'Ruthless' Council Pursue Dying Man for £35.00 Bill, a call was put through to hospital as patient lay in coma! Options

[On the edge]

I doubt it is a policy, more vultures lawyers' advice.

There is a publicised vexatious complaints procedure. There're has even been a 'right to know' question about it. A procedure cannot exist without a policy.

Trouble is the administration have been taking over the executive function. That's because over the years our Councillors have abdicated their real responsibility so are little more than unpaid social workers these days. No use to man or beast.

Wether they like it or not, the Councillors are responsible for policy. Again, you can't have a procedure without a policy - if you try, as the saying goes, it doesn't compute.

[ihowgate]

I doubt it is a policy, more vultures lawyers' advice.

On the Edge is correct - there is common law which states that no man should be called in judgement upon themselves. I have put this law to the Council and they just ignore it - I think David Lowe believes he is God - he certainly seemed to think he was in regard to Mr Smith and his family.

The other piece of useful law on this is the Human Rights Act 1998 which has many sections relating to a person's right to a fair trial, to be told what they are accused of, for there to be no punishment outside of the law and of course this is the law of the land not the law of the Lowe that the Act is talking about.

If we could show that this was a decision made by one solicitor or another – then a complaint could be taken about them to the Law Society or Solicitor’s Regulation Authority both of which would no doubt be keen to hear about their own member’s encouraging large corporations to breach the Human Rights Act. One would not actually need a name but simply knowledge that it was reasonable to expect that the council had referred matters to the legal department (as when confronted with a threat of legal action) before making some decision of this type and then a complaint could be put against the head of legal at the Council.

It is an interesting idea – I will look into it – this is not being vexatious I hope you all understand I am just looking to the only means of obtaining my rights and that of Mr Smith and others like him.

[Andy Capp]

Rights mean nothing without the power or will to prosecute.

[Andy Capp]

There is a publicised vexatious complaints procedure.

Do you know where it can be viewed?

[On the edge]

[PDF] Persistent and Prolific Complaints Procedure - West Berkshire Council
www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28473&p=0‎

Web address as above, I simply Googled 'vexatious complainant west berkshire'. There are some interesting ones and this does seem to be far more common than I'd anticipated.

[Simon Kirby]

Rights mean nothing without the power or will to prosecute.

This is too true.

It's not so much the phoning the dying man in hospital that I find unacceptable (it would be heavy-handed, but I can just about imagine that the council might legitimately want to assure themselves that the man really was in hospital), what most gets my goat is that it would appear that the council wouldn't allow Ian Howgate to advocate for the man despite the man's explicit wish, and it seems to me that the council didn't want to deal with an empowered and articulate advocate and wanted instead to deal with someone who couldn't express himself well, didn't understand his rights, and was intimidated by authority. I would like to see what the Council have to say for themselves about this because as a public authority there shouldn't really be a need for rights-advocates like Ian Howgate because the public authority should already be taking the greatest of care that our rights and dignity are respected, and I can't see any legitimate reason why they wouldn't gladly work through an advocate. WBC need to give a good account of themselves, because at the moment it sounds quite appalling.

[Andy Capp]

[PDF] Persistent and Prolific Complaints Procedure - West Berkshire Council
www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28473&p=0‎

Web address as above, I simply Googled 'vexatious complainant west berkshire'. There are some interesting ones and this does seem to be far more common than I'd anticipated.

Immediately I see errors..

1. Purpose

1.1. To identify complainants who are unreasonable or unreasonably persistent and/or prolific in pursuit of their complaint and manage their complaints appropriately.

How can that be right. Surely it should say 'manage their complaints inappropriately'?

I note the following too. So it is worth being judicious with your correspondence.

4. Defining Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour

4.3 Similarly, the fact that a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of a complaint and seeks to challenge it once, or more than once,should not necessarily cause him or her to be labeled unreasonably persistent. Responding to reasonable expressions of dissatisfaction and requests for information should not cause staff particular problems.

The following I find unacceptable. Many of us are timid and are not familiar with dealing with authority figures. Some people could just being clumsy, so to label them as vexatious is discriminatory, in my view.

4.4.5 Making apparently groundless complaints again staff dealing with the complaint and/or asking that they be replaced, or escalating a complaint to a more senior officer after receipt of a response with which they disagree.


The biggest problem, however, is the word reasonable. Not really easy to define in the context of a complaints procedure.

[Andy Capp]

Uh Oh, it's admin ... quick, scarper!

[motormad]

[Andy Capp]

The other piece of useful law on this is the Human Rights Act 1998 which has many sections relating to a person's right to a fair trial, to be told what they are accused of

I understand that the council's policy on these matters details that this should happen.

[ihowgate]

Immediately I see errors..

