Name and Shame UK
We expose the dirty deedsters
Introduction
Vigilante writes:
In October 2007, we published a report supplied by a visitor from Ilkeston (reproduced below) whose house had been flooded after heavy rainfall in the June. Land behind her house that formed part of a high risk flood plain had been covered with hardcore by an industrial neighbour and our correspondent felt this action caused the flood water to damage her house, and others in the road, since it could no longer escape in any other direction.
Our correspondent felt so strongly about the way she and her neighbours had been treated by the developer in question, together with Erewash Borough Council and the Environment Agency, that she set up her own website so that others could see how badly victims can suffer from the uncaring attitudes of bureaucrats and associates.
Having seen some of the evidence - documented and filmed - that our correspondent supplied, we felt it was yet another example of the way local authorities work to further their own causes, at the same time failing to protect those who help to pay their wages and truly need protection. As a result, we published our correspondent's story in line with our aim to bring corrupt and unfair activities to the public's notice.
On Saturday 20th June 2009 I received a recorded delivery letter from a company of solicitors in Nottingham called Berryman Shacklock. Sent as a 'letter of claim in conformity with the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation' it disputed everything we had published on this website relating to the engineering company whose land now borders the terrace of houses. They demanded that we remove 'libellous' content. Naturally, the denials were all based on the word of the company's managing director and no evidence was supplied to substantiate their claim that our published report was 'a collection of exaggerations and distortions' (as Berryman's put it). Furthermore, they accused our correspondent's husband of criminal damage and causing injury to one of their employees by firing projectiles at him with a catapult.
If I did not agree to this demand by 4pm on Friday 3rd July 2009 Berryman's threatened to issue proceedings for libel seeking an injunction, damages and costs against me in the High Court.
My understanding of libel is that it refers to published matter that is untrue. On that basis, and based on the evidence I had seen and researched, I considered the content of this article was a fair reflection of the facts. My initial reaction was that, if necessary, I would have to defend the action in the High Court. However, I responded to Berryman's with a list of 19 questions which, if answered, would give their client an opportunity to substantiate their claim that they have acted as responsible neighbours to the occupiers of the 15 domestic residences which lie adjacent to their now expanded yard.
23rd June: Today I received another letter from John Buckby of Berryman's. He refused to answer any of my questions and merely repeated his earlier threats. But this time he brought forward the deadline by a whole week to 26th June. I can't possibly meet that deadline and I have told Buckby so.
25th June: Another letter received from Berryman's demonstrating that solicitors often put a completely different interpretation on the English language than the average person. But solicitors are an arrogant bunch who naturally assume that what they say is gospel and expect everyone to kow-tow to their demands. They don't necessarily let the truth or factual evidence get in the way of satisfying their clients' demands and some even go into politics where they prove to everyone in the country that they are little more than crooks themselves. But that's another story that we are all very familiar with at the moment.
John Buckby may be a very nice person but his actions so far demonstrate that he does not want the truth to prevail in this case. He has made two statements which are undoubtedly false and, to me, that signifies the lengths he is prepared to go to in order to suppress the truth.
The new deadline he has dictated is simply not attainable. I am fully committed for the next five days but I have decided to edit the text below so that nothing is said that could be considered to be remotely libellous. This may only be a temporary solution as I suspect many people are colluding in a conspiracy to cover up the truth.
I will not desert my original correspondent or her husband by backing down to the threats of a man who probably thinks he can always buy his way out of trouble. Moreover I will now take steps to gather as much evidence as I can. When I have all the facts, I will publish them in their entirety. One way or another, the truth will come out.
18th August 2009: Proceedings have now been initiated by Richard Hayden through the Royal Courts of Justice in London and I have today posted an acknowledgement of service together with a letter stating that I will defend the action in full.
When the issue comes before the court, evidence will be presented that will prove beyond doubt that Mr Hayden really did treat his residential neighbours like dirt, and that the character he is so determined to protect is actually one that most honest people would be ashamed of. However, we suspect he is more interested in protecting his standing with the people who have colluded with him in his actions against his neighbours; people who themselves have much to hide and are equally guilty. They have not so far been named but they will be when the case reaches court and then there will be red faces in the highest echelons of civic and police ranks, as well as government circles.
