 |
| http://www.whale.to/v/vaccine_research.html |
Today Mr Mustard adds a serious matter of his own experience to the debate. Here is the email he sent to the Monitoring Officer earlier today.
Dear Ms Fiore
The following page from a government website sets out when planning permission is required for advertisements.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/advertssigns/
In a recent County Court case Parking Eye stated that they have the following signs on the Barnet Hospital site
Type 3c - 600*700m - 17 of
Type 3h - 600*700mm - 1 of
Type 5a - 700*900mm - 2 of
And the council can see them on site for themselves.
So they have 20 signs which require planning permission and Parking Eye did not apply for it before erecting the signs in 2014. Parking Eye appear to be negligent when it comes to applying for necessary permission for signs and cameras (just one example)
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/parking-company-using-unauthorised-cameras-at-retail-park-1-7774133
Planning Enforcement action is, I understand taken by employees of Re:. That company is 51% owned by Capita.
Parking Eye is 100% owned by Capita.
No matter how independently minded an employee might be he/she will struggle to properly progress the necessary enforcement action (and for the avoidance of doubt I am making a complaint and asking for the signs and cameras to be immediately removed until such time as planning permission is applied for and granted) as Parking Eye have been breaking the law by issuing parking charge notices up to date, without putting their own position in difficulty or proceeding in a completely unbiased manner (we all tend to have a natural and possibly innocent bias towards our employer) or being seen to be unbiased if they take less than robust action.
It is for that reason that I am making this complaint to you, the monitoring officer, as you are responsible for ensuring that the council enforces the law. Please appoint an independent body or another local authority, who don't number any Capita company within their client base, to deal with the matter and demonstrate that conflicts of interest are taken seriously.
Yours faithfully
Mr Mustard
The following page from a government website sets out when planning permission is required for advertisements.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/advertssigns/
In a recent County Court case Parking Eye stated that they have the following signs on the Barnet Hospital site
Type 3c - 600*700m - 17 of
Type 3h - 600*700mm - 1 of
Type 5a - 700*900mm - 2 of
And the council can see them on site for themselves.
So they have 20 signs which require planning permission and Parking Eye did not apply for it before erecting the signs in 2014. Parking Eye appear to be negligent when it comes to applying for necessary permission for signs and cameras (just one example)
http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/parking-company-using-unauthorised-cameras-at-retail-park-1-7774133
Planning Enforcement action is, I understand taken by employees of Re:. That company is 51% owned by Capita.
Parking Eye is 100% owned by Capita.
No matter how independently minded an employee might be he/she will struggle to properly progress the necessary enforcement action (and for the avoidance of doubt I am making a complaint and asking for the signs and cameras to be immediately removed until such time as planning permission is applied for and granted) as Parking Eye have been breaking the law by issuing parking charge notices up to date, without putting their own position in difficulty or proceeding in a completely unbiased manner (we all tend to have a natural and possibly innocent bias towards our employer) or being seen to be unbiased if they take less than robust action.
It is for that reason that I am making this complaint to you, the monitoring officer, as you are responsible for ensuring that the council enforces the law. Please appoint an independent body or another local authority, who don't number any Capita company within their client base, to deal with the matter and demonstrate that conflicts of interest are taken seriously.
Yours faithfully
Mr Mustard
Let's see how seriously conflicts of interest are actually taken because this is clearly one such example.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
I anticipate the usual prestidigitation in their reply !!
ReplyDelete