The following I find unacceptable. Many of us are timid and are not familiar with dealing with authority figures. Some people could just being clumsy, so to label them as vexatious is discriminatory, in my view.

4.4.5 Making apparently groundless complaints again staff dealing with the complaint and/or asking that they be replaced, or escalating a complaint to a more senior officer after receipt of a response with which they disagree.

This section looks new – and it has a mistake in it also – these just demonstrate the incompetence of the staff – ‘again’ and ‘again’ and ‘again’ or should it be ‘against’?

I did have a very thorough viewing of the complaints procedures - once I managed to get a copy of them (the council were reticent to release them – even to a person trying to lodge a complaint) back in 2011. This was because I had seen a large number of complaints disappear. There was and as far as I can see still is wide spread suppression of complaints. The simple fact that people are not given the complaints procedures when they express dissatisfaction is a clear indicator of a complaints unfriendly culture. However I even have senior staff on record telling me that an expression of an indication of dissatisfaction is not a complaint, when their web page on complaints used pretty much those very words. The whole system is broken and the Council big guns are trying their best to keep it that way and keep it covered up.

At that time (not knowing how corrupt the system was) I offered the Council to drop my usual £1,000 per day fee and straighten the process out for them for free. It may sound arrogant that I was offering this help but highly regulated firms all over England had been asking me to help them with their complaints and customer remediation processes for the past 20 years and by this time Courts across Europe had started to ask me to help them understand good process also.

You won’t be surprised to hear that the council turned me down – free consultancy work – saving the taxpayer money and improving the service to the taxpayer and our council didn’t want it!

[motormad]

So the council are basically pushing complaints under the carpet then - and letting the cheap labour cleaners throw them away?
People complain when they aren't happy with whatever.
To be deemed

Vexatious - solely to harass or subdue an adversary

Surely if there is a complaint, not backing down immediately.. ahhh, this council.


Our council are idiots!

[Andy Capp]

I did have a very thorough viewing of the complaints procedures - once I managed to get a copy of them (the council were reticent to release them – even to a person trying to lodge a complaint) back in 2011. This was because I had seen a large number of complaints disappear. There was and as far as I can see still is wide spread suppression of complaints. The simple fact that people are not given the complaints procedures when they express dissatisfaction is a clear indicator of a complaints unfriendly culture. However I even have senior staff on record telling me that an expression of an indication of dissatisfaction is not a complaint, when their web page on complaints used pretty much those very words. The whole system is broken and the Council big guns are trying their best to keep it that way and keep it covered up.

Again, this is the same culture that exists in the NHS. They bank on people giving up. The latest government are seeking to make it harder for the 'little' man to seek redress too. There are vexatious complainants, but that adjective should not be used as a piece of armour to shield wrong doing and it seems clear to me that our 'local' councillors are complicit in this. Has anyone in 'authority' Spoken up for Mr Smith? I read 'mealy words' from Mr Benyon MP, but that's it.

Perhaps there was something about Mr Smith that meant he didn't deserve his 'human rights', or even simple 'common courtesy' ⸮

One other thing ihowgate, it might be worth reviewing the use of individual's names at the council (unless it is an accusation already officially in the public domain). Regardless of merit, it could increase the likelihood of this thread closing, let-alone being labeled vexatious.

[ihowgate]

So the council are basically pushing complaints under the carpet then - and letting the cheap labour cleaners throw them away?
People complain when they aren't happy with whatever.
To be deemed

Vexatious - solely to harass or subdue an adversary

Surely if there is a complaint, not backing down immediately.. ahhh, this council.


Our council are idiots!

You know the facts are that if someone is not happy with a complaint they are supposed to be able to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman but the LGO won't take it unless it has been through the Council's processes. So by refusing to accept a complaint and process it the Council are able to avoid their mishandling coming to light and completely avert the complaint in the process.

I have a case at the moment where a man lodged a complaint (in person as the Council again refused to let him have support or representation) on 8th July. He received a holding response saying he should get a full response by the 19th July, he has been chasing ever since and can’t get an answer (not even a – we need more time) – that is two months overdue. The complaint is about the fact that the Council have deemed that he was found guilty of trying to murder his wife in 2002 and that he was sentenced to prison in the process. The Council have used this to justify placing his children on the Child protection register and to allow his alcoholic wife to get legal aid – so as to win custody of the four children she abandoned and to take over the family home. So I ask you to judge whether this is an urgent matter. Interestingly a recent meeting with social services and the police in this case revealed the police refuting the basis of this claim by Council staff completely. So why is there any issue – why has an apology and corrective action not been issued? Because the whole system in WBC is corrupt!

