Casework@housing-ombudsman.org.uk Case ID - 202339100 [REF/Qo/vG/db/d0/] Ombudsman asks for more information! Mam/Sir, I spoke to Nicky on the 'phone just now (0300 111 3000), who said that Caseworker Suzanne would be in touch regarding a further update on this case. Nicky also asked that I send more information concerning the background to this case (my complaints to the Council, for example), which I find surprising as I thought relevant background information had already been sent. Before detailing 'background information', I ought to say that there is now some 'increased urgency' - the Council seems determined to 'come for me', once more! I have an official warning that a Community Protection Notice (dated 18th December 24) may be issued and a separate warning that the "Council can take legal steps to forfeit your lease" (dated 8th January 25); my, highly experienced local Councillor will not get in touch over this issue and I can't persuade my MP to take an interest either - despite my revelation that a Policeman (or an associate) stormed up a drive in Stourbridge a few months ago (where the car I had been driving was registered) and assaulted my brother!  I've dug-out some background to the case which can be filed under either 'Alleged Harassment' or 'Sarah's Stitch-Up'; essentially, I'm asking why the Council (my landlord/freeholder) insisted on my arrest, when they could have given me a call, and asked some questions! Complaint made at Stage Two: Reference: Stage One Complaint SR-000442980  Madam/Sir; An acknowledgement was received regarding "Sarah's Stitch-Up" at Stage One, but no further reply has been received - it seems appropriate to try a complaint at Stage Two in order to try to extract a reply from the Council. There have been two recent developments connected to this case; the first is that my updated DBS Certificate bears a conviction (essentially for litter-picking my own street) that has not lapsed after five years, will not be spent, apparently, for a further six years and was inspired by the Council's Anti-Social Behaviour Department, who refused to involve my witnesses at any stage in the process. The second development is that one of those witnesses, probably the most significant, Elaine Rock of 158 High Street DY9, has passed away; apart from sad news, this reflects the British Government's (including Local Government's) whole approach to justice and service delivery - wait until the aggrieved are no longer in a position to complain. There is insufficient room here to replicate the entire complaint at Stage One, but I will provide extracts: Madam/Sir, "Sarah's Stitch-Up" was submitted as an official complaint at DCPlus, on Saturday 13th April 2019; present, as confirmation, were Jenny Caladine, another officer and a security guy (all dog people!). DCPlus was again visited on 21st December 2019 am; I spoke to Glyn, who would probably declare as female, asked for a response from April's meeting and issued 'Third Anniversary' sheet to be scanned and sent (to ASB about whom I am complaining, apparently) - Glyn has 3 dogs that live with her and are walked in public (and defecate in public) despite having a rear garden available! As a reminder of the background to this dispute, this tax-payer s aspiration is that, whilst opening my curtains of a morning, I do not anticipate the sight of a pile of Sarah's boys' detritus and, whilst opening a window, I do not fear the stench of a pile of Sarah's dogs' excrement. Whilst progress, some would argue, was being made, Julie Davies, a neighbour, entered the scene with a complaint that I had, apparently, shown sufficient affection neither for  erself, nor for  er dog! Flippin   eck! Complicit in this farce are Juliet Davies (no relation, acting directly), Tracey Rowe (acting in a supervisory capacity) and Sarah Norman (acting in a managerial capacity). All female! What are the respective chances, then, J, that one, two or all three of these colleagues have indulged in that familiar tactic of promoting their own, female, gender, by relegating the male? Could this be the simplest case of unfair discrimination on the grounds of gender? Some associate The Dog with femininity, but how is this possible, J, when the dog is bred and thus not natural? Also difficult to comprehend is just how Sarah and her sidekicks remain in post. If a person employs its gender or sexuality to gain an advantage, that might be termed evolution; but if that person is in a position of authority within a public body (ostensibly delivering public services for which I pay) and uses such tactics (in addition to wasting Police time and, by making false allegations, perverting the course of justice) in order to secure a conviction   that s corruption, isn t it, J? To try to end on a moment of mirth, a chap can still occasionally be seen amongst the filth and the squalor, clutching a plastic bag and a resplendent metallic litter-picker, so, J, is it possible that Julie has been overcome by the sight of his stick, flashing on the High Street? D. Kevin O  Keefe, DMBC: Why should a chap keen on clean streets suffer so much persecution? The Council spreads, or condones, garbage on the streets  awaiting collection  in the same manner that its dogs spread their waste, but often without  collection , across every park and reserve within this potentially delightful Borough   yet why does it react, when suggestions as to the way forward are made, like a bunch of spoiled children? Worse, arguably, is the conduct of Officials; complaining that a lonely neighbour had chased a chap down the High Street ... I found myself arrested, a week later, at the insistence of those same, female, Council Officials, on suspicion, again, of harassment! Abuse of position? Abuse of public funds? And why the hate? Could I request a response? DAustin. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acknowledgement, 2nd March 2022: Thank you. Your enquiry has been successfully submitted. Your request number is: SR-000703315. You should hear from us within 20 days. Sarah's Stitch Up - Arrest - Complaint at Stage Two Reference SR-000703315 2nd October 23 Dear Plus, The team tell me that, "Our legal and housing team have both responded to advise they had no knowledge or involvement regarding your arrest. For further information please contact the police direct on 101." The Police made clear their reasons for arrest on the Charge Sheet, but I'm trying to establish the Council's role in this farce; your 'legal and housing team' may well have not been directly involved, but my understanding is that the Council's ASB 'team' was very much involved - at the time, I had been requested to attend a meeting and I was negotiating the terms, such as location (an independent venue), constitution ( I was keen to avoid a two-on-one) and the date (I had turned-down one date as I was hoping to take my elderly mother away on holiday during a spell of warm August weather). I have dug-out a statement by one of the ASB team (Juliet Davies - no relation of Julie Davies), submitted during the proceedings, that corroborates, at least to some extent, my account: "David AUSTIN was invited to an interview with myself and my Manager to discuss the complaint from Julie DAVIES and his recent contacts with the Council.  David AUSTIN refused to attend the interview.  The reason for his refusal was he may be taking a family member on holiday".   It would appear that ASB lost patience and contacted West Midlands Police. It would be much appreciated if ASB were asked directly as to the degree of their involvement in my arrest (they have not responded, themselves, to my complaint at Stage Two) and how my arrest can be justified when my principal reason for 'descending to the street' (where I was harassed by my neighbour) was to indulge a litter-pick! David Austin, 162 High Street, Lye Village, Stourbridge. In terms of the Council's response, they refuse to answer any questions (which is why I've contacted the Ombudsman) and even that 'experienced local Councillor' (who is supposed to be scrutinising Council activities) will not get in touch: Councillor Peter Lowe 11th July Cllr.Peter.Lowe@dudley.gov.uk Telephone No: 01384 350579 x Work Telephone No: 0121 685 4200 x 11th July - Mobile Telephone No: 07468499249 - Voice mail only. As for 18th July. Email sent - 11th July 24:  "I believe the last time we spoke, I mentioned the issue of my conviction and I'm still trying to establish just why the Council insisted on my arrest ... could you get in touch? How about one of those 'roving surgery' visits?"