Caledonia Housing Association
- INTRODUCTION
- CONTENTS
- CHAPTER 1
- CHAPTER 2
- CHAPTER 3
- CHAPTER 4
- CHAPTER 5
- CHAPTER 6
- CHAPTER 7
- CHAPTER 8
- CHAPTER 9
- CHAPTER 10
- 11.They do not have a legal defence.
- 12.STATE SPONSORED ABUSE
“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything” – Albert Einstein
I would like to encourage the public to make informed decisions based on facts, rather than what is claimed by CHA and their enablers, who are unfit for the positions they hold.
When dishonesty begets dishonesty:
“Unethical behaviour is rewarded/promoted, but decency is treated with contempt”,
leading to the wider public being put at great risk of harm. If the laws had been upheld earlier and our rights protected, my website would not have existed.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)
134Torture.
(1)A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in theUnited Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.
I apologise for the size of some pages, (and glitches, my grammar etc.), I am not a techy person but I wanted to show many examples, with evidence to support my points, because everything is in reverse of how it is meant to be in a civilised society.
Watch out for the word games by the self-titled elite, they are all lame excuses and rehearsed speeches to deflect attention away from their wrongdoing, to manipulate their target audience so they avoid accountability. Catch them outside of their comfort zone and they are defenseless!
Example: When politicians and their ‘buddies’ (including the mainstream media), ask the question “*have they broken the ministerial code”, it is a tactic. They focus on this to deflect from the fact they have actually already broken many laws. It is all ‘smoke and mirrors’ to spoon feed the public to sidestep from more serious allegations, which would be made against them. They like to have a laugh right under our noses, because in their deluded heads, they think they are cleverer than us, because they get away with it. They are not clever, but simply… corrupt.
We must keep highlighting the serious issues, and demand accountability to the full extent of the law.
*see ch 8 for the code.
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 Directors instructed contractors; to tamper with our electricity by turning up high, the thermostat on a hot water cylinder and by-passing the breaker box, to elevate our bills (fire and electrocution risk) and the painters to seal our bedroom windows shut. CHA 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.’s 6 & 7).
CHA are not the only ones who lack integrity or credibility. CHA’s law-breaking, malicious intent to cause us harm, was perfectly acceptable to the so-called regulators and the government. CHA Directors and those who assisted them have broken many laws, including criminal offences under *The Rent Scotland Act 1984.
When I took CHA to court, one of CHAs lawyers repeatedly lied and a second tried to rewrite legislation. Both went against the Law Society’s rules. (see written evidence in Ch.’s 2 & 6). Standards for solicitors | Law Society of Scotland (lawscot.org.uk)
Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown denied me my legal rights, ignored court rules, and abandoned her solemn oath, (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 done her job and upheld the 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 decent human beings are in short supply, when it comes to those holding positions of trust.
* Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22
This law applies to CHA staff, directors & their solicitors, contractors. The sheriff was therefore complicit, by denying my court case to be heard.
(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.
Corruption and the UK | Transparency International UK
Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’.
With that in mind: meet some of Nicola Sturgeon’s rats, and I am not talking about the furry, four-legged variety which she has been breeding in Glasgow, to the detriment of the health of those having to live in the city. Maybe Nicola, the defender of all rats , is hoping to re-introduce the plague!
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice / Attempting to Defeat the Ends of Justice – Crime.Scot
Using influence for personal gain and or to avoid accountability is proof of criminal abuse of position, especially when it is to the detriment of others. It renders those responsible, unfit for office.
Explore this very informative website which exposes corruption in the judiciary, government and more.
‘FIRST INTERESTS: Judge recommended for judicial role by Nicola Sturgeon – found First Minister committed three counts of professional misconduct – in Law Society probe of Ms Sturgeon’s failure to provide legal service protections for domestic violence victim‘.
The Gov’t ignored my complaint (response in Ch.8), but did take something for future reference, Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown (poster girl for the judiciary),was added to the ‘little black book’, a collection of dishonourable officials to call upon, when needed!
Eight new sheriffs appointed – Scottish Legal News
The First Minister; recommended to the Queen, the same Sheriff who showed no respect for rules, legislation and who denied me my legal rights, (Ch. 2), when I took CHA to court.
Leader comment: Jury corruption is a threat to the rule of law | The Scotsman
Quoted from above article; ‘One of the advantages that Scotland – and indeed the UK as a whole – has in this global market is its long-standing reputation for the adherence to the rule of law’.
Well it’s fair to say, my experience/evidence does not corroborate this statement, but shows the opposite is actually true! Corruption and unprincipled leaders are making a mockery of the rule of law.
Which is worse?
A sheriff presiding over many cases; when she disregards her solemn oath, court rules and the law, or a woman (who is sent to prison for 6 years) because she took a bribe to influence one case?
& even more power was given to Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown, to use influence in the best interests of the government & their buddies, therefore more opportunity to work against the public!
New SCTS Board members appointed (scotcourts.gov.uk)
to preside over tribunals & “She was appointed as a commercial sheriff in 2020.” Covering all the bases!
Fraud – Crime.Scot “Fraud is a dishonestly-made false pretence, in order to bring about a practical result” by Andrew Crosbie An Advocate at the Scottish Bar.
CHA Executive Management Team and their enablers (including the authorities who protect them), have a callous disregard to the health and welfare of service users.
Which is why they get on so well together!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/man-forced-sleep-outside-after-22909532
quoted from The Daily Record accessed 03/11/20
“Paul McGeoghie, who needs a ventilator to help him breathe after having had a brain tumour, said he was “driven mad” by the noise…was forced to sleep outside, because his smoke alarm could not be silenced for 21 hours and false information was given to Paul by CHA before they eventually turned off the alarm. ..and the typical response from Caledonia Housing Directors, was to blame the contractors.
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
Service users
Please do not go outside and risk hypothermia. When someone’s mental/physical health is at stake, it’s unreasonable to expect tenants to put up with the deafening sound or have to go outside in inclement weather.
Make a list in advance of all emergency contacts and keep by the phone. You could speak to your GP or some other health professional, for advice as it is a health issue, they may be able to advise and/or phone CHA themselves to facilitate some action.
I must name the shameless people who have refused to do their jobs, to avoid their innocent colleagues being blamed. Just like when there is a thief in the workplace, everyone comes under suspicion until the culprit is identified. There is nothing worse than having your character defamed when you are innocent. Ask anyone who has received a Subject Access Request from CHA; because this company (and others) routinely defames/prejudices the opinion of others, behind their backs.
I will unreservedly apologise and remove their names, if I have wrongly accused someone of being complicit in covering for CHA, if they can show they have genuinely been misled or bullied. However, I am basing my opinions on the supporting evidence, on my own and other people’s experiences, knowledge of CHA, and the opinions of other decent people. That is the best any of us can do.
My family and myself (along with every member of the public), have more right to protect ourselves from state abusers, and those following their instructions, than they have to engage in abuse and then defend themselves with additional unscrupulous behaviour.
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 is 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 must do whatever we feel necessary; to protect ourselves. After all those in authority, can all be named as our role models. Let us see how that works out for them.
Any Interference with my website/internet and preventing me from obtaining legal or voluntary assistance etc, will also be recognised as harassment by preventing me from accessing advice/services. It will also be interpreted as acts of hostility.
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 – Explanatory Notes (legislation.gov.uk)
“Threatening or Abusive Behaviour” – Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 s38‘..where that behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm and he or she either intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm’
Since making the above statements, there has been more harassment and intimidation by authorities. I will explain later. They just keep on digging an even bigger hole…for themselves. I have no intention of letting them off. They have not got the guts to take me into court but still rely on dirty tactics using influence. Cowards!
Chapter 1-The Character/Personality Type of the Directors.
Chapter 2-Court Matters: Denied my Legal Rights by Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown.
Chapter 3-CHA Protects the Interests of Anti-Social Tenants.
Chapter4– The Scottish Housing Regulator Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests.
Chapter5-The ICO Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests, and both Ignore the Data Protection Act.
Chapter6-CHA Disregard the Equality Act 2010, The Human Rights Act 1998 and Legislation on Harassment and Unlawful Eviction.
Chapter7-After I was Forced to Move Out, CHA Harassed My Son Breaking the Law Again.
Chapter8-OSCR, the SPSO, the (couldn’t) Care (less) Inspectorate and the Scottish Government: Leaving CHA Unregulated and Operating Above the Law with Impunity.
Chapter 9-Taking Narcissists to Court by Anne McCrea.
Chapter 10-The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Promoting/Rewarding CHA’s Unscrupulous Actions.
Chapter 11-Court Hearing Against Nicola Sturgeon/SNP/Government et al.
1.The Character/Personality Type of CHA Directors.
Narcissists, and other toxic personality types are the evil which live amongst us.
They are a significant threat to society and humanity.
I do not claim to be an expert in any of these subjects, but I do believe I have enough broad knowledge, and supporting evidence, to make an informed opinion on the behaviour of some of the people, I have met from this company.
I have also had a previous experience, of how dangerous these personality types, really are. Many years ago, I married into a family of narcissists who used money/influence with so-called professionals including a judge, whilst they engaged in malicious intent to cause me harm. They illegally stole my son to be used as an instrument of spite against me; causing financial, physical, psychological and social harm. They left me for dead.
Corruption and ill health, directly caused by making the mistake of trusting these people, prevented me from protecting myself and from pursuing a legal case against them at the time. Several decent and ‘very persuasive’ people stood up to protect me and prevented further harassment.
As a result of a lifelong interest in various subjects including psychology, I have learnt about legislation, can recognise dirty tactics and other toxic patterns of behaviour by abusers/enablers etc. I know what I am talking about, have credibility and equally important, I have evidence to support my claims…unlike the liars and frauds who I have exposed.
My experiences with two Caledonia Housing Association Directors Tim Calderbank and Garry Savage, have revealed negative patterns of behaviour, that bear all the hallmarks of narcissistic and or gas-lighting personality traits, and they happily encourage the same undesirable habits, in others.
Great reading below, from very knowledgeable sources:
The Drama Triangle: How Narcissists Use It to Manipulate People (insider.com)
Behind the Narcissist Mask: The Bully, Coward, Liar and Fraud – (narcissistfamilyfiles.com)
“It’s not nice to call names. But when it comes to narcissists, calling them out is really a matter of survival for those dealing with their abuse, as well as for those who don’t understand the profound harm they do.” From The Narcissist in your Life by Julie L. Hall.
Narcissists often leave behind a trail of Complex Traumatic Stress Disorder or suicide amongst their victims, as psychological abuse is the favourite weapon of choice. They can also be physically, socially, and financially abusive.
7 Characteristics of the Modern Psychopath | Psychology Today United Kingdom by Preston Ni
“In their professional careers, higher-functioning sociopaths and psychopaths are nakedly ambitious, shrewdly exploitative, and ruthlessly aggressive. They often manoeuvre their way to positions of power and status in business, finance, politics, media, and other prominent fields. They attain success at the unethical expense of using and abusing others.”
The Pathological Narcissist In The Workplace – My Blog (narcissisticbehavior.net)
“The one thing all narcissists have in common is that they need a constant source of narcissistic supply to give them oxygen, and for many narcissists the workplace provides that oxygen in abundance (i.e., it provides a place to preen, show off, get attention, shine, seduce, manipulate, humiliate, slight, prey on, exercise control, have power over, rage, and is financially rewarding, etc.).
“Christine Louis De Canonville is a Psychotherapist, Educator, Author and Supervisor of mental health professionals for over 28 years…and has worked specifically with victims of pathological narcissistic abuse in her private practice for many years”.
The Dark Triad definitions in the image are by Organizational Behavior: Machiavellianism or The End Justify the Means (slideshare.net)
There is a distinct correlation, between what constitutes pathological narcissistic behaviour and that of the CHA Directors (and others, as demonstrated throughout my website).
Psychology Today has many excellent articles on the subject, including the ones below by Preston Ni
*Difference Between a Narcissist vs. Narcissistic Behavior | Psychology Today United Kingdom
** 6 Common Traits of Narcissists and Gaslighters | Psychology Today United Kingdom
**1.Frequent Lies and Exaggerations…. Oh yes, CHA staff and Directors have a very strong aversion to the truth, and are happy to project and blame everyone else for their failings and there is nothing beats committing fraud, to ensure they achieve their aims.
**2.Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticised…. Just ask them to do their jobs and they go into revenge mode.
Example 1. Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly, rushing for the door when I politely said, “tenants need action as they think you are useless”. She then made the conversations all about her,” so they think I am useless do they, I am offended” and kept coming back to it, (playing the part of the victim). Then weeks later, tried to get me to jump to the attention of an anti-social tenant! (Ch.’s 3. & 6). She went on to defame my character by falsifying data and processed and altered data which was none of their business..
Example 2. Director Tim Calderbank festered for weeks, waiting for the opportunity to jump into a colleague’s email address (under the guise of survey monkeys about rent increases!) …. to be sarcastic to me, just because my son and myself caught him out in his lying! Then look at the ensuing criminal harassment denying us our rights, by the company seen throughout this website and how they made sure no authority would help us, which is also a criminal offence under Rent Scotland Act 1984.
**3.False Image Projection…. False persona and company glossy brochure façade to hide the sick twisted reality and their malicious intent to cause harm.
Example pre-emptive strikes before tenants have even complained, falsifying data held on them. Smear campaigns to defame tenants behind their back, to prejudice the opinions of anyone to whom tenants may complain, followed by campaigns of harassment to suppress, and control or unlawfully evict.
**4.Rule Breaking and Boundary Violation….Rules and laws are for lesser mortals, not the CHA lot who believe they are superior beings; entitled to do whatever they like and break laws with impunity; thanks to their manipulative skills and their narcissistic supply who assist them…. and many of them are also breaking laws.
**5.Emotional Invalidation and Coercion….Example 1. after the first case management discussion, the Directors wanted to gloat how they had influenced the Sheriff (and the Housing Regulator), and Director Garry Savage started trying to gaslight me with “so you think people have it in for you…. you think people are conspiring against you”. Gaslighting tactics are used to try to put you down, to make you doubt yourself and belittle you, so they feel powerful over you. It does not work on me. Their solicitor, even tried to tell me I did not see contractors taking photos through my windows! It is emotional abuse.
I just threw things back at the Directors to respond to their nastiness” to Garry Savage; “there goes that poor fragile ego again and reminded Tim Calderbank of how jumping into a colleagues email address to be sarcastic, under the guise of Survey Monkeys must be well below his pay scale, not to mention being somewhat immature and unprofessional”. They then huffed and took off!
Example 2. Pressuring others to comply with their demands or deliberately causing stress and engaging in unscrupulous actions to cause harm; evidenced throughout website. Narcissists are basically emotionally stunted adults, who become nasty vicious bullies, throwing temper tantrums when they don’t get their own way.
**6. Manipulation: The Use or Control of Others as an Extension of Oneself …Regulators, company lawyers, sheriffs, police, contractors , an anti- social tenant (used against others etc). Director Garry Savage is very adept at turning on his glib superficial charm or switching to his nasty side when the situation demands it.
Director Tim Calderbank bullied a 75 yr. old gentleman into removing CCTV (Ch.3.) which Citizens Advice and the police told him to install. CHA made out they had more authority than the police. They threatened him with court if he did not comply and prevented him from getting help via the police and an MSP. They quickly turned on me because I defended him, see Ch.6.
Caledonia Housing Executive Management Team (CHEMT) and staff manipulate people and facts to give them an advantage over others.
Their enablers (source of narcissistic supply) can then be blamed to deflect attention away from those responsible at Caledonia Housing Association: 1.Idealise 2. Devalue 3. Discard phases. It is the nature of the (backstabbing) beast!
Control of company finances is also very advantageous to the narcissists and is used for personal gain.
It is all in the word games with everything geared towards deception and also how current governments operate. CHA expected me to alter or move the huge, one-piece structure above, to appease an anti-social tenant (Ch,3). They described it as an ‘ornament’ or ‘wishing well’ in an email (Ch.3) and in reports seen in Ch.6. This was a deliberate act of duplicity to mislead anyone who reads about it to trivialise my complaint.
When I refused to be manipulated into doing what they asked, they unlawfully harassed us out of our home to make sure we lost the whole garden, money, and the time we spent on it. We also lost £thousands on other items of property and expenses. The CHA narcissists, make sure they get their own way.
Narcissists should never be allowed to run companies/organisations/or have government positions with resources to exploit, to allow them to achieve their self-serving and malicious intentions.
Only equally twisted minds would allow them to continue.
Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk)
(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, he shall be guilty of an offence.
As Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown denied me my legal rights in court (Ch.2), to prevent my case being heard, she empowered CHA, who then went on to unlawfully drive my son out of his home too (Ch.7 ). Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown had given CHA, ‘a get out of jail card’ to avoid facing the criminal offences, they had committed under the Rent Scotland Act 1984. They also broke other laws and routinely commit fraud, yet they are still operating, thanks to equally dishonest people, covering their backs. My absolute legal right to a fair and impartial hearing by a fair impartial sheriff was completely ignored.
Well as I am a non-person in Scotland because my legal rights are not recognised in the two-tier legal system, which protects those who break laws and cause harm, then I will not recognise or take legal advice from anyone unless it comes via a solicitor, acting on my behalf and carefully chosen by me.
Due to exposing the high level of corruption, everyone with a strong case, should insist on being legally represented in the name of equality. It is no longer reasonable to expect the public to place their trust in regulators or the courts. Watch out for the dirty tricks by unscrupulous people.
When the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, recommended sheriff Jillian Martin Brown for promotion, she promoted how it is acceptable to break laws and in doing so, sanctioned harassment, discrimination, and victimisation too, because like-minded people stick together. The F.M. has legal, moral, financial, and social responsibilities just like all the so-called regulators and representatives of the law. Nicola Sturgeon/SNP also makes sure they too are not held accountable for their transgressions using the same tactics.
It is not just the people in charge of organisations providing goods, facilities, or services to the public or carrying out public functions who must avoid unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
If another person who is:
– employed by a service provider, or
– carrying out a service provider’s instructions (who the law calls the service provider’s agent)
– does something that is unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation, the service provider can be held legally responsible for what they have done
– What happens if a service provider tries to stop equality law applying to a situation?
-A person must not help someone else carry out an act which the person helping knows is unlawful under equality law.
N.B. CHA has changed job titles of Executive team. Maybe they get a higher pay packet with a different job title!
Garry Savage is now Director of Strategy & Innovation (formerly Business Service Director)
and Tim Calderbank is now Director of Customer Services (formerly Operations Director).
- Court Matters; Denied My Legal Rights: therefore the decisions made by Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown, to alter my claim, were unsound.
‘A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people.’
by AMBROSE BIERCE
Either we are all accountable in law or none of us are!
I wish I had seen this excellent article on the link below, before I took CHA to court. Anne McCrea has kindly given me permission to upload the entire article and is displayed in Ch 9. The Narcissist in Court by Anne McCrea. Search Results for “narcissist in court” – Narcissistic and Emotional Abuse The previous link later blocked the article with ads so had to replace with above!
Article 6: Right to a fair trial | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com)
“Article 6 protects your right to a fair trial
You have the right to a fair and public trial or hearing if:
you are charged with a criminal offence and have to go to court, or
a public authority is making a decision that has an impact upon your civil rights or obligations.
What is a fair and public hearing?
You have the right to a fair and public hearing that:
– is held within a reasonable time
– is heard by an independent and impartial decision-maker
– gives you all the relevant information
– is open to the public (although the press and public can be excluded for highly sensitive cases)
– allows you representation and an interpreter where appropriate, and
– is followed by a public decision.
– You also have the right to an explanation of how the court or decision-making authority reached its decision.”
None of the highlighted above, were applied in my case when I took CHA to court. I have no idea about the other two.
“Article 6: Right to a fair trial and “is an absolute right. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, before an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable time. This right applies where someone’s private rights are at stake, such as in contractual or property disputes. It also applies to criminal trials. The right to a fair hearing means, broadly, that a person should be given the opportunity to participate effectively in any hearing of their case, and to present their case in conditions which do not place them at a substantial disadvantage when compared with the other party in the case. For example, a person who is subject to a decision-making process in relation to a possible eviction should have access to an interpreter, if necessary. Decisions should be given with reasons.”
When the law is not the law?
I was denied my absolute legal rights to a fair and impartial hearing, when I took CHA to court and was disallowed the opportunity to present my case and show evidence prior to decisions being made. Instead, I was given two Case Management Discussions (CMD) and as a result of these, my claim was substantially altered to favour CHA’s interests, which enabled them to avoid liability for breaking laws and malicious intent to cause harm, because “No evidence, means no case”. The Sheriff was perfectly happy to ruin the reputation of the Scottish Courts to protect her unscrupulous friends at CHA.
This is a prime example of how some people pursue careers, to use for dishonourable means.
Below is the claim I submitted to the court; I have taken it from my word document copy as it was difficult to copy from a PDF file completed online. It is followed by Sheriffs Jillian Martin-Brown decision; to change my claim into something completely different, (without giving me reasons).The Sheriff set a date for second Case Management Discussion but it should have been an evidential hearing; whereby I could have shown my side of the case; the truth, with evidence to back it up and if the law had been applied, CHA could not have walked away, see in Ch’s 3 & 6.
FORM 3A
The Simple Procedure Claim Form
Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) refuses to follow policy, procedure, and are in breach of contract. Since 15/09/16 I have been victimised and discriminated against by staff/directors/contractors, after supporting a vulnerable tenant who was being victimised by CHA.
My son and myself are being driven out of our home by unethical practices from CHA. My tenancy rights and data protection rights are being abused.
CHA deliberately failed to make reasonable adjustment according to Equality Act 2010 (Disability Discrimination protected characteristics).
- I want CHA to stop processing my Data and remove all reports and file notes they have written about me at any time. I do not want them to retain or process any personal or sensitive data. Only to retain essential basic data e.g. repair requests. I would like to receive a declaration that they have complied and evidence to support.
- I would like to receive a declaration that CHA are in breach of contract (I need for help in getting new home, to replace references)
(Continued in separate sheet D5)
CHA have refused to follow policy and procedure and are in breach of contract. They never take responsibility for any wrongdoing and blame everyone except themselves.
CHA have engaged in unethical practices to harass me, to drive my son and myself out of our home, and therefore made it impossible to conduct business with them. I did not sign up for this and it is not the behaviour expected from a social housing landlord.
- I would like to receive a declaration that CHA is in breach of Equality Act (Disability Discrimination) 2010
- I would like a hand-written apology from Cheryl Connolly, Susan Stewart, Ian Beeching, Tim Calderbank, and Garry Savage for all the unnecessary distress they have caused me.
- I would like steps to be put in place to prevent them engaging in any further intimidation or harassment.
Claimant: ———
Respondents: Mr. Garry Savage.
D1 continued
Information Commissioners Office case worker told Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) to follow policy and delete the excessive information held. CHA have ignored the advice. They are stonewalling over removing excessive, or sensitive data which is not pertinent to CHA business, to upset me.
CHA have failed to follow policy, procedure, and legislation: Anti -Social Behaviour(a.s.b.), Data Protection, Repairs and Maintenance, Complaints procedure, Estate Management, and Group Service Standards.
The appalling and sometimes malicious, customer service standards my son and myself have been subjected to, are not the behaviour expected from our social housing landlord and not what I signed up for at the beginning of my tenancy in 2013.
D5 continued.
1.Breach of contract and unnecessary inconvenience which was detrimental to my health, to hold to CHA to account £1000
2.Removal costs and rent upfront for my son and myself £1500
3.Kitchen replacement costs due to insect infestation from mould in home £1000
4.Major upheaval and cost of removing garden, kitchen, bathroom alterations, and remedial work. £1500
Interest rate at 8% annually from last date of service
Below is what my claim was turned into.
No 1. states wood lice but it was about book lice which was entirely damp related, after long delays in treating the source. These lice do not stay in a house if there is no damp. My claim was also about how CHA withheld services, put obstacles in my way and never offered to replace the kitchen forcing us to buy one, which was their responsibility, see chapter 6 and the laws they broke; including criminal offences under The Rent Scotland Act 1984; 22 Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier. Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk)
No 2. It was not damp equipment installed incorrectly, it was a hot water cylinder which had been deliberately installed to bypass the breaker box and had its thermostat turned up high; to inflate my electric bills. A plumber who later discovered this, said it was dangerous (shock and fire safety risk) see bottom of page in chapter 6.
No 3. This was about multiple data protection breaches from more than one person and several violations of my privacy and had nothing to do with CHA’s fictitious claim of assessing rough casting repairs, as described in solicitors’ letter in chapter 6, which was not even plausible. I wanted to stop CHA from processing my data as they are too untrustworthy, but Sheriff J Martin-Brown turned it into something about money, which the second Sheriff in a different Case Management Discussion, said I couldn’t claim, as I was not allowed to be compensated over stress caused by data breaches. The fact that they did breach the Act many times, was ignored.
Fraud – Crime.Scot by Andrew Crosbie, An Advocate at the Scottish Bar
“Fraud is a dishonestly made false-pretence, in order to bring about a practical result”
Fact: CHA has a history of defaming their tenants behind their backs; to prejudice the opinions of others and deflect attention away from their dishonourable practices. It probably explains why the Sheriff greeted me with “so you are Ms—– (this signifies knowledge of me, prior to even meeting with me)”repeating it again, then went on to shout me down when I tried to state; I had a medical certificate, “No, you are not!” a mandate from another tenant “No, you are not!” and what evidence I needed to be heard at a hearing. “No, you are not!” Unless of course she has another reason, for blocking my attempts to put my case. I was treated worse than a criminal; at least they get a lawyer and get to put their case. It was obvious that this Sheriff was completely biased towards CHA, and she went on to make decisions, which were beneficial to the respondent allowing them to avoid accountability. Her solemn oath and the law require her to recuse herself, but she ignored this.