But if the Royal Court of Justice is as good as its name, it will take heed of the evidence, see through the lies presented by the claimants, and acquit the defendants. Time will tell.
7th September 2009: When I acknowledged service of the proceedings, I requested additional time to prepare my defence and asked other questions. The Court Manager ignored my requests and did not even respond to my letter so I have filed my defence today, having delivered it personally to the Queen's Bench Office in the Strand.
A visit to the Royal Court of Justice is an experience in itself. One has to pass through a security system where all carried objects are laid in boxes which pass through an X-ray machine. Persons pass through an airport type archway which bleeps if it detects metal. My house keys caused a bit of a problem here but once I was inside and had spoken to the girl on the reception desk I was free to wander through the maze of a building trying to find the office I needed. Probably just as well I have no terrorist tendencies!
Finally locating the office I require, I am asked to remove my evidence statement from the jiffy bag I had packed it in - presumably to distinguish it from explosive material. But little do they know - this is explosive material. It contains, as they say in legal circles, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - something the claimant and his solicitors appear to believe they can circumvent.
Vigilante
The original story....
Our correspondent writes ...
The only way to tell this farcical story of non-existent democratic accountability in local government - a story which seriously erodes even
the most basic of Human Rights - is to start at the beginning of an abridged version of an extremely lengthy saga of immorality, self-interest and
negligence at the expense of many tax-paying families.
We live in a high-risk Flood Zone 3 which has been eroded by heavy industrial expansion to such a degree that we are left with a tiny parcel of undeveloped land directly to the rear of 15 terraced homes and gardens. Not only did this small parcel of land afford us valuable flood protection, a number of mature trees on the land created a visual barrier between residential properties and the heavy industrial encroachment. (click the thumbnail image to see larger pictures of the site)
A small fraction of the land had previously been used as a fly-tip and, although Erewash Borough Council publicly pledged on their website to make offenders accountable, they were unable to remedy the situation even though they knew the perpetrator's name and address.
The tipped rubbish contained soiled mattresses, used nappies, asbestos and hypodermic needles but the council used the excuse that it was on private land and did not constitute a health hazard.
The whole stinking eyesore was left to rot for five years and four months until Erewash Borough Council suddenly declared this colonised mound to be a health hazard. In the interests of residential amenity they piled the debris into a huge mound ready for removal. All the residents saw this as an opportunity to improve the area by voluntarily clearing the remaining overgrowth with the intention of planting additional trees for the benefit of all home owners. We all worked on a voluntary basis and at our own cost to do this.
At this stage, Erewash Borough Council was heavily promoting 'Pride in the Community' through 'Greening our Communities' with a load of spiel about how valuable community efforts was towards improving the environment. We staked out and clearly marked the original boundaries of this land which appeared to be unregistered and without a traceable owner. So far so good!
The following day, when all the residents were conveniently at work, and at exactly the same time as Erewash Borough Council (EBC) was finally taking the debris away in the interests of residential amenity, our industrial neighbour, Rayden Engineering, totally ignored the residents' obvious efforts and was busily erecting a massive steel palisade fencing around the entire site. Apparently the fencing contractors had been booked for weeks! When we opened our garden gate, all we could see was bars. The new fencing was barely feet from the boundaries of our properties.
But this was just the beginning - much worse was to come!
My first contact with Mr Matthew Hall, EBC's enforcement officer, did not go down well as he kept insisting that the steel palisade prison was perfectly legal and did not require planning permission. Furthermore he said a developer could snatch any land that took his fancy, even if it wasn't his, and there was not a lot the council could do about it.
Oh really? I then had to point this officer of the council in the direction of his own employer's website which clearly stated that security fencing of this height required planning permission. After I insisted, he backtracked through five years of planning permissions to double check. He had tried to claim it probably had an old planning permit, in which case we wouldn't have been notified. Eventually Mr Hall reluctantly agreed he would come out to look at the offending eyesore, if he could find the time.