What is someone supposed to do when they can’t get an answer or when the person responding to the complaint is clearly compromised? Especially when the current rules allow the Council to deem that person ‘vexatious’

I issued a personal complaint about parking signs – interestingly enough – around a year ago. It was sent to the complaint email address. It started ‘this is a formal complaint’. The Complaints handler ‘Sue Broughton’ tried to bury it – then almost ten days later after I had chased up the lack of a response she wrote back saying she did not think it was a complaint. So I pointed out the fact that someone who had written the complaints procedures and who was handling the complaints for this organisation should not be making such huge mistakes. I was then forced to explain that this too was a complaint. David Lowe decided in investigating the complaint into his own staff’s handling of the complaint stated that he saw no fault nor any need for retraining! I was then told I was not allowed to question his suitability to review this complaint! This is a police state, David Lowe is the sheriff of dodgy town and Nick Carter is his puppet major. I am today awaiting a letter which was supposedly sent to me by Nick Carter in December last year which is supposed to be telling me why I have no right to receive equal treatment by our council on a personal basis. It is convenient that this is probably the only document I have not received by email and when Mr Lowe tried to send it through earlier in the week it arrived in an encrypted file that was impossible to read and hence I have to wait longer for a printed copy.

[Andy Capp]

Taking your comments in good faith, these officers are clearly in breach of their own complaints procedure. My first comment is what tools do you have at your disposal to escalate the complaints? Just sending letters ad nauseum is getting no where it seems.

[Rowley Birkin]

just read the follow up story on page 7 todays nwn where the council leader says this isnt true and they never call anyone in hospital

[Andy Capp]

just read the follow up story on page 7 todays nwn where the council leader says this isnt true and they never call anyone in hospital

Yes, the council are repudiating the allegation that the council phoned the hospital. They also said categorically that they have never pursued anyone in hospital. It is a shame they couldn't have said so last week, 19 days after the story first broke in the national press. They also refused to disclose whether they rejected a request to deal with a representative authorised to act on Mr Smith's behalf, based on a potential breach of confidentiality; however, it looks like the NWN and we, owe the council an apology.

[On the edge]

Shall we wait until we hear what ihowgate has to say?

[Andy Capp]

Shall we wait until we hear what ihowgate has to say?

Obviously, yes, but he has already said what he wants to say, it's now a matter of 'putting up or shutting up' as it were! To make any inroads, proof of the call needs to be made. A call log for example. Testimony isn't proof, and I would doubt a council would make such a statement without having confidence of its authenticity. I person phoning the hospital might claim to be the council, but it might be an impostor, or a stunt.

[ihowgate]

Obviously, yes, but he has already said what he wants to say, it's now a matter of 'putting up or shutting up' as it were! To make any inroads, proof of the call needs to be made. A call log for example. Testimony isn't proof, and I would doubt a council would make such a statement without having confidence of its authenticity. I person phoning the hospital might claim to be the council, but it might be an impostor, or a stunt.

I think you will find that testimony is evidence - if not then the Council's testimonial claim that they never did this is not evidence either and we stand on the evidence of the e-mails. The facts are that we have the e-mail trail to prove that they not only refused to allow Mr Smith his representative whilst he was in a coma but they stated that they were going to deal with him directly. The telephone number of the Council should still be in the medical notes on Mr Smith’s file - that is the number the council left for Mrs Smith to call back on. But if we are saying that testimony is not evidence then I guess the word of the nurse who wrote it down is not evidence either and hence that is of no value either.

As I said before 'the Council will just come up with fudge and word play' and they have. Do you really believe that a lie is beyond the Council? They would say anything they have confidence that can't be revealed - as said before if they didn't do this why not just say so when asked. In today's world the police caution reads 'it it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on'. The Council have compromised their own defence by failing to mention this defence when questioned - a criminal would not get away with inventing a defence after they had bought themselves time to cover up the truth by saying nothing and the public should not simply accept that the Council are allowed to do the same just because they are a Council.

They know that the only non-testimonial evidence that there is of this action is in the Council's own telephone logs and they are never going to let us see those - they wouldn't even let Mr Smith see his own Council Tax and Housing Benefit records, what is more the call was probably made from a mobile and won't appear on logs.

The Council threatened to do it, someone (a nurse) with no vested interest said they did do it and if by some fluke they did not do it (and the only person who knew they had threatened it was me and I certainly did not ring the hospital pretending to be the Council) then it does not change the fact that they threatened it in writing and deprived a dying man in writing of his right to representation and to defend himself from their claims that he owed them money.

I guess the best way that we can get some proof is for me to throw down the gauntlet. If what I have been saying is untrue then it is libel – but only if it is untrue. So here is a challenge please, if a shred of what I have said is untrue, then would the Council please sue me. That way an independent court will get to decide what is true and what is not. If they don’t sue me then it is an admission that they know I am telling the truth.