I was further disadvantaged by both Sheriffs who dealt with my CMD’s, who told me not to open my evidence file, yet I have ‘brain fog’ and needed it to help with my concentration and recall. The Sheriffs and the respondent’s solicitor were reading from their own sources which I was excluded from seeing, despite we are all supposed to have access to the same information. If I had been represented by a solicitor, my case would have been treated completely different, as my legal rights would not have been ignored. I would never attend a court without a lawyer again, because of this.
Judiciary of Scotland (with Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown as poster girl) Click on Ethics and Independence you will see The Judicial Oath.
Ethics & Independence (judiciary.scot)
JUDICIAL ETHICS
The statement of principles of judicial ethics, a widely accepted framework of judicial ethics, helps to ensure that both the judiciary and the public are aware of the principles which guide judges.
Impartiality
The role of a judge is to interpret the law without bias or prejudice. Cases are primarily allocated to judges based on their availability. The specialisations and expertise of individual judges may also be a factor, such as in commercial matters, or intellectual property cases.
To be impartial, judges base their decisions solely on the law and on the facts and evidence of the case in court.
All judges take the judicial oath, acknowledging their accountability to the law by pledging: “I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
Read more about judicial independence.
Yet Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown ignored article 6 of the Human Rights Act, the Simple Procedure rules, and the Judicial Oath, to protect a dishonourable company. Why would she do this? CHA does not care about who they drag down in the mud as long as they avoid accountability, but a Sheriff should know better and lead by example. Why would anyone expect to have faith in the courts or any legislation if they are only on the side of the perpetrators and ignore the victims. This Sheriff was later recommended for promotion by first Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn’t matter to the govt that the Sheriff has no respect for people or the law just like CHA, or perhaps that was the reason she was selected!
The Human Rights Act | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com)
“Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world…… These basic rights are based on shared values like dignity, fairness, equality, respect, and independence. These values are defined and protected by law. In Britain our human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) ”
Except when you are a tenant of Caledonia Housing Association who disregard legislation, encourage the same in others, have no moral compass, who harass decent tenants, cover for their antisocial tenants, and then pull strings to avoid accountability.
I had no choice but to get my case dismissed as CHA were aiming to make me lose, (and to add insult to injury), they could then claim expenses from me. The scheming narcissists/gaslighters at CHA, did what they do best; control all the situation to their own advantage, by manipulating others to cover for them. It is disgusting what these people get away with and just how many people are willing to ignore the law to protect them. It speaks volumes about the integrity of those covering their backs.
COURT: Forfar Sheriff Court, Market Street, Forfar, DD8 3LA
CLAIMANT: ——
RESPONDENT: Caledonia Housing association
CASE REFERENCE:
Additional information C1
Dear Forfar Sheriff Court,
I believe my case against Caledonia Housing association should be dismissed because I was not allowed the claim which I made in my court 3A application form, to be heard and it has been altered into something completely different.
The first case management discussion dated 29/06/18, had my claim altered by the court, as I was prevented from having a fair impartial discussion prior to a hearing, where I would have proven my case with overwhelming evidence.
My original claim has since been watered down even further by the respondent’s solicitor and I realise is not worthy of another discussion in the court. I should not be charged for expenses as I never lost my case, which was denied the opportunity of a fair hearing, from the beginning. I was disadvantaged by the court and the respondent’s solicitor. My claim was successfully obstructed by CHA manipulating people to avoid accountability, as revealed by the second sheriff who allowed me one piece of evidence to be shown to him instead of the false evidence provided by CHA’s solicitor.
The term fraud may become relevant, but I will leave it for the court to decide as the court was clearly misled, (assisted by the respondent’s solicitor), by CHA who are very adept in the art of manipulation to mislead all authorities, and proved this to the second sheriff at the second case management discussion dated 21.09.18
Fraud legal definition of fraud (thefreedictionary.com)
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Despite health issues and disabilities, I spent over 18 months preparing my case without a solicitor, with support from Citizen’s advice and other agencies, who recognised the need for my case to be heard to protect my rights, and those of other tenants and service users. I was assisted by Angus Independent Advocacy for over a year whose efforts have also been in vain.
All Caledonia Housing Association had to do was ignore simple procedure rules, turn up, blatantly lie, and mislead the court with the help of their solicitor, who was complicit in falsifying evidence, they both knew would have gone against the respondents.
Fact. During the second case management discussion dated 21/09/18 a different Sheriff allowed me to show a crucial piece of evidence, which revealed what I had been trying to show to the first Sheriff. The Information Commissioners office decided against Caledonia Housing, in 1) a letter dated April 2018, which their solicitor, (along with other facts withheld from the court), engaged in a deliberate act of deception to protect the interests of their clients to avoid accountability, for their malicious and dishonourable business practices.
The ICO made this decision in my favour because I proved CHA had processed data which they did not have a legitimate reason to process and shown how CHA falsified data to defame my character. They had also withheld data from me which I was entitled to see, and she also told them to follow policy. CHA was given a date to respond.
I also have evidence to prove not only did CHA ignore her advice but went on to falsify more information. They also tried to mislead Aberdeen Law project (acting on my behalf) over what the ICO had said.
I could have even proved CHA had gone into the realms of committing criminal offences e.g.
Taking action about harassment – Citizens Advice Scotland
A landlord or their agent can be prosecuted for a criminal offence of harassment if they behave in such a way that your enjoyment of the peace and comfort of the property is disrupted or services like power or water are withdrawn or limited, and it limits your use of the property in such a way you feel you have to leave.
I am one of two tenants to whom this is relevant, from a small scheme. I had a mandate from the other victim of CHA’s dishonourable customer service, which was so bad, he has been persecuted by CHA and his neighbour, an anti-social tenant who they empowered and used as a weapon to drive him either into an early grave or out of his home. I could have proved in my own evidence how CHA engage in malicious action against tenants to suppress them.
Fact: All I needed to do to win my case and protect other tenants from CHA, was to show the overwhelming amount of factual evidence in my possession, which would have supported and proven my case.
Fact: All that was needed to prevent me from winning my claim and exposing CHA’s dishonourable practices; was to obstruct my case in the first place. This is what happened.
Fact: CHA had their lawyer, but I should have had the law on my side.
Attachments
1) ICO evidence letter proving among other things, a decision went against the respondents CHA; who had falsified information about me in order to defame my character and did not have a legitimate reason for processing. 2) How CHA tried to mislead Aberdeen Law Project by withholding the full account of what the ICO said in the above letter and admitting they had ignored the ICO.s instructions, by playing word games.
I wish to thank the 2nd sheriff, for being fair and taking on board my concerns and for allowing me to show the ICOs letter, which proved the court had been misled by the respondents and their solicitor. (I apologise for not remembering the 2ndsheriffs name, I did not write it down in court and have short term memory problems).
Had this second sheriff been involved at the first case management discussion, I feel confident a fair and impartial hearing would have taken place and my case proven. CHA’s dishonest, morally abhorrent and harmful business practices would have been exposed and they would not have been able to continue conducting their business, a fact they were fully aware of. People are being harmed and I had the means to protect them from CHA but was denied.
Please dismiss this case without any expenses to be met by me, as I brought this to court in good faith and with the understanding, I would be given a fair and impartial hearing; to present my case as outlined in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and simple procedure rules.
1.2( 3) Parties are to be treated even-handedly by the court. I was greeted by the first Sheriff “So you are Miss —–” followed by no you’re not, no you’re not, no you’re not as soon as I tried to discuss anything. I protested to CHA’s lies, including evidence of CHA’s deception over what the ICO said, by offering immediate evidence to dispute them and prove my point, but I was refused. This case management discussion was totally in favour of the respondents. Had I been treated fairly, I could have successfully proved my claim as outlined in my 3A application form.
1.4 (2) The sheriff must ensure that parties who are not represented, or parties who do not have legal representation, are not unfairly disadvantaged. I was clearly disadvantaged, my case was not given any consideration, and was turned into something else, based on the lies and deception of the respondents whose own solicitor was discredited in a second case management discussion by a fairer sheriff.
1.5 What are parties’ responsibilities?
(1) Parties must respect the principles of simple procedure. CHA’s solicitor withheld all the information, from me which it supplied to the court.
(2) Parties must be honest with each other, with representatives and with the sheriff. The respondents and their solicitor deliberately withheld facts which they knew would damage and discredit the respondents
1.8 What are the sheriff’s powers?
(6) The sheriff may make decisions about the form, location and conduct of a discussion in court, case management discussion or hearing. The sheriff must explain to parties why these decisions were made. It was not explained to me why my claim was turned into something else which allowed the respondents to avoid accountability and trivialise my serious claim against CHA.
(17) If a claim should have been raised in a different sheriff court the sheriff must transfer the claim to a court in which the claim could have been raised, unless the sheriff is satisfied that there is a good reason not to. The first sheriff J Martin-Brown stated that she did not know whether this was the right court for my claim, but then continued anyway making decisions which had nothing to do with my original claim. These were later watered down further by the respondent’s solicitor in the 2nd case management discussion, before the 2nd sheriff revealed the court had been misled by the solicitor and the respondent.
Attachment 1) From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: Garry Savage
Subject: Data Protection Concern [Ref. RFA0669181]
Date: 11 April 2017 11:38:16
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Mr Savage,
Re: Ms — Subject Access Request –
Ms — has contacted us with a concern in relation to the way that her subject access request (SAR) has been dealt with by Caledonia Housing Association.
Ms — has raised concerns that third party information in relation to a neighbour who made a complaint relating to Ms— have been disclosed to her.
She has also noted that information in relation to this concern has not been disclosed.
The data subject has also advised us that she did not receive your organisation’s Customer Data Protection Notice or sign the relevant paperwork.
Finally Ms — has noted that she has concerns in relation to a Contact Report of the 15 September 2016 as she states that the information recorded is inaccurate and excessive.
The ICO’s role
Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the Data Protection Act (DPA) properly.
If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask organisations to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.
What happens next?
From the information provided, it seems likely that Caledonia are in breach of Principle 6 of the DPA which relates to an individual’s rights. This is because in the file notes provided to Ms— of 14 December 2016, it states that the information on permission requests had not originally been provided to her as part of her first SAR response. However it does seem that this information was provided to Ms —- at a later date. (????)
In relation to the fact that it was disclosed to Ms —– who the complainant was regarding a neighbour complaint, please can you provide the ICO with further information. Please can you provide a summary of the reasons why this information was disclosed to the data subject?
Furthermore please can you outline in relation to the DPA, the reasons why the information regarding this complaint has been withheld from Ms— under the DPA. Please find our guidance on disclosing information in relation to complaints below:
s40 Access to information held in complaints files v3.0 (ico.org.uk)The concern regarding the fact that Ms — was not provided with the organisations Customer Data Protection Notice relates to principle 1 of the DPA which states that data must be processed fairly and lawfully and, in a way, that data subjects would reasonably expect.
Furthermore fair processing information should be provided regarding how information will be processed in order for organisations to be transparent.
In light of the concern raised by Ms— I would now advise that your organisation should adhere to your data protection policies and that measures should be put in place as remedial action in regards to this.
In relation to Ms — query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections.
Furthermore from the information provided by Ms—, your organisation will accommodate Ms —’s request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.
Please can you provide me with the requested information requested above by 25 April 2017. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, If you would like to discuss this case further please do get in touch.
ICO Statement
We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website(www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Manuel
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office 01625 545 655
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest. To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.
Misleading the court over the facts is against the Law Society Rules and is also an act of fraud, especially as a Sheriff takes its lead from the solicitors.
Standards for solicitors | Law Society of Scotland (lawscot.org.uk) Several standards apply including “Confidentiality does not apply when a client indicates to their solicitor that they intend to commit a crime” for example commit fraud, or when the solicitors failed to reveal to the court the facts; how CHA break laws including the Rent Scotland Act 1984 and incite others to break laws on their behalf, and routinely engage in malicious actions, commit fraud and also protect the criminal interests of anti-social tenants (ch3)etc.
A second solicitor lied, engaging in acts of deception via a letter (Ch.6) making sure I received it after we had been to court (received same day). She also tried to rewrite a piece of legislation! Having already unlawfully harassed me out of our home, my son was later driven out by Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly, on the basis of what she and the rest of CHA do best; commit fraud behind the scenes by lying to a sheriff officer to obtain a repossession notice, or the letter may be entirely fraudulent; see in Ch.7.
Attachment 2) ——- Forwarded message ———- From: Lorna Miller <Lorna.Miller@caledoniaha.co.uk> Date: 3 January 2018 at 11:48 Subject: RE: Subject Access Request – Caledonia Housing Association (SAR012) To:
Dear —-
I can advise that no information in the Contact Report has been amended or removed, this is due to Caledonia waiting on Ms —-providing us with what information she feels should be amended or removed.
The last correspondence we received on this matter was an email from Ms— dated the 11th February stating that she would be seeking additional advice on this to make sure she was confident that it is done correctly. Please let me know if you would like a copy of this email, as it was out of the timeframe of the information provided in this latest subject access request.
This email was a reply to a letter emailed to Ms— on the 8th February 2017, responding to a stage 2 complaint.
Ms—-’s request to have information in the contact reports for the entry on the 15th September was addressed by advising the following “I have to advise that I do not believe that the Association has breached the Data Protection Act in relation to the way in which the meeting on 15 September was handled and recorded or other notes relating to your tenancy. ** I would restate our position that the note represents a summary overview of Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day, and as such it is a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view.”
“The letter also included an offer to amend the records “I would advise again however that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of your files as noted in previous email correspondence. I would also have to advise however that this would be as a goodwill gesture as opposed to any admission that information itself was incorrectly recorded.”.
On the 27thFebruary 2017 we received a second Subject Access Request from Ms—- for records dated from 2ndNovember 2016 to March 2017, completed 5th April 2017.
When the ICO contacted us (11th April 2017) regarding Ms —–‘s complaint they advised that accuracy of information under the Data Protection Act relates to the accuracy of matter of fact and that the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. The ICO did not take further involvement in this matter as Ms—– had advised that we were prepared to accommodate the request to remove excessive information.
On the 12th April we received the email from Ms— requesting that we cease communication with her, unless for repairs.
Our position still remains, we are happy to consider Ms —-’s amendments to this entry on the Contact Report, and will amend this entry to note what parts Ms —- is in disagreement with.
If you require any more information on this please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Lorna
Lorna Miller
Information Governance Officer
Caledonia Housing Association Direct Dial: 01382 484511 Mobile: 07522226219
**What a load of *twaddle about “factual account from Cheryl’s point of view”. They are playing word games to amuse themselves.
By omitting the facts of what the ICO actually said and turning it into something else, and withholding data I am entitled to see, this brand-new Information Governance Officer, is already engaging in deliberate acts of deception, to cover for Caledonia Housing Association!
I had already accused CHA of falsifying information as part of my early complaint when CHA pushed me through their pseudo complaints procedure. Garry Savage withheld this fact (amongst other things) from his complaint procedure response (see in chapter 6) because he did not want to draw attention to it. CHA does not want to reveal the whole picture, just their twisted version of the truth. Deceiving people, is very much at the heart of how this company runs its business and they encourage others to follow suit.
The ICO tried to offer the *twaddle as a valid argument too (CH. 5) in our email communication, after they did a U-turn. They are all having a laugh, but are so arrogant, unprofessional, and stupid, they never stop to think how they would be perceived by others, once exposed.
As for claiming they will amend data as a goodwill gesture, I will not be coerced into allowing CHA to get away with falsifying data, (fraud), defaming my character and holding on to data which they did not have a legitimate reason for processing in the first place. They should not be allowed to process anyone’s data, not just mine, as any right-thinking person would agree. This Executive Team should not even be allowed to operate, as they have proven to be extremely untrustworthy and have no credibility whatsoever, and the same applies to their enablers.
Update 03.12.22 With the additional information throughout the rest of my wesite on the exposure of how criminal authorities and their sycophants operate, it proves the point that dishonesty is valued by them all and decency is treated with contempt. It speaks volumes! They have no right to preach legislation to us.
3.CHA Prioritises and Protects the Interests of Anti-social Tenants (a.s.t.s)
…because they are an anti-social landlord.
The Drama Triangle: How Narcissists Use It to Manipulate People (insider.com)
“One of a narcissist’s favourite games is creating havoc for others”. By Lindsay Dodgson
CHA have charitable status. Charity commission OSCR | Home Caledonia Housing Association Limited, charity no SC013988
CHA claim: Purposes: “The relief of those in need by reason of age, ill health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage Beneficiaries: Older people, People with disabilities or health problems, No specific group, or for the benefit of the community”.
I guess the bullies at CHA, wants service users, who are easy to exploit and take advantage of just like any other professional con artist, because there is nothing charitable about how CHA conducts their business. The Caledonia Housing Association mantra ‘no evidence means no case’ is right across the board in everything they do.
CHA (just like their enablers) has social, moral, legal, and financial obligations, yet does the reverse of what is expected of them and in doing so, are promoting crime by prioritising, and protecting the interests of the anti-social tenants. It does not make the workload of the police, or the courts any easier, and is highly suspicious behaviour which warrants investigation. This formed the basis of my complaint sent to Business Service Director Garry Savage, but he omitted from his complaint procedure response (see chapter 6), to control the complaint by misrepresenting the facts. They do this a lot. It is fraud: Fraud – Crime.Scot by Andrew Crosbie
“Fraud is a dishonestly-made false pretence, in order to bring about a practical result”.
Article 8: Right to respect for private life, family life and the home
The response of social housing providers to incidents of anti-social behaviour is more likely to engage with the human rights of victims than with those of perpetrators. While there is no human right to expect a social housing provider to keep a resident safe and free from nuisance at all times, a failure to address or tackle the reported experience of anti-social behaviour may well amount to a failure to respect the private or family life of a victim or an infringement of his or her right to respect for the home.
Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk)
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.
The basis of my complaint to CHA was this: CHA’s housing officer Susan Stewart forced a 75-yr. old gentleman to remove his CCTV with a threat of “see you in court” if he did not comply. He had been advised to install it by the police and Citizens Advice Bureau, to protect himself and gather evidence against an anti-social tenant (a.s.t.). Along with her guest, they committed multiple accounts of harassment, violations of privacy, defamed his character on social networking, and damaged his property. CHA said the CCTV “violated her rights” and CHA implied to the victim, that they had more authority than the police. The real reason they ordered removal is because ‘no evidence means no case’ against the a.s.t or CHA, who behave like an anti -social landlord. The a.s.t.’s guest had issued the gentleman with a credible death threat, but CHA did not want anything recorded so instead they deliberately put a vulnerable man, in harm’s way.
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
“Culpable and reckless conduct is deliberate conduct that exposes an individual, or the public generally, to significant risk to life or health.” by Andrew Crosbie and Advocate at the Scottish Bar.
It did not occur to me at the time, but another reason why CHA wanted the CCTV removed, is because it would have caught evidence against the other anti-social tenants; whose ‘customers’ in cars would have had to drive past the CCTV, to get back out of the scheme and ‘No evidence means no case! ‘ The housing officer Susan Stewart turned up the next day with contractors to forcibly remove the CCTV, but the victim had removed them during the night. CHA did not care about his well-being. CHA has some of society’s most vulnerable people on their books, yet they are maliciously causing people unnecessary distress, which impacts on existing health issues; a fact they are fully aware of. Quite simply this lack of empathy and concern for service users is at the very least, tantamount to neglect.
The police said they have never known any other housing association do this (force removal of CCTV). Neither has anyone else I have run this by! CHA does not like evidence being obtained and even when tenants show them any, they deny its existence. The CHA mantra ‘no evidence means no case’ is because they cannot risk anyone looking closely into their affairs, which is the very reasons they need to be investigated; CHA has a lot to hide.
The gentleman asked the company’s Chief Executive Officer Julie Cosgrove for help three times, but she ignored him and instead CHA got even nastier. Chief bully boy (previously, the Operations Director) Tim Calderbank, paid him a visit three times and nit-picked over everything in this man’s immaculate home and garden area and harassed him, trying to make out he was the problem.
“Have you got permission for this or that? I might have to report this… Do you realise it is costing a lot of money for me to have to come to see you? You stay away from her next door and have nothing to do with the garden area… and why don’t you move out, there are plenty of people who would like your house…. you will never get the CCTV back up…. etc”, on and on until Tim ground the poor man down making sure he wouldn’t formally complain. They placed enormous pressure upon this gentleman and protected the a.s.t. It’s disgusting.
After CHA empowered the anti -social tenant, she and her guest started damaging his car. He reported it to the police and made the mistake of reporting it to Director Tim Calderbank. Tim told the gentleman he was having a word with the police and after this, despite a prearranged appointment the police did not show up. As usual CHA never visited the a.s.t.
From that point in time, whenever the victim needed the police to deal with his a.s.t. next door, they never turned up or were unsympathetic and just like Tim Calderbank, they tried to make out the victim was the problem. I guess Tim planted this idea into their heads. CHA has a history of manipulating people, so they can control the situation. They do not like anyone, helping those they choose to harass, and they regularly defame people’s character, behind their backs or perhaps they told the police they were dealing with it. CHA deprived this vulnerable man of vital police support, which he is entitled to receive in law and by putting obstacles in the good tenant’s way, it also reduces the risk of any evidence being recorded by the police and therefore again ‘no evidence means no case’
The a.s.t. violated his privacy most days; forcing him to keep his curtains shut as she stood right outside his windows, often with another person, staring at him for long periods, verbally abusing him and his guests, and continued causing criminal damage to his plants and property. Later more credible death threats were issued to the gentleman. Business Service Director Garry Savage (and staff) trivialise all tenants’ complaints, and when writing my reports, he described them all as minor wider estate issues, to deceive anyone the tenants complain to.
Whenever the gentleman complained to housing officer Cheryl Connelly about what he is having to put up with on almost a daily basis, she (sarcastically) asks “have you any evidence?” He points out how they forced him to remove CCTV and she replies with the usual response “well as there is no evidence, we can’t do anything about it”. When he showed Cheryl some evidence on his phone she said, “I can’t comment on that!” But CHA doesn’t need evidence when they act upon vexatious complaints made by this a.s.t. to harass decent tenants.
The police always respond to the a.s.t. because she is as manipulative as CHA. Along with CHA, she gets away with regularly ruining the peaceful enjoyment of this gentleman’s home and his property. She also has a paper trail with SSPCA, council, councillors etc and is known by the police in two other areas. These personality types (just like the sick, twisted people at CHA) do not have friends…. they just have people who they can use. This a.s.t. and her guest are happy to cause trouble and CHA is happy to oblige them; feeding off each other, to bring misery to tenants.
Another tenant had witnessed the first death threat to the gentleman and reported it to the police. This evidence was ignored by CHA, they then went on to harass the witness; with the same a.s.t., who made a vexatious complaint, ordering them to remove something from their garden area which had been in the ground for over 15 years!
When another set of neighbours dared to complain to CHA, about problems with a different anti- social neighbours, CHA gave them the run-around too by falsely claiming there was no evidence. The tenants reported CHA to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), they said they thought this was their report when I asked them. Decision Report 201503760 | SPSO
CHA misled the (SPSO) by engaging in deliberate acts of deception to prevent evidence being revealed, about other a.s.t.’s. and their own maladministration. This included bullying representatives of a voluntary organisation, who gave independent advice to the ‘victims.’ CHA defamed and humiliated those making the complaint, implying they were liars and troublemakers, to the SPSO. CHA refused to acknowledge the evidence, the victims had spent months collecting and had sent to the landlord. CHA deliberately put a noise recording machine in the wrong house and as far away as possible from the a.s.t.’s twilight activities, to say there was no noise detected. It looks good on paper though and told the SPSO; “we have done all we can to find evidence but there is none!” and ‘no evidence means no case’. CHA are pathological liars!
Obviously the SPSO went against the tenants who brought the complaint because she based her opinions on the evidence which CHA made available, which was only their twisted perspective of the truth. CHA makes sure this is all what authorities receive. However, when I later sent my website to the SPSO, the rest of the regulators and the government, they ignored all the evidence shown to them see Ch.’s 6,7 &8. It strongly indicated they have been allowing CHA to operate above the law for years. There is a paper trail on the a.s.t. with the police (and court) and if this is compared to CHA’s twisted version, (and what they sent to the SPSO, unless they too are willing to falsify this evidence, to protect their buddies), it would reveal the truth.
CHA tried to get the tenants who raised the complaint, to move out to resolve the issues, when they declined, CHA then told them their complaint was resolved and not to bother them again. CHA obviously meant resolved to their satisfaction and that of the anti-social tenants, who were allowed to continue conducting ‘business as normal’, protected by their ‘guard dogs’ and CHA. I told Garry Savage he should not be driving good tenants out, so he responded by driving us out!
A.s.t.’s everywhere must think they have an amazing landlord who is willing to lie, harass and/or drive out decent tenants and falsify evidence to protect their unlawful interests! They must think they have died and gone to heaven. No wonder Scotland has the worst record in Europe, for drug related deaths! Scotland’s drug death crisis in six charts – BBC News
Other areas have tenants who said CHA did nothing about the a.s.t.’s and have turned their area into a drug haven, allowed homes to be used as brothels and have had burglaries, but CHA deflected, saying it is the police’s job to deal with it. The police did not cause the problem as it was CHA who chose to put a.s.t’s in their homes, refuse to deal with them and then make sure nobody obtains any evidence.
