Tweet
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
“... RE: Part VII AND s.211 (Housing Act 1996)
Only by 12th September, your habitual notification ‘dated’ 30th August, and stock-issued ‘Provisional View’, arrived. This letter admits to not having read my 17th and 20th August letters.
No new surprises there then, since LGO obviously hadn’t even bothered reading my initial 17th July complaint anyway.
For the record, my complaint was/is a Point of Law. My moot point is the legally recognized ruling I’ve deliberately had to re-state above. To which, Councils (and LGO) overall must (repeat, MUST) ensure a lawful obligation to comply with and execute. Ie, to all homeless people (and threatened with homelessness) – without any internal public servant discrimination whatsoever (ECHR). WDBC abject refusal to obey specified law with my homelessness is a very legal fault. [NB: Aforementioned part-law features in a wider officially constituted legal Statute - Housing Act 1996].
LGOs obstinate determination to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Law is unacceptably poor. LGO (ostensible) “investigation” my complaint concurred, without any validation, it could see no fault in the manner which Council vehemently ignored their above legal obligation – legally, is also fault.
In essence, LGO compounded more injustice atop the Council: by serious errors of judgement; to spuriously attack my credibility with fabricated lies; shifting the emphasis of my complaint and those factors in which I prove Council/LGO at fault (as per my 17th August letter – had you bothered reading it, that is); to even facetiously allege, “now resides (my incredulous emphasis) in her car outside its (Council) area”, when had even the most basic “investigation” been undertaken, would definitely have confirmed I’m STILL here; well ”inside” WDBC.
LGOs day-one “decision” not to (in truth, never) investigate my complaint is to give Machiavellian support, without question, of whatever the Council alludes having done no wrong to and/or about, is deplorable. Equally, LGO furtive repression of the true, defining crux of my complaint by its flim-flam diatribe, is both pathetic and likewise illegal.
I expected LGO public servants to have least been ultra-original with usual (public servants’) fatuous boring tirade that public’s letters “go astray” (solely to deny their existence). Also, no other legal sphere could feasibly be allowed to make any balanced view and/or informed “decision” on such a biased, proven flawed and one-sided unlawful submission. Evidently LGO can/does). So much for LGO “impartiality”.
Jointly Council/LGO have already trashed my reputation by smarmy propaganda lies, so I’m entirely unfazed by LGO’s mis-assume of “...to preserve your anonymity”, viz, that LGO won’t be publishing mu complaint details. As my 20th August letter affirms (had you bothered reading it, that is); the bald truth is wilful Council’s wholly withheld legal duty categorically enforced me, a vulnerable, disabled, ill-health female pensioner into dire homelessness and left trapped into her car, subsisting on bitter Dartmoor for FIVE PLUS YEARS to date – I’m now aged 69. Yet thereto I remain stuck fast, due to LGO tawdry absolving Council’s original inertia; so to reveal LGO Report (highlighting my complaint) wouldn’t bode well or good (faux-impartiality) publicity for either of you, once it’s “out there”. [NB: I am aware LGO is on record saying, “see nothing wrong in (us) doing that”].
No doubt I’ll (eventually!) receive yet another “Provisional View” that precisely mirrors the first two? Public servants’ ticking-boxes-to-attain-targets apart, why formerly contrive solicitous activity to me when, and too conveniently hastily, LGO unjustly massaged crafting its pompous decision (to close my case) without even once involving Part VII and s.211 (HA 1996), or me for that matter. ...“
“... RE: Part VII AND s.211 (Housing Act 1996)
Only by 12th September, your habitual notification ‘dated’ 30th August, and stock-issued ‘Provisional View’, arrived. This letter admits to not having read my 17th and 20th August letters.
No new surprises there then, since LGO obviously hadn’t even bothered reading my initial 17th July complaint anyway.
For the record, my complaint was/is a Point of Law. My moot point is the legally recognized ruling I’ve deliberately had to re-state above. To which, Councils (and LGO) overall must (repeat, MUST) ensure a lawful obligation to comply with and execute. Ie, to all homeless people (and threatened with homelessness) – without any internal public servant discrimination whatsoever (ECHR). WDBC abject refusal to obey specified law with my homelessness is a very legal fault. [NB: Aforementioned part-law features in a wider officially constituted legal Statute - Housing Act 1996].
LGOs obstinate determination to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Law is unacceptably poor. LGO (ostensible) “investigation” my complaint concurred, without any validation, it could see no fault in the manner which Council vehemently ignored their above legal obligation – legally, is also fault.
In essence, LGO compounded more injustice atop the Council: by serious errors of judgement; to spuriously attack my credibility with fabricated lies; shifting the emphasis of my complaint and those factors in which I prove Council/LGO at fault (as per my 17th August letter – had you bothered reading it, that is); to even facetiously allege, “now resides (my incredulous emphasis) in her car outside its (Council) area”, when had even the most basic “investigation” been undertaken, would definitely have confirmed I’m STILL here; well ”inside” WDBC.
LGOs day-one “decision” not to (in truth, never) investigate my complaint is to give Machiavellian support, without question, of whatever the Council alludes having done no wrong to and/or about, is deplorable. Equally, LGO furtive repression of the true, defining crux of my complaint by its flim-flam diatribe, is both pathetic and likewise illegal.
I expected LGO public servants to have least been ultra-original with usual (public servants’) fatuous boring tirade that public’s letters “go astray” (solely to deny their existence). Also, no other legal sphere could feasibly be allowed to make any balanced view and/or informed “decision” on such a biased, proven flawed and one-sided unlawful submission. Evidently LGO can/does). So much for LGO “impartiality”.
Jointly Council/LGO have already trashed my reputation by smarmy propaganda lies, so I’m entirely unfazed by LGO’s mis-assume of “...to preserve your anonymity”, viz, that LGO won’t be publishing mu complaint details. As my 20th August letter affirms (had you bothered reading it, that is); the bald truth is wilful Council’s wholly withheld legal duty categorically enforced me, a vulnerable, disabled, ill-health female pensioner into dire homelessness and left trapped into her car, subsisting on bitter Dartmoor for FIVE PLUS YEARS to date – I’m now aged 69. Yet thereto I remain stuck fast, due to LGO tawdry absolving Council’s original inertia; so to reveal LGO Report (highlighting my complaint) wouldn’t bode well or good (faux-impartiality) publicity for either of you, once it’s “out there”. [NB: I am aware LGO is on record saying, “see nothing wrong in (us) doing that”].
No doubt I’ll (eventually!) receive yet another “Provisional View” that precisely mirrors the first two? Public servants’ ticking-boxes-to-attain-targets apart, why formerly contrive solicitous activity to me when, and too conveniently hastily, LGO unjustly massaged crafting its pompous decision (to close my case) without even once involving Part VII and s.211 (HA 1996), or me for that matter. ...“
Comment