PRESTON PARISH MEETING 20 MAY 2015.

THE PARISH MEETING 20 MAY 2015.

What can I say, an unmitigated disaster, again! This has happened every year for at least the last decade!!  And each time the council regurgitate the usual excuse of ‘it was on the Notice Board so there’s nothing more we can do”.

I was unable to attend due to illness but I am reliably informed there was just 1 resident who attended, 2 councillors and parish clerk. The Parish Council won’t bat an eye at that or give it a second thought. The fact is this was the Annual Parish Meeting for residents and it’s the legal duty of the council to ensure it takes place within a specified period. I would have thought the council also had a responsibility to ensure its success but it would appear the council takes every possible step to ensure the meeting takes place in name only and beyond that it is totally ineffective!

The facts are that I pushed for the Parish Meeting to be planned for 6 months ahead of the date of the meeting and I was arguing that case from May 2014. I had 2 other councillors who were willing to join me in forming a committee with some residents and planning for the meeting and making arrangements to engage with residents to try and make the meeting a success. We had plans for Posters, leaflet drops and suggested agenda items, we planned to have hot and cold refreshments available, we were even prepared to cover the cost of promoting the meeting out of our own pockets, that’s how important we believed it to be.

 The council did as far as I recall agree to put plans in place to make the meeting a success, as is often the case the matter was never mentioned again and nothing was actioned, even though the whole council agreed to take it forward, following the meeting someone decided to bin it and as usual that was the end of it, its happened time after time!

There are some very important matters and issues not least of all financial issues that residents need to be aware of and need to have the opportunity to discuss and debate in public because the issues potentially effect every household in the village. It does appear the council or those few people controlling the council have no wish for residents to be aware of these issues and will take almost any steps to prevent engagement with residents.

There are lots of local issues that I would imagine are of interest to residents and issues they would like to see discussed at an official level and in cases action taken, they include, Cemetery, Play Park, Foot Paths, Traffic and Parking, Dog Fowling, Preston Playing Fields, Jubilee Trees, Emergency Plan, allotments etc. etc., the list just goes on.

It really is time residents had their say, there are just a couple of people who are denying all other residents the opportunity to have their say, that needs to change!

UNDER PERFORMANCE IN RETURN FOR OVERPAYMENT.

PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL

I’ve just checked the Parish Council Website to see who our new councillors are, I should have known better!  This I think is pretty disgusting, we pay a clerk about 50% of the council’s entire income [Precept] for 12 hours work per week and part of the job is to update the Council Website as a source of information for residents. Seven councillors were elected in April [Unopposed] and I understand some have been co-opted since but they are not listed on the council Website.  So why am I and others who are no longer councillors still listed as councillors almost 2 months after we stood down?  I would like my name removing from that site! The Website is at the very least 6 months out of date and much of the information necessary to residents is simply not available.

We have Burstwick  Council seeking a new clerk on a NJC Spinal Count of 15 to 19 points [pay scale] subject to having or working to obtain the CiLCA Clerk qualification. This I understand is a very similar council profile to Preston in terms of Population and income according to the scales complied by NALC and SLCC in conjunction with NJC.

We then have Hedon seeking a new clerk on an NJC Spinal Count of 33 to 35 points, dependent on experience and qualifications, CiLCA qualification I believe is required. Hedon is probably 10 times the size of Preston in terms of income and expenditure [the last time I checked and if I remember correctly, I believe Hedon had a precept income of something like £165,000], probably has more than twice the population and I believe has one less councillor than Preston [from memory].

We then have Preston with a population of about 3,300 and an annual income of £20,000 [precept], about £2,000 of ancillary income and a rapidly dwindling reserve. This is were it goes horribly wrong because we have a clerk on a NJC Spinal Count of 26 points. The pay for our Parish Clerk is a long, long way ahead of Burstwick’s, 11 spinal points ahead and snapping at the heels of Hedon clerks pay scale. The Preston clerk’s pay puts him into the LC2 range [Hedon Clerks pay group] and there is absolutely nothing in the Preston Council profile that remotely warrants that level of pay.  