Tenants should put up CCTV to protect themselves which will also act as a deterrent and to get evidence to prove CHA are dishonest. Don’t bother with the CHA complaint procedure, they commit fraud and rewrite the facts sanctioned by regulators as seen throughout website.
Guidance on the use of domestic CCTV – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
CHA prevented an MSP from helping any of the above tenants, (she was not on the side of CHA, but it was obvious to us she had been pressurised into supporting them; Operations Director Tim Calderbank was the chief bully boy again. Garry Savage lied in my complaint response (ch.6), stating we had cancelled a meeting with the MSP, which Tim Calderbank was supposed to attend with a group of us tenants. He did not turn up as his outcome was achieved before we got there; to make sure the MSP would not help any of the tenants. So again, no paper trail and ‘no evidence means no case’.
The MSP told us that CHA had claimed the a.s.t.’s had lawyered up to stop CHA harassing them, but the real reason they had lawyers was because they are known to the police. Same lame excuse for both anti-social tenants. The manipulative, bullies at CHA with many years’ experiences of intimidation, can be very persuasive, but the cowards cannot take anyone criticising or exposing them. CHA needs to be investigated for denying tenants their rights and for coercing others to prevent help from being given.
Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk)
Not only does CHA break the law itself, but anyone it uses to harass the tenants are also breaking the law including the vexatious anti-social tenant and contractors. Yet Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown (Ch.2) was not interested in hearing any of this, she only had ears for CHA and their lying, solicitor. I wonder what she gained from this arrangement!
CHA then victimised my son and me for assisting the gentleman.
I told housing officer Cheryl Connelly she should be dealing with the vexatious anti-social tenant and not victimising the gentleman, by getting him to jump to her attention. CHA’s response was to try to get me to respond to a vexatious complaint generated by her (correspondence in ch.6). I had tried to defend this gentleman as any decent human being would do, but because CHA will not allow anyone to assist those they choose to victimise, they turned on me. You tell CHA they should not be doing something, and they respond by doing it again. CHA’s stance is that nobody is going to stop them from doing whatever they like, to whoever they like, because the narcissists egos believe they are entitled and due to their enablers sanctioning their behaviour. They too are then complicit and therefore culpable for the harm they cause and the laws they have broken.
Without any evidence, CHA, and their favourite anti-social tenant, claimed sun in October, was reflecting from the roof of my garden structure and disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of her home. I was expected to respond to her vexatious complaint.
Take note CHA breached the Data Protection Act by identifying the anti-social tenant. They did so over the phone too. They really do not have any respect for service user’s data, not even for their favourite a.s.t! Ch.5 proves how the ICO completely ignored all the Data Protection legislation too.
This huge structure in the photo above which CHA, repeatedly described as a wishing well or ornament throughout reports and back tracking file notes received from them, (to trivialise on paper). Although at different heights it is all one piece. It cost a lot of money and my sons hard work to build, and we had written permission from a different maintenance officer who had left.
CHA expected me to alter or move it; to appease their favourite anti-social tenant on the scheme. I had previously asked Cheryl Connelly not to bother me with a vexatious complaint, I knew the a.s.t would bring to them; after catching the neighbours son taking photos of my garden. Cheryl ignored my pleading when I was under stress and unwell, and acted upon it anyway, without any evidence to support anything the a.s.t. claimed, because Cheryl Connelly always acts upon the vexatious complaints. It serves as entertainment to the twisted staff at CHA.
By unlawfully driving my son and myself out of our home, CHA made sure we complied with them, and we lost all our garden/property, see CH.’s 6 & 7. Narcissists are prepared to manipulate and engage in criminal actions to achieve their result. Their enablers assist them in their dirty work.
I also believe 2 violations of my privacy ((with reference to the two unannounced visits to my home) I mention later, were probably generated by this same a.s.t. see chapter 6 under Violations of Privacy & Harassment.
I sent this response below, to CHA via their contact page. CHA sent multiple copies back to me via first and second SARs! They gave me email copies which had lots of symbols eg*!? mainly upside down, all over it and copies in paper form. So much childish and unprofessional behaviour, yet along with other facts, Garry Savage omitted the points I raised, out of his complaint response letter, (Ch.6) to water down my complaint.
16/10/2016
For the attention of All Housing/Maintenance Officers at Caledonia Housing Association.
It has come to my attention that housing officers/maintenance officers are responding to vexatious complaints from a well-known troublemaker; L J by harassing the victims of her complaints.
With reference to the phone call I received on 13/10/16, it would seem that as a result of my trying to defend a 75 yr. old man against her anti-social behaviour and the CHA’s stance of supporting the trouble makers, rather than the victim, I have now become a target of her maliciousness.
Caledonia Housing clearly are happy to be seen as pandering to this woman, but in doing in so, not only are you empowering her, but you are in breach of the Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement/ Tenants Charter and the Human rights act 1998. These documents do not just apply to the tenants, ( a common misconception by some Housing Officers), but it applies to Registered Social Landlords too.
Scottish Housing Regulator | Caledonia Housing Association (caledoniaha.co.uk)
“While we do not deal with individual complaints about a landlord, tenants can approach us directly if they believe there is a ‘significant performance failure’– that is, a serious problem which could have an impact on all the landlord’s tenants.”
Caledonia Housing cannot afford be seen to support troublemakers, especially when she and her boyfriend are engaging in anti-social behaviour towards at least one tenant.
“Social landlords perform all aspects of their housing services so that:
- every tenant and other customer has their individual needs recognised, is treated fairly and with respect, and receives fair access to housing and housing services.
SHR are an independent regulator of RSLs and local authority housing services in Scotland. They were established on 1 April 2011 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. They have one statutory objective, to:
“safeguard and promote the interests of current and future tenants of social landlords, people who are or may become homeless, and people who use housing services provided by registered social landlords (RSLs) and local authorities.”
My observations and communications with victims of LJ, make me conclude that Caledonia Housing Association is prioritising the deviant actions of a known troublemaker, over the welfare of the rest of the tenants…
I went to great lengths to discuss how even the slightest amount of stress has potentially serious implications for my health, to Cheryl Connolly when she came to my home, yet a short while later I receive a phone call from Susan Stewart that there has been a complaint (from the very person I discussed with Cheryl )and I was asked (albeit politely)to cover a canopy I have to protect my plants. I have refused because I will not react to any complaint made by either L J or her equally malicious friend who lives next door to me. Caledonia can jump to her attention but I will not be bothered over some triviality concocted by anti-social neighbours to drive one of us out, so –LJ– can then move her boyfriend in to be close to her. Instead of encouraging respectable neighbours to move (I personally know of two tenants who have been pressurised in this way) by CHA, they should be ousting the troublemakers.
As CHA have demonstrated to me that they are ignoring my health issues and failing to recognise the needs of the law-abiding respectable tenants on this scheme, I will take my own action to protect my rights as a (disabled) tenant. I am therefore advising you any that complaints generated by either LJ, or her co-conspirators ——at no —, will be ignored completely. They will be deemed vexatious and not worthy of a response. Any genuine complaints CHA may feel the need to discuss with me, they can do so by writing only to my son at my address who will be acting on my behalf. If a visit is needed, then an equally mutual time can be arranged by asking my family for an appointment with me in their presence. I do not wish to receive any phone calls about complaints. If CHA does not respect this, then I am notifying you that due to my health- related issues I need to record any conversations between CHA officials and myself.
I reported to Cheryl around the 15th September 2016, when she came to my house, Mrs — son was leaning over the fence they put up before we moved in, stretching into my garden taking photos of my planter. (which just so happens to be the subject of complaint Susan Stewart relayed to me.)I was told by Cheryl that without evidence she was not going to speak to ——-, to tell her about my complaint and no further action would be taken. I cannot be accurate about the date Cheryl came to my house because within an hour of making the appointment for a visit she had changed the time 3 times. I do hope she is not playing games! as well as housing officers cherry picking which complaints they wish to uphold.
I also reported a repair for the 3rd time and it has not been done. L J does not have problems getting repairs done why am I being ignored. An explanation is required…’ (The rest was mainly about outstanding repairs/maintenance).
When the other tenants told me of their problems with CHA, I did some research because I knew the mismanagement would be echoed on other schemes. All the links from the articles below have now been removed from the source, obviously because the CHA narcissists did not like the negative exposure! But I still have copies of the originals.
Extract below was taken from the article in the Courier dated 09/07/14 “Anarchy on Ryder Landlord Disputes”.
“Locals have dubbed the Caledonia Housing development “Outlaw Court” due to the frequency of police attendances to the area, only a short distance from the £1 million luxury homes of Queen’s Crescent at Gleneagles. One neighbour said he had recently witnessed three men attacking a resident over a neighbourhood dispute.”
&
“Dundee residents hit out: ‘no one feels safe to go out” from Evening Telegraph by Connor McCann October 7, 2014, 7:00 am
“Tenants living in Densfield Court have reported incidents including drug deals, drug misuse, anti-social behaviour and even attempted break-ins to police and Caledonia Housing Association.”
“It is getting to the stage where no one feels safe to go out of their house”.
“The number of people you see buying, selling and taking drugs is shocking the place has turned into a drug haven”.
..The attempted break-in also spurred tenants to ask unsuccessfully, for burglar alarms to be fitted, because of the CHA mantra ‘no evidence means no case’ . Caledonia’s operations director Tim Calderbank said: “If a tenant raises a concern relating to a potential breach of a tenancy agreement, we will investigate and take appropriate action. “However, on this particular case, we have been in contact with a resident about their concerns and have offered advice about the situation, including advice about security”.
For several years CHA only had negative Facebook comments on their home page from tenants e.g., complaints they had not been able to get repairs done, CHA had turned their area into drug dens with brothels etc. They later updated their Facebook page by promoting their self-image, to deflect away from the facts!
Fact: Drug havens and brothels are created, they do not happen overnight. CHA put families into homes, then move criminals in beside them and then prevent the tenants from getting redress for what they suffer. They are meant to put up with it or move out. Making others miserable is empowering to narcissists and other toxic personality types who cover their backs. The reality is a far cry from the glossy brochure façade the CHA Executive Team and their enablers would want the public to believe.
When is the law not the law?
There are no laws, when those who are supposed to uphold the law, cannot even abide by it or uphold it themselves, and prefer to protect those breaking it. Do not trust them.
The current government needs to be replaced, as the SNP have had many years (elected 2007), to do what is expected of them but have failed miserably by refusing to work in the public’s interest, to solve any social issues. They are too busy spending public money on their own twisted agendas.
4.The Scottish Housing Regulator Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests.
“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything “― Albert Einstein
A group of us tenants, tried to take our case to the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), she was not interested and just pointed us into areas we had already been, and back to CHA so we could go around in circles all over again.
Continued on Page 2 …” It is an absolute waste of resources to deal with problems made by their poor decisions which could have been easily prevented in the first place. CHA responses since have proved to be detrimental to everyone else but those causing problems. In fact, one tenant and her boyfriend are empowered by how favourably CHA have treated her and see it as the green light to continue ruining other people’s peaceful lives with their approval.
Other neighbours cannot live in peace or even go outside for fresh air because of dog faeces.
The poor management of the scheme has had a noticeable impact on the lives of everyone here. In a relatively short time it has being reduced from an attractive quiet, clean and friendly pleasant place to live with some community spirit, to a depressing area where neighbours are living under constant stress from unacceptable behaviour from a.s.t or the CHA.
It is like living in some parallel world. Deviant and/or criminal behaviour are the accepted form of tenant behaviour’s by CHA and the core values of being a good tenant as outlined in the tenancy agreement are undermined and to be suppressed.
We do not believe it unreasonable to expect CHA to abide by the policies and procedures as stated in complaints procedure, Tenancy Agreement, Disability Discrimination Act, DPA, etc.
We feel that our basic human rights have been violated as we can no longer live our lives free from behaviour which makes us feel depressed, harassed, intimidated, humiliated, or victimised by either the a.s.t. or by the questionable actions and failings of CHA.”
(I have just copied over the last section of the form we submitted, as the rest had the I.D. of the tenants.)
The SHR claim they were all separate issues, but all were concerning the fact that CHA falsifies information, refuse to deal with, but prioritises and protects the anti-social tenants, and engages in dishonourable practices including harassment, to silence the tenants as well as putting obstacles in their way preventing them getting help. This affects every service user not just those of us who raised concerns. We sent Tracey numerous documents to support this and show the bigger picture of how CHA pretends to do what is supposed to do.”
Quote from first page of the SHR response, “Our role is to ensure the Association has in place policies and processes to effectively manage and respond to any complaints that it may receive from its tenants. ”Oh no its not …because according to the SHR own website: at the time:
What we do | Scottish Housing Regulator
HR are an independent regulator of RSLs and local authority housing services in Scotland. They were established on 1 April 2011 under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010.
They have one statutory objective, to:
“Safeguard and promote the interests of current and future tenants of social landlords, people who are or may become homeless, and people who use housing services provided by registered social landlords (RSLs) and local authorities”.
They regulate social landlords to protect the interests of people who receive services from them.
They do this by assessing and reporting on:
how social landlords are performing their housing services
RSLs’ financial well-being
RSLs’ standards of governance
We intervene to secure improvements where they need to.
“…except when they are protecting Caledonia Housing Association!” and other dishonourable housing associations.
Social housing: Social housing regulation – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
The SHR ‘has altered the facts’ which mimics the tactics CHA uses to deflect, by latching onto whatever suits their agenda and ignore the relevant parts, (and then echoed by the ICO in their last communication to me, in chapter 5). Manipulative tactics to water down the complaints so the company avoids accountability.
Those of us who been through CHA’s pseudo complaint procedure know just what a farce that is. Great perks of the job when you can falsify information; alter the facts to water down the complaint, to suit your own dishonourable agendas and then pull strings to protect your atrocious conduct. The SHR have given full rein to Garry Savage and the rest of CHA to do whatever they like, and with whoever. See their malicious, disgusting actions towards my son and me in chapters 6 & 7.
This SHR did not even try to do her job, (but paid from the public purse) and because of the SHR’s failings and other equally selfish corrupt people in so-called authority positions, many service users suffer unnecessarily at the hands of CHA and other Housing Associations. If it’s not happening to them, and they can still collect their wages and other benefits, I suppose that’s all they are concerned with.
I personally would be embarrassed answering a complaint this way, but that’s because I have principles and always did my job to my best ability. But not everyone has ethical standards, and some are happy to pretend because they are the personality type favoured by fake leaders. CHA’s dishonourable practices were made secure by the very regulatory authority, which is supposed to protect service users from unscrupulous landlords. Instead, the regulatory body covered for the unscrupulous landlord.
After the first Case Management Discussion (ch.2), having got the sheriff on their side, (because manipulative narcissists/gaslighters make sure they control all the situation and everyone, who might expose the truth), Tim Calderbank could not wait to throw in my face, how the SHR complaint never got off the ground (they love to brag about their dishonourable achievements). This was without me ever discussing the SHR with CHA! But here’s the thing, how would CHA know that the SHR completely ignored our complaint; unless the SHR breached the Data Protection Act and informed (warned) them by discussing our complaint, when she had no reason to, as she was not bothering with it? CHA has at some point influenced her decision and by colluding the case worker/SHR exposed the tenants to further abuse from their landlord.
Other people had already commented ‘it’s all friends together’ but let’s be clear. Narcissists/gaslighters don’t have friends, they just have people to use. So many puppets are happy to oblige and run about after them, expecting the rest of us to do the same. The question must be asked, what are they getting out of this arrangement because it also speaks volumes about their integrity too?
https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/news/root-regulatory-problems-lie-weak-governance-blog-michael-cameron The direct link has now been removed. Perhaps they could not face being exposed by their hypocrisy!
“Our Chief Executive recently wrote a blog for Inside Housing.” The root of regulatory problems lies in weak governance” – a blog by Michael Cameron 16 January 2019
Well, I could not agree more with this statement, so Mr Michael Cameron, “would you like to publicly share through the press, the reason why SHR have been covering for a completely untrustworthy and morally abhorrent, social housing landlord, because ignorance cannot be an excuse? Would you please like to put your own house in order because CHA did need an impartial and thorough investigation, but the SHR just turned a blind eye?”
By demonstrating with my personal experiences via this website (and shared by many –thank you), I revealed a far-reaching network of corruption which surrounds the megalomaniacs who lead, and who acquired their positions through duplicitous behaviour and many false claims. They (not the virus) are the biggest threat to mankind and the reason they want to censor/silence all ethical people including myself,
5. The ICO Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests: and Both Ignore the Data Protection Act
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know”
– William Wilberforce
Data Protection Act 2018 – Criminal Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk)
Section 173: Alteration etc of personal data to prevent disclosure to data subject
Section 173 relates to the processing of requests for data from individuals for their personal data. Section 173 (3) makes it a criminal offence for organisations (persons listed in Section 173 (4)) to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure. It builds on an offence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Possible defences to an offence under section 173 (3) are set out in Section 173 (5).
CHA and Nicola Sturgeon’s government (enablers) are corrupt. They should never be trusted as they are operating under false pretences and collude with anyone useful to them and avoid accountability, which is against the public interest and the law. They do not want me to receive the services of an honourable law firm as they could not protect themselves in court, so instead try to interfere with/remove my website or anything else to their advantage. It is also the reason I have been banned from social media platforms.
Subject Access Requests (SAR)
Everyone is (but only if the law is applied!) entitled to see the data which organisations hold on them and can apply for a SAR. Your right of access | ICO
In my 1st SAR, I caught out Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly falsifying data, and she had written about sensitive topics which were none of CHA’s business and she had altered the facts, to defame my character on file. When I objected about this to Garry Savage, typically his response was to antagonise me further, by making up more falsified claims of what I said or did and covered for his lying housing officer. Then CHA used influence to avoid accountability. The CHA Executive Management Team did not like how the ICO originally went against them, so they made sure it did not happen again and with the ICO, they got two puppets for the price of one.
update: May 2022 After reading this page, you will be completely aware of the fact, the *ICO are part of the problem, and not the solution. By giving companies and authorities the power to harvest your information under false pretences, they all must be using it for nefarious schemes.
However, the problem with allowing data to be falsified/fraudulent(misinformation/disinformation, ha! ha!)it cannot possibly be of any value to the government or their equally corrupt friends, as their untrustworthy, *law -breaking data collecting companies and authorities, have rendered the data null and void!
Information is the new currency to be used by the fake leaders, however…why would techy, data collecting companies want to buy inaccurate data?
Lawful basis for processing | ICO … Most lawful bases require that processing is ‘necessary’ for a specific purpose. If you can reasonably achieve the same purpose without the processing, you won’t have a lawful basis”. CHA did not have a lawful basis for processing data they held.
Included in what I sent Willow, were the documents below which CHA had sent me in my 1st SAR. I have never made corporate complaints about the contractors. CHA made it up, which is clearly fraud, but probably came in handy when trying to prejudice others against me e.g., when using contractors to harass us out of our home. Take note further down in Willows responses, of how she deflects from ** accusing CHA of fraud.
‘Here’s one I made earlier ’by CHA
If this had been a genuine complaint made by me; it predates my first SAR cover letter below; dated 28/11/16, and would have been in the staffs reports, as communication between myself and CHA and they would have written to me about the outcome, but there is no record. The liars regularly drop themselves in it because they make everything up as they go along. 
Below is one of the (backtracking), typed, made up after the fact file notes by Business Services Director Garry Savage, which were added to my **bulked up 73 pages of 2nd SAR, for the purpose of covering for their wrongdoing. **This breached The Equality Act 2010 on reasonable adjustment Equality Act 2010 (legislation.gov.uk)
The corporate complaint disappears in the one below, which came from a PDF document and dated 25.11.16. (Look at the date on SAR request above).
The garden ornament described above to trivialise the complaint is a huge structure, they wanted me to remove to appease the anti -social tenant CHA named below, who makes vexatious complaints, see evidence in Ch.3.
Below was taken from the original Group Data Protection policy, relevant at time I first made a complaint to the ICO. CHA cared so little about Data Protection, they did not even have a Data Protection Policy for tenants just a leaflet, on their website (see below). More fraudulent claims for show purposes, pretending they follow policy/laws etc, to get service users to sign contracts with them.
The Rights of the Individual/Data Subject
6.1 Individuals/Data Subjects have the following rights in relation to the processing of their personal data.
– the right of access to a copy of the information comprised in their personal data;
– the right to object to processing of data that is likely to cause or is causing damage or distress;
– the right to prevent processing for the purpose of direct marketing;
– the right to object to decisions being taken by automated means;
– the right to claim compensation for damages caused by a breach of the Act; and
– the right in certain circumstances to have inaccurate personal data rectified, blocked, erased or destroyed.
- Consent
7.1 Wherever possible, personal data or sensitive data should not be obtained, held, used or disclosed unless the individual has given consent. With this in mind, the Group’s members will always obtain consent from the individual/data subject prior to processing any personal or sensitive data.
The Group’s members understand “consent” to mean that the data subject has been fully informed of the intended processing and has signified their agreement, whilst being in a fit state of mind to do so and without pressure being exerted upon them.
7.2 Consent obtained under duress or on the basis of misleading information will not be a valid basis for processing. There must be some active communication between the parties such as signing a form and the individual must sign the form freely of their own accord. Consent cannot be inferred from non-response to a communication. For sensitive data, explicit written consent of data subjects must be obtained unless an alternative legitimate basis for processing
1.3 Failure to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 could result in the prosecution not only of a Group member but also of the individual responsible for the breach in data security.
Data subjects (that is persons about whom such data is held) may also sue for compensation for damage and any associated distress suffered as a result of:
– loss or unauthorised destruction of data;
– unauthorised disclosure of, or access obtained to, data; and
– inaccurate data – i.e. data which is incorrect or misleading.
Financial penalties can be imposed on Group members by the Information Commissioner for any serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. The maximum financial penalty that the Information Commissioner can impose on a member of the Group is a fine of £500,000.
1.4 Given the financial consequences of any serious breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, it is imperative that Group members’ staff, Governing Body Members or contractors concerned with, or having access to, such data ensure that data is processed according to the principles of data protection and the rights of data subjects.
Group members’ staff, Governing Body members and contractors must treat all data carefully and must not disclose any personal data to unauthorised persons (this includes parents or relatives of tenants or other data subjects (… but named the anti-social tenant in my reports, as seen in first image in Ch.3).
Below is the leaflet given when we signed up for a house. More fraudulent claims which CHA had no intention of honouring. Then look at the lame excuse, when I caught them out with the lie about claiming to get us to sign a Data Protection Notice prior to processing.
Below in the second paragraph, is evidence from Garry Savages cover letter to 2nd SAR which clearly indicates, CHA did not obtain thousands of tenants’ permission to process data before they signed the tenancy agreement. It is rubbish about Garry claiming forms not being kept, as they never sought permission in the first place. They also claim they make separate arrangements to collect sensitive data which they never did and kept data they do not have a legal right to process in first place, which they altered to defame me, (to prejudice the opinions of others) and have refused to remove since 2016.
Below is Willow Warder ‘s original instructions to Garry Savage
From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: Garry Savage
Subject: Data Protection Concern [Ref. RFA0669181]
Date: 11 April 2017 11:38:16
11 April 2017
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Mr Savage,
Re:- Subject Access Request –
Ms— has contacted us with a concern in relation to the way that her subject access request (SAR) has been dealt with by Caledonia Housing Association.
Ms–has raised concerns that third party information in relation to a neighbour who made a complaint relating to Ms — have been disclosed to her.
She has also noted that information in relation to this concern has not been disclosed.
The data subject has also advised us that she did not receive your organisation’s Customer Data Protection Notice or sign the relevant paperwork.
Finally Ms –has noted that she has concerns in relation to a Contact Report of the 15 September 2016 as she states that the information recorded is inaccurate and excessive.
The ICO’s role
Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the Data Protection Act (DPA) properly. If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask organisations to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.
What happens next?
From the information provided, it seems likely that Caledonia are in breach of Principle 6 of the DPA which relates to an individual’s rights. This is because in the file notes provided to Ms — of 14 December 2016, it states that the information on permission requests had not originally been provided to her as part of her first SAR response. However it does seem that this information was provided to Ms — at a later date.
(But they still withheld original records of 2 unannounced visits and later made up backtracking notes to cover for this, by predating them and placing them in the next SAR! Then their solicitor claimed they did not know what I was talking about in her letter see Ch 6 ).
In relation to the fact that it was disclosed to Ms– who the complainant was regarding a neighbour complaint, please can you provide the ICO with further information. Please can you provide a summary of the reasons why this information was disclosed to the data subject?
Furthermore please can you outline in relation to the DPA, the reasons why the information regarding this complaint has been withheld from Ms — under the DPA. Please find our guidance on disclosing information in relation to complaints s40 Access to information held in complaints files v3.0 (ico.org.uk)
The concern regarding the fact that Ms — was not provided with the organisations Customer Data Protection Notice relates to principle 1 of the DPA which states that data must be processed fairly and lawfully and in a way that data subjects would reasonably expect. Furthermore fair processing information should be provided regarding how information will be processed in order for organisations to be transparent.
In light of the concern raised by Ms — I would now advise that your organisation should adhere to your data protection policies and that measures should be put in place as remedial action in regards to this.
In relation to Ms –query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. Furthermore from the information provided by Ms –, your organisation will accommodate Ms –request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.
