People should make informed decisions based on facts, rather than what is claimed by Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) and their enablers.


 There is nothing more the public enjoys than unscrupulous/corrupt/lawbreaking people who hold positions of trust, being exposed.

The cherry on the cake is when the evidence is in the public domain. Well the public can feast on this website. It effects everyone, not just those directly involved with CHA.


The only people who are uncomfortable with the truth being known, are those who have something to hide!


Background to Caledonia Housing Association’s (CHA) campaign of harassment.


I just asked Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly from CHA, to desist from using an anti-social tenant (a.s.t.) to harass a 75-yr. old man and other tenants; (see chapters 3 then 6). Everything quickly snowballed from this. CHA Executives have huge but very fragile egos and go into attack mode very easily. My son and myself were then subjected to a catalogue of unlawful harassment and mistreatment, orchestrated by the Directors Tim Calderbank and Garry Savage, using some willing contractors and staff. I have named them all with evidence throughout my website.


 The company is the executives playground and the resources used for their own twisted self-serving agendas. They lie about everything and falsify records to deflect blame. They also use bully tactics to grind people down. I sought help from every regulator, sheriffs court and even the government. They sanctioned CHA’s corruption, fraud, inciting others to break laws, and every malicious and reckless action imputed to them. In doing so they have made themselves complicit, and therefore culpable for all the harm they do. CHA are not the only ones who lack integrity or credibility.

“Culpable and reckless conduct is deliberate conduct that exposes an individual, or the public generally, to significant risk to life or health..

..As the name suggests, the conduct has to be reckless. This means acting with a complete disregard of (or indifference to) the consequences of his/her actions. You cannot commit this crime accidently or carelessly”.

By Andrew Crosbie An Advocate at the Scottish Bar

The Directors instructed contractors to tamper with our electricity to elevate our bills ( fire and electrocution risk), instructed painters to seal our bedroom windows shut, engaged in multiple violations of our privacy (Ch.6)numerous data protection breaches (Ch.’s 5 & 6), defamed my character to influence opinion against me, withheld services including ignoring an OT and the Equality Act, forced us to pay for our own kitchen, and deliberately left our home insecure and more to *harass us out of our home.  (Ch. 6 & 7).

Caledonia Housing Association Directors and those who assisted them, have broken laws including criminal offences under The Rent Act 1984. See legislation below.


 When I took CHA to court, the first Sheriff (Ch. 2) went against the court rules, her judicial oath and the law; to assist Caledonia Housing association in avoiding liability. CHA also manipulated their own solicitors to lie and mislead the court over the facts, one was exposed in a second Case Management Discussion, a second tried to rewrite legislation. Both going against the Law Society’s rules. (see evidence in Ch.’s 2 & 6).


 The so-called upholders of the law I name throughout this website, have proven they are not the solution but part of the problem and therefore unfit for purpose, wasting £M’s of public money under the guise of protecting the public’s interest.


 I informed the First Minister’s office of the Fact; Caledonia Housing Association is operating above the law with impunity, because they pull strings and manipulate people to do their bidding, to cover their morally repugnant and unlawful behaviour. They couldn’t care less, but Nicola Sturgeon did promote the sheriff who doesn’t abide by her oath or laws!

It is a prime example of how some people pursue careers to give them power and choose to use it for dishonourable means.


No decent human being would protect this rotten company, but I guess decent human beings are in short supply, when it comes to those holding positions of trust.

*Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier. This law applies to CHA staff, directors, and contractors. Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown denied me my legal rights in court see Ch.2 so CHA then went on to harass my son out of his home. Ch.7. They would not have been able to do this if the Sheriff had upheld the law.



 (1)If any person unlawfully deprives the residential occupier of any premises of his occupation of the premises or any part thereof or attempts to do so he shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the residential occupier had ceased to reside in the premises.



(2)If any person with intent to cause the residential occupier of any premises—

(a)to give up the occupation of the premises or any part thereof; or

(b)to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof;

does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises as a residence, he shall be guilty of an offence.



[F1(2A)Subject to subsection (2B) below the landlord of any premises or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a)he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household; or

(b)he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.



(2B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question.



3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both; and

 (b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.