Everything I have received from Preston Council Office while a member of the council from work schedules to budget forecasts have been amateurish in the extreme and produced almost on the back of a fag packet and without any thought or consideration. When I questioned inconsistencies in a working schedule produced by the council office neither the Chairman or clerk had any idea of what I was talking about, even though I was actually quoting the schedule they had issued just days before, needless to say they refused to discuss it during later meetings!

Despite asking more than once I have never been informed of the relevant qualifications the clerk holds. I can only conclude the clerk for Preston is not qualified to do the job, so why do we pay such a princely wage? Especially when the clerk had no idea of what the quorum is for the council he works for?

While on the council I questioned the issue of the clerk’s salary scale and qualifications on a number of occasions but never got any answers. The issue was never put before the council to decide, it was always decided by someone else, I don’t know who, but the issue does need to be discussed openly and residents need to be closely involved in the discussion, after all this is public money that is being wasted sorry, spent.

As far as I was able to ascertain and confirmed by the Chairman, there are no records of the clerk ever being assessed for the position he now holds, no records exist of the process used to evaluate the level of pay inline with any official guide lines [NALC, SLCC or NJC] and no records exist that would indicate the clerks qualification to hold the post. There are no records that indicate the clerk has undergone any kind of performance review or appraisal during his 15 years in post.    

So I can only draw my own conclusion, it’s a remnant of the cosy rouges club that constituted the Parish Council prior to 2011.

Ken Lyons

2ND REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

We would like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

2^ND RESPONSE TO JAN HUNTER

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS.

Hi Jan, Thank you for your comment, I’m pleased to hear you have an open mind. I agree one voice will get nowhere and I assume you are aware of why I am here and doing what I’m doing.

Basically we have 4 Parish Councillors who in my opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee while it was investigating one of their number. Since doing so none of those Councillors have uttered another word on the subject, anything that has been said, has been said in private and behind the protection of closed Council doors. This can only be intended to deny me the right to defend myself.

Apart from the 4 councillors we have 5 other Councillors who gave honest statements and 3 members of the public gave statements, all of those statements support my case in some detail. The two sets of statements cannot both be truthful.

I have requested the text of all statements from East Riding Council, who have refused that request along with refusing to look into the matter further. As you will be aware a Parish Council does not come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman, so I have no redress in that direction. I can write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ask his Department to look into the matter and that is presently under consideration, I am currently researching the possible outcomes of that approach.

You mention “hard evidence”, the only hard evidence I have are the statements from witnesses, and at the moment I am being denied access to that evidence. East Riding quote legislation as the reason for their refusal, I have challenged their interpretation to no avail. I have subsequently submitted a complaint against East Riding Council to the Information Commissioners Office to have those statements released, I am currently awaiting the outcome. Should this approach fail my only access is to have them released by legal process and the only way I can do that is for the Councillors involved to call me a liar in public, and hopefully in writing, I can then instruct my legal advisors to apply for the statements on legal grounds (a provision for this is made in The Local Government Act 1972) and enter into the “Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation”. At the moment the press are reluctant to air this in print because of their concerns relating to the Law of Defamation, quite understandably.  Should I be in a position to take legal action that will change the position with regards to the Press.

I am already seen as a persistent complainer and I am very well aware of that, it’s a small price to pay in order to reach the truth. I agree with you again that 16,000 hits on this Blog go nowhere towards resolving the issue, but that figure will eventually reach 25,000 or 50,000 possibly even more. I will continue to press the issue until I have what I originally asked the Parish Council for, that is, an apology and an assurance that no other resident will be subjected to this kind of abuse in the future. It is my opinion that these type of people rely on their victims to either submit to their intimidation or quietly go away leaving them free to repeat their abuse on the next victim in the secure knowledge that their colleagues in Local Government will cover for them.

It would be futile to knock on doors to ask people to sign a petition on my behalf, not only because I am a relatively newcomer to the Village but because I feel sure those people not having been there to witness the incident will be unsure of the veracity of my position and would most likely therefore choose to “not get involved”, I put that down to “Village Politics’.

What I can say is that in my opinion, this matter does bring the Parish Council into disrepute and will further compound that disrepute the longer it continues, I am also aware of the approaching Local Elections. I do not accept that what I am doing causes that disrepute, Councillors who chose to be dishonest occasioned the disrepute, my actions are merely a consequence of their dishonesty.