Please can you provide me with the requested information requested above by 25 April 2017. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, If you would like to discuss this case further please do get in touch.
ICO Statement
We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website
(www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Manuel
Case Officer (later promoted to Lead case officer)
Information Commissioner’s Office
01625 545 655
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest…….LIARS! see below
The last emails I sent to the ICO after being to court.
After having ‘talkies’ with CHA, Willow decided to do a U-turn on what she originally stated ignoring the Data Protection Act (DPA) and Equality Act. Willows new responses are filled with lame excuses to deflect from the breaches of the DPA. CHA has spoon fed her what to say and was a willing participant in CHAs dishonourable practices.
Information Commissioner’s Office Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of ico.org.uk (trustpilot.com) 95% negative from 235 dated 17/01/22
One of the many areas of the Data Protection Act, the ICO and CHA are ignoring is this:
1.Personal data shall be:
(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’)”
There are clear links here to the Right to rectification | ICO which gives individuals the right to have inaccurate personal data corrected.
When is personal data “accurate or inaccurate”
In practice, this means that you must:
– take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of any personal data
– ensure that the source and status of personal data is clear;
– carefully consider any challenges to the accuracy of information; and
– consider whether it is necessary to periodically update the information.
The GDPR does not define the word ‘accurate’. However, the Data Protection Act 2018 does say that ‘inaccurate’ means “incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact”.
But only applies when the ICO ignores the facts/evidence/legislation to collude with those they are assisting, so they can avoid accountability!
on Thursday, 8 November 2018, 14:22:51 GMT, <casework@ico.org.uk> wrote:
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear,
Thank you for your further correspondence in relation Caledonia Housing Association and the way that they process personal information. I have considered the information available but am of the opinion that there is no further action which we can take in light of your subsequent complaints.
In our correspondence to you I tried to explain that in terms of data protection, ‘accuracy’ means factual accuracy, it does not relate to opinions or an individuals recollection of events. In cases where personal data takes the form of descriptions of what people believe to have been said or occurred on a particular occasion, it is not possible to conclude that there has been a contravention of the data protection accuracy principle.
Where the information records an opinion or a recollection of events, as in this instance, we cannot challenge the accuracy of that opinion as it is not factual accuracy. In these circumstances, an individual can request that an organisation attaches a note to the relevant file stating that they dispute the accuracy of some of the information held. This needs to be submitted to the organisation directly, the ICO cannot act on behalf of individuals as we must remain independent.
The organisation confirmed to you that they would be “agreeable to amending sections of your files”, this was clarified to you again by Ms Lorna Miller on 3 January 2018. In this correspondence from Ms Lorna Miller she clarifies that: “no information in the Contact Report has been amended or removed, this is due to Caledonia waiting on Ms– providing us with what information she feels should be amended or removed.
It therefore appears that you have not corresponded with the organisation directly in relation to the information which you would like to have a note of dispute appended to. Aside from advising you to do this again, there is no further action which we can take in relation to this.
Having considered the other matters that you have raised, they do not appear to relate to data protection issues and are not matters which fall within our remit. You have raised concerns about Harassment, Housing Repairs and Discrimination amongst other things and these are not issues which I can advise on. In relation to your concerns that Caledonia Housing Association gave false information in court and did not follow the procedure rules, these are not matters which we can address as they are not within our remit. I appreciate this may not be the outcome that you were hoping for, but I hope that this information is useful to you.
Yours sincerely, Willow Warder Lead Case Officer
Information Commissioners Office 0330 414 6655
08.11.18
Dear Willow
Thank you for your email.
I would like you to reconsider my case as I have not been able to put my case across to you in a way that you seem to understand. I will be therefore forwarding your response to a friend who is more articulate than myself and who is very knowledgeable about Data Protection past and current, as is necessary in his job.
I do not understand why you have altered your previous advice to CHA which you sent to them and the fact they have withheld more data in 2 subsequent SARs and falsified more records which they then passed on to other parties with the sole intention of deceiving. These are just 2 principles that relates to this. The rest of the points will be raised by my friend in due course.
– You must use personal data in a way that is fair. This means you must not process the data in a way that is unduly detrimental, unexpected or misleading to the individuals concerned.
– You must be clear, open and honest with people from the start about how you will use their personal data
this also applies; taken from ICO website 16.06.19 same section as above what the ICO ignored
– ( You must identify valid grounds under the GDPR (known as a ‘lawful basis’) for collecting and using personal data.
– You must ensure that you do not do anything with the data in breach of any other laws.…. (including altering and withholding the facts from a sheriffs court! or anywhere else..)
9 November 2018
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Ms,
Thank you for your further correspondence, I understand that you wish for me to reconsider your complaint. Having reviewing the subsequent correspondence provided by you, I have not identified any further data protection issues which we would pursue with the organisation in addition to the assessment which we provided to you on 11 April 2017.
My opinion remains that much of the subsequent issues which you have raised are service issues which fall outside of the remit of data protection. If a third party will be submitting information on your behalf, please can you provide us with a letter of authority to confirm that can act on your behalf with the ICO in relation to your data protection concerns.
I would also like to explain that our service standards state that we are unlikely to look into a matter where over three months have lapsed since the final correspondence with the organisation. Therefore if no new issues are identified it is unlikely that we would revisit your previous concerns.
I do not consider that my advice has altered since we last corresponded in 2017, however if any of my correspondence was unclear I apologise for this. In my letter to you dated 11 April 2017 I did agree that the organisation had failed to provide you with all of the information to which you were entitled as part of your Subject Access Request (SAR) within the relevant time frame. We also provided the organisation with advice in relation to providing individuals with their Customer Data Protection Notice.
(see original above) she is missing out where she told CHA to remove the excessive inaccurate data and has watered down her original decision to appease CHA who must have their own way.)
We asked that they mitigate similar situations occurring in future, however aside from providing this advice there is no further action which we would take in light of this.
With regards to the inaccuracies which you had identified, we did not believe that these matters related to accuracy as a matter of fact and advised both you and the organisation that we would be unable to pursue this. (changing her story from the original, above)We did however outline that the organisation had been amenable to appending your notes of dispute onto the record and reviewing the document, despite it accurately reflecting the opinions of the professional and an account of their recollections. My understanding from your subsequent correspondence dated 3 January 2018 is that they are still willing to review this document.
We outlined in our correspondence of 11 April 2017 that there was no further action which we could take in light of the contact report and this advice remains. Should you wish for Caledonia Housing Association to review the document you would need to contact the organisation directly.
**Your reference to falsifying records and ‘lying’ are not matters which fall within our remit, they relate to allegation of fraud and this is not an issue which we can address.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Warder
Lead Case Officer
Information Commissioners Office
0330 414 6655
To:Casework
12 Nov 2018 at 05:22
Dear Willow
Thank you for your email dated 08.11.18 I have been advised and therefore wish to draw your attention to the following:
If I could be absolutely clear, the issue is in regard to consent and ‘the right to erasure’ as per the guidance shown on your website. As you know the Legislation regarding the keeping of personal data has changed under the GDPR; this sets out the current requirements for the keeping of information and supersedes the previous Regulation.
In your original response dated 11.04.17 you stated In relation to my query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, “please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. **Furthermore, from the information provided by M–s , your organisation will accommodate Ms– ’s request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.”
**and you have subsequently retracted that statement by your recent email. My concern is, and was, the keeping of prejudicial, inaccurate, and my personal and sometimes sensitive information against my wishes.
If I could draw your attention to your guidance on consent (available on your website) ‘at a glance’ 2nd bullet point: “Consent means offering individuals real choice and control. Genuine consent should put individuals in charge, build trust and engagement, and enhance your reputation.” In the 5th Bullet point it states “Explicit consent requires a very clear and specific statement of consent.” And the 10th Bullet point: “Make it easy for people to withdraw consent and tell them how.”
It seems very clear that consent must be given before data can be kept. There is also the question of ‘the right to erasure’ this allows an individual to make a request for erasure verbally or in writing (I refer to my previous correspondence).
That said, it is my understanding that under the terms of GDPR that CHA should have sent me a letter or email asking if I still wished for my data to be kept by them; this did not happen, and no correspondence was received by me within the timespan of the new Regulation, i.e. 25th May 2018.
I am still at a loss whether my personal data has been kept or erased and that is why I asked for guidance from the ICO.
Article 4(11) of the GDPR defines consent as: “any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.”
- Elements of valid consent
Article 4(11) of the GDPR stipulates that consent of the data subject means any:
– freely given,
– specific,
– informed and
– unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.
The points I am trying to raise are these. Fact; CHA have breached their tenancy agreement multiple times and engaged in very dishonourable practices which have forced me out of my home and caused me financial, emotional, and physical harm. They have proven they are not trustworthy, and they will never honour my data; or anything else and as a result of these facts I find their customer service standards and data protection practices, morally abhorrent. I wanted them to stop processing my data but now they have ruined my court case by misleading the court and prejudicing the opinions of the first sheriff. I proved CHA and their solicitor engaged in acts of deception to second sheriff. It is a matter of record.
“The ICO launched its long-term public information campaign ‘Your Data Matters’ to coincide with the new Data Protection Act in May 2018.”
Well clearly mine doesn’t matter to CHA or now to the ICO. CHA still haven’t complied with GDPR; that fact cannot be ignored.
I was informed by yourself in my first complaint “…However, under Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act (DPA), organisations need to be open and transparent about how they process data. For this reason, the organisation have devised a Customer Data Protection Notice and request that data subjects sign the organisations form in relation to this which they store on record. You have raised concerns that this information was not provided to you and also that you and other residents have not signed the form.
The fact that these forms were not signed does not directly mean that the organisation have breach Principle 1 of the DPA. Their procedure of having forms signed is more of a company policy than a specific requirement under the DPA.”
However, for CHA to claim they will do something and then for them to ignore is another act of deception as it is misleading especially as when signing a tenancy agreement which is a legally and binding contract, both parties are expected to comply. Prospective tenants would expect CHA to honour all they claim including abiding by data protection, and not just pretend to get people to sign, otherwise CHA are signing under false pretences. This again proves CHA do not have credibility. How can anyone be expected to trust people who have no credibility? Would you?
A quote from the link you sent me on responsible authorities “we believe that the organisation responsible should deal with it. We expect them to take your concern seriously and work with you to try to resolve it.”
I couldn’t agree more with the above statement, but the points about CHA you are avoiding, is that they are not a responsible authority and for over 2 years have engaged in multiple acts of deception including falsifying reports, and unprofessional behaviour to prove they are not even honest or willing to abide by any policy, legislation or authority. They have worked against me and bullied and intimidated me to the point being detrimental to my health and welfare, (and other tenants) and are actually committing a criminal offence. (I am not the only tenant who has been driven out of their home.) All things considered; it is totally unreasonable to expect me to communicate with them all over again to get them to comply with what everyone naturally expects from data protection.
Had CHA complied with what you instructed and with the Data Protection Act past or current, I would not have had to take them to court or be having to ask you again to get them to comply. Had CHA not misled the court over the facts, (not just Data Protection) and making sure my case was not heard by prejudicing the opinion of the court, I had overwhelming evidence to support the reasons CHA should not process my data or indeed anyone else’s. This is a provable fact. People with total disregard to laws and the Human right Act etc, and who alter (falsify) data at will, should never be allowed to process anyone’s information, surely you must see this. Fact: nobody would trust them with theirs if they knew how CHA process it behind their backs. The 2nd sheriff understood this, why can’t you?
Guidance for social housing providers | Equality and Human Rights Commission (equalityhumanrights.com) Article 8: Right to respect for private life, family life and the home
Everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life and also the right to respect for their home and correspondence. ‘Private life’ has a very wide meaning. People should be able to live in privacy and be able to live their life in the way that they choose. Their personal information should be kept private and confidential. The right to respect for a person’s home is not a right to housing, but is a person’s right to access and live in their home without intrusion or interference…. You should take positive steps to prevent other people seriously undermining a person’s home or private life, for example, through serious pollution or anti-social behaviour. Article 8 is a qualified right. This means that you cannot interfere with the right, for example by forcing people to leave their homes, unless you are acting in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. You must be acting in accordance with the law and there must be no less intrusive way of achieving your objective.
You have ignored the multiple violations of privacy I have brought to your attention. Can you identify the legitimate reason why CHA can nosey around my home unattended accessing my personal belongings and without permission and take photos of the inside of my home from outside, to upset me. I have already given you evidence to support my more believable responses to CHAs lame excuses made up after the fact. These incidents were withheld from relevant SARS, another attempt of dishonesty to prevent accountability.
Article 6: Right to a fair trial
Article 6 is an absolute right. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, before an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable time.
I gave you supporting evidence of dishonourable practices to show why I cant trust them, but you respond by deflecting and focusing on what is not in your remit rather than what is, and the fact CHA are acting like they are above (and have no respect for) the law. Everyone, with no exception, is expected to comply with the laws and not alter it to suit their own agendas. Wouldn’t you agree?
What kind of a company encourages a solicitor to break her code of ethics to mislead the sheriffs on the facts? They will use anyone to avoid taking responsibility. They then blame them to deflect from their wrong doing. They do not care who they get into trouble as long as it is not them.
Your data matters | ICO “It belongs to you so it’s important your data is used only in ways you would reasonably expect, and that it stays safe. ” This is in your remit?
They have no integrity whatsoever. Yet, you want me to forget all this and go round in circles again to get CHA to refuse to amend or remove unless on their terms eg good will gesture and no admission of wrongdoing. Absolutely not. The references to opinions of the professionals is irrelevant when dishonesty, intimidation are not recognised as a personality trait of a professional. Opinions of dishonest people do not matter. Opinions are subjective and biased, but facts are objective. In my case, provable.
Subjective – Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com
It might interest you to know how a legal person described CHA’s reports etc… as being a “twisted perspective”.
Garry Savage from CHA claimed in my first SAR, I made 2 corporate complaints about repairs without any evidence to support as they made it up, they are making reports up as they go along or after the fact. Falsifying information is indisputably dishonest. The 2nd sheriff agreed as did every other decent human being who knows the facts, yet you are ignoring the fact. Facts matter. Evidence matters. Opinions of dishonest people do not.
“We did however outline that the organisation had been amenable to appending your notes of dispute onto the record and reviewing the document, despite it accurately reflecting the opinions of the professional and an account of their recollections.”
Using the word accurately is inappropriate here, as you forget I have a recording and recollections are not to be relied on when she made copious amounts of notes. Same applies to Garry Savage yet you are placing more importance on the rights of people who have engaged in multiple actions of deception, than my rights to protect my own data.
– The processing must be necessary. If you can reasonably comply without processing the personal data, this basis does not apply.
– You should document your decision to rely on this lawful basis and ensure that you can justify your reasoning.
– You should be able to either identify the specific legal provision or an appropriate source of advice or guidance that clearly sets out your obligation.
Please advise me of the legitimate reasons CHA have past and present for processing any of my data and especially the data I have objected to for 2 years+, includes sensitive data which is not relevant to the contract I have with them. They did not honour their own claims in their group Data Protection Policy which I have already highlighted to you and you told them to follow policy.
7.1 …”will always obtain consent from the individual/data subject prior to processing
any personal or sensitive data.
7.2..Consent obtained under duress or on the basis of misleading information will not be a
valid basis for processing. There must be some active communication between the
parties such as signing a form and the individual must sign the form freely of their own
accord. Consent cannot be inferred from non-response to a communication. For
sensitive data, explicit written consent of data subjects must be obtained unless an
alternative legitimate basis for processing exists.”
Fact; I have made repeated requests to Cha to remove inaccurate and misleading, prejudicial and excessive data and that which is not pertinent to the contract I have with them, and they refused and responded by adding more of the same and now you want me to play their mind games all over again. That is why I contacted you the first time and you told them to remove “ Furthermore from the information provided by Ms —, your organisation will accommodate Ms —’s request to have excessive information removed.” Noncompliance is in your remit
Pages 14-15 , 19, 21, of 73 pages of SAR 2 show I have repeatedly requested removal of inaccurate excessive data. I have given them multiple opportunities to reply but they are just a having a laugh at the authorities expense as well as mine.
Page 20 shows Garry willing to amend all inaccurate data but later changes this to “as a good will gesture”. I think we need to stop pretending I haven’t asked them to remove this or made clear what I object to. That which I strongly believe, CHA do not have a legitimate reason to process in the first place unless you can prove why my rights are being disregarded.
CHA state in a few pages in 3rd Sar ‘to legal advisors acting on my behalf “ Where appropriate, we have included the full document or a screenshot image, as this often makes the information easier to understand when extracted from our systems. This does include some codes and abbreviations which have been explained in the attached Document List. No information requested has been withheld under any exception.”
Compare this format to the ones I received and tell me how 73 pages of bulked up unnecessary data I did not ask for, in a virtually unreadable format, with multiple copies of same pages already received in previous SAR; pages with anti -virus information and nothing else etc. This was deliberate to put obstacles in my way because they do not want to comply with my right to access my data. You cannot deny this, it is blatantly obvious. CHA wants the right to conceal their dishonest practices and ignore my rights of access. What happened to page 23 of reasonable adjustment. This applies to the ICO too, (along with Human Rights Act etc) and yet I am being made to quote you your own information on data subjects rights.
CHA withheld from SAR3 the violation of my privacy incident with the clerk of works who I caught taking photos inside my windows. Police Scotland (twice confirmed to me and advised me to put up CCTV cameras to avoid it happening again, that this alone is a complete violation of my privacy and unacceptable. I am aware you have data on cameras and personal privacy rights. After asking for an apology for CHA violated my privacy twice, their response is to then send later someone around taking photos of inside my home including personal messages on blackboards in my kitchen. I could have been in bed, or my grandchildren could have been. How can you expect people to trust this company? How is that acceptable. This is not an exhaustive list of breaches of contract. I have very good reasons for wanting CHA to remove the data, and I am not even living in their house anymore. I was forced to moved out because of their dishonourable business practices. CHA withheld this evidence in 3rd SAR and they have withheld all repair requests in all 3 SARS. CHA Pages 41-43
With reference to your comments on fraud, I am glad you acknowledge that lying and falsifying data is indeed fraud, but as far as you claiming it is not in your remit, the investigation of this is not, but protecting my data is. People who lie a lot have no credibility, people who falsify data have no credibility, people who engage in malicious action to avoid anyone making complaints against them, also have no credibility. I am not being unreasonable expecting you to respect my wishes and the instructions you originally gave to CHA and apply the new GDPR rules including my right to erasure, which are within your remit as is my right to ensure my data is safe, which it currently is not.
“ It belongs to you so it’s important your data is used only in ways you would reasonably expect, and that it stays safe. Data protection law makes sure everyone’s data is used properly and legally.”
Fact: my data has not been used in ways which anyone would reasonably expect and is not safe. It is not being used properly and legally. Therefore, I understandably expect the ICO to comply with its legal obligations and do what it is meant to do to protect my interests. My rights to erasure should be respected. Otherwise I would like you to give me legitimate, valid reasons (and not attempts to deflect) why you are refusing to protect my data from this company and anyone they are free to pass to, and therefore disregarding all of my rights as required in legislation.
“…processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject.”
…The point is that your overall purpose must be to comply with a legal obligation which has a sufficiently clear basis in either common law or statute.”
I am not the bad guy here, I have done nothing wrong. I am an old woman, I should not have to have all this unnecessary stress impacting on my health for so long, making me ill. People should just comply with what is expected of them and what they claim to do in their jobs and abide by legislation. I will be happy to highlight what I expect to be removed.
‘I look forward to your response and comments regarding the failure by CHA in following the current guidance as contained in GDPR’.
Yours sincerely
20 November 2018
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear
Thank you for your further correspondence in relation to Caledonia Housing Association and the way that they process personal data. Your comments have been noted and will be recorded on the case. I have considered the further correspondence provided by you, however my position on the matter has not changed and there is no further action which we would be able to take in light of your complaints.
You have referred to the new GDPR legislation which was enforceable since 25 May 2018 and to the requirement for consent to process personal data. Under the GDPR there are six available lawful bases for processing personal data and consent is just one of these lawful basis. No single basis is ’better’ or more important than the others – which basis is most appropriate to use will depend on the purpose and relationship with the individual. In this instance it is unlikely that Caledonia Housing Association would have been relying on consent for processing all of your data.
The GDPR does give individuals the right to request that their data be deleted under the right to erasure. The right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances. Should you wish for Caledonia Housing Association to consider your deletion request under GDPR we would suggest that you contact them directly.
I have considered the correspondence in relation to the painters who were photographing your home but there is no further action which we could take in light of this aspect of your complaint as it does not constitute a data protection concern. You raised your concern about the contractors and received a response to clarify that they were the work clerks. I understand that you have also contacted the police because you believe that they were taking pictures of the inside of your home, this matter relates to the conduct of the contractors.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Warder Lead Case Officer
Information Commissioners Office 0330 414 6655 For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 10:42:34 GMT
Subject: Your Data Protection Complaint [Ref. RFA0669181]
To:Casework
20 Nov 2018 at 15:18
Dear Willow,
Thank you for your email, refusing to protect my data from an unscrupulous company. I acknowledge how you have totally disregarded and ignored the unnecessary stress that Caledonia Housing Association have maliciously caused me, and that they have your approval to process falsified records, to avoid accountability. I am not the only recipient of their harmful and dishonourable actions, it is how CHA conduct their business. But you deem their actions acceptable.
You have completely ignored ICO information; including the GDPR 7 Data Protection Principles and decided to focus on deflecting all of my concerns elsewhere as a means to refuse to protect my data. You have also redacted the instructions you previously gave CHA, and the fact I pointed this out.
You ignored the fact they have withheld data from me multiple times, bulked up SAR no 2 and sent in format I could not process due to my disabilities therefore putting obstacles in my way, which is against Disability Discrimination act and against what you advise on your web page on SAR.
I sent you the email from the contractors over the camera violation of my privacy, they said it was Caledonia Housing clerk of works and a contractor, as I am sure you read. I saw them taking photos in my house and only mine as already explained to you. But you chose to accept their reply which is implausible evidence especially as it changed for the purpose of the court. CHA directors like to use other people to do their dirty work. Those who are gullible enough or dishonourable enough to comply, do not realise that CHA then turn on them and blame them, to deflect away from themselves.
The ICO has conducted surveys on how data subjects have distrust in companies, and yet you turn a blind eye to all CHA does; still allow them to continue processing their lies, which any decent human being with a moral compass would find (and many have done so) morally abhorrent.
I wonder how many people would trust the ICO if they knew you prioritised CHA’s dishonourable practices including data protection, above the rights of the data subject!
Tenants find out to their peril CHA don’t abide by rules or the law, but they do expect other authorities who are supposed to enforce the law to do their job. Clearly not the case when CHA are involved as they are obviously above the law and encourage others to do so on their behalf. Service users are being misled by them and other authorities, so it would appear, when they sign a contract with them. But you don’t care.
By doing nothing to protect my data, you have stamped your approval on all of this. Don’t bother to reply, you probably had made your mind made up before I even contacted you. I will be keeping all your correspondence for future reference; when ‘the can of worms’ that is CHA; is finally exposed.
Attached are the GDPR principles which you chose to ignore to protect CHA’s dishonourable interests.
Just one last note:
“All that is necessary for evil to thrive, is for good men (and women) to do nothing” Edmund Burke
Yours sincerely
Take note Willow Warder is implying that the clerk of works was from the contractors, and they were to blame for taking photos of the inside of my home, yet it was CHA’s clerk of works taking the photos, as evidenced in communication from Bell Group, See chapter 6. I made a complaint about her handling of my data concerns. Her manager’s response is below.
casework@ico.org.uk <casework@ico.org.uk>
To:
11 Dec 2018 at 17:35
Case Reference Number RCC0804345
Dear Ms,
I am writing further to your case review request email dated 21 November 2018. This relates to the data protection concern that you reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) about Caledonia Housing Association. Please find attached a leaflet which explains how we handle requests for a case review.
Your complaint I have considered the points you have raised and have also reviewed the relevant information that we hold about your data protection concern. I am satisfied that Mrs Willow Warder dealt with this matter appropriately and in line with our case handling procedures. In this case Mrs Warder explained the reasons for her decision in her letter of 11 April 2017 and more recently regarding your further concerns on 8 November 2018, 9 November 2018 and on 20 November 2018. Having reviewed the matter, I agree with the explanations provided.
Although I appreciate you may still have concerns about the handling of your personal data by Caledonia Housing Association, Mrs Wader has responded to your further points and provided additional explanation beyond our assessment regarding conditions for processing. She has also outlined that should you remain concerned about the accuracy of information you should return to the organisation to provide them with further information for them to address. Finally the advice she has provided regarding the application of the General Data Protection Legislation in this matter also further seeks to clarify these points.
Should you remain dissatisfied, although I have noted you have already attempted to raise your concerns through the courts, they would be best suited to possibly address some of these outstanding issues. However, you should seek independent legal advice before doing so.
Taking your complaint further A case review is the final stage of the ICO’s case handling process. However, I appreciate that you may disagree with our decision and our case review. If you remain dissatisfied the attached leaflet outlines the options available to you.
Yours sincerely,
Douglas Burton Team Manager Information Commissioner’s Office
Attached: case review information leaflet
And my final response to the ICO:
To:casework@ico.org.uk
12 Dec 2018 at 11:42
Dear Mr Burton
You are right, I do not agree with your decision, which I believe is as a result of Caledonia Housing contacting you when they found out you had come down on my side originally. You are not the only authority who has bowed to pressure or been happy to cover the wrongdoing by this manipulative, dishonest company.