 ‘A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people.’      AMBROSE BIERCE


The Directors deserve to go to prison for their malicious intent to cause service users harm and for all the laws they have broken. They could cause strokes or heart attacks, drive someone to suicide, or harm from tampering with electricity, withholding services etc.  Ch.6. Maybe they already have, but because they routinely falsify records and are protected by those whose are refusing to do their jobs and protect the public,  they can easily bury the evidence of wrongdoing.  


 CHA bosses and their enablers are leaving themselves wide open for being sued or abuse. Their arrogance is seriously clouding their judgement and will not protect them forever.



 Scottish Housing Regulator


 Claims:  Regulating to protect the interests of tenants, people who are homeless, and others who use social landlords’ services.


(Reality: Denied their own statutory obligations to protect their corrupt, rotten friends to the detriment of the service users, evidence is in Ch.’s 3,4,6,7, & 8).




Claims: The UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.


(Reality: The ICO originally went against CHA, but because the arrogant self-regulating Directors did not like this, the ICO then retracted her previous decisions and ignored the Data Protection Act and Equality laws etc. as evidenced in chs.5 and 6).


The ICO has demonstrated it is happy to suck up to a completely untrustworthy company, so it is a foregone conclusion that no-one’s data is safe with them. Someone on Trustpilot said the ICO sent their complaint to the company they were complaining about, except the ICO messed up and sent the complaint to the wrong company, who sent it all back to the one making the complaint. The public are supposed to trust these amateurs who have no respect for the data subject or the law themselves! They even said fraud was out of their remit! They are only interested in making money from your data.


OSCR(charity regulator)


Claims: By reporting to us and meeting legal requirements, a charity demonstrates to the public that assets are properly accounted for and that it’s being run properly. 


(Reality: ignored all of the dishonourable and lawbreaking practices of CHA Ch.8). 



The (couldn’t) Care (less) Inspectorate (in my opinion, the most shocking of all)


 Claims: The Care Inspectorate regulates and inspects care services to make sure they meet the right standards. It also works with providers to help them improve their service and make sure everyone gets safe, high-quality care that meets their needs.


(Reality: Ignored all the evidence including how CHA routinely falsifies reports and malicious intent to cause us and others harm and unlawful eviction etc., their lame excuse is in Ch.8).

I would not trust CHA or the Care Inspectorate to look after a goldfish or write up a report on one, never mind trust them with vulnerable people.



The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman


Claims: We are committed to offering you a high-quality service. Our Customer Service Standards describe how you can expect us to act.

Commitment: We will communicate effectively with you

Commitment: We will work in an open and fair way

Commitment: We will carry out our duties competently and responsibly



Reality: The SPSO bosses along with the others, chose to ignore all the evidence of unethical, lawbreaking actions and criminal offences by their friends in CHA. see Ch.8. I was clearly wrong in chapter 3 when I thought the SPSO were misled over the facts concerning a neighbour who complained to the SPSO. I gave them a second chance to hold CHA responsible and sent my website link to them.


They later attempted to blackmail me into ‘respectfully’ removing a decision makers name to stop them receiving abuse. They showed us no respect and are deluding themselves if they believe I would show them any!


 SPSO bosses chose to protect their sadistic, malicious, unlawful friends at CHA and turned their backs on the suffering of us and others. They must take responsibility for their decisions and the reactions of the public. They can’t have it both ways. You reap what you sow!

Respect is a two-way process. They cannot command it; they have to earn it. I gave everyone the opportunity to do the right thing. They all proved they too, are lacking any moral compass so they only have themselves to blame for the public’s reactions. Victims of CHA do not have any choices. So-called upholders of the law make sure of that. 


 Exposure will act as a deterrent. Those spineless bullies who hide behind their authority and only use legislation for their own self-serving nasty interests, will all be named and shamed on this website, so no-one will waste their time on them.



 Any more harassment/bully tactics or withholding of services, from any source aimed towards my family or myself, then I will respond in kind, that’s a promise. I was never a revengeful person before this, but as of now, my views have changed. If the legislation does not protect decent people, then we have to do whatever we feel necessary; to protect ourselvesAfter all those in authority, can all be named as our role models. Let’s see how that works out for them.