The sad thing in all of this is the innocent people who suffer because of those dishonest Councillors. We have I believe 6 new Councillors who were elected in 2011 and the incident in question unfortunately happened on their first Council Meeting, their stewardship of the Parish has I believe been greatly hampered by this matter and any achievements and improvements they possibly could have introduced have been severely curtailed by the actions of those Councillors who are dishonest.

We have a Chairman who has been in her position since directly following the incident, her leadership has many questions attached to it because of this ongoing sore. However much I might sympathise with that position I can only respond to the Chairman’s inactivity in dealing with the issue.

My natural instinct is to talk about the issue and resolve it in an amenable manner, this regrettably has not been possible, I am therefore left with the only avenues open to me, my training over many years compels me to fight with whatever ammunition I have available to me and as dirty as my opponent chooses to make it. This matter will be resolved and I will receive an apology, if not from this Council it will be from the next Council or the one after that.  That position in my opinion can only put shame on our current Council.

I’m sure you will agree, this is a sad state of affairs and a reflection on Local Government as a whole and if our Local Government bodies disregard the legal provision’s placed upon them and they operate in a sloppy procedural fashion it can only reflect on the standard and quality of the service that is eventually delivered to members of the public.  

Thank you for you advice to “keep at it” and I’m pleased you will keep reading the posts, should I at any time go off on a rant please feel free to correct me. You have just prompted me to read a post earmarked for publication either tomorrow or Friday, I’ll apologise in advance but am prepared to go with the accuracy of the post.

Again thank you for your comments Jan, its been a pleasure responding to you, and thank you for reading.

Should you wish to contact me privately I can be reached at prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com

Kind regards

KL

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

We would like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

REPLY TO JAN HUNTER.

WE BELIEVE THIS COMMENT WAS AIMED AT KEN LYONS SO HE HAS AGREED TO POST A PERSONAL RESPONSE.

Hi Jan Hunter, thank you for your comment, I shall try to answer all your points.

If you have read previous posts you will be aware that I make a point of letting readers know that I am far from being an expert on anything let alone Council Meetings. My view and opinion is given as a lowly resident and not as a knowledgeable Councillor. I arrived at my opinion by researching the requirements for Council Meetings and the role of the various participants.  My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the procedures followed during many Council Meetings do not marry up with the requirements, I shall be posting on this subject in the near future, maybe you would care to read it and point out where I’m going wrong.

You suggest I should put my name forward to be a Councillor, I have been asked to do that by a number of residents also by a Ward Councillor, I have considered it and rejected the idea. In 2011 we had, I believe without checking, 6 or 7 new councillors elected to make a difference to how the council operated and how it involves and connects to residents. In my view and it’s just my view from observation, those aims have not been realised, if 6 good residents are unable to change things, what makes you think one more would make any difference?

You could very well be correct in that I sometimes rant and I respect your opinion in that regard. But, at least I take an interest and at least I’m passionate about it and I do believe that there is a need for some one to speak out, if no one speaks out the situation will only deteriorate further and we could well be left with chaos. In that event we would not be able to put all the blame on the Parish Council because we as residents would be equally at fault by not speaking out.

Yes we have had almost 300 comments though I didn’t mention the number of emails as that wasn’t referred to in the previous comment from ‘anonymous’, who by the way made the same points you are making. You have stated very emphatically that we only publish comments that are from the same person, unless you have made almost 300 comments to this site you already know that isn’t correct. In any event many of them are ‘anonymous’ comments and we have no idea who they are from. If all comments are from the same person I can only suggest that person is really very fickle because the comments cover a wide range of opinion from pure opposition to total support, which suggests to me they are not all from the same person.

You ask “why?” we only publish comments from the same person, we appear to be going round in circles, I can only tell you that we publish all comments except for a number of comments on very recent posts, which we have already covered.

You suggest I am devoting a great deal of time to this Blog, I can assure you I don’t spend a great deal of time on here, I have other things I need to do and other people I need to consider. That is possibly why some of my posts may come across as “ranting”, I don’t re-read them 20 times in order to ‘polish’ them up before I publish them, so again I apologise if they come across as “kinder Garden” rants, I certainly don’t mean them to.