It is ludicrous to expect me to contact the company over a matter they refused to acknowledge originally, and for which your case officer gave them instructions, which they ignored, and you have now retracted. I do not suck up to criminal types. I gave them every opportunity to do the right thing and they broke the law and used their influence and resources to drive me out of my home. I know what they have done to others too.
As this company fights dirty, and with your approval, I will deal with it my own way and add your refusal to protect my data (and others) from those who falsify data and engage in malicious action against its tenants. You can continue protecting them and I will continue protecting their victims. CHA are conducting their business as a law unto themselves and you have assisted them.
6. CHA DISREGARDS THE EQUALITY ACT 2010, THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 AND THE LAWS ON HARASSMENT AND UNLAWFUL EVICTION
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (legislation.gov.uk) Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk) (and see Ch.7)
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know.”
―
An independent reminder, of CHA’s disrespect for people.
As I had already emailed CHA on 12/04/17 to stay away from me, the company still had two holds over me;
1) Repairs/Maintenance and
2) Data Protection.
From the outset they had decided to harass me with these. My evidence below is not a complete list there is more, but I was aware of how big my web pages were getting, so I just included the main examples.
It has been very difficult for me to put everything in any kind of order, not least of all because I had to wade through 73 pages of my subject access request, which was deliberately presented to me by CHA (email) in PDF and in a format which was virtually impossible to process. This broke the Equality Law on reasonable adjustment, evidenced further down page.
The start of CHA’s campaign of harassment
I just asked housing officer Cheryl Connelly to desist from using an anti- social tenant (a.s.t.) to harass a 75 yr old man and other tenants, but instead of dealing with the a.s.t. they went on the offensive and dealt with us by using the same a.s.t and other people, to harass us.
My son and were then *unlawfully hounded out of our home by the ‘thugs in suits’ at Caledonia Housing Association, by making life very difficult and impossible for us to remain. These are criminal offences, including how CHA got contractors to tamper with our electricity (see bottom section of this page) which are fire and electric shock hazards. The authorities do not have the right to preach legislation to anyone, as they cannot even abide by it themselves. They have invalidated the legislation and their authority because of their corruption.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22
Applies to multiples sections of this law. CHA committed fraud again to a sheriffs officer see Ch.7.
and/or the actual document CHA put on our front door supposedly signed by a sheriffs officer, may be another example of fraud see Ch.7.
It is not just the people in charge of organisations providing goods, facilities or services to the public or carrying out public functions who must avoid unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
If another person who is:
– employed by a service provider, or
– carrying out a service provider’s instructions (who the law calls the service provider’s agent)
– does something that is unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation, the service provider can be held legally responsible for what they have done
– What happens if a service provider tries to stop equality law applying to a situation?
A person must not help someone else carry out an act which the person helping knows is unlawful under equality law.
…It is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, to make a false statement which another person relies on to help to carry out an unlawful act.
We lost a lot of money/property and time spent on the house/garden and had the additional expenses of moving etc. All to appease the morally repugnant company, who are still operating above the law.
Business Service Garry Savages complaint response letter (a whitewash) omitted the main aspects of my complaint: Two early violations of privacy, falsifying information, data breaches, prioritising anti-social tenants above others and using one against the decent tenants.
Dated 08 February 2017
The CHA Directors and staff trivialise/alter/embellish complaints and lie about everything, including stating we cancelled the MSP meeting. We turned up, but Operations Director Tim Calderbank didn’t need to appear, as he had already coerced (bullied) the MSP into their way of thinking Ch.3. Service users are not allowed to get outside help, as CHA bullies will make sure no-one assists them, and authorities fiercely protect the manipulative, narcissists.
Garry also lied about stating Tim will contact the residents and offer to meet with them, and said elsewhere, the CEO would be willing to speak tenants! These claims never materialised but like all the twaddle that comes out of CHA, it’s just for ‘show purposes’.
Complaint; email communication to the Directors.
To: garry.savage@caledoniaha.co.uk
12 Jan 2017 at 15:06
Good afternoon Garry
I would like to know if you are going to take my complaints seriously and remove irrelevant comments/notes from CHA records as I have requested on at least 2 occasions. I realise you are more interested in finding out what I know and what action I may or may not take and that your only concern is in damage limitation to CHA and its staff. This has been my view since Tim placed himself into the complaint (and has now passed over to you). Well the practice of falsely recording information, especially with the clear intention to influence others is a pretty serious complaint. After all, I know the reason Tim wanted to pay me a visit is to see if what Cheryl had claimed about (amongst other remarks) me supposedly going to the press about CHA over the neighbourhood complaints. So not only does Cheryl lie about tenants in her reports, she is also quite happy to feed her superior those lies too. Incidentally you may want to explain to her what a ‘self -fulfilling prophecy is!
I have made some enquiries and done some research on the Caledonia full complaints procedure, and with this in mind …..”The aim is to keep service users at the heart of the process, with complaints handled quickly and effectively through thorough, impartial and fair investigations”.
I believe there is a need to speed up the process. I will be happy to accept a visit from yourself, (as Tim has not communicated with me in a while, I will only deal with you now) at my home next week if it is convenient with you. I can be more flexible of the time and not insist on my son being there as a witness, providing you are happy with me recording the conversation. If you don’t feel comfortable being recorded, that’s fine but it means we will have to arrange around my sons timetable too. If you are agreeable to a visit a.s.a.p., then I will make sure you leave with a clear understanding of my complaint and how I expect it to be resolved following your own complaints handling procedure and staff code of conduct.
e.g. A.13 You must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals, groups or interests”. Favouring a known troublemakers’ complaints against genuine tenants complaints “
A.14 You must avoid any situation that could give rise to suspicion or suggest improper conduct”. The responses and credibility to LJ’s vexatious complaints by CHA is very suspicious indeed. It is not the usual practice of housing associations to allow a known trouble maker to make regular complaints and then act upon them knowing this will cause anxieties to her victims.
Allowing your staff to write incorrect reports as common practice and allowing or encouraging unauthorised visits to pry around homes and failure to disclose the reasons of the visits, certainly suggests improper conduct to me.
“B.5 You must respond to requests for information positively and must not prevent people or bodies from being provided with information that they are entitled to receive.
B.6 You must not use confidential information acquired through your work as one of our employees for your private interests”. Well clearly Cheryl has issues with me, as her contemptuous attitude when having to conduct business with me has shown or perhaps she is disrespectful with all of the tenants, apart from L.J. of course.
Respecting confidentiality
B.7 You must respect confidentiality and ensure that you do not disclose information to anyone who is not entitled to receive it, both whilst you are a member of staff and after you have left our employment”
I have to wonder if she has passed on any of the conversation, we had to anyone else! She thought that by trying to defame my character in her reports, she was gaining something over me as she certainly did not expect me to find out. Despite me trying to explain things to her, she allowed her arrogance to cloud her judgement and thought she was going to get away with it, but instead, it has resulted in a complaint being made about her unacceptable practices.
Now that I have found your own policies on the code of conduct which she has repeatedly breached, I do hope you will be taking disciplinary action against her and point out to Miss C, you cannot poke a stick at people and expect them to thank you for it. Incidentally You may wish to review other tenants reports if you haven’t already done so….
This is the second letter I had sent to CHA, informing them to stay away from me.
It was sent in response to Garry Savage misrepresenting the facts about what my complaint was actually about. He also made up comments about what I was supposed to have said. He also claimed I recorded the meeting (which I wanted to do ) but on the day, I suddenly realised you cannot record and listen at the same time, so he just sat listening to it with it, in his hands because it is quiet.
To:garry.savage@caledoniaha.co.uk
12 Apr 2017 at 10:26
Mr G Savage,
I am writing to inform you that due to CHAs stance on ignoring my health issues and causing me unnecessary anxiety, I can only conclude that you intend to cause me harm. As you have demonstrated many times, you are happy to impact on my health issues, I will protect my own interests.
Communications with CHA have now irretrievably broken down; therefore, I cannot and will not; trust you with anything. I will no longer send any communications to CHA, and will not receive any, so I am notifying you that I want you to desist from; using my email account, I do not want any phone calls, nor do I want any letters. Amongst many other things, you have proven to me you cannot be trusted with my personal/sensitive information so I am reducing the opportunities for you to abuse it again.
You have a legal duty to do repairs, and therefore you can communicate to my son (Mr) —–by letter only, at the same address, who will be acting on my behalf. He does not wish to share personal information with you either so he will not give you any other contact information.
Please remove me from your mailing list. My recycling bin does not need any more junk mail.
Yours sincerely
There is a strong correlation between how CHA Executive Team operate and what constitutes pathological narcissistic behaviour.
Difference Between a Narcissist vs. Narcissistic Behavior | Psychology Today United Kingdom
SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS (SAR) DIRECTLY FLOUTING THE EQUALITY ACT 2010
Page 23 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf
I had said to Garry that it was so easy to tear apart the 1st Subject Access Request (SAR) and “find more holes in their report writing, than you would find in a string vest”. His response, was to make a concerted effort and bulk up this 2nd SAR which comprised of 73 pages in a format which was virtually impossible to read and process, which is a direct breach of the Equality Act 2010. Instead of making reasonable adjustment as defined in Equality Law, CHA deliberately put obstacles in my way.
This SAR comprised of pages with just company logos or multiple anti- virus information, sideways screen shots, duplicated and triplicated pages in PDF, in no particular order of information; which I already received in my 1st SAR and did not ask to be repeated. Garry Savage also stated I would have to ask for the codes for abbreviations etc *see below. It must have taken someone absolutely ages to compile. It most certainly would not have held on their records like this. It should have been about 8 pages maximum and yet the only new information received was many more of Garry savages, made up (after the fact) backtracking notes to cover themselves for their wrongdoing, which I had previously highlighted to him.
1st page of cover letter for second SAR.
My 3rd SAR sent to Aberdeen Law Project acting on my behalf, was totally different, more professional and just about 8 organised pages including a document list and codes were supplied. Without even seeing any of this, Sheriff J. Martin-Brown accepted CHA’s lame excuse, the reason they gave Aberdeen Law Project my 3rd SAR, in a tidy package, was because they now had a new Information Governance Officer. This is not even remotely plausible and is an admission they have been breaking the Equality Act 2010, for many years, by delivering it in the same format I received. CHA can’t have it both ways.
B1. Law Society Scotland 1.13.1 You must never knowingly give false or misleading information to the court. You must maintain due respect and courtesy towards the court while honourably pursuing the interests of your clients.
Gillian Buchanan, partner in the law firm and 2nd legal representative for CHA, engaged in deliberate actions of deception. She tried to rewrite the legal requirements under Equality Law stating the duty of reasonable adjustment is a reactive one, rather than an anticipatory one. See further down in her letter page 3, under the heading Discrimination in 3rd paragraph. You couldn’t make this stuff up! It is astonishing how many people are willing to deceive to protect CHA, and desperate I suppose; because Caledonia Housing Association did not have a legal or moral leg to stand on. But it speaks volumes about the solicitor’s integrity too.
This same lawyer, tries to imply CHA was not aware of my disabilities, therefore did not know they had to make reasonable adjustments. Liars, when there are references in emails, on a tenancy registering document with CHA and on my 1st SAR request and in my last communication, instructing them to desist from contacting me. I realised from other tenants that CHA make a concerted effort to deceive and leave out relevant information, so I told them to keep putting it back in, when communicating with CHA or anyone in relation to them. I knew CHA would try to claim ignorance as an excuse.
The Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20
What the law actually states;
Duty to make adjustments
(1)Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.
(2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.
(3)The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(4)The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.
(6) Where the first or third requirement relates to the provision of information, the steps which it is reasonable for A to have to take include steps for ensuring that in the circumstances concerned the information is provided in an accessible format.
Equality law recognises that bringing about equality for disabled people may mean changing the way in which services are delivered, providing extra equipment and/or the removal of physical barriers.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/multipage-guide/using-service-reasonable-adjustments-disabled-people
This is the ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’. A duty is something someone must do, in this case because the law says they must. The duty to make reasonable adjustments aims to make sure that if you are a disabled person, you can use an organisation’s services as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
If an organisation providing goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public, or carrying out public functions, or running an association finds there are barriers to disabled people in the way it does things, then it must consider making adjustments (in other words, changes). If those adjustments are reasonable for that organisation to make, then it must make them.
The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means an organisation cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use its services, but must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment or a learning disability…
AN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST (O.T.) WAS IGNORED SO CHA COULD WITHHOLD SERVICES FROM ME...and then CHA delivered shoddy work to put more obstacles in my way, because CHA does not like to help those they wish to upset or anyone assisting them.
CHA’s solicitors lied and misled the court about the O.T.’s involvement in an adaptation to the front and back doors of my home (see page 2 of solicitors letter). The O.T. had requested a meeting with CHA to discuss how to alleviate my pain caused by my arthritis prior to any work being carried out. Notice how the solicitor writes it up in her letter further down below, under heading; Repairs and completely avoids mentioning CHA were supposed to be dealing with an adaptation. Manipulating the facts to water down my claim and deflect from breaching equality law again. This was also part of the evidence of the criminal offences of forcing us out of our home by withholding services etc.
I had reported another tenant’s door handles at the same time as mine and her doors were done within two weeks. The joiner came to my home weeks later. CHA split mine in two halves, spread over many weeks. When the joiner, Jim Cathro finally appeared and only after he removed the 3-point locking system, (which was painful for me to use, and why I needed an adaptation.) he left me without the means to shut the door for 2 hrs; whilst he went for a drive, supposedly getting equipment. When he returned, he refused to do the back door (most important one) and did not do it until months later, when he removed the kitchen. He then announced the handle was broke and left it in this state.
Neither of the doors closed well and sprung open easily on their own. My son had to put locks on the front door and he did what he could to make the back one more secure. Instead of making the handles easier to use, to prevent pain, CHA left us with an insecure house with doors harder to shut.
When I phoned the O.T. to inform her what CHA had done with the doors and how they were now broken, she kindly agreed to contact CHA on my behalf about the repairs, as I explained I had problems with the company.
The O.T.’s are lovely customer focused people who are completely trustworthy and professional; and who offer an excellent customer service, are very courteous and they respect confidentiality. In fact they are the exact opposite of CHA and their enablers who pretend to do the job they get paid to do, instead do everything in reverse.
Much later, Ian Beeching Team Leader came to my home about the same outstanding repairs, which were supposed to be done 10 months earlier. In front of the support worker, I discussed with him; how he had denied me services by preventing an Occupational Therapist (O.T.) from doing her job. He denied it. Ian tried to make out the OT “was unprofessional” and “she’s not telling you the truth,” “and would have filled in a form,” and ” I don’t think she is being honest with you” etc.
The people who work for this company are disgusting when they make disparaging comments about decent people behind their backs. It is another narcissistic trait to deflect, project and blame others. I showed him the document above (taken from my 3rd SAR) which proved he was the liar, so he finally shut up. I also have a partially completed form direct, from the O.T. herself.
Joiner Jim Cathro turned up at my house and held up the support worker for about 2 hours.. I would not have anyone connected to CHA, in my home unless supervised, due to their trustworthiness. He just spent the time on the phone, but did no actual work. This was for the dealing with the damp source which was supposed to be done 10 months earlier. Twice he came and did no work, before getting on with it. CHA is generous with company finances to pay contractors to mess service users about. CHA will have done the same to others.
Look at the play on words, my clients interpretation of what the ICO said and over what the solicitor claims in page 3/4 , my clients when replying to the ICO ” ( 2017) said they will remove inaccurate and excessive information…” They have known since 2016 what they needed to remove, and were originally instructed by the ICO, to remove it. Its all in the word games! Just lame excuses to deflect whilst having a laugh.
As for denying CHA discussed information with 3rd parties, obviously as contractors had messed me about they must have been told something about me by CHA, to get them to do their dirty work for the Directors. Jim Cathro made comments several times, which indicated he had knowledge of me e.g., “I wouldn’t like to get between you and your landlord”. He would not have known I had a problem with them, unless CHA told him.
The contractors did not just wake up one morning, and decide to tamper with my electricity and bypass the electric box or leave my house insecure or violate my privacy with CHA’s clerk of works using a camera etc. Neither did Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown randomly decide she was going to go against everything she is supposed to represent and make a mockery of the law. The regulators/government did not suddenly decide to refuse to do their jobs and ignore legislation.
A reminder of what Willow Warder from the ICO stated, when she originally instructed Garry Savage, then later ignored to please CHA. Both have ignored legislation.
From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: Garry Savage
Subject: Data Protection Concern [Ref. RFA0669181]
Date: 11 April 2017 11:38:16
11 April 2017
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Mr Savage,
Re:- Subject Access Request –
Ms— has contacted us with a concern in relation to the way that her subject access request (SAR) has been dealt with by Caledonia Housing Association.
Ms–has raised concerns that third party information in relation to a neighbour who made a complaint relating to Ms — have been disclosed to her.
She has also noted that information in relation to this concern has not been disclosed.
The data subject has also advised us that she did not receive your organisation’s Customer Data Protection Notice or sign the relevant paperwork.
Finally Ms –has noted that she has concerns in relation to a Contact Report of the 15 September 2016 as she states that the information recorded is inaccurate and excessive.
The ICO’s role
Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the Data Protection Act (DPA) properly. If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask organisations to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.
What happens next?
From the information provided, it seems likely that Caledonia are in breach of Principle 6 of the DPA which relates to an individual’s rights. This is because in the file notes provided to Ms — of 14 December 2016, it states that the information on permission requests had not originally been provided to her as part of her first SAR response. However it does seem that this information was provided to Ms — at a later date.
In relation to the fact that it was disclosed to Ms– who the complainant was regarding a neighbour complaint, please can you provide the ICO with further information. Please can you provide a summary of the reasons why this information was disclosed to the data subject?
Furthermore please can you outline in relation to the DPA, the reasons why the information regarding this complaint has been withheld from Ms — under the DPA. Please find our guidance on disclosing information in relation to complaints below:
s40 Access to information held in complaints files v3.0 (ico.org.uk)
The concern regarding the fact that Ms — was not provided with the organisations Customer Data Protection Notice relates to principle 1 of the DPA which states that data must be processed fairly and lawfully and in a way that data subjects would reasonably expect. Furthermore fair processing information should be provided regarding how information will be processed in order for organisations to be transparent.
In light of the concern raised by Ms — I would now advise that your organisation should adhere to your data protection policies and that measures should be put in place as remedial action in regards to this.
In relation to Ms –query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. Furthermore from the information provided by Ms –, your organisation will accommodate Ms –request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.
Please can you provide me with the requested information requested above by 25 April 2017. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, If you would like to discuss this case further please do get in touch.
ICO Statement
We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website
(www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Manuel
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
01625 545 655
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
Aberdeen Law Project kindly acted as my agent getting my 3rd SAR. This was what CHA claimed the ICO said, omitting the crucial points to engage in a deliberate act of deception.
———- Forwarded message ———- From: Lorna Miller <Lorna.Miller@caledoniaha.co.uk> Date: 3 January 2018 at 11:48 Subject: RE: Subject Access Request – Caledonia Housing Association (SAR012) To: Representation Team <representation@abdnlaszproject.com>
Dear
I can advise that no information in the Contact Report has been amended or removed, this is due to Caledonia waiting on Ms– providing us with what information she feels should be amended or removed.
The last correspondence we received on this matter was an email from Ms –, dated the 11th February stating that she would be seeking additional advice on this to make sure she was confident that it is done correctly. Please let me know if you would like a copy of this email, as it was out of the timeframe of the information provided in this latest subject access request.
This email was a reply to a letter emailed to Ms on the 8th February 2017, responding to a stage 2 complaint. Ms request to have information in the contact reports for the entry on the 15th September was addressed by advising the following “I have to advise that I do not believe that the Association has breached the Data Protection Act in relation to the way in which the meeting on 15 September was handled and recorded or other notes relating to your tenancy. I would restate our position that the note represents a summary overview of Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day, and as such it is a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view.” The letter also included an offer to amend the records “I would advise again however that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of your files as noted in previous email correspondence. I would also have to advise however that this would be as a goodwill gesture as opposed to any admission that information itself was incorrectly recorded.”.
On the 27th February 2017 we received a second Subject Access Request from Ms for records dated from 2ndNovember 2016 to March 2017, completed 5th April 2017.
When the ICO contacted us (11th April 2017) regarding Ms– complaint they advised that accuracy of information under the Data Protection Act relates to the accuracy of matter of fact and that the Contact Report consists of the opinions of * a professional and an account of her recollections. The ICO did not take further involvement in this matter as Ms– had advised that we were prepared to accommodate the request to remove excessive information.
On the 12th April we received the email from Ms– requesting that we cease communication with her, unless for repairs.
Our position still remains, we are happy to consider Ms — amendments to this entry on the Contact Report, and will amend this entry to note what parts Ms– is in disagreement with.
If you require any more information on this please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Lorna Miller
Information Governance Officer
Caledonia Housing Association
As for stating ‘opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections” Cheryl Connelly kept interrupting me to write her notes (which was the only reason she came). I recorded the conversation and know the facts of what we were talking about, so recollections has nothing to do with it. Facts are facts and some of what she wrote was none of their business and they did not have my expressed permission to process/alter it, and therefore CHA did not have a legitimate reason to process in the first place. She also made up comments. I was happy to show the recording in its entirety to the sheriff with a written transcript, and what I was wanting removed, and I offered this in my court evidence form. I strongly object to the word *professional, being used to describe anyone I have known from CHA,(or those protecting them). It is a self-proclaimed title and like everything else which comes out of this company, is entirely without substance to substantiate their claims.
Reference to the last paragraph on breaching confidentiality: “the housing officer is entitled to record the attendance…” but not to use it to commit fraud and write up sensitive or personal data without the tenants permission and without a legitimate reason for processing it; such as being none of CHA’s business.
The name at the bottom is not the solicitor who represented CHA in court; that was Sarah Cooper (formerly Matheson).
Dated 27 June 2018
VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY AND HARASSMENT
The solicitor lied (at bottom of 1st page), that CHA don’t know what unannounced visits I am referring to, in an attempt to water down my violations of privacy and harassment complaint. Yet they are clearly discussed in communications to and from CHA and in his made up backtracking file notes!
Sent: 05 December 2016 14:33
To: Tim Calderbank <Tim.Calderbank@caledoniaha.co.uk> Subject: This is an informal conversation concerning my SAR
Dear Tim,
Having received some paperwork from my SAR I felt it was necessary to warn you prior to a meeting with MSP—- is arranging with yourself, that I am not particularly happy with the information CHA hold on me and would like it amended to record the actual truth. I have a little knowledge of the Data Protection Act and know that any information kept on the service users has to be accurate and up to date.
I would however, like to discuss with you sometime soon, how I can have my information corrected. Another issue which will have to be discussed is also as a result of the information in my SAR and that is my complete distrust I have in Cheryl Connolly’s ability to behave honourably. As a result of every interaction I have had with Mrs Connolly, she has demonstrated how rude and untrustworthy she is. I now wish to make a complaint to you about her, from which I expect to receive a written full apology from her to avoid me making it into a more formal complaint.
My complaints are as follows:
Two housing officers arrive unannounced at my address on two previous occasions, both this year I believe. I did not receive copies of this in my SAR so I cannot give you actual dates. Whilst Gary (sorry cant find his second name) led me out into my garden, Cheryl took the liberty of looking around my house and started in the sitting room, then I found her reading my messages on the blackboard in my kitchen.
She does not have the right to do this, especially as it was never made obvious why they turned up in the first place. I assumed it was to check on the alterations in the garden I had permission for but this does not explain why Cheryl was being nosy around the rest of my house. My garden is not in the sitting room, to the best of my knowledge, and she had absolutely no reason to be in there without my permission.
When Cheryl came to my house about my complaint about my neighbour Mrs —- son taking pictures over the fence of a planter I have in my garden, Cheryl cancelled appointments several times and then when she turned up, she plonked herself down on my settee and pulled out her mobile and chatted to someone. On my return from the kitchen into the room, she then put up her hand and gesticulated that I was to stay out of the room until she finished the call. She then apologised as an after thought; making some explanation to the urgency of her need to use the phone. I can honestly say I have never had anyone so blatantly rude, in my own home.
The conversation she had with me, further concludes that this housing officer was on some kind of power trip, trying to let me know she was in charge. She was patronising and insulting and unbeknown to Cheryl, I recorded her because I do not trust her. ( a bit naughty I know, but the end justifies the means)
My previous experiences of her have all been unfavourable, and the actions were necessary due to my ‘brainfog’ which puts me at a significant disadvantage when in discussion with others. To add insult to injury, she twisted around and blatantly lied when she wrote up her account of me, trying to discredit me, and I can prove it to anyone who I chose to reveal my recording to, including yourself. I have made this known to MSp–.
I will make no apologies for recording Cheryl Connolly, I feel the need to prove that I am honest, unlike Cheryl who tried to make out people in the neighbourhood are not feeding me the truth. Clearly she is projecting herself as she is the only person who has proved herself to be completely untrustworthy to me.
There are some other minor points such as how she has addressed me in her report, but the main issues are outlined above. I will raise them when we speak. I will also discuss how my SAR revealed confirmation that Lj does get preferential treatment when complaints are made.
I will be requesting the information from the SAR I made, that I did not receive, a.s.a.p. No doubt it will also prove to be revealing!
I look forward to hearing from you.