Meanwhile, we had started receiving visits from the police commencing on the same day the illegal fencing was erected. There had apparently been accusations of criminal damage to the fencing and the police were threatening to arrest us if the fencing was harmed in any way. EBC's solution to the problem? Easy ... paint the fence green to make it invisible then none of the residents would notice it!
From our point of view, Rayden Engineering have never a considerate neighbour. Seven days a week, we get the constant deafening noise of grinding, shot blasting and pressure testing - to such a degree that normal conversation in our own gardens is impossible. Employees in the yard clamber on the metal structures and clearly invade the privacy that should be afforded to our gardens and homes. To add to this, our gardens are constantly coated with carbon dust and red oxide particles.
When I wrote to EBC Enforcement, I was hopeful that positive action would be taken to prevent the destruction of the trees. After all, the trees were a frequent habitat for bats and were supposedly protected by law. According to Local Authority guidelines, they had a statutory duty and an obligation to ensure that, if bats were present, any developer had to have a full and independent ecological survey carried out. Was any action taken in this instance? What do you think?
Barely two months after the steel palisade was erected, every tree, leaf and branch in the previously mature copse was annihilated. Total oblivion!
By this time, the police visits had intensified. House-to-house inquiries were regular and the accusations flew freely. We had apparently tried to shoot Richard Hayden of Rayden Engineering several times; there were several allegations of criminal damage; and the police visited our home so regularly that the neighbours had even given up twitching their curtains!
One night, we even found ourselves surrounded by the Rapid Response Firearms Unit. Fortunately, the officers quickly established that it was impossible to fire any shots from our property as the angle was all wrong. The police also declined our offer that they could search our property for firearms.
As I mentioned at the start, this land was a high-risk Flood Zone 3 porous floodplain and, when the trees were removed, an uneven hardcore hard-standing was laid over the previously porous floodplain. After months of painstaking slog, EBC finally forced Rayden Engineering to apply for retrospective planning permission, at last giving us a chance to have our say in "the democratic process" about matters that so seriously affected the living conditions in our own homes.
In due course, EBC planners turned down the retrospective planning application with the recommendation that enforcement action be taken to move the palisade back to its original position so that the land could be reinstated as flood plain.
A cause for celebration? Unfortunately not!! For although the development did not comply with Building Regulations, the Environment Agency positively objected to it as it was a high-risk flood zone.
As it turned out, EBC Enforcement had an entirely different agenda to EBC Planning. After we pestered the enforcement section to comply with their own planning department's recommendations, Matthew Hall then wrote to tell us that the fencing would simply be taken down to its legally-required height. And the hard standing was to remain as it was an environmental improvement. He claimed the Environment Agency had raised no objections to this plan. Oh Really?
The Environment Agency was contacted, they in turn contacted EBC Enforcement who, by return of post, had a sudden change of heart. The hard standing was to be removed after all.
After months of waiting in vain for this miraculous enforcement to proceed, I eventually lodged an official complaint about Enforcements' obvious inertia. Naturally, the complaint was glossed over as I had to realise that enforcement action was taken according to seriousness and the number of people affected by the planning breach. By this stage I had sent EBC five letters, accompanied by photographic evidence, showing how the hard standing became a water-logged mess after only a nominal rainfall. Of course the letters were all ignored. We had also visited our MP on several occasions, and our ward councillors just weren't interested.
At this stage we had tried everywhere and contacted everyone we could think of. No-one wanted to listen or help us at all. Then, right out of the blue, the police arrived with a Transit van and an escorting police car, dragged my husband out of bed, handcuffed him and transported him miles away (complete with escort), strip searched him, DNA tested him, finger printed and photographed him before starting to interview him at midnight when he had been awake for a total of 20 hours! The heinous crime to warrant this sort of treatment? Rayden Engineering had discovered a broken pipe in the yard a whole 46 days earlier.
By this time we had started logging all the police visits and complaints against us and I made an official complaint about police harassment which was subsequently investigated. A distinct pattern had emerged: Every time we scored a point the police visited us making a false allegation.