You go on to suggest that I say that I have “much support”, as far as I’m aware I have never said that, though I have thanked people for their support as they have given it. You say I should make the Parish Council and Public aware of my support and opinion. 

To date there has been more than 16,000 page views on this blog, I don’t know who those readers are, it may be only one person who has read this Blog but that person would have had to read it 16,000 times, I don’t consider that to be a realistic proposition. As for making the Parish Council aware, you will see in previous posts that I made every attempt at making contact with the Council to enter into a dialog to resolve any issues I might have with them. The Council has never responded so I now do it the only way that appears to be left open to me as a resident, registered voter and precept payer of the Parish.

As for me being bored, as far as I’m aware you don’t know me so I’m unsure how you reach that conclusion, you may have noticed that there are planned breaks in this Blog and they can last 5 months where I nor anyone else posts on this site, if we were bored we wouldn’t have those breaks, would we?

You are correct to some degree in saying that I’m just one person, I do not and will not ask others to fight my battles nor will I hide behind the skirts of women, the Council have been aware who I am from the start and they are still aware today. My door has never been closed to the Council, which has been my whole point.

That I think answers the points you raise, but if I could just add. Your comment has been similar to many others in that they want to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the message. You clearly disagree with me on, it would appear, most points. If you think or know anything on this site that is incorrect, dishonest or misleading please contact us again with details of same and we shall try to address them, in doing so you would be a great help in resolving the issues through debate or at least possibly coming to an open conclusion.

Thank you for your comments Jan and very many thanks for reading.

KL

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

UNLAWFUL COUNCIL MEETING ON 10TH OCTOBER 2012.

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS.

This post has been split into 3 parts,

1.  Legal requirements on Parish Councils and Legal references.

2.  The potential consequences to the Parish and Residents.

3.  Why we believe the 10^th October 2012 Council meeting to have been unlawful.

Post 1.  LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ON A PARISH COUNCIL AND LEGAL REFERENCES

By law, a Parish Council is required to abide by certain legal requirements. Regulations governing how Parish Councils operate and the procedures they must observe and follow are contained in many Acts of Parliament and delegated legislation.

The main items for convening a legal Parish Council meeting are contained in The Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972). We will outline those requirements as listed in the regulation so anyone who wishes to confirm or challenge our opinion is able to.

An official Council meeting cannot be legally convened if the Council has failed to observe the provisions of the LGA 1972. If any Council fails to observe the legal requirements, any Council meeting it may hold is not a Council meeting and consequently that meeting would have no legal authority to conduct any Council business, any business such a meeting did consider would be null-and-void. 

LEGAL REFERENCES

Lawfully convened Parish Council Meetings.

The legal provisions under The Local Government Act 1972 and other legislation are very specific.

In order for a Parish Council Meeting to be lawful and legally authorised to conduct Council business and commit to binding decisions and resolutions following Council discussions, the council must adhere to certain legally prescribed prerequisite actions, these include:

1.  (LGA 1972, Sch 12, paras 10(2)(a) and 26(2)(a). At least three clear days notice, not including the day of issue, Sunday or the day of the meeting, before a meeting of the council a notice of the time and place of the meeting must be affixed in some conspicuous place in the locality, (in the Case of Preston, this would be the village notice board)

2.  (Case Law, Longfield Parish Council v Wright). A council must Specify on such notice all items of business proposed to be transacted at the meeting, a council cannot lawfully decide any matter which is not specified in the summons (Agenda).

3.  (LGA 1972, Sch 12, paras 10(2)(b) and 26(2)(b). A summons to attend the meeting, must specify all the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting and signed by the proper officer of the council, shall be delivered by hand or sent by post to the usual place of residence of every member of the council.

4.  (LGA 1972 Part 2s10(2)). Legal definition of 3 clear days. The day on which the notice was issued or posted, the day of the meeting, a Sunday, a day of the Christmas break or a bank holiday or a day appointed for public thanks giving or mourning shall not count towards the 3 clear days.