___________________________________________________________________________
(CHA withheld all data surrounding 2 unannounced visits to my home from my first SAR, I have reason to believe they were initiated by their favourite anti- social tenant, serial vexatious complainer L J and the gossip next door to me)
CHA claimed the staff did not make reports at the time, but Garry later added more detail to his storytelling, in his backtracking file notes, made up after he visited me in January 2017. He just slapped on a previous years date! see further down the page. He does this a lot, its so unprofessional and amateurish. It was presented in PDF in the second SAR,
Please be wary when dealing with CHA or their puppets:
As a result of my recording Cheryl Connelly, Garry Savage pulled out his phone when he was at my address, immediately after I mentioned Director Tim Calderbanks name. He apologised claiming “they make us report in”. Did he think I was taken in by this? Staff turn up unannounced, but Directors need to report in!!
He had obviously meant to turn on his phone before entering and then suddenly remembered. He was either recording me or had Tim listening in, to get his own back because I recorded and got evidence against Cheryl Connelly. Do not be taken in by them. I had a legitimate reason for recording her, but they did not have one for recording me. The reason they contacted me, was to push me through their pseudo complaint procedure find out what I had on them, so they could rewrite the facts.
After the first Case Management Discussion (CMD) in court, the solicitor asked to speak to us. Tim Calderbank pulled out his phone and carefully placed on his knee. The CEO would have been dying to know how they got on and I guess she was listening in. All she got was me deflecting their gas-lighting tactics! How disappointing.
I wonder if they recorded the Court case too! Narcissists believe rules, laws do not apply to them and they wrongly believe that they are cleverer than everyone else.
I would advise the least amount of communication anyone has with these people, the better it will be for them. Plus narcissists thrive on attention and get really upset when they are ignored. Unfortunately I am giving them attention by my website but it has to be done to warn/protect people. However, exposure is a narcissists nightmare!
This appeared after Director Garry Savage came to my home and was put in pdf format of 73 pages of second SAR.
File note 14/12/16
1.Information on permission requests not provided with SAR information
Two housing officers arriving at her home unannounced on two previous occasions this year (Ms—- was unable to provide actual dates)- she mentioned in one of the visits that one of the officers led her into the garden (she wasn’t sure but mentioned Garry ) whilst Cheryl remained in the house….
…On the second occasion she had advised again that the reason for the visit was not explained.
2.Vanessa Baxter advised that Susan Stewart and Carol Constable had visited to check on an internal threshold repair (whilst carrying out a joint visit to another neighbour and taking pictures for a repair quote). Cheryl could recall visiting once before meeting with her back in September this year but was unsure whether it was Garry Smith or George McLeod and could not recall if she stayed in the house as there would be no reason for her to record this…
To Garry Savage
2 Jan 2017 at 11:29 AM
Dear Garry
I have spent some time thinking about what to write and am forwarding some of my thoughts to you.
Taken from your last email…“Cheryl can also recall visiting your home sometime before this along with one of the Association’s Maintenance Officers (possibly Gary Smith or George McLeod) whilst carrying out various other visits jointly that day. However, Cheryl is unable to recall when exactly this visit was and the specific reason why Gary or George had arranged to call at your home on that day.”
Before Christmas, I had remarked to —-MSP that CHA housing officers appear to be doing their own thing, based on their individual personality traits rather than following any codes of practice. I would have thought it would be standard practice to make note of appointments and record the visit, including the reason why a visit would be necessary.
Poor work practices just make a convenient (but unconvincing), excuse to avoid revealing more information; CHA would not like the tenant to view. It conjures up images of CHA housing officers wandering aimlessly around their patch and randomly deciding who to visit.
To admit to failing to keep records of one appointment would be careless, but two to the same tenant is incredulous especially when there were two H.O. present on each occasion. Yet Cheryl wrote down notes in front of me when she last visited me at my home, after I said I have memory/concentration problems she announced she would take notes because she has these problems! I would like a copy of these notes because I have not received those either.
Its also quite astonishing she managed to write so many (of her versions) of the comments about my neighbours; she was very quick to tell me she was not allowed to discuss. If you cannot discuss 3rd parties then you certainly can’t write about them on my records either. I did not even know the surname of one of my neighbours until Cheryl pointed this out to me.
I would also like an explanation of why I was mainly referred to as Mrs W when my neighbours were always addressed with their full names. I think this is disrespectful. In my opinion, people who clearly treat others with contempt, as Cheryl does, should not be working with the public. When they cannot keep accurate records without the need to embellish, they should not be allowed access to confidential and sensitive information either. So much trouble can be caused by these failings.
It was also incredulous that Susan Stewart bothered me about a complaint from a deviant tenant but to actually consider asking me to either a) move the structure or b)replace the roof; when Susan had not even verified there was even sufficient validity to the complaint. It is absolutely outrageous that CHA would even consider these options, when the structure cost my son and myself so much money, hard work and pain, to build, just to appease this one neighbour who is known to cause trouble. Is there no limit to what CHA will do for her?
Incidentally, Susan did not ask me to remove the planters but to cover up the roof, which I flatly refused to do ( a different version to her written comments! ) Had anyone from CHA bothered to come to view the planter’s roof from LJ’s home, they would have realised that it was highly unlikely any reflection would have managed to find its way down the street into her window at any point. The roof is barely visible above the height of my fence……
… ( here I mentioned the sensitive data they held, but did not have a legitimate reason to process ).
…You are only required to maintain records which are pertinent to CHA business and these comments are deemed by me as being of a personal and sensitive nature and also factually incorrect. I want them removed. After all, you didn’t keep relevant records, you certainly shouldn’t be keeping irrelevant ones.
It is painfully obvious to me that not only do some of the staff fail to record information accurately, they like to embellish what the tenants say. Not surprising that I only received some of the information I requested. I would surmise from this that no formal training is required to become a housing officer with CHA and the staff are blissfully unaware of record keeping and ethics.
There is so much I can criticise about the few comments I did receive, but it is so upsetting for me to realise that I have in the past put my trust in the staff who are less than honourable. If people wish to be treated with respect, they need to remember it is a two way process.
(look at CHAs *disrespect for Data Protection, not only did they give me the anti-social tenants name over the phone, but they embedded it into my Subject Access Request! More details are in CH3.
After the Director Garry Savage came to my home, he made up many backtracking file notes to cover for *this in new notes dated 25/11/16 and again in 16/02/17 and then to the ICO.
They sent these ‘new’ file notes in my 2nd SAR at the bottom of the 73 pages in PDF, via email in 2017. As they made up these notes after the fact, they forgot they had falsely claimed I had made corporate complaints. I have never made any complaints about the contractors. The document below and then Garry Savages stating as a fact, I made complaints in the cover letter, are fraud. But I bet it came in handy when turning the contractors against us!
Now the corporate complaint disappears, in this made up file note which they dated as being 3 days before the above letter. Look at the year date on the actual corporate complaint form above: 2014 and 2016. This is what happens when pathological liars make things up as they go along and don’t follow policy and procedures. It is also the reason why they say ‘liars should have good memories’.
‘The garden ornament’ is a deliberately misleading statement to trivialise on paper what they were asking, as it is a huge structure.
Email below from Director Garry Savage after informing them of falsified reports written by Cheryl Connelly, and how they had withheld data about violations of my privacy from my first SAR.
On Friday, 6 January 2017, 14:13, Garry Savage <Garry.Savage@caledoniaha.co.uk> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Regarding our email correspondence from earlier in the week – I have been able to discuss your thoughts in detail with Tim and can advise on our own thinking following this.
In my discussion with Tim we reflected on the information that we have checked and provided to date as part of the subject access request and also the discussions that we have had with the relevant members of the staff team on this. We agreed from this that it would be difficult for us to fully resolve your concerns as we do not have records / notes of the other two visits that you have referred to and the staff members have been unable to provide any information on these other than that they have provided already.
Given this, I have to advise that we are unable to provide information about or notes of these visits as requested in your email. I would also advise however that we would be happy to re-visit the issue again if you are able provide information yourself that might help clarify the situation.
As regards the note of the meeting on 15 September that you expressed particular concerns about, our understanding is that the note represents Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day and as such it’s a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view this includes the personal comments that you referred to.
From my discussion with Tim, however, I can advise that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of this record (and any other records within the information provided) that you feel yourself are factually incorrect. As regards your concern about the use of the term ‘Mrs W’ in the note, I am satisfied that that was more a case of a typing ‘short-cut’ being taken as opposed to any intention to be disrespectful to yourself.
More generally, we do accept the points made in your email relating to the importance of good record keeping and information management by the Association’s staff team in relation to service issues.
I can advise that over the coming months the Association will be providing data protection training for the wider staff team to ensure that there is a strong understanding across the Association of data protection good practice (including the accuracy of recorded information and the handling of subject access requests). I have agreed with Tim given the concerns that you have raised that we will ask the consultant we have appointed to provide the training to also highlight the importance of good record keeping as part of the training. We are confident that this will help ensure that we adhere to data protection requirements whilst also providing good customer service.
As regards the service concerns that you raised, I would advise again that we would happy to consider these in more detail as a Stage 2 (Investigation) Complaint as per our email correspondence in December. Again, both Tim and myself would be happy to meet with you as part of the investigation process to talk through your concerns in more detail, with a view to responding formally in writing to you on these in line with the Association’s Complaints Procedure.
Hopefully this information is of some help in explaining our thoughts on the situation.
Kind regards
(with reference to training…If staff and Directors haven’t grasped how to do their job in 15 years+ then no amount of training is going to change that! Its all written for show purposes, more word games to pretend they are doing things correctly).
ANOTHER VIOLATION OF PRIVACY-taking photos without permission.
After sending Garry the email instructing CHA to stay out of my way, CHA violated my privacy again. The same pattern; you tell them the shouldn’t do something and they do it again.
CHA withheld all reports on two violations of privacy, from my Subject Access Requests. When I pointed this out, Garry Savage produced file notes which he made up after the fact and placed in my next SAR to pretend they were valid, then denied their existence via the solicitor for show purposes to the court!
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” by Sir Walter Scott
I came home in October 2017 to find two men peering through a back bedroom window with a large lens camera, they refused to identify themselves and continued to the front of my house, taking photos of my sitting room, through the windows. They knew they were upsetting me and mocked me when I asked them to identify themselves and explain what they were doing.
When they had taken enough photos, one muttered ‘clerk of works checking on painting standards’, I watched them walk away to a Bell Group van and when I had eventually calmed down, I sent the communication below on their web page. I asked around and they never went near anyone else’s home.
This was clearly designed to harass me to cause further distress. I later discussed this with Police Scotland, who asked me if CHA were trying to drive me out of my home, as it is a criminal offence. They advised me to put up CCTV which I did. I had already told Garry Savage at our meeting, CHA should not be trying to drive the other good tenants out to protect the a.s.t.’s so his response was to engage in more dishonourable actions, to drive us out. CHA seriously need an investigation into misconduct etc.
Communication to Bell-group painters via a communications box on their website.
‘I have had my home painted by yourselves under a contract with Caledonia Housing in—-. I came back home after going to shops to find 2 men taking photos close up of the front and back of my home. When I asked them who they were they seemed somewhat reluctant to identify themselves, but when I pressed them, they said they were clerk of works and were taking photos to check painting standards. They did not show me identification. Clearly when someone is taking photos of people’s homes without their permission it is good practice to ask permission first and to show identification. I would like to know if you can verify that these men were authorised by yourself or by Caledonia housing, and could I possibly have copies of photos sent to my email address to prove to me there was nothing sinister going on. They took photos of the front and back of my home yet walked past other tenants home. If you cannot identify them I will have to report this as sinister to the police.
Take note they ignored my request for the photos in the response below.
’Stephen Duncan <s.duncan@bell-group.co.uk> 04.10.17 Today at 15:36
Message body
Hi ————
The guy taken photos was Ian Brown the clerk of works from Caledonian housing I myself was with him this morning
We are sorry that this may have caused you some distress we did identify ourselves as being who we said we were .
We were down having our usual site meeting on a Thursday .
Kind Regards
Stephen
Stephen Duncan | Contract Supervisor | ( 01224 891032 |Mob 07585954135 7 01224 894476 | s.duncan@bell-group.co.uk
Despite claiming the above date was a Thursday, it was actually a Wednesday!
For the purpose of misleading the court (in the above solicitors letter page 1,) CHA s solicitor falsely claimed to the Sheriff, CHA were pricing up rough casting, which is a different story to the one in the contractors email above.
This was not even remotely plausible as they were in the middle of painting the outside walls, windows and doors which they only do at least every 5 years. There was nothing wrong with the rough casting and why would anyone believe that after painting the external walls etc that they would then come around to do expensive, unnecessary remedial work on the walls and then have to repaint them?
Neither was it mentioned in CHA’s planned schedules for that year or the following one. They lied but it was accepted by Sheriff J Martin-Brown in court because she was only interested in CHA’s best interests, not the facts and evidence.
They also painted our bedroom windows shut, several days after they had painted them, by touching them up. I had to use a knife around the windows twice, before my son forced them open. I slightly damaged the wood. Anyone who has work carried out by CHA, should be very wary as they are capable of anything and so are their puppets! Service users should not have to be put at risk; to stroke the egos of CHA’s narcissists.
WITHHOLDING SERVICES AGAIN AND PUTTING OBSTACLES IN OUR WAY
The kitchen we ended up having to buy.
The top image shows one of the blackboards which often displayed reminders of appointments and other personal data. Photographs of personal possessions/ information violated my privacy and is against data laws.
A long period of damp related issues caused a book lice infestation. Addressing these issues was the responsibility of CHA but they took their time in doing something about the humidity. They then maliciously caused us more financial hardship after asking for them to help reduce our electric bill. They also left us without a fully functioning kitchen so we had to buy our own. It took us two months before we were able to install a full kitchen ourselves, due to the unexpected expense and my son having to do the work himself. But it is entertainment to CHA and their equally sick, twisted supporters.
When my daughter informed CHA that my son and me could not use the kitchen, due to the mites, she was told “tell your mother to put ant poison in her fridge and it will solve all her problems”. (The conversation was withheld from my 3rd SAR but it recognises a phone call took place). This was Tim Calderbank advising his staff. This man was in charge of Housing support services (now customer services) for some of society’s most vulnerable! Nobody should have to trust a malicious bully to look after their vulnerable relatives!
We knew we would not get anything sensible out of CHA, so my son in- law phoned Rentokil. They were great, with advice and said spraying was not enough and emphasised that we must get rid of the source. We informed Ian Beeching (CHA Team Leader) at the time, that we believed a floor hatch in a cupboard was the potential source of damp infestation, as it existed for a very long period prior to the infestation (I had reported it several times). The damp mouldy patch was caused by condensation or a leak, from a dripping pipe on to the floor. I said I would not be happy having to go through the expense and inconvenience again if it reoccurred, so they needed to deal with the source.
CHA completely distanced themselves from helping with the kitchen, until pushed into it, but only arranged for the spraying of the kitchen and they even messed us about over that too, and begrudgingly removed one large appliance because the local recycling centre was closed for 4 months. It was too big to move ourselves, like we had done with the other appliances.
My daughter, on a weekly basis had to phone the contractor Grahams Pest control, (even when she was abroad during this period,) to get lab results from samples, which originally, they claimed would take 2 days, but actually took them a month to identify the pest(book lice). I believe CHA instructed the contractors to cause delays, especially as after 2 weeks Grahams claimed they had lost the sample and needed another. We had to stay at my daughter’s home because we could not use the kitchen. CHA happily took our rent money for the home we could not even occupy at the time. My son said we will just have to install our own kitchen, as he knew they were putting obstacles in our way to harass us.
In court during the first Case Management Discussion (CMD), CHA’s solicitor lied and claimed they had offered us a kitchen and that they could have had the kitchen taken away and cleaned. This was all news to us, and if it had been true, there would have been evidence to support what they said; either in my 3rd SAR see above, or in a letter to and from us. Take note there is no mention of offering me a kitchen or cleaning the old one, just notes about removing the kitchen and spraying. I said to the Sheriff, “ask them to prove it and anything else they claim, as they will fall flat on their faces”..but I was ignored.
We would not have bought a kitchen if we had a choice. I had to borrow money and my son paid for most of it. We also had to buy large and small appliances and replace kitchen equipment as we did not know what we were dealing with. My support worker was also outraged by CHA’s lies in court (she has seen the whole evidence and knew the bigger story) and spoke up as did my son, but they too were also ignored by Sheriff J Martin-Brown.
CHA’s solicitor, in a second Case Management Discussion (CMD) pressed the second sheriff into turning my claim into an alteration issue (at that time, he did not know my side and the evidence), to water down my claim of CHA withholding services (a criminal offence), and causing us unnecessary financial hardship and inconvenience. CHA claimed in court they would pay us for the kitchen alterations after we moved out. They had no intention of paying us money or doing anything at the time, so they would have stolen our kitchen and in order to get them to pay us for it. We would have had to take them back to court and pay all the court fees and their expenses.
(The serial vexatious complainer a.s.t. harasses tenants, gets repairs and maintenance on demand without any problems, because CHA looks after their own kind! )
(my scribbles were from my notetaking at the time)
The job sheets above prove how long it took to get around to treating the source of infestation as they were clearly hoping it would reoccur, after all our expense and trouble in the first place. CHA gloats at other people’s misfortune because that’s the kind of people they are…twisted narcissists. The same joiner Jim Cathro, who messed us about over door handles, delayed doing the source of infestation too and then he went to work for Novus. He then tried to blame the previous company for the delay, hoping I would not recognise he was the same joiner. What a farce! CHA is full of lame excuses and encourages the same in their puppets! Then CHA blame the contractors behind their backs.
CHA INSTRUCTS CONTRACTORS TO TAMPER WITH OUR ELECTRICITY
This is dangerous, especially as they sealed us in our home with paint and the electricity was long overdue to be checked.
Due to financial hardship caused by very high electricity charges, I could not heat the house as needed, (one heater only was being used)I had made a point that I did not want to continue heating a huge hot water cylinder, as we don’t have a bath and only needed to heat water for small amounts, and I have a cold fill dishwasher and washing machine.
The first I knew another huge cylinder was coming was when two electricians were carrying it along my passage. The electricians stated CHA said I had to have it. Two small appliances on the wall, which heat as they go along, would have been a cheaper solution for us and for CHA and would have only required one electrician. But I guess CHA and their puppets would not have had the opportunity to further increase our bills!
Many months later, when the overflow started pouring out water, the plumber came and he said the thermostat had been turned up high, resulting in the huge cold-water tank in the attic reaching a very high temperature. He tried to correct the problem only to find he could not turn off the electricity to the cylinder, because it had bypassed the breaker box, he said it was dangerous. He was noticeably shocked and he immediately phoned it in to McGills, his employer. You would have to be the worst electricians in the world, to not know that the cylinder should be connected to the breaker box, especially already having disconnected the previous one.
When one of the original electricians came to undo what he had done, he gave no explanation or apology, and just remarked “it was not dangerous, I will put it right”. This is also a clear example of how CHA uses company finances and contractors for its own personal twisted agendas to harass tenants. I bet other tenants have been treated the same way. It needs investigating; as I am not the only person CHA has turned against.
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
“Culpable and reckless conduct is deliberate conduct that exposes an individual, or the public generally to significant risk to life or health…there is no requirement for actual injury to have been caused; the offence is the exposure to the risk..”
Image below was from gov website. https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2008/04/07144231/69
(Electric was also long overdue to be checked when son left in March 2019)
We turned off the hot water as we still did not know if had been done properly (the word of anyone connected to CHA could not be trusted after all this and other things they had done to us) and we soon received a £253 refund and reduced monthly payments from the electric company, for the first time in years as indicated in the bill further down.
Instead of reducing my electric so I could afford more heating, CHA had seized the opportunity to maliciously cause harm. These were financial and health/safety and hygiene issues and electric shock and fire hazards. In addition; by having to use cold water to wash restricting movement in my arthritic hands, and having to carry kettles of boiling water about, if I needed to heat the water in the bathroom.
According to 04/07/17 in a report in my 3rd SAR, an email was to follow about the above, but I have not had access to this information because it was withheld from my SAR and when I asked via the court; for communication, and worksheets from McGill, I only received the work sheets. CHA had already blocked my first attempt to get any information via the court. They did not want me or the Sheriff to see the whole picture. The fact the job ticket states “still live” says it all and CHA claiming there was a fault on the cylinder to the court, does not explain why it was not connected to the breaker box!
Below is evidence of reduced payments for electric after turning it off, (because we could not trust CHA or their contractors) and the refund we received. Would anyone trust these people?
How corrupt and rotten is the Scottish legal system/govt which refuses to protect the public, but covers for those who engage in criminal, dangerous behaviour? They are all just criminals, protecting criminals and should be treated as such. No-one should be put in a position whereby they have to deal with dishonourable people. Protect yourselves and gather evidence.
7.After I was forced to move out, CHA harassed my son, breaking the law again
“ A nation that will not enforce its laws has no claim to the respect and allegiance of its people.” AMBROSE BIERCE
Especially when they only use them for their own self-serving twisted agendas, against the publics interest.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (legislation.gov.uk)
Housing Officer Cheryl Connelly was informed my son would have to remain in the home after I moved out in July 2018, until the point he could remove all alterations, garden structures, (when the weather improved enough to do the garden), bathroom alterations and a full kitchen we had bought and also had find somewhere to accommodate them. My son obviously needed to find somewhere to live and he worked 40-50 hours per week. He was also doing jobs for me in my new address.
Whilst the court case was still in action, Cheryl Connelly sent a polite reply to my letter. After they realised, they had got away with everything they did to us, and without warning; Cheryl stuck ‘a not so polite’ repossession notice on the front door. The name of the witness was unreadable on the page and was without a letterhead but supposedly signed by sheriff officer. I believe it is fake, made up by the frauds at CHA, because falsifying information is what has kept them in business.
The wording on the above document names only me and fails to mention my son is actually living there and had been since I moved in. This is a deliberate act to mislead (and commit fraud again)as they are supposed to prove the house has been abandoned.
The document above claims my son owed rent.
There is no mention of this with Chery Connelly’s *accompanying letter further down the page. They are supposed to follow a legal process but have been allowed to make it up as they go along, by their enablers.
- Pre-action requirements
Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and 2010: repossession guidance for social landlords
Requirement to provide clear information about the tenancy agreement and outstanding financial obligations
20. Section 14A(2) of the 2001 Act requires landlords to give tenants clear information about:
(a) the terms of the tenancy agreement; and
(b) outstanding rent and any other outstanding financial obligation of the tenancy.
21. Article 2(1) of the PAR Order says that in giving information to tenants, landlords must make sure that they are given:
(a) a description of the rent and any other financial obligations of the tenant under the tenancy agreement; and
(b) information about the amount due to the landlord under the tenancy agreement, which must be broken down so as to show –
(i) the total amount of outstanding rent and of any other outstanding financial obligations of the tenancy; and
(ii) a description of any charges which the landlord anticipates will be incurred if the arrears of rent or any other financial obligation of the tenancy are not paid.
When I moved out my son continued paying the rent and we have never withheld rent not even when we could not live there, as we had no kitchen (see CH 6). Because I have concentration/memory problems I earlier told my son the wrong amount he needed to pay,(we used to share the costs ). CHA do not give rent statements out, unless you request them, so we did not know we owed money. However they did send us 5 copies demanding payment, 3 in one day (but with different dates! ). As soon as my son was paid after receiving the rent statement I requested, he paid the difference. It was small amounts they had allowed to accumulate before harassing us over it. I can easily prove this.
They also did something similar to the gentleman at the same time as me, who was a victim of CHA harassment mentioned in Ch.3. He was also good for his rent. They punished him, because I stated to Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown he had given me a mandate to speak in court on his behalf, as his experiences were tied into my complaint. The Sheriff shot me down when I mentioned it; see court matters in Ch.2.
CHA did not have a legal right to try to repossess. The claim no-one was living there…. is fraud. I believe the documents above may also be fraud, especially as they were stuck on the door rather than posted to us and do not look genuine. The narcissists did not like being served by the court on my behalf, so they retaliated. If my son was not so sick of this company’s harassment at that time, I would gladly have allowed them to take us to court because that is where they need to be. They would not have followed through. They knew I would turn it around on them revealing everything, and countersue. They huff, puff and they bluff!
Take note the date on this accompanying letter, has been hand written but the rest of the letter is typed. This proves they had planned to do this earlier and had typed up the letter in advance. This is proof of premeditation to harass.
‘
My son’s car was parked there nearly every night and Housing officer Cheryl Connelly asked neighbours, who told her my son was still living there. She also tried to find out from them, my new address. The SPSO asked after I sent my complaint to them, but as they had no intention of dealing with CHA it must have been so they could give it to CHA. No doubt to try to harass further. If this ever happens again I will take all the persons and companies to court the next time round. The bricks and mortar do not harass, but individuals do.
We received Cheryl’s letter on the same day she stuck the court notice on the door. She made no communication to us prior to applying to the court. My son had to take 2 weeks from work to do nearly all the work, as I live many miles away and could only get to the property once. There was a lot of our money tied up in that house, we would not have rented in the first place, had we known how dishonest and malicious CHA really are.
If the court fails/refuses to protect us again, then I would have no choice but to respond in kind to anyone who harasses my family or myself. There is only one way to stop people from harming others and that is for someone to force them to stop. I would make this happen in the name of self preservation to protect us. After all, bullying/harassment, malicious intent to cause harm, victimisation, discrimination, blatant disregard to legislation and loss of personal belongings etc., by CHA has been sanctioned by Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown, regulators, SPSO and Nicola Sturgeons office. They can all be my role models.
