Caledonia Housing Association

 

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

 

In the public interest, I wish to raise awareness of the unscrupulous landlord; Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) and its equally dishonourable supporters. I am providing evidence from my own experiences (and what other tenants have shared with me), and the legislation to support the facts. This company is long overdue into a thorough investigation into abuse of position, unlawful evictions, mistreatment of service users, flouting laws with impunity and corruption. I wish to question the integrity of those in charge of CHA, and of those who have covered for them, who falsely claim they represent and enforce the law. They should not hold positions of trust.  CHA abuses the trust placed upon it and once that happens, service users have no rights because CHA and their equally disingenuous supporters, make sure they do not get any help to remedy this.

 

My evidence reveals how CHA bullies and harasses people, withholds services, engages in multiple acts of deception; falsifies reports, corrupts, manipulates or coerces anyone they can use or who stand in their way. CHA has no respect for legislation, or for people and they have breached numerous Acts including; unlawful eviction under Rent Scotland Act 1984, Data Protection Act (past and current), The Human Rights Act 1998 and The equality Act 2010 (see Ch. 6). CHA even prioritises  anti- social tenants, above the decent tenants…. because they are an anti-social landlord (see Ch.3)

 

Their glossy brochure image is nothing more than a facade to hide the toxic self – serving interests of the Executive Management Team (EMT). After recently sending my website link to the SPSO., Charities Commission, the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Gov, they deflected from taking any responsibility. Just like the others already identified on my website.  Their lame excuses are in chapter 8.

 

REVISED HIERACHY CHART

 

When I sent my website link to Nicola Sturgeons office, to inform them that CHA is operating above the law with impunity, and that service users are being harmed, they deflected as they couldn’t care less. However they did take one thing from my complaint!

 

 The First Minister; recommended to the Queen, the same Sheriff who showed no respect for legislation (see Ch. 2), and who had denied me my legal rights and ignored the law,when I took CHA to court.

 

//www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/2252/New-Sheriffs-appointed

‘Her Majesty the Queen has appointed’ Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown; to the office of sheriff, on the recommendation of the First Minister.

 

So what is the message here, the more corrupt you are, the more use the Scottish government will have for you? I wonder if the Queen was told this Sheriff ignores the law, when it suits her to do so.

I guess it is handy when someone makes a case against the government,(or their friends), they can always call upon Sheriffs; who are willing to bend rules and break laws, to ensure they preside over their case to influence the decision. They probably have a ‘little black book of names’.

 

Those supporting indyref2 should be wary of giving them more power, so they can screw you over some more.

 

Leader comment: Jury corruption is a threat to the rule of law

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/leader-comment-jury-corruption-is-a-threat-to-the-rule-of-law-1-4727376

 

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!

 

A sheriff presiding over cases when she disregards her solemn oath, court rules and the law; is a major threat to the rule of law. This raises the question, how sound are any of her cases?

What about the corruption of those others ,who have responsibility to uphold the law and have also made a mockery of the legal system; to protect their law-breaking buddies at CHA or other companies.

 

Such hypocrisy. Ironically legislation is supposed to make sure the victims are protected, and perpetrators and law breakers are punished, to stop people from having to take the law into their own hands. Yet everything is in reverse. This governments loyalty is clearly misplaced.  Its disgusting how they get away with it, as no-one should  be able to abuse their positions, to the detriment of those they are meant to be serving.

 

We’ve seen over time that countries that have the best economic growth are those that have good governance, and good governance comes from freedom of communication. It comes from ending corruption. It comes from a populace that can go online and say, ‘This politician is corrupt, this administrator, or this public official is corrupt.’         Ramez Naam

 

With that in mind:

An Ode to the Odious: Caledonia Housing Association and its supporters.

 

This is the company that corruption has built.

These are the rats, who break the laws,

Who lie in the company, that corruption has built.

 

These are the contractors, whose actions caused harm,

And broke the law,

To please the company that corruption has built.

 

These are the regulators,

Who sanctioned the rot,

That lies in the company that corruption has built.

 

These are the lawyers,

Who falsified facts,

To lie for the company, that corruption has built.

 

This is the Sheriff,

Who ignored the law and abandoned her oath,

To suck-up to the rats,

Who lie in the company, that corruption has built.

 

This is the First Minister;

Who promoted the Sheriff, who abandoned her oath,

And sucked-up to the lawyers, who falsified facts,

And ignored the regulators, who sanctioned the rot,

And ignored the contractors, whose actions caused harm,

 

….and broke the laws to cover venality,

 

To protect the rats,

That lie in the company that corruption has built.