Why does the law require Parish Council’s to give 3 clear days notice to the public? It is to enable the public to be aware of the business that is to be transacted during that Council meeting and, it allows members of the public to research any item on the agenda they might have an interest in before the meeting is convened. In order that members of the public have sufficient time to research any item the law requires all Parish Councils to give at least 3 clear days notice.

Until recently and at the time of the Parish Council meeting in question, the Parish Council held its Council Meeting on the second Wednesday of each month except August.

Bearing in mind the day the Notice is posted, any Sunday and the day of the meeting cannot be counted as part of the 3 clear days notice. If over the weekend a Parish Council decided to have a Council Meeting on the coming Wednesday it would presumably post a Notice on the Monday. As Monday (the day the notice was posted) and Wednesday (the day of the meeting) cannot be counted, that leaves 1 clear days notice (Tuesday). Therefore the Council could not legally hold a meeting on that Wednesday, it would have to cancel that meeting and rearrange it following 3 clear days notice. If the Council posted the Notice on Monday the earliest a Council Meeting could be legally convened would be Friday of the same week because the Council would have given the required 3 clear days notice, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

There are times when human fallibility plays its part and for whatever reason be it forgetfulness or family crisis, if 3 clear days notice is not given, the Council meeting must be cancelled, whatever the inconvenience and rearranged following the required 3 clear days notice.

In the case of Preston Parish Council, failing to give 3 clear days notice was not the result of an oversight, it was normal practice. This had been done many, many times over the foregoing months and years.

A Parish Council meeting was held on 10^th October 2012, at this Council meeting a new councillor was co-opted onto the Council, we have no intention of naming the co-opted Councillor because that councillor is an innocent victim of the Parish Council’s sloppy procedural control.

The 10^th October was as normal the second Wednesday in the month and for a legally convened Council meeting to be held on that day the Council was required to give 3 clear days notice. This meant the notice had to be posted before midnight on Friday 5^th October, which would have given 3 clear days notice, Saturday, Monday and Tuesday.

As we will show later the Council actually posted the notice of that meeting on Saturday 6^th October 2012, it wasn’t simply a traffic delay, which meant the deadline was missed by a few minutes or so, it was posted almost half way through the day.

Under those circumstances the Council meeting of 10^th October was required to be cancelled, and rearranged for Thursday 11^th October at the earliest.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

WE"RE BACK AGAIN!

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

Well, we’re obviously back again, we wish all our readers a Happy New Year.

We are almost into the 12 month run-up to the next council elections and we look forward to posting during that period.

Thank you for your comments, unfortunately given the sensitive nature of the most recent posts, we are unable to post your comments for reasons we hope you will understand, it’s due to us not being in a position to confirm your identity.

Thank you to those who have sent e-mails. There has been a number asking if the Parish Council has responded to the posts in September of last year, We can tell you there hasn’t been a peep from them. That is not unexpected because the council apparently don’t respond to ‘anonymous’ comments, but then, they don’t respond when it has a name attached to it so there’s no material difference really.

It has been suggested that the council is portraying this blog as telling ‘untruths’, we can assure all readers, anything that appears here we can either prove because we have it in writing or we have very good reason and supporting information that leads us to firmly believe what we say is the truth.  If the Council believes we are posting information that is untruthful, they always have the option of responding and correcting any errors, they will not do that because they know what we post is the truth.

One of the items the council has suggested we’re being dishonest about is our claim that the council have conducted unlawful council meetings and it has a member of the public masquerading as a councillor [absolutely no fault of the councillor we might add, the situation is entirely down to the sloppy manner in which the Parish Council chooses to operate]. The council apparently also claims our posts on financial discrepancies are untrue along with our assertion that the council have wasted many thousands of pounds of our money, we are responding to those claims by publishing posts that prove the council have in fact conducted unlawful meetings and we shall also be posting to show discrepancies in council figures that have been sent to residents by the council in writing.

The council currently has plans to hold the March Council Meeting at the Co-op Café as part of its strategy to supposedly ‘engage’ with residents we shall also be posting articles that in our view contradict the council’s public aims and show it is not being entirely honest in that respect. Far from trying to engage with residents they appear to go to great lengths to conceal information from residents.

We will not be posting anything that is simply down to our opinion, we will be posting based on ‘facts’ supplied by the Parish Council.