In the meantime, enforcement action had still not commenced. Then the rains came. We watched with dismay and sinking hearts as the waterlogged puddles on the uneven, hardcore began to fill with excess run-off from higher parts of the yard. The water could not drain away as the hardcore was non-porous, nor could it follow the natural diversion away from our homes as all the natural drainage had been radically altered - precisely the outcome I had envisaged during the months I spent trying to convince Erewash Borough Council.
Although the River Erewash was on flood alert, it never actually breached its banks at the lowest point normally associated with flooding and none of the properties on the opposite side of the street - the side closest to the river - flooded at all. But we did! All 15 homes backing onto the yard - which EBC Enforcement had deemed to be of lower priority than other enforcement actions across the borough - flooded from the rear. The deep flood water remained trapped in our homes for more than 14 hours as it had nowhere to go. Its normal escape route had been radically altered.
Enforcement? EBC suddenly served enforcement notices seven days after we were flooded. A happy ending at last? I think not! The enforcement notices were suspended. Rayden Engineering immediately appealed against the refusal of planning permission.
I contacted the Secretary of State and the appeal was refused. Would the enforcement actions now become active again? I think not!! The Borough Council's explanation was that Rayden Engineering was considered, by them, to be the actual owner of the land so the enforcement notices were not valid.
As I and my neighbours sit in homes that are stripped down to bare bricks and concrete, some without any form of heating, others without even basic household appliances, still awaiting major flood damage repairs, Erewash Borough Council are apparently in negotiations with Rayden Engineering over the hard standing that we believe was directly responsible for more than £300,000 worth of property damage. They say they cannot discuss these negotiations with us as presumably it does not affect us!
As I wait for the luxury of carpets and wallpaper in my home once more, secure in the knowledge that one day's heavy rain could undo months of rebuilding work, the hard standing with no drainage in a high-risk Flood Zone 3 remains. And the police have reopened the case, presumably of national importance, over the alleged broken pipe on Rayden Engineering's land.
We are still waiting for someone to assess the damage that was caused but, it appears to me, none of the 15 affected families are considered to have any rights at all. I thought it was our human right to protect our homes; I thought it was our human right to have peaceful enjoyment of our possessions; I mistakenly thought it was our human right to be able to come home to the sanctuary of our own shelters without having to live like we have done, and will continue to do so for months. We are unable to protect our homes from future flooding through this ill-conceived development and we now look out onto a vast oasis of twisted scrap metal from every vantage point to the rear of our properties.
We venture through our garden gates to be greeted by invisible steel bars, we are constantly shrouded in red oxide dust and carbon particles (not a health hazard, of course) and we constantly have to shout to be heard above the almighty cacophony of noise generated by our neighbour. Yet we have no rights whatsoever to any form of protection for our basic living and home standards! If we had money and influential connections, I suppose something would have been done long ago. But it's not so. We are simply non-existent - we are nobodies. Yet, if we all withdrew our council taxes tomorrow, no doubt Erewash Borough Council would acknowledge our existence immediately. They would be down on us like a ton of bricks, or perhaps even non-drainable hardcore!
I will never understand why a developer continues to receive preferential treatment at the expense of, and to the detriment of, so many others. It's almost like he's dictating the modus operandi to the council.
DC, Ilkeston.
Editorial comment:
It's not the first time, and it certainly won't be the last time we hear of council officers falling over backwards for developers. It doesn't matter how black and white (totally devoid of grey areas) planning and building regulations are, it seems they can still be ignored or bent by officers of the local authority whenever it suits them, often supported by elected councillors who are, after all, mostly in it for the rich financial rewards they now get.
When people know you are campaigning against corruption, you hear many examples of instances where permissions cannot be granted until some official's palm is crossed with silver (or gold, or crinkly paper). And they get away with it because most councils are rotten to the core.
It's bad enough that we all fork out increasingly steeper council tax knowing most of it will be wasted, either on initiatives that are totally unnecessary or by employing idiots to do completely irrelevant jobs, all of whom benefit from the kind of gold-plated pension schemes the rest of us can't even dream about. But when greed enters the equation, too many of these useless bastards cannot resist the additional income from bribes. So the rule book goes by the board.