One thing is certain, none of them have any right to preach legislation to others, when they refuse to abide by it themselves making them equally culpable for the harm caused.
The huge amount of money and hard work spent on the garden alterations, ended up at the local recycling centre because we had nowhere to take it and no means to transport it. The kitchen which had caused us so much hardship, ended up being stored, in my daughter’s outbuildings along with our glass shower cubicle and own washbasin etc.
We have lost £thousands due to this companies malicious intent to drive us out, all because we asked them to deal with the anti-social tenants. I wonder if all those named on this website, would like it if someone harassed them out of their homes? Is that what the public has to do to protect themselves in Scotland?
Rent (Scotland) Act 1984
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22
Ch.8 OSCR, SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, SPSO and the CARE INSPECTORATE, Leaving CHA Unregulated and Operating Above the Law With Impunity.
When dishonesty begets dishonesty:
“Unethical behaviour is rewarded/promoted, but decency is treated with contempt”
This what the government falsely claim;
Introduction to Ethical Standards in Public life.
Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (legislation.gov.uk) introduced the power to specify the principles and rules that underpin public life in Scotland, putting ethical standards and probity at the heart of decision-making in public service. The principles set out below should be observed by all Board members of public bodies in Scotland.
Key Principles
Duty-You have a duty to uphold the law and act in accordance with the law and the public trust placed in you. You have a duty to act in the interests of the public body of which you are a member and in accordance with the core functions and duties of that body.
Selflessness-You have a duty to take decisions solely in terms of public interest. You must not act in order to gain financial or other material benefit for yourself, family or friends.
Integrity-You must not place yourself under any financial, or other, obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence you in the performance of your duties.
Objectivity-You must make decisions solely on merit and in a way that is consistent with the functions of the public body when carrying out public business including making appointments, awarding contracts or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits.
Accountability and Stewardship-You are accountable for your decisions and actions to the public. You have a duty to consider issues on their merits, taking account of the views of others and must ensure that the public body uses its resources prudently and in accordance with the law.
Openness-You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions, giving reasons for your decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty-You have a duty to act honestly. You must declare any private interests relating to your public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Leadership-You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of the public body and its members in conducting public business.
Respect-You must respect fellow members of your public body and employees of the body and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times. Similarly, you must respect members of the public when performing duties as a member of your public body.
Board members should apply these principles in their dealings with fellow members of their public body, its employees and other stakeholders. Similarly, Board members should also observe these principles in their dealings with the public when performing duties as a member of a public body.
Scottish Ministerial Code: 2018 edition – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) revised the same year as I took CHA to court. Foreword by Nicola Sturgeon. “This revised Ministerial Code sets guidelines for living up to the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. All Scottish Ministers, including myself, are bound by its terms…”
Claims the fake leader with her entourage of equally treacherous, sycophants!
Humza Yousaf complaint against Dundee nursery upheld – BBC News
Although the couldn’t Care less Inspectorate does not care about the public, they were more than willing to help their influential buddies again, this time Humza Yousaf, The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, just because his child was turned down for a nursery place. I am pretty sure the regulator have helped Yousaf’s future court case, and he will already have chosen a ‘favourable’ sheriff, from the ‘little black book’ because the only reason the authorities appear to exist, is to promote/protect their own interests. The public purse is paying for all of this corruption…..but this time, they did not suceed!
Q. What if parents sued for not getting their chosen school places, for denying their children’s regular education, or for the psychological abuse they are causing them with rigid restrictions or for corrupting their children’s minds with the sex education, and prioritising predatory criminal above that of victims and other human rights abuses etc? > READ MORE <
“A statement from the Care Inspectorate said it had found that Little Scholars in Broughty Ferry “did not promote fairness, equality and respect”. Hypocrites!
Which is worse?
Example 1. My son and I were the subjects of malicious intent to cause harm by CHA, illegally driven out of our home, and were denied our right to claim basic damages to cover our financial loss, and the harm caused to us by the law-breaking bullies at CHA. See Ch.2 and throughout this website.
Example 2. Self-serving government officials and their ‘friends’ can exploit and profit from their positions to the detriment of innocent members of the public, and in this case potentially ruining the nursery and cause job losses.
Updated 23.02.23 Humza Yousaf’s family drops discrimination case against nursery – BBC News
“Scotland’s health secretary has dropped a £30,000 case against a nursery he accused of discrimination”
I am happy for the nursery, who were being bullied by the Yousaf family. The Health Secretary is probably hoping to regain the money they lost by Humza Yousaf becoming the next First Minister. He will be every bit as self-serving and dishonest as Nicola Sturgeon. He has been a good little puppet for her and has had multiple roles in the SNP, but was useless (from the public’s perspective) in all of them!
The ministers and regulators are also deceiving the public into sharing information with them, supposedly for the purpose of receiving redress and for the laws to be upheld, to improve services etc. Your data is not safe with them, you do not know where they are sending it. See Ch.5.
“You scratch my back….”There is a concerted effort to employ unscrupulous people who will do the dirty work of unethical/lawbreaking individuals/organisations/companies allowing them to regulate themselves.
In 2019 I sent my website link via an email to the Scottish Government.
1.SCOTTISH GOVERNMENTS response to the evidence on my website was to bury its head and deflect from taking responsibility by signposting.
Your ref; Housing Association is operating above the law with impunity
Our ref: 2019/0013045
Reply by email michael.boal@gov.scot
‘I acknowledge receipt of your emails dated 29 April to the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP and 11 May to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart MSP. I have been asked to reply. Complaints against a Registered Social Landlord are not something the Scottish Government can help you with directly. Complaints should be taken through the formal complaints process of the social landlord.
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome, an approach can be made to the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (SPSO). The SPSO will then decide whether or not to investigate the complaint further. However, they cannot investigate the merits of a decision if the proper procedures have been used. The SPSO can be contacted at Freepost EH641, Edinburgh, EH3 0BR or by telephone on 0800 377 7330 or online at http://www.spso.org.uk/
I understand you also raised a significant performance failure against the housing association with the Scottish Housing Regulator which was not accepted. If you have a complaint regarding the Regulator then you should follow their complaints handling procedure. https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/publications/complaints-handlingprocedure-march-2016 I am sorry that I cannot help you directly.’
Yours sincerely
Michael Boal
2. SCOTTISH CHARITIES REGULATOR; (OSCR) also signposted, ignoring how a group of us had already complained to the SHR, (Ch.4) who broke up/trivialised the complaints, to deflect.
When the SHR has finally taken action against other dishonourable housing associations, they just transfer the company to another unscrupulous housing association and never seem to take legal action against any of them.
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.
Hundreds of concerns raised about Scottish charities – BBC News
Article dated 16th May 2019 “The 318 “notifiable events” reported over that period include cases of fraud, bullying and sexual abuse”.
..“But fears of under-reporting have been raised because charities have no legal obligation to report notifiable events to regulators…The OSCR said the system of charities self-reporting issues, which began in April 2016, was still developing.
.. “A Scottish government spokeswoman said they had no plans to make notifiable events a legal requirement,” because they only care about themselves and what they can get away with.
From Gerard.Hodge@oscr.org.uk on 2019-05-20 07:50
Our Ref: MI/NA/19/0721
SC013988 – Caledonia Housing Association Limited
I note your query about why OSCR refers matters involving charitable Registered Social Landlords (RSL’s) to the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR) and seek to explain to you the reasons for this to provide assurance that your concern will be considered appropriately.
The reason that we refer concerns about housing associations that are also charities to SHR is because SHR act as the lead regulator of these charities. This is so that the charities concerned are not over-burdened by regulation. Where there are issues that are of concern to both regulators, staff from each organisation will discuss the case to determine the most appropriate course of action. Our approach is set out in the Memorandum of Understanding that exists between our organisations – you can view this here: https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-oscr/our-work/memoranda-of-understanding/
I hope this response is helpful for you and assures you that your concerns will be considered appropriately.
Kind Regards,
Gerry
Gerry Hodge | Inquiry Support Officer | ( : 01382 220446 |Ê: 01382 220314| * gerard.hodge@oscr.org.uk|
Our Ref: MI/NA/19/0721
Dear
SC013988 – Caledonia Housing Association Limited
‘Thank you for your email of 7th May 2019 regarding the above charity.
We have now had an opportunity to give full consideration to the matters you have raised in accordance with our Inquiry Policy, a copy of which is attached. This email sets out and explains our position regarding the matters you have raised.
As the concerns you raised relate to a Registered Social Landlord, it is The Scottish Housing Regulator that will deal with your complaint. We have a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) in place with The Scottish Housing Regulator for these types of situations. The following link will direct you to our website where you can review our MOU with The Scottish Housing Regulator: https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-oscr/our-work/memoranda-of-understanding/
Your complaint will therefore be referred to The Scottish Housing Regulator in line with this policy.
Thank you for contacting OSCR with your concerns.’
Yours sincerely,
Gerry
Gerry Hodge | Inquiry Support Officer | ( : 01382 220446 |Ê: 01382 220314| * gerard.hodge@oscr.org.uk
Then the SHR expecting us to go round in circles again, with another member of their staff, Puppet number 2, protecting CHA by denying/ignoring the publics legal/human rights.
9th August 2019
Dear
Referral from Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR)
I understand that you contacted OSCR on 7 May to make a complaint about a charity, namely
Caledonia Housing Association (CHA).CHA are a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) with the Scottish Housing Regulator. As is common in the sector CHA are also a registered charity.
The Scottish Housing Regulator and OSCR have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding which
sets out how we will work together to regulate charitable RSLs. Where a complaint is made regarding a charitable RSL like CHA, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that OSCR will refer the complaint to us for consideration. As such we received your complaint on 6 August.
I can confirm that we have engaged with CHA over your concerns and understand that it, along with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), have responded to you previously. The Scottish Housing Regulator does not have legal powers to investigate complaints by individual tenants about their landlord; the SPSO has the legal power to do this. However, the SPSO can only investigate complaints that have been through the landlord’s complaints procedure first.
If you feel you have exhausted the complaints procedure with CHA, you would be entitled to approach the SPSO with your concerns. It is the final stage for complaints regarding landlords once a determination has been made. The SPSO has produced a leaflet which you may wish to refer to: ‘What to do if you are a tenant of a Registered Social Landlord and have a complaint about them’. The leaflet provides information about the types of complaints that the SPSO can and cannot look at. You can view this leaflet here.
The contact details for the SPSO are:-Home | SPSO – Freephone advice line: 0800 377 7330
Finally, you may wish to read our own advice on ‘Complaints About a Regulated Body’ which can be found here. Alternatively, please visit our website at https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk.
I hope this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Kirsty Anderson
Regulation Manager
Scottish Housing Regulator │0141 242 5547 │ 07748148199
kirsty.anderson@scottishhousingregulator.gsi.gov.uk
Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow G4 0HF www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk
3. Scottish Public Services Ombudsman response: deflect using ‘ the time limit’ excuse, however this should have been special circumstances any way; due to all the harassment which occurred after going through CHA’s pseudo complaint procedure and then because they deliberately played and deceived the court etc see Ch. 2, 6, 7 etc. This was still within the time limit, along with the ICO refusing to abide by legislation, but I guess the SPSO were just wanting to help their ‘friends’ to be consistent with the rest of the clique.
My son was also unlawfully harassed out of the property in my name, when CHA committed fraud again with a Sheriff Officer and obtained a repossession notice (received by us in February 2019), by falsely claiming (fraud) the house was abandoned. The documents may also be fraud (see Ch.7). Housing officer Cheryl Connelly was fully aware my son was still living there, and a neighbour had confirmed this to her. They also tried to find out my new address, no doubt to cause more trouble for us. The SPSO asked for my address, whilst pretending to process my complaint. They will have shared it with CHA, which is another data breach.
…acknowledging “that I can see from the content of your complaint that this matter has been a significant source of distress for you.” Jonathan Riddoch must have the same personality type as CHA’s directors. Every other puppet I have seen is smug because they think they can get away with things. Sick and twisted, incapable of empathy by recognising distress, but choose to ignore it and then rub my nose in it. The SPSO had the audacity to expect me to show them respect! How arrogant. Cowardly, immature, unprofessional people love to’ get in your face ‘whilst hiding behind their desks/authority…..that is, until someone retaliates. Then at some point they realise they are not so clever…….they are just sitting ducks.
Quote from above “I would encourage you to contact me by phone”. They want you to phone so there is no paper trail and if you refer to it later it will be your word against theirs. Always get it in writing; either in emails and save them or on paper.
Updated 13.08.19 following a phone call to pressurise me into removing case worker name, (all my phone calls will now be recorded) and then a letter from Director Niki Maclean.
….’I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our position and respectfully ask that you reconsider removing our staff members details’
To the executives at SPSO
My website was originally to create awareness of CHA’s dishonourable practices and now due to the overwhelming evidence I can now prove how regulators and other supposed upholders of the law, are only interested in protecting all that is corrupt. They work against the publics interest.
You had a choice and you made your decision based on my website evidence. You had all the facts, so your lame excuse to deflect is just that…lame. Service users have no choices thanks to you and the rest of the clique. If you consider it acceptable to ignore everything I submitted to you on my website, the public have a right to know all the facts. If it is not agreeable to you then, tough! I promise I won’t show you any consideration because… you showed me and other innocent people none whatsoever.
You are protecting a group of nasty bullies who would not even be in a job if the laws were upheld. I will not be blackmailed into complying with you, to remove names, in return for an extension to a case review. Keep your case review, I do not need more evidence to show you are sucking up to CHA. As for quoting SPSO ACT 2002, You cannot just use legislation to hide behind for your own self-serving interests. How hypocritical to quote me legislation, when you are covering for those who routinely break the law, including committing criminal offences; which makes you all negligent.
This is in the public interest. By naming and shaming and revealing evidence, it proves my case against CHA and the rot of all those who have assisted or supported them. The public know, I am not scared to tell the truth, unlike those of you who seem to have an aversion to honesty, transparency and decency.
I answered Director Niki Maclean on your facebook to show you how much respect I have for you. You knew from reading my website if you covered for this company I would probably add the evidence to my website. I can tell you as a fact, the public are already fed up of self-serving individuals, abusing their positions especially to the detriment of others.
If you executives forced the employee to do your dirty work to protect CHA, then you are entirely responsible for him. If he was willing, then he is no better than the rest of you and will get no sympathy from me or the public. I explained about this on my introduction page, and nobody should go against the very things they are supposed to represent, just because their boss asks them to. “The just following orders” excuse, went out of fashion with Hitler! I am fully aware of the real villains here, are those at the top of the hierarchy.
Do not contact me again unless you are going to hold CHA to account. All phone calls are being recorded.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of www.spso.org.uk (trustpilot.com) 95%negative!
4. THE (couldn’t)CARE (less) INSPECTORATE.….. the most shocking of all.
2019-06-10 12:31
‘Your concern about Caledonia Housing Support Services – case number: 2019100477
You contacted the Care Inspectorate on 23 April 2019 regarding your concern about Caledonia Housing Support Services.
Your complaint has been assessed, however unfortunately, we are unable to take forward the complaint at this stage as it is outside the timescale that we are able to investigate.
Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention.
Yours sincerely
E-mail: philippa.stanners@careinspectorate.gov.scot
The Care Inspectorate
My response to this and their confidentiality statement was:
Date 2019-06-10 14:17
Message Body
Dear Phillapa Stanners
You make me wait 49 days for a response and that is the best you can come up with? You are ignoring the evidence which proves the company show malicious intent to cause harm, as well as engaging in criminal actions towards tenants and therefore are unsuitable to be responsible for vulnerable people. Protecting people from harm has no time limits.
Save your confidentiality speech for someone who still respects the ICO or any of you regulators.
This is in the public interest and therefore will be uploaded to my website, which is the decent thing to do to protect vulnerable members of society, when others are failing to do the jobs they claim to do.
Yours sincerely
How much has been stolen from the public purse to pay the wages of these regulators and their staff etc., who are all operating under false pretences? I am happy to try to protect the public interest for free like many others, but those individuals/authorities I have named, refuse to do the job that is expected of them and what they are paid to do. They should be replaced with proven, honourable, trustworthy members of public, who are currently unemployed.
Ch. 9. Taking Narcissists to Court.
I know as a fact, the only way to protect yourself and others from narcissistic abusers, is to forcibly stop them. This is the second time I have had to protect myself from malignant narcissists and the reason I know how dangerous they can be.
Caledonia Housing Association (and their enablers) cannot force tenants to put up with their illegal/unethical and harmful actions. Gather evidence and take them to court. Do not waste your time on their pseudo complaint procedure or the so-called regulators, (unless you want evidence of collusion). They will share information to use to their advantage. By protecting CHA’s malicious intent to cause harm, they are complicit and equally culpable.
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot By Andrew Crosbie, an Advocate at the Scottish Bar
‘Know thine enemy’.
The author, Anne McCrea has kindly given me permission to use this excellent article below on my website. I am very appreciative and cannot thank her enough. This and other precise knowledge for victims of any form of narcissistic abuse, can be found in Anne McCrea’s book Narcissistic and Emotional Abuse: Shattering The Illusion – Narcissistic and Emotional Abuse Highly recommended reading and useful for warning your friends and family about the red flags in other toxic relationships too, preferably before they become victims.
I wish I had seen this before I was played by the narcissists in court, (Ch.2) as I would have submitted it with my court application and made more attempts to get a lawyer. It would have made a difference to my case if I had got in first. Please learn from my mistakes. Also, see Ch.1 on the narcissists, manipulative tactics. They will do anything to avoid accountability and have been known to “throw their own children under the bus”. They will also phone lawyers and others to persuade them to obstruct legal access for victims. I know this as a fact. Try looking for lawyers from outside your area.
The Narcissist In Court by Anne McCrea
THE NARCISSIST IN COURT – Narcissistic and Emotional Abuse
If you find yourself in a court case against a narcissist, be prepared for the battle of your life. The narcissist wants to win, by any underhanded means available. Remember that these people are pathological liars and can put on an Oscar winning performance in the courtroom. The narcissist will be one of the most venomous, dangerous opponents one can face in any court of law.
The types of cases you may find yourself involved in are:
Criminal proceedings where you are the victim of a crime committed by the narcissist.
Divorce proceedings, where property/money are in issue.
Custody cases involving children.
Proceedings involving the return of property/money owed.
If the case is one of divorce, the narcissist will present himself or herself as confident and calm, whereas the downtrodden ex-partner will have been run into the ground by this ruthless individual in the months and years leading up to the court case, and often will come across as stressed and lacking confidence. Do not engage in conversation and avoid any eye contact with the narcissist in or outside the court. If there is somewhere private to sit outside the court, find it, so that the narcissist and any of their enablers are not able to intimidate or unnerve you.
Many people facing a narcissist in court worry that the narcissist will manipulate the court and their lies will be believed. It is vital to ensure that your chosen legal representative is up to speed on NPD. A lawyer who is not knowledgeable is likely to be manipulated by the narcissist and may advise you to settle when it is not in your best interests to do so.
The narcissist has pushed you to your limits in the past. Now it’s your turn. Narcissists are likely to react with fury when caught out on their lies and bad behaviour and reveal information which they had no intention of revealing. Their rage may become uncontrollable, with their lawyer doing all in their power to keep them cool, calm and collected (a rather difficult if not impossible task).
The narcissist is likely to have hidden or diverted assets. It is possible to break a narcissist in court, but one needs to be well prepared. It is critical that you are armed with irrefutable, undeniable and corroborated evidence. Avoid giving the narcissist any credible alternative scenarios to the facts. A well-versed lawyer can pose questions to the narcissist in such a way that will take the wind out of their sails ever so subtly.
‘I am led to believe you are quite knowledgeable. Sorry, what is your highest academic qualification? …So, you have no formal qualifications, you never studied for a degree?’
Contradicting or belittling the narcissist’s inflated view of themselves will shatter their fragile self-esteem.
Whilst in the confines of the courtroom, position yourself away from the narcissist and never look in their direction. The fact that you are not looking at them will likely cause a narcissistic wound. The narcissist hates to be ignored.
As we know, the narcissist believes they are above the law and not subject to the limitations of the everyday citizen. As far as they are concerned, they outrank anyone in the courtroom including the judge or magistrate. How dare anyone have the audacity to make them accountable for their actions! Anyone who gives evidence against them will be labelled a liar and corrupt.
Never show any reaction to their words or behaviour. They knew how to push your buttons before and they will try it again. Make sure that these attempts are met with indifference.
It can be difficult to relay to the court just how unacceptable the narcissist’s behaviour can be. Hopefully, they will supply that information to the court and discredit themselves when their fury erupts in the courtroom.
Always tell the truth. Never be tempted to embellish the truth or paint a false picture. Don’t stoop to the narcissist’s level.
Additional reading
The Narcissist in Court | HealthyPlace by Sam Vaknin
Quoted from above article:
Question: “How can I expose the lies of the narcissist in a court of law? He acts so convincing!
Answer: You should distinguish the factual pillar from the psychological pillar of any cross-examination of a narcissist or deposition made by him.”
“It is essential to be equipped with absolutely unequivocal, first rate, thoroughly authenticated and vouched for information. The reason is that narcissists are superhuman in their capacity to distort reality by offering highly “plausible” alternative scenarios, which fit most of the facts.
It is very easy to “break” a narcissist – even a well-trained and well-prepared one…”
“No matter what kind of Narc you’re dealing with, they all follow the same pattern, according to mental health professionals. It’s like they all went to the same Narc school.” by Amour Setter.
Excellent in depth reading in link below covering so much you need to know.
Narcissism in the Workplace & How it Destroys Careers (linkedin.com) By Amour Setter
“Unfortunately, leadership positions do not always attract “good people” and by that I mean people with integrity, humility and a willingness to serve the people they are leading. Often times these positions tend to attract aggressive, manipulative and back-stabbing individuals, hell-bent on getting their own way no matter what the cost to the people around them.’’
A reputable lawyer would be able to help make sure the Data Protection Act and other laws are upheld, seeing how the ICO themselves, refuse do so. My advice to service users; and anyone who could be a victim of any kind of abuse, please protect yourselves and gather evidence in writing.
Please install CCTV cameras to make sure you and your loved ones are safe as well as for wider estate/community issues It is your right to do so and no-one can take that away from you as long as you follow guidance. The police advised me to do this when I told them about the harassment from CHA. They would have to take you to court to force removal. Guidance on the use of domestic CCTV – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
CCTV make good presents. They send alerts/images to mobile phones and can also record conversations. Useful evidence to show a solicitor and if a court hearing is needed. You can also use mobiles to record covertly. You must protect yourself in any way left open to you, as the so-called regulators/authorities are refusing to protect the public, by doing the jobs they are paid to do.
When is the law, not the law,
When those who break laws, have free access to lawyers, protection from regulators and government, all paid for by the public, but their victims are denied access to legal protection.
Simple Procedure/Legal Aid rules disadvantage the public because it only allows a lawyer for advice. This discriminates against disabled people and others. You usually have to pay for representation in the court room unless you win. Still speak to one and show the article from link above by Anne McCrea, to demonstrate what they are up against.
You could argue the point that due to the high risk of corruption, by CHA or anyone connected to them, (especially the so-called upholders of the law I have exposed), it may automatically qualify you for a lawyer, as it is your absolute legal right to a fair and impartial hearing by a fair and impartial sheriff. How can ‘they’ possibly speak about equality, when those who are allowed/encouraged to break laws, have lawyers and their victims are not allowed to defend themselves. That in itself is criminal, in my opinion.
Anyone with a strong case should make sure they are represented by an honourable lawyer. (Your attempts to get legal advice may also be blocked by the above authorities and CHA). A Sheriff who shows even a hint of being biased, should be asked to recuse themselves because their decisions will not be sound. Having knowledge at hand of laws to quote verse and chapter, is crucial.
CHA’s defence is weakened further now I have publicly exposed them with evidence. They are terrified of being taken to court (along with all those others who have assisted them)! Not all Sheriffs are dishonest and would be unlikely to risk their reputations, to support the likes of CHA (especially if they might be exposed afterwards).
Remember; Corrupt liars and manipulative frauds; who have no respect for legislation or for people, have no credibility in a court room or anywhere else!
Be aware; any information you share with them and their solicitors prior to the hearing, gives them a golden opportunity to make up stories after the fact. CHA lawyers pressed me for it and then rewrote the facts and did not reply to me, until after the first case management discussion but received the same day, (letter is in Ch.6).
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is promoting CHA’s unscrupulous actions.
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know”
William Wilberforce
Not only has corruption, fraud, lawbreaking, harassment and malicious intent to cause harm, been sanctioned by all the government departments I have dealt with, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations nominated CEO Julie Cosgrove, for Director of the Year Award in 2020! However, CHA did not receive this award, see further down the page.
Its has never been more easy, to abuse those who cannot defend themselves. Those who turn their backs on the suffering of others, are no better than those carrying out the abuse. How sick has society become when we reward those who deliberately cause injury to others? We should never accept this as ‘the norm’.
..and voluntary organisations who promote CHA and other dishonourable people, do not deserve the support of volunteers or donors! Those decent folk who help charities might want to rethink how you support people in need, as you are being exploited to keep the fat cats in jobs. Members of the public who engage in selfless acts to help others, deserve praise/recognition, not overpaid, parasitic, law-breaking executives, who enjoy causing harm.
Cult-Like Narcissistic Systems – YouTube
Cult-Like Narcissistic Systems from Surviving Narcissists. by Les Carter Ph.D
“its a very sick system…highly authoritarian…with other individuals who just shake their head, yes that’s the way it is…” “Any organisation that has to have this tight, type of control is built upon deep pathology, deep insecurity, paranoia…..”