 Hopefully those posts will begin to appear in the next week or so.

There is one positive that the council is now doing, its now posting the Public Notice of Council Meetings with at least 3 to 4 clear days notice, did it have a choice?

It’s a pity it had to act once again under pressure from this Blog instead of it being the Councils normal working practice!

A councillor resigned last November and as reported on HU12 Online, after about 3 months there has been no interest shown by any of our approx 1,900 registered electors of the parish in joining the council to fill that vacancy, does that tell us anything? It certainly appears to show how low the council is held in residents esteem and given that, for all the reasons on this Blog and elsewhere, the Council should take decisive action to redress that position. Holding a Council Meeting in the Co-op Café is a poor excuse for an answer!!

It’s very clear to us that prospective Councillors may be tarnished by the same brush as those less worthy Councillors and we’re sure that will have an understandable influence on residents reluctance to join such an organisation.

We have requested a member of our team to submit a note of interest to join the Council and if nothing else we think it would gee-up the Council to generate a few more notes of interest in the position in order to keep him at bay and that at least might get the vacancy filled.

Does the Council need our help once again?

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

Naming of Preston Parish Councillors

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

NAMING OF PRESTON PARISH COUNCILLORS.

Preston Parish Council Problems [PPCP] is to publish an article by a Preston resident naming Preston Parish Councillors who in the opinion of the publisher believes gave false statements to an official investigation by the Standards Committee of East Riding County Council into an incident that occurred at the Parish Council Meeting held on 11^th May 2011.

We are aware of the Defamation [Operators of Websites] Regulations 2013, the Regulations are in accordance with section 5[9] of the Defamation Act 2013.

Following legal advice, this site intends to fully comply with the provisions in the 2013 Regulations. In line with that advice the ‘publisher’ will identify himself at the start of the post.

Preston Parish Council has been informed of the upcoming post, the Parish Council has been given full contact details of the publisher should the Parish Council, any Councillor or their representatives wish to contact the publisher directly.

Any person named who does not have that information must submit a valid ‘Notice of Complaint’ under Regulation 2, direct to prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com and we shall endeavour to assist in identifying the publisher fully for the purposes of direct contact.

The post is scheduled to appear in the afternoon of Tuesday 4^th February 2014, the post is to be posted in 4 parts and the final post is due to be published no later than Monday 10^th February 2014.

Preston Parish Council Problems.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

Our offer to the Parish Council to Close this Blog and remove it from the Web.

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

7. Our offer to the Parish Council to remove this blog from the web.

Following the posting of the notice to say the council meeting on Friday (16/08/13) was to take place and the council was to consider a response to this blog, we responded in a positive manner both on this blog and on HU12 Online as a comment to the parish councils notice, hoping that the council would at least respond in a similar fashion and seek a way forward, instead what the council have done is taken a massive and damaging retrograde step backward.

We asked that both parties explore in good faith and goodwill any ground that would resolve the issues and avoid any future bitterness, the councils response was to once again ignore the issues and simply pass the responsibility to residents by issuing a poster, that was very disappointing, short sighted and misguided, who on earth is giving the council such appallingly bad advice and why aren’t the council leaders showing some initiative and leading the council instead of blindly and foolishly following the same old advice that has obviously failed so miserably for the last 3 years? That same advice has led us to our respective positions of to day from 2010!

The council resorted to calling us names to deflect attention from themselves and the issues raised on this blog, let us make this offer to the parish Council. We will consider shutting this blog down and removing it from the web if the council will answer a few basic questions, fully, in good faith and with documented confirmation.

Those questions are;

1. Failing to respond to requests for information under the FoIA.

There are many requests for information the council have chosen to ignore but we will take the latest, simply for convenience. A request for information was sent to the council by one of our members on 10/12/12 requesting information relating to council approval for Planning Application No. 06/09312/PLF and 10/00410/PCC.

Could the Council demonstrate how they diligently dealt with that request, by way of acknowledging it, responding within the requirements of the FoIA and finally satisfying that request? If the council felt it was outside the remit of FoIA how did they communicate that to the requestor?