It's a sad indictment of the times we live in but the country is run by a bunch of crooks at Westminster and local authorities are their disciples.
You can learn more about this disgraceful piece of local authority ineptitude and chicanery by visiting http://www.councilanddeveloper.net.
Footnote: A quick check on Erewash's elected councillors shows 30 Conservative members, 18 Labour and 2 Lib-Dems. When Labour domination was badly hit in the last round of local elections, many thought it would be better with Tory-dominated councils. Well, I live in such a borough and there's little sign of any change now the Tories have control. It's just a different bunch of trough gobblers who don't want to know about the real issues, prefer to turn a blind eye to bureaucratic law-breaking, and won't do anything to get rid of the corruption.
I often wonder how other boroughs fared after the Tories took control and I wonder if David Cameron, with his declared intention to seek open and transparent government, will order his troops at Erewash to investigate this scandal. Somehow, I doubt it.
But if you feel the Erewash borough councillors should be doing more you can download the full list of the councillors' names and contact details by clicking here and then you can bombard them with emails.
Addendum
Since 2006, our correspondent has been completing dust and noise diaries for EBC's Environmental Health Department but she got no results.
Dust pollution
Three months ago, EBC finally came to their house with dust monitoring equipment comprising six white tiles and some Vaseline!! The tiles were placed at various points around the garden and were left for one month.
For reasons unexplained by EBC, the worst tile samples were never sent off for analysis - only the three with lesser deposits.
The subsequent report specifically stated that it was not a QUANTATIVE analysis but was simply to identify the claimed pollutants. The Report identified fibreglass particles in concentrated amounts and microscopic shards of metal - consistent with hot metal work.
EBC stated that residents should expect this type of pollution as they lived in an industrial area. As a result, they would be taking no further action. However, the black deposits literally coat the windows and doors and find their way into the house.
So why were the tiles with the heaviest pollution not sent for analysis?
Noise pollution
The type of processes Rayden use are identified by HSE research as reaching 135 decibels. Rayden's claim their noise levels are 'certainly not the levels of 135 decibels' that the HSE claim but refuse to say what testing equipment they use and how often they monitor sound levels.
Our correspondents have two years of video evidence showing the problems they are subjected to. Conversation in the garden is virtually impossible and, in summer, they are unable to venture outside, sit in the garden, or even open the windows for ventilation. The noise permeates every room of the house even with all the windows and doors battened shut! The film also shows Portacabins stacked two high lined up in front of our correspondent's garden. Hardly actions intended to help matters.
Some while ago, noise monitoring equipment was installed by EBC and was left in-situ for one week. From the moment it was set up, until the time it was removed, there was absolutely no noise from the yard! Now there's a strange coincidence.
After nearly 3 years of pursuing justice, our correspondents simply video everything and put it on their web site in the hope others will realise the truth behind so-called "democracy" in modern day Britain.
Information sought from the Health and Safety Executive
We have emailed the HSE helpline asking them to tell us the acceptable noise levels for such a process. We have also asked how H & S legislation is applied to neighbouring residential premises.
A reply was emailed to us on 14th March by Sara of the National Britannia Group - the company that operates the helpline for HSE.
Basically it says there are prescribed noise limits for workplaces but the regulations do not extend to neighbouring residential properties. Enforcement does not therefore fall within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive - it is the responsibility of the Environmental Health department of the local authority, in this case Erewash Borough Council.
So the net result is that the residents' health and safety is not a matter for the Health and Safety Executive, and the Environmental Health department of Erewash Borough Council is clearly not interested.
It makes you wonder why we have any health and safety legislation in the first place!
Readers' Comments
I regularly write letters to the editor of the Long Eaton Advertiser giving the Council some stick. Why? Because they are a load of tossers.
JH, Long Eaton
I would like to offer an opinion on the use of Sound Monitoring Equipment set up by Local Councils. We had this equipment installed and, whilst the council officer was installing it, he was having to shout into the microphone. He played back the recording and it was barely audible. He explained that it was the poor quality of the speaker and a true level would be found back at their lab. Load of crap! It had been calibrated at such a low level it would not have picked up the sound of a herd of elephants going through my garden.