Abuse comes in many forms e.g. neglect, financial, psychological, physical, sexual, & social with wicked intent to harm:
by Andrew Crosbie, an Advocate at the Scottish Bar.
After failing in 2020, CHA are desperately try to change their image by continuing to pretend to care, about the public. The Executive Management Team are just common criminals with big, nasty egos to feed. This speaks volumes about those supporting them. What else is being ignored by the ‘friends’ of CHA or others engaged in acts of dishonesty or abuse? CHA is not the only housing association who are allowed to operate above the law. Regulators throughout the UK should all be sacked as they are paid by the very people whose lives they make miserable, due to their diabolical customer service standards. Many tenants in the UK live in slums which are sanctioned by the very departments who claim to protect their health and housing needs.
How about an award which recognises how this company and others actually operate; eg. Fraud and Abuse in Housing Award or Criminals in Suits Award, followed by a long stint in prison, which is where they and their enablers, all belong. There are probably many prison inmates who are serving sentences; due to inequality and other social circumstances who have harmed fewer people and broken less laws; than those in positions of authority.
Top charity directors named – TFN
Only a narcissist, would have the audacity to engage in attention seeking behaviours and expect to be rewarded, after being exposed.
I would like to pay tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, who passed away on 02/02/21 R.I.P. A real gentleman who inspired and brought out the best in others.
This nomination by the SCVO was another case of ‘you scratch my back….’ by the fully paid up members of the CHA Appreciation Society. To join this exclusive clique , you obviously need to be a suck- up, or a sick, twisted evil person, with no human characteristics, rather like Hitler, Jimmy Savile, and Ian Duncan Smith and now Tony Blair who were/are also responsible for crimes against humanity, and avoided accountability, thanks to their enablers. The latter three were even knighted, rewarding toxic behaviour which causes harm to others.
Five Ways a Narcissist Comes Unglued (psychcentral.com) by Christine Hammond MS, LMHC
Although some counsellors recommend just avoiding confrontations, this does not resolve the issues, (and only applies to family relationships where victims should plan to leave the abusers), it allows the toxic behaviour to continue. They need to be stopped and controlled, by taking away their narcissistic supply, and their opportunities to harm others. It is the only solution. Pandering to their harmful ways just escalates the damage they do. Serious problems are never solved by ignoring them, ‘you just make matters worse’.
Update 2021 The dysfunctional narcissistic Executive Management Team, have been fed again:
CALEDONIA Housing Association has been announced as a winner at the Scottish Home Awards 2021 ceremony, picking up the Housing Association of the Year and Social Housing Developer of the Year awards.
“Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”
“…If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.”…. The Law: by Frederic Bastiat – Bing video
The law applies to all of us, or none of us!
Due to the fact UK governments and ‘their shady friends’ have been caught breaking most legislation over many years, they have been altering and replacing it behind the scenes, to make it compatible with their intentions to continue abusing and exploiting the public. They have also ‘positioned’ equally corrupt, so-called professionals in key positions, so they can further their dishonourable intentions and avoid accountability. They have no credibility, they are liars and deceivers, so the public should not give them any authority over us, by refusing to comply with their orders. Challenge everything, every step of the way to defend yourself and others.
(Taken from SNP ILLEGAL ACTIVITY / PUBLIC HARMS WAY > READ MORE < )
CHOOSE LIFE, NOT SERVITUDE
The evidence I have provided throughout HOME – DO NOT TRUST THEM proves our govt’s are entirely responsible for the suffering they orchestrated, along with those who are supporting and encouraging their toxic behaviour. Accountability for all of their actions in a criminal court, is long overdue and needs to happen a.s.a.p. as they are overriding the legal system and ensuring justice/humanity will be denied to the rest of us.
This is a game changer: Please view/share and start conversations everywhere:
CommonLawConstitution.org – Common Law Constitution . Org
Five Steps to Understand the Constitution – CommonLawConstitution.org
Quote “A jury also has the power to judge on the justice of the law! They can decide on the appropriateness of a piece of legislation.
That feature above is the most profound and important of a common law-based constitution. Think about it! It places the people in authority over the legislature. Most people – even constitutional commentators and ‘experts’ in the establishment – don’t know this. Why? Because the powers that shouldn’t be…… don’t want them to express it and communicate it to you”.
Spend time reading from the website above, to acquire knowledge on how to defend yourselves from tyranny. Stop listening to and following the cruel dictators who mislead you at every turn. Instead, please listen to the voices of humanity.
Use in conjunction with the many laws/oaths/policies they are breaking etc. The only reason they acquired their power, was by deceiving us so we would elect them. In doing so, they committed fraud. Their actual power over us must be null and void because they are operating and using tax payers money, under false pretences.
On behalf of every man, woman and child living in Scotland ……and elsewhere!
“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.” ― William Wilberforce
The Scottish government etc, may pretend they do not know about my website, or my demands for them to be charged in a criminal court, but I sent my website to Nicola Sturgeon about my Caledonia Housing Association Complaint in 2019. Politicians on twitter/facebook, make a point of informing the public they are on a list, when they dare to speak out against them…because the truth/evidence are enemies of the govts! All the authorities share data. They know!
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)
134Torture.
(1)A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in theUnited Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.
“But our obligation in Scotland, in common with all civilised nations, goes well beyond the prohibition and prevention of the most abhorrent forms of human rights abuse. We have a duty, both at home and abroad, to take action and to speak out against all violations of internationally recognised human rights.
That is why compliance with the full suite of obligations set out in the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is so important”….Liars! They do not practice what they preach.
Why are all the governments, Ofgem (and the other so-called regulators), energy companies, the banks, service providers etc, not being held to account in criminal courts for knowingly engaging in behaviours/actions which will cause harm/deaths to millions of people? They are committing murder.
I do not believe they have legitimate reasons for increasing prices/costs for profit, when they knowingly cause harm/death to customers/service users who are denied any defence. It would not stand up in court, and neither would the contracts/policies/laws designed to put many obstacles in our way, so they all avoid accountability.
Message to governments.
“03.01.23 With reference to the above. I would like to know what legitimate reason, unscrupulous, authority criminals and their sycophants/ puppets/ co-conspirators etc have to demand any information/actions from the public when I have already proven it is more likely than not, the public will be abused even more or may die as a direct/indirect result of complying? See also the next chapter… on State Sponsored Abuse…
“What legitimate reason do you have for using influence and more law-breaking tactics to deny the public, including myself, the right to take the government to court, so you can avoid losing your jobs/being sent to prison/fined/and or made to pay compensation to your victims? There is nothing preventing the public at large demanding a criminal court case against you all, seeing how you are engaging in actions to block my attempts, and I can still be a witness.
Time is running out. If you refuse to be held accountable for engaging in actions designed to harm/cause death to the public, and because you are actively promoting others to do the same, then there is no valid reason why you should be allowed to operate. The public at large can refuse to comply and you would have to take everyone to court to enforce this. You cannot be allowed to steal more of our right to life away from us. It is our legal right to defend ourselves but you are all terrified of that happening.
Failure to allow this leaves us no choice but be forced to take the law in to our own hands to defend ourselves from further harm. You are unfit for the purpose you were elected and dangerous to innocent members of the public. You lost your right to preach legislation to the public when you chose to become criminals yourselves. The public have more right to defend themselves from harm, than the authority criminals and those who support them have to abuse us”.
Human Rights Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) I believe everyone should familiarise themselves with their rights and other pertinent legislation. Just because the authorities try to deny the public their rights, making legislation work against us, does not make it right and it can be challenged. Legislation made by unethical/law breaking/criminal persons/authorities, to the detriment of others or to protect their own abuse of power, can never be acceptable.
Article 6 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ”
30/01/23 I can confirm that after inviting ETHICAL law firms (or anyone who can genuinely recommend one) to contact me on tatos31@outlook.com, this email was blocked. This would clearly be a high profile case and as they intend to deny the public a legal hearing, they are proving their guilt and attempts to avoid accountability for the harm/deaths they knowingly caused.We cannot trust any of them because they are ALL corrupt, working in their own criminal interests.
“The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those that speak out” | George Orwell
The authority criminals and their enablers go to great lengths to avoid anyone upholding the law against them, especially when it would result in prison sentences, for a very long time.
Example; In England, they have sacked an honourable magistrate, as highlighted in the links below. She will be replaced with a corrupt, pretendy magistrate /or new judge, to make sure ‘friends’ of government, cannot be held accountable in law. If they had nothing to hide, they would not have feared the court hearing, but they knew it was game over for so many of them and resorted to abusing their positions again, by using dirty tactics. Cowards.
Magistrate removed after bringing Nuremberg Code case against UK government – YouTube and more information: Holocaust Survivors’ Letter to the International Criminal Court – Doctors for COVID Ethics (doctors4covidethics.org)
‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ Camilla Tominey slams Matt Hancock’s response to leaked messages – YouTube 25000 died in care homes within first 3 months
“Justice delayed is justice denied. The people who lost loved ones during Covid and were denied access to funerals, need a more immediate answer than an inquiry”.
Scotland also needs a comprehensive enquiry into the pandemic and the harmful consequences, but just like in England, they will avoid it at all costs and it will not be ‘independent’. Call for Nicola Sturgeon to be probed by cops for corporate homicide over Covid deaths (msn.com) but it should be more serious charges, see images below. Misappropriation of public funds, untested/experimental vaccinations/financial loss to the economy/public and all the other decisions which they made, resulting in multiple facets of harm and deaths, which will be ongoing for decades. This was never in the public interest and was all about a power grab and increased wealth for those forcing their sinister agendas upon us on behalf of the WHO and WEF.
We are not safe as they ( the decision makers and WEF), are the bigggest threat to all of us.
Please share this website and highlight this page everywhere, to help me, to help you.
Letters like this one below are routinely sent to members of the public. They need to be forced to put their own house in order instead of bullying the trustworthy members of the public. I gave them accurate evidence of my income many months ago. I have responded to the names at the bottom of the page by email and with my website address.
This nasty, threatening letter concerns anyone on any kind of benefits including those, like myself who receive a state pension, and authorities use as an excuse to obtain more personal information (and withhold benefits). Look at how the ICO bully the public on trustpilot to extort money. Information Commissioner’s Office Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of ico.org.uk (trustpilot.com) They love to harass and intimidate us. Those who are vulnerable become terrified with this behaviour, so we need to stand up against all of this. You will become one of their victims at some point.
For quick reference, please read Scotland[edit] Extortion – Wikipedia
Extortion is a common law crime in Scotland of using threat of harm to demand money, property or some advantage from another person. It does not matter whether the demand itself is legitimate (such as for money owed) as the crime can still be committed when illegitimate threats of harm are used.[7][8]
Updated 27/11/22
Dear Mr Gordon A. Arnott
From your 2nd email concerning the above threat to me. I quote “Angus Council are duty bound to review the benefit entitlement of its claimants when they believe there are possible changes to the claimant’s financial or personal circumstances or when prompted by the Department for Work and Pensions” But typically, you provided no evidence or names of accusers/depts, to support your claims.
I have never in my life, knowingly given out false information. Falsifying data/ Fraud/law-breaking, is more prevalent in the government and by those who support them, than amongst the general public. Evidence can be obtained from this website.
“While I appreciate you may have been upset by the wording of the letter, I would advise that this is standard wording used for all claimants and outlines the actions Angus Council may have to take should they not receive a response and where entitlement may then be in doubt.” Admitting you routinely threaten everyone this way, without even providing any evidence to support, is not a valid reason to deflect from your extremely aggressive tactics to get a result, regardless of the harm you cause. How many have committed suicide because of this?
I wish to reiterate to Angus Council what I have already told you “If you or any authority or the banks or anyone else prevents me from accessing my money or services I will accuse the ones responsible, of malicious intent to cause harm/death by psychological/financial/social abuse etc and an attempt to *illegally drive me out of my home, due to loss of income I am entitled to have, unless your dept made a mistake when granting me benefits.
*The CHA section up to this chapter, is all about how my son and myself were illegally driven out of our home, by state sanctioned thugs orchestrated by Caledonia Housing Association/regulators/a corrupt judiciary/government. We paid full rent, so they caused me to be on housing benefit. All of them use influence to protect each others criminality, whilst hiding behind their desks. We broke no laws but they did!
If you think I am going to continue to allow myself or my family or others to be bullied, by one corrupt authority at a time, you are sadly mistaken. But wait, you have not had the guts to accuse me of anything in a court room, despite the high number of corrupt members of the judiciary et al., which Nicola Sturgeon (the ‘Queen of Bribes’) has put in place to cover her back. Why is that….? The reason has been splattered all over my website as evidence against all of you since 2019. It has been seen all over the world, despite your attempts to curtail me with more dishonourable and potentially illegal actions.
You want information from me, I suggest all of you make a case to take me to a criminal court, which is in the public interest, which I will happily attend using valid legislation including Article 6 which I have been illegally denied twice before (and can prove)…… by different, corrupt officials. I will make sure it does not happen again. I will not be silenced to protect murderous criminals in authority positions in the UK.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial
I do not comply with corrupt, state sponsored criminals, who intentionally cause harm/death to serve their own evil intentions by destroying humanity and everything we hold decent. You do not get to abuse the public and avoid accountability. Collectively, we will turn against you.
I also wish to add to the above, I do not comply with hypocrites/despots or other traitors of society. You all either belong in prison or deserve to be given a taste of your own medicine, for what you have deliberately put everyone through, especially over the last few years.
“The law commit legal plunder by violating liberty and property…”
“…but how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to another to whom it does not belong.
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another, by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” – Frederic Bastiat
Legislation has to apply to all of us, or none of us.
I also do not accept your fake apology. You do not get to decide whether I feel harassed, or if my health is affected by authority intimidation. It is my call to make, not yours. The passive aggressive behaviours I have recently been subjected to by (2) councils, are duly noted. How to Recognize and Handle Passive-Aggressive Behavior | Psychology Today
Yours sincerely.
Awhile ago, the same council helped themselves to a significant amount of money from my sons salary (I previously said bank but meant his wages…sorry) without contacting him in advance. They claimed they did not know his address, but they managed to find out where he worked! When he made enquiries, they claimed (without evidence to support) he owed them money from a previous address. This is a common tactic dishonourable councils use to steal money and because no contact or evidence….means no defense! If he owed them money(C.tax) they just had to ask for it (for over a year), we are very honest people. Instead they successfully made a court case without even notifying him of any of this. All they do is to apply to the court and say whatever they like, behind the public’s back, because the system is rotten to the core. They must make a lot of money this way!
17.01.23 Millionaire Tory Nadhim Zahawi to ‘pay millions in tax to settle HMRC dispute’ – Mirror Online As I have said before, the biggest fraudsters work in government, but they use influence to get themselves off the hook, and any legal costs are paid for by the public. We need to see concrete evidence of them all proving they have paid taxes and how much they are taking from the public purse etc. They also need to justify their value in the positions they occupy, or be removed. Q. Why did HMRC not treat the tax evader, Nadhim the same way they treated my son and the rest of the public?….A. The fact they failed to do so, is evidence of corruption clearly demonstrating one rule for those who become rich by their illegal behaviour/abuse of position, whilst the rest of us get pushed further into poverty by their dirty tactics. Serial abusers of the public’s trust, deserve the longest of prison sentences.
I wonder who is paying for the prostitutes at Davos?Davos 2023: Demand for prostitutes skyrockets during annual World Economic Forum | Daily Mail Online “The global elite tackling the world’s greatest problems – including gender inequality -at the Davos summit are fuelling a surge in prostitution in the Swiss resort town.” Once again, they are having a laugh at our expense. Literally!
An investigation with evidence, of who is picking up the bill for several days of debauchery, should be made available for public scrutiny, especially as they claim they are there on official business! We all know it is yet another great big, dirty lie and they are currently proving it! No wonder they deny the public access and shroud everything in secrecy. They should all be sacked and locked up. They are absolutely disgusting, hardly upstanding citizens. These fake leaders believe they are more entitled and deserving of special treatment, having manipulated themselves into their positions. They also refuse to abide by rules/ legislation/or a moral compass as they believe they are above the law. They are delusional and live inside their own heads most of the time, which is why they never contribute anything of value to society. They take and give nothing back…except misery for everyone else!
I have to work around several issues, most beyond my control including possible internet/computer/website interference from those I have named. I am mainly using Chapter 11 in this area of my website (entirely for the demand for a court hearing), because it is easier for me to process and my Home Page has been suspiciously blocked from allowing me to edit! Thank you for reading. Please explore more information at HOME – DO NOT TRUST THEM and share and copy anything which helps the innocent members of the public. I try to reveal as much information on this website to help as many people as possible, and encourage them to do their own additional research. This site can be read like an informative book and readers can dive in at any point, to search for specific articles of interest and see many examples of how corruption helps the authority criminals, avoid accountability. Pushing back means refusing to comply with their abuse or their self- serving legislation which is dangerous to the rest of us, and demand they are removed and punished to the full extent of the law. Thank you for reading.
STATE SPONSORED ABUSE
Neglect, psychological, sexual, physical, financial, social abuse, social murder; including driving people to suicide, and by putting obstacles(and legislation) in the public’s way to deny them of the right to life. etc…..
An example, includes forcing PRIVATE landlords to upgrade and install expensive equipment, e.g. for the green agenda excuse,(or any other manufactured/humanitarian crises they sadistically intend to force upon us), often resulting in having to sell their properties, and tenants losing their homes. They are just dirty tactics to deprive the public of basic necessities. Q. Who benefits from installing new electric heaters ETC when tenants cannot afford to use them? A. First of all, energy companies to rip us off to create obscene profits, then favoured contractors and politicians/regulators and other enablers, who get kick-backs for actions which cause harm/deaths….they are just some of the abusers!
29.01.23 Digital Economy Act 2017: The Identity Verification Services objective (domains.gov.uk) They are sneaking this out behind our backs, so they can take total control over your money and every aspect of daily living.
Please, please do not allow the authority criminals/tyrants get away with this. There may be no gas chambers yet, but controlling every aspect of your life will just remove any chance of your survival. They are more dangerous than Hitler as they have more resources than he had…. and the Nazis murdered millions! The authority criminals and the WEF, need to be stopped, by demanding a court hearing by the public, en masse.You will not be able to do ANYTHING without their permission, no income, no food, no rights over your kids, no car, no freedom of movement, no home (including if you currently own yours), no protection from physical, sexual, financial, social, and no legal defense etc.
CHOOSE LIFE, NOT SERVITUDE
Look at the laws they already sneaked in to allow them to rape, torture and or murder, with no redress for victims and no accountability for them. An example; Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 – Wikipedia which is in conflict with the legislation below
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (legislation.gov.uk)
134Torture.
(1)A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in theUnited Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.
“In addition to the established common law provisions, section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for any public official to ‘intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the perfomance … of his official duties’. This provision was introduced to honour the UK’s commitments under the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention).
Under international law, torture is not only prohibited under such instruments as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Torture Convention, but it has become recognised as ius cogens, a preemptory norm of international law that binds all states whether they have signed instruments such as the Torture Convention or not.((See eg Prosecutor v Furundzija [1998] ICTY 3, 10 December 1998, paragraphs 147-157)) The prohibition against torture under Article 3 ECHR is also one of the few rights that cannot be derogated from in a state of emergency under Article 15.”
How to make a Citizen’s Arrest | Citizen’s Arrest UK Law (westminstersecurity.co.uk)
The law surrounding a Citizen’s Arrest in the UK is set out in Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. It states that a person can legally arrest anyone: “Who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; or whom the person has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing an indictable offence”.
Research this legislation and more and use against them on every platform you can. Prove how they cannot be trusted. Call them out worldwide. There are many millions/billions more of us, than them. Lots of little fish, fighting a few big fish.
The website above tries to conceal the right to copy by quoting plagiarism laws. I am happy to challenge in a criminal court that legislation made by criminals in authority positions is invalidated, using my website as evidence to explain why they have no credibility.
It can be challenged that when we are trying to defend ourselves from harm, we have more right to override laws which work against us but are created by those in authority, who knowingly cause us harm. More right than the perpetrators have to abuse us /cause our untimely death and use legislation to protect their own criminality. They have already proven themselves to be untrustworthy and dangerous. It is the reason they are ignoring my requests for the public’s right; to take the governments/enablers to a criminal court and are desperately trying to block my website from public view. We cannot allow the criminals to continue to protect their own criminality. Please speak out and share this website and feel free to copy any/all to use as evidence against authority criminals, to protect the public.
“. …When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over a course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” by Frederic Bastiat
Taxpayers spent £10.5m on fees for diplomats’ children at UK schools – BBC News
“The Foreign Office says it wants to ensure children don’t have their education disrupted if their parents have to leave the country…In the same year, £21.38m was spent on school fees for 902 UK diplomats’ children in education overseas”
“Under the longstanding scheme – called the Continuity of Education Allowance – senior Foreign Office staff can apply to have up to 90% of their children’s school fees paid by the taxpayer if they contribute the remaining 10% themselves”.
Compare what they spend on themselves with the services, necessities including heat, food and housing, employment, education opportunities, they have made available for the public. “You will have nothing, but you will be happy.” Just think of the £multi-billions of public monies available to improve the quality of our lives instead of theirs, if we got rid of the self-serving leaders, ministers, politicians, diplomats, regulators, and other pseudo-organisations, CEOs etc who do not earn their keep.
They are forcing us to die from; social experiments/protecting perpetrators/pushing us into extreme poverty/destroying health and social care services/creating homelessness/perpetual wars/manufactured crises/ introducing inhumane legislation to use against the public/engaging in child abuse/putting obstacles in our way eg preventing seasonal workers entering the UK to harvest our fields adding to existing food shortages…but allowing criminals to enter, move freely and prioritising their rights above UK citizens….and more, all contribute to our untimely death. We are being abused by the state.
Clayton Morris: This is even WORSE than we imagined – Bing video Pfizer exposed ….again!
Q. Why are they manipulating viruses which are then released into the population? A….because the callous people who are making decisions on our behalf, are working against the public interest and are happy to cause harm/death to rapidly increase their wealth and control over the rest of us.
WHAT IS SOCIAL MURDER? | Clifford Thurlow
Mini-budget will result in ‘social murder’ this winter | Letters | The Guardian
Covid-19: Social murder, they wrote—elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant | The BMJ
Gender Reassignment is Very LUCRATIVE! (rumble.com)
“Sky News host Rowan Dean says the NHS-run gender clinic Tavistock has been forced to close after a “damning report” deemed it was offering unsafe services – including sex changes to children”. No-one in their right mind with a moral compass, would have deemed it appropriate to allow children to change sex, when their emotional/physical development is not mature enough to make those decisions on their own. Clearly the government and the NHS bosses wanted to indoctrinate them into this, to suit their perverse agendas and will try to avoid being held responsible in court. Watch out for the delaying tactics and the carefully selected judiciary when anyone tries to hold them to account! Ch. 9 on Taking Narcissists to Court > READ MORE <
‘Damning report’ on Tavistock sees clinic forced to close (msn.com)
“So unsafe that 1,000 families are expected to join together – 1,000 – in pushing a medical negligence lawsuit…”
Gender Identity Clinics (scot.nhs.uk) Nicola’s SNP government also promote mental and physical abuse of children.
What’s Causing the Trans Explosion? – Helen Joyce | Triggernometry | The_Void (thevoid.uk)
Clearly it is the WEF/governments promoting it and Helen Joyce makes a very valid point on this video. Perhaps they are sterilising young people as part of their agenda to abolish the family unit and reproduce babies by another method, to suit the perverse, self-titled elites.
Half of trans surgery patients suffer extreme pain, sexual issues years later | Daily Mail Online By Meike Leonard Published: 15:54, 16 January 2023
“Based on 80 patients who visited one clinic in Canada for follow-up treatment
Some patients received procedures abroad – where rules may not be as strict
Study biased as it used patients who came for post-op care on their own accord
Vaginoplasty patients reported bleeding, UTIs and sexual function concerns
Researchers call for better post-operative care for newly popular procedure
More than half of trans women who have ‘bottom’ surgery are in so much pain years later they need medical attention, a study suggests.
Up to a third of patients also struggled to use the toilet or suffered sexual issues 12 months after the operation, which sees patients transitioning from male to female given a surgically constructed vagina.
Researchers from the Women’s College Hospital (WCH) in Ontario, Canada, analyzed the medical records of 80 patients who sought care from the clinic between three months and five years after having the operation.
Campaigners say the findings demonstrate that complex surgeries like vaginoplasty often carry risks that patients are unaware of – at a time when there has been a dramatic uptick in the number of gender reconstruction surgeries in the US and Canada.”
Why is Canada euthanising the poor? | The Spectator After many years of denying those who asked for Euthanasia, due to terminal illness when it was cruel to force them to suffer, assisted suicide has now become popular with the tyrants. You can even buy suicide pods! **How many other countries will be coercing vulnerable members of society and those they have deliberately caused to lose their incomes/homes… to end their own life, because evil leaders do not want to waste money on social/health care/pensions etc when they can spend it on themselves and steal all of your belongings and kids too! They will happily pay for you to die on their behalf. I remember about 10 years ago, some UK politicians stated those on low incomes should be sterilised and disabled children should be aborted.
**Example: Many patients during the pandemic, received letters or phone calls from local GPs asking them to sign a DNR form (Do Not Resuscitate) in advance, just in case they end up in hospital with covid symptoms??? What happened to first do no harm?