2. Wasting of public funds 1.

We have stated that the council have wasted many thousands of pounds of taxpayers money (Preston taxpayers money) on needless planning applications that appear to have been abandoned following the applications approval by not having any documentation to show they were ever followed up on or had any realistic chance of being realised. The council it would seem disagree with that statement and in 2010 verbally insisted that money was prudently spent following consultation with residents. If that is the case, why wasn’t the planning permission followed up vigorously on behalf of residents?

Could the Council produce documented evidence of any public consultation that supports the council’s actions in applying for planning permission and the approval of Preston residents for the demolition of the Community Hall and the building of a new one as a result of that consultation?

The cost of those planning applications, and all associated costs we believe to be in the region of £10,000, we believe that was a waste of public funds and there has not been nor will there ever be any benefit to Preston residents from that expenditure.

3. Wasting of public funds 2.

A resident requested the Audit Commission investigate the parish finances because that resident believed money had been misappropriated.

Could the council demonstrate by documentation that despite talking to that resident and attempting to show the resident they had acted with full propriety the resident still maliciously went ahead with his complaint and that resulted in a loss of almost £9,000 of residents money. With such a large loss the council must show they acted with due diligence in order to avoid the loss and therefore the loss was beyond their control.

4. Denying documents exist.

We have publically stated that the council denied the existence of a Civil Engineers report that gave the Community Hall a clean bill of health structurally and further, that same report suggested the hall was simply in need of some refurbishment to bring it back into full use.

The council commissioned that report (although the council denied that) so was aware of it at the time it applied for its demolition and was not therefore acting in the best financial or community interests of residents. The council view expressed to residents at the time was that the Community Hall was beyond viable financial refurbishment and demolition was the only option, despite a civil engineers report to the contrary.

Could the council demonstrate with documented evidence that the council view at the time was correct and what evidence that view was based on?

5. Illegal use of public funds (Planning Applications).

We have publically stated that the council unlawfully spent public funds by not listing it as an agenda item and by not gaining council approval for this expenditure. For public money to be spent lawfully the expenditure must be listed on a council meeting agenda and approved by the council by way of resolution, particularly large amounts as involved in this case. Due to the councils failure to produce minutes which demonstrate such approval was obtained we believe that expenditure to have been unlawful.

Could the council produce the agenda where the items referred to above (planning permission to demolish the existing village hall and build a new community hall) were listed and minutes to show approval was obtained in council by way of resolution and documented in council minutes.

6. Illegal Council Meetings.

To convene a lawful council meeting the council must comply with the Local Government Act 1972, which lists what the council must do to ensure council meetings are lawfully convened and council members are therefore able to conduct council business on behalf of the parish. We believe the council in the past have contravened those legal requirements and convened a number of illegal meetings. If a council convenes an unlawful meeting it has no legal powers to conduct council business, it becomes simply a collection of individual residents talking amongst themselves.

During such an unlawful meeting in October 2012 the council had no legal authority to conduct any council business on behalf of the parish but went ahead and co-opted a new ‘councillor’, we have photographic evidence the meeting in question was in fact unlawful and consequently that co-opted ‘councillor’ is still a member of the general public and not a legally co-opted member of the council. That photographic evidence was forwarded to the council following the meeting, that to date has not been responded to.

Could the council refute that belief and produce evidence that shows we are wrong.

7. Dishonest Councillors.

 This is possibly the most difficult to satisfy but if the council had dealt with it prior to a complaint being submitted as they were requested to it could have been avoided and the current unpleasantness wouldn’t be an issue. That is an issue beyond our control and responsibility therefore remains firmly with the council.

As stated on this blog we believe a number of councillors knowingly gave false statements to the Standards Committee to protect a long-standing colleague from having to account for their actions. Those false statements had a fundamental impact on the outcome of that investigation, the allegation of false statements submitted has never been investigated and remains an outstanding issue.

It is essential that residents have confidence in the honesty of their elected representatives, it is therefore essential in our view that the matter is investigated by an independent authority to establish the truth of the matter. Having four sitting councillors (a third of the parish council) accused of dishonesty to this extent is no small matter!

Would the accused councillors act in a honourable fashion and support an investigation to clear their names and remove the stigma of this from their colleagues who are being unjustly tarnished by their actions and for the good name of our parish council?