We had exactly the same scenario as mentioned in this article, no noise for 9 days. I was contacted on the Friday morning by the council officer who came and took the equipment away. That evening the noise problem was at its worst levels ever. That is not a coincidence. People had been informed that noise monitoring equipment was in place at my property. They keep advising that it can be reinstalled, but I think they may have a 3 strikes and you're out rule, i.e. after 3 attempts to record noise levels if nothing is recorded, end of complaint.
Absolutely bent system.
Ivan Porteous, Billingham
Editorial Comment: Thanks for this information, Ivan. Local authorities tend to pursue their own agenda. The only solution is to have honest elected councillors who are prepared to fight corruption ... and they are as rare as rocking horse shit!
I would like for you to bother getting two sides of the story. You will ignore this, I know, however I am stunned that your biased opinion would try to discredit people I know without you even trying to get their side of the story. Carry on and you will be open to all manner of legal issues. Even Jeremy Kyle and the chavs he has on daily have the decency to at least listen to both sides of an argument before they decide who the liars are. Food for thought? Maybe....
Bridie, Ilkeston
Editorial comment: Bridie of Ilkeston actually gave us a false Yahoo email address so our automated reply bounced back. Normally, we would not publish comments from anyone who supplied false contact information but we felt it was important to state our position on this matter.
People generally contact us when they have discovered that there really is no justice in the accepted channels. We then give them an opportunity to state their case and/or vent their feelings, and this often acts as a warning to other potential victims. In all cases, our correspondents have documented evidence of the wrongdoings against them and this would be produced in any resulting legal action.
If we were to approach the companies, government departments, local councils, etc, for their side of the story, we know exactly what would happen. They would deny it, either personally or through their trained liars. But, if the people our correspondents accuse think they have been wrongly accused, they have the right to present their facts to us. If they can prove they have a case, we will review any content we have published.
In practice, only two people have approached us. One was a salesman who was caught up in the case purely because he happened to work for the company at that time; the other was a woman who moved to a different company and wanted to cover up her past. The fact is that most wrongdoers seem to prefer to maintain a low profile, presumably hoping the matter will blow over in due course. Ed.
Dear Bridie of the false ID, I would be most interested in reading the other side of the story you are obviously more than well aware of, complete of course with well documented evidence (Reports, letters, e-mails, photographs and video footage) in support of your contentions to enable us all to decide who the REAL liars are after evaluating this so far unforthcoming evidence.
Presumably you do have evidence to support your assertions? Even though you lack the conviction of your claims to provide your real ID which immediately poses the question over what other information you have supplied which is also false! False name perhaps? The hollow legal threats certainly sound familiar. I suspect the grammatical errors are also a deliberate ploy to mask your real identity, either that or you have watched too much chav television lately!
It is hard to discredit someone whose own actions discredit themselves - not the truthful and honest reporting of those actions based upon a plethora of well documented evidence. If any readers of this excellent website have any doubts whatsoever over who the liar is in reality, then please visit www.councilanddeveloper.net and view the video footage and photographs. There is only ONE liar in this saga - not one with a false ID by any chance is it?? So submit your evidence in support of your contentions "Bridie". I for one cannot wait to see it!
DC, Ilkeston
I also had sound monitoring equipment fitted and for two weeks very little work was carried out on early mornings or outside. Within hours of it being removed, it was back to normal. Make your own assumptions but I was not impressed that my council tax was being wasted in such a way and as for pollution ....
XT, Derbyshire
|
Please tell us about your experiences -
We value your feedback. If you want to publicise any unjust practises that have affected you,
please use our contact form. If you want to add comments about any of our published articles, use the form below the article. This also gives you the opportunity to cast your vote. |
"Many men stumble across the truth ... but most manage to pick themselves up and continue as if nothing had happened."
Winston S Churchill
[Home] ● [Top of page]
Bookmark this page in Internet Explorer or FireFox!