Forum Topics

council fined by LGO for housing and compaints maladministration

Council found guilty of “severe maladministration” in respect of housing and its complaints procedure. No news to me and my neighbours.  We recall the horrors of the time the Council was operating a hostel at 354-6 Uxbridge Road - contrary to planning regulations.  More recently council officer Mark Wiltshire relicensed a landlord as “a fit and proper person” to hold a licence on a large HMO when he knew he had been housing tenants in filth and fire hazard (walls damp and mouldy, smoke alarm taped over, fire escape route blocked with old furniture and rubbish), and knew he was failing to prevent his tenants causing antisocial nuisance in the neighbourhood.   Shocking.  More shocking:  Wiltshire still has his job.  The complaints procedure?  We complained about him. It was dealt with by Helen Harris, Director legal and Democratic Services.  Required to respond within twenty days, she procrastinated for nearly five months!  The Council apologised for her “unacceptable” behaviour.  The complaint passed to officer Alison Reynolds. Before we had had a chance to request escalation, she had already refused to escalate the complaint. “I would like to advise you that the Council will no longer enter into any more correspondence with you or your associates”.  It was our right to request escalation. She corrupted due process, Shocking.  More shocking. She still has her job. History has repeated itself and will go on doing so under Mason.  He asked residents to email him with concerns about the borough.  I emailed him about this.  He ignored the email.  

Andrew Farmer ● 1705d1 Comments ● 1699d

Public Open Space Covenants & Stipulations on Council-held land

In the neighbouring London Borough of Hillingdon (our Prime Minister - The Right Hon. Boris Johnson's constituency), the Leader of the Labour Group of Councillors made the following Motion at Cabinet on 13th January 2022."That this Council believes that restrictive covenants on public & communal land plays an important role in ensuring that the value and enjoyment of the land is, and continues to be, preserved. Restrictive covenants enhance and protect our borough for our residents’ benefit and that of future generations.This Council, therefore, believes that it should set the example and do all within its power to uphold restrictive covenants especially on council land.This Council, therefore, calls on the Cabinet to abolish their current plans to remove the restrictive covenant in Yiewsley in order to develop on the recreation ground and library site.This Council calls on the Cabinet to enter into dialogue with local residents to devise alternative options for the use of the land in Yiewsley that complies with the restrictive covenants put in place to preserve the enjoyment and benefit for Hillingdon residents.Furthermore, this Council commits to uphold restrictive covenants across the borough for the benefit of residents."The above declaration in the Motion is reminiscent of the admirable Manifesto Pledge made by Cllr. John Cudmore, former Acton Councillor and the Leader of the Labour Group in Ealing at the time of his party's successful efforts to win the administration control of Ealing Council in May 1994 at the local 4-yearly election promising that the Council would respect the views of residents and protect the borough's conservation areas and green spaces from backland developments, etc.Victor Mishiku  16/1/2022"The Covenant Movement" Ealing.

Victor Mishiku ● 1701d2 Comments ● 1699d

The continuing tragedy of Gunnersbury Park

Neglected by two boroughs who could not manage to tie a shoe-lace together for decades, handed over in an appallingly formulated way to a Cop-out CIC, then packed out with Cronies of like mindsets and connections, a TfL approach to funding where even a tuft of grass is fiscally overpricedSome good stuff, but from a a lot of grant funding which is unaccounted for and overseen with sort of knowledge that would make an IKEA shelf priced at £2500 plus fitting seem "very reasonable". Much core infrastructure for a public park remains as poor as it has been for 25 plus years. A complete contradiction to 'Community Interest Company " and with not even a freedom of information clause - which needless to say this management wriggled out of. Because it's overseers, both Trustees and Councils, deemed it irrelevant.Even a Velcro shoe strap is too challenging for this CIOC who only know how to bully and manipulate with help from their 'friends'Loss of cheap affordable to all public park amenities and replaced by exclusivity with a patronising faux front of inclusivity.Change is welcome, but that will only be change for the better if ALL the existing league of cronies and those at the trough are not involved in any form.  A completely new broom of more open and honest management put in place properly answerable to the local people of Ealing, Acton and Brentford who seem to be considered as irrelevant unless they can afford it. Community groups must be on the board and as trustees, not just selected politicians and 'preferred' individuals.Local people, not council officers with close connections, or politicians who seem to have failed with Gunnersbury time and time again, need to be far more in control of a Park that was purchased at a knock down price on the premise that it was for the well being of All the local people of Ealing Acton Brentford and Chiswick.Will this be any better? With how things are carried out in our name?I doubt it. It seems more like another move to making it a pay to enter venue like Syon or Kew and not what it is supposed to be, a Public park owned in trust by two boroughs for it's inhabitants

Raymond Havelock ● 1717d1 Comments ● 1717d

Freedom of Information Refused by Ealing

I have strong reason to feel that the courts are partisan and are assisting Ealing Council in getting their way in court cases . ( at least with pricate individuals ) so i asked Ealing if they could provide me with some simple data FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUESTThank you for your Freedom of Information request received by the Council on 13th December 2021.Your request:• What percentage of court cases Ealing win and lose and where these court cases areheld?• The names of the deputy district judges and judges who hear your cases• I would also like to know how many court cases you instigate and how many courtcases are instigated against you.Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in response:This information is not recorded. It would take longer than 18 hours to answer this request, due to theneed to peruse hundreds of files from many different council departments. Note that it is not just thelegal team that deal with legal proceedings brought against the council; many departments (eg.Insurance, housing, planning) deal with many cases independently. Some non-legal teams also onoccasion bring proceedings on behalf of the council.the reason for my request was to see if Ealing was given special treatment and if certain judges were given the cases related to the borough it seems a reasonable FOI request to me because my own experience suggests networking between Ealing Council and the judges who fail to act with impartiality and have ethnic and political links with the Councils senior leadership

P Taylor ● 1727d11 Comments ● 1719d