To-date those councillors have not uttered one single word in their own defence in public, If any innocent person was accused of such dishonesty we believe they would shout their innocence from the rooftops, as our member does!!

The council are a public body and keep records of their day to day business therefore any of the above, with the possible exception of the latter, can be satisfied with a simple publication of their public records or confirmed explanation or clarification of their position. For a parish council this is a very simple and easy exercise that can be fulfilled very quickly, the council should now do that and our members will discuss removing this blog from the web.

We believe the issue of dishonest councillors can also be resolved by discussion and good faith on both sides, the matter rests firmly in the hands of the parish council.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.

Preston Parish Council Fury at this Blog.

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

6. Preston Parish Council fury at this blog.

During the council meeting held on 16/08/13 a council member was incensed and beside them self because of the comments on this blog, the member was extremely animated and indignant that something was happening which the member so strongly objected to which was beyond their control and the council has no redress. The member used words like infuriated, irate, disgusted and enraged and there is no one to vent their frustrations on! The member very strongly expressed the opinion that this blog is entirely wrong in saying some council members had been dishonest, we had no right to say such things and that we are cowardly for not putting our name to it.

The member went on to say that if they were able to do anything about it they would……….. That member described the feelings of some residents to a tee? That’s why this blog exists because we feel infuriated, incensed, irate and disgusted at how we have been treated by the parish council and we have no means of redress.

That member should understand how some residents feel under the circumstances of being continually ignored or brushed aside without consideration! Being lied to and lied about, having malicious gossip spread about us, being bullied, intimidated and attacked during council meetings. We hope most councillors feel the same way and we hope over the coming months that frustration increases to the point where you feel you must do something, anything, then you will begin to appreciate how strongly some residents feel about how the council has behaved.

Another point worth mentioning is that the few councillors who have done almost all the damage we outline never spoke during the ‘debate’ in their own defence (they never do!), they chose to remain silent again and hide behind someone else, nodding their heads in agreement, that’s cowardly, some ‘new’ councillors are clearly happy to cover up for them, so much for new councillors creating change! Those councillors who won’t defend themselves are using other councillors to do the job for them, that’s cowardly! Maybe the vocal speaker would like to comment on that cowardly act?

As for us being cowardly by not putting our names to this blog, some councillors displayed the same trait by,

1. Giving false statements to cover up what they had done to avoid having to apologise, that’s cowardly!

2. Having fellow councillors submit false statements to cover their tracks for them, that’s cowardly!

3. Half of the our parish Councillors failed to give witness statement when requested to by the Standards Committee, in the knowledge that truthful statements would criticise a fellow councillor, that’s cowardly!

4. In giving false statements some councillors were happy to wrongly accuse a resident of dishonesty to cover up their own dishonesty, that’s cowardly!

5. Some councillors who refused to give witness statements where happy to allow their fellow councillors to accuse a resident of dishonesty, that’s cowardly!

Would any councillor care to comment on the acts listed above?

On being requested by ERYC to give a witness statement we understand one councillor’s opinion was “that’s none of my business”. Sorry but you were a councillor at that meeting and an incident of such proportions taking place during a council meeting is none of your business, why on earth are you a councillor?

A number of councillors refused to give statements to the Standards Committee because they would have needed to put their names to those statements and any honest statement would have criticised a fellow councillor, we view that as cowardly. Ironically, the member who was very vocal on the subject of not putting names to things was one of those councillors. We can only assume you consider it to be ok if residents feel so frustrated at the hands of the council as long as the council don’t have to bear the same feelings at the hands of residents? Sounds a little narcissistic to us!

As this councillor didn’t reply to the Standards Committee with a witness statement we again can only assume its ok for councillors to not have an opinion on the incident when it suits them but plenty of opinion when it backfires on them!

In 2010 quite a number of residents were constantly at the home of one of our members specifically asking to view letters that had been written to the council, saying things like “spot on”, “you’ve hit the nail on the head” and “your absolutely right” and “its about time the council got a dose of its own medicine”. Those same people would not put their names to those letters or say anything themselves in their own names, they were so cowardly they left it for someone else to put their name to those letters and they’re now accusing us of being cowardly?

The council really need to look inward not outward towards us!!

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.