Sing-along with Fats.
No doubt you will have read that complaints about “Your Waverley” are escalating and, no doubt you will remember the cover up over that fraud … you know the one that cost us taxpayers a lot of money and was not revealed by the council until after the May 2015 elections, even though it occurred a year earlier. Oh, we forgot, silly old us, it would probably never have revealed it had it not been for one of its whistleblower employees. Yes, that Fraud! Selected councillors were informed of the fraud on a need to know basis, and we, the borough’s election fodder didn’t have a clue.
Well one doggedly determined Milford couple just keep complaining, and aren’t giving up! Another couple of nuisances with too much time on their hands, no doubt?
Read here: “Your Waverley” never lets us down … does it? It is just experiencing technical difficulties!
Well read the letters below to see the mire that will follow if and when you do complain!
When are Waverley Councillors going to realise that just because the Complaints Policy reflects the Local Government Ombudsman recommendations it does not mean that the officers always follow that procedure. An officer cannot investigate himself – it is simple really and because the LGO cannot investigate does NOT mean that the Council is exonerated of maladministration as Paul Wenham would have you believe. By the way he is the head honcho at WBC.
When will someone have the backbone to stand up and say something?
WW says – backbone – what’s that?
Read these it is called fobbing off time … again … and again …
Waverley Borough Council 326 Helen Riglia
‘ALPENROSE’, 44, OAK TREE ROAD,
MILFORD,GODALMING, SURREY,GU8 5JJ
Waverley Borough Council Godalming 15th July 2016Surrey My Ref. BE/WBC/326 GU7 1HR
FTAO Helen Riglia
Dear Ms. Riglia
Thank you for your e.mail dated 13th July 2016 and I note that you are away from your office between 15th and 31st July inclusive. I am therefore not expecting your answer to this letter until early August and I certainly shall not apply for a Judicial Review until 14 days after your holiday.
My understanding of this 14 day notice is to give you the opportunity to answer the questions I have posed to Peter Vickers which he has so far refused to do and by not answering these questions he has not carried out the principles as laid down in the Council’s Complaints Policy for level 2 which for some reason, of Council’s own doing, is so far the only level the Council have attempted to use to deal with my complaint.
It would seem you have either been given incorrect information or you have completely misunderstood my intentions. In order to put you in the picture I shall again lay out in detail the following salient points in connection with my possible Judicial Review:-
- MY COMPLAINT TO THE COUNCIL was that 5 senior officers of the Council did conspire to cover up, by deception, the fraud that took place against the Council some time during April 2014.
- If I proceed to the High Court for a Judicial Review MY COMPLAINT TO THE HIGH COURT would be that the Council have not conducted their Level 2 complaints review in accordance with their Complaints Policy. All the details of these unanswered questions have been pointed out to Peter Vickers in my letters to him dated 23rd May, 6th June, 10th June, 13th June and 23rd June 2016.
- A] You will appreciate that in order to ascertain the level of culpability Peter Vickers should have interviewed the 5 accused officers and made notes. For example Robin Taylor and Daniel Bainbridge may not have been aware of the deception until the whistleblower, previously employed by the Council, disclosed the fraud to the press who published same on 13th October 2015. The interviews and recorded notes are a requirement in Waverley’s published Complaints Policy which so far has been ignored. B] Peter Vickers has not addressed my allegation that he is not qualified to investigate my complaint because of the statement made in Annexe 2 under Fairness which states that “Complaints under level 2 & 3 are investigated by officers who have not had any involvement in the issues being complained about”. C] Peter Vickers statement “that if I am not satisfied with his decision I should ask Paul Wenham to investigate at level 3” is even more ridiculous for the same reasons set out in B.
- I asked Peter Vickers whether or not your published Complaints Policy was correct or whether there was any unpublicised wording that would affect the complaints procedures. You need to confirm that I have access to the correct documents and if I have the correct documents why does his interpretation differ to mine? My questions need to be answered or reasons given as to why they cannot be answered.
You have made several misinterpretations of the position:-
- I consider that had you read my letters of complaint to the Council to Robin Pellow and Peter Vickers, and their replies, you would have clearly understood my 14 day pre protocol letter.
- Your letter indicates that you believe that my complaint has gone through the 3 steps of the complaints procedures; this is not so. My complaint started at level 2 and has as yet not been satisfied in accordance with the Council’s published Complaints Policy.
- My previous complaint, although based on similar maladministration has absolutely nothing to do with the current complaint, however you have again got it wrong. The Ombudsman refused to investigate the complaint because they claim the complaint was generated due to a planning decision which the Ombudsman has no remit to investigate. For your further information the Ombudsman has no remit to investigate this similar complaint because it was generated through a financial matter which the Council’s auditors are currently investigating under a quasi judicial review. I did not go on to seek a Judicial Review of the Ombudsman’s decision but I did seek a Judicial Review of the refusal to investigate.
- I agree that Waverley Borough Council’s Complaints Policy complies with the Ombudsman’s requirements but Peter Vickers, so far, at level 2 has not complied with the Council’s Complaints Policy.
Please be clear that if I make a request to the High Court for a Judicial Review, my request at this stage would be only that the Council have not complied with their published Complaints Policy, and nothing else. I certainly wish the Council to address my questions in my letters to Peter Vickers which I believe I have a right ask under Waverley’s Complaints Policy and I emphasise that whether or not I have interpreted the Complaints Policy correctly you should at least explain the reasons for not answering bearing in mind that as Paul Wenham is named as a protagonist he cannot conduct a level 3 investigation impartially. Impartiality is of course one of the major conditions in the Ombudsman’s recommendations and Waverley’s own Complaints Policy.
Yours Faithfully
B.F.A.Egan