in Timber Close, St Austell, belonging to partner landlord Sanctuary Housing, which had remained empty for over 2 months. By the time the 1 bedroom Homechoice property, shown above, finally had a tenant it had remained empty for a further 4 months making 6 months altogether.

It remains to be seen if this 1 bedroom Homechoice property was unlawfully ‘ringfenced’ for Cornwall Council by Sanctuary Housing, as was the case in 2012 when this 1 bedroom property was last advertised through Homechoice without preferences but was furnished.

But what if the bidder who won the property had his/her own furniture, I hear you ask. That scenario would never have happened and the word for it is deception which is a criminal offence.

Footnote : Although the then Council’s Principal Legal Officer Simon JR Mansell MBE knew I had bidded for this property, to this day (August 2016) he has still not told me the property number despite me requesting it. Now I wonder why that is ?