 


 

 

Ignorance of the facts cannot be an excuse.  It is because of these types of situations that Jimmy Saville went unpunished because uncaring, self-serving people looked the other way.

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 the company routinely 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.

 

CHAPTER 1 – The Character/Personality Type of Directors.

 

CHAPTER 2 – Court Matters: Denied My Legal Rights.

 

CHAPTER 3 – CHA Protects The Interests Of Anti-Social Tenants.

 

CHAPTER 4 – The Scottish Housing Regulator Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests.

 

CHAPTER 5 – The ICO Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests.

 

CHAPTER 6- CHA Disregards The Equality  Act 2010, The Human Rights Act 1998 And  Legislation On Unlawful Eviction.

 

CHAPTER 7 –After I was Forced To Move Out, CHA, Harassed My Son, Breaking The Law Again.

 

CHAPTER 8- OSCR, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, SPSO  and The CARE INSPECTORATE; Leaving  CHA Unregulated And Operating Above The law With Impunity.

1.The Character/Personality Types of Directors

In my life, I have helped many people in a voluntary capacity and in paid employment. I am no angel, but I would never take advantage of anyone and neither would I deliberately cause harm (unless to protect myself and family).  I have a strong moral compass, which is why the conduct of those I have dealt with from Caledonia Housing Association and their ‘go to people’ actually disgusts me. We all relate differently to different people and I believe that no-one with any sense of decency would approve or condone the actions of those running this company, which are detrimental to the health and welfare of the innocent people on their books.

 

I have researched and studied; behaviour, health issues, personality types, sociology, criminology, psychology and more over many years, to help me understand people’s behaviour or problems. I would never 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.

 

Narcissm, the evil which lives amongst us, and is a significant threat to society

 

My experiences with two Caledonia Housing Association Directors Tim Calderbank and Garry Savage, have revealed negative patterns of behaviour, which in my opinion, bear all the hallmarks of narcissistic and or gaslighting personality traits and they happily encourage the same undesirable habits , in others.

 

 

In addition to collective knowledge, I will also apply abductive reasoning; if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck! These Directors are not ducks, but textbook examples of what the experts write about, see below. Form your own opinions based on knowledge and the evidence.

 

The subject matter is very well documented. Please follow the website links below as it gives those who do not know about these character/personality types, an insight into the topic. You will see for yourself from my supporting evidence, how the personality of the CHA Directors, has an adverse  effect on anyone who gets in their way and how they ‘go on the offensive’ if anyone dares to question them. These types are master manipulators (but lousy liars), and typically seek high positions in business. They are often destructive, being compelled to control everything and everyone in their lives and as a result of this, they have been known to bring companies down and leave a trail of narcissistic abuse. This will include employees as well as service users.

 

Julie Hall has written many informative articles on narcissistic abuse and has had first hand experience.

copy and paste as cannot get links to work most of the time..sorry)

https://narcissistfamilyfiles.com/2017/03/15/behind-the-narcissist-mask-the-bully-coward-liar-and-fraud/

 

 

Psychology Today also has many excellent articles on the subjects; including the ones below by Preston Ni

** https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/communication-success/201707/6-common-traits-narcissists-and-gaslighters  

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/communication-success/201908/difference-between-narcissist-vs-narcissistic-behavior

 

** “Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others.”  —Paramahansa Yogananda“ 

 

 

1.Frequent Lies and Exaggerations ….(oh yes, they have a very strong aversion to the truth, and are happy to project and blame everyone else! 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. Then weeks later, tried to get me to jump to attention of  an an anti-social tenant. ! She went on to defame my character by falsifying data, held on me.

 

Example 2. Director Tim Calderbank festered for weeks, waiting for the opportunity to jump into a colleagues 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 in Ch.6&7) and how they made sure no authority would help us, which is also a criminal offence).

 

3.False Image Projection…. (false persona and glossy brochure facade to hide the sick twisted reality; preemptive attackssmear 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 the narcissistic supply who assist them) 

 

5.Emotional Invalidation and Coercion…… (example; after the first case management when they influenced the Sheriff into ignoring the law, Garry started trying to gaslight me (doesn’t work) with “so you think people have it in for you, you think people are conspiring against you” .

Pressuring others to comply with their demands or  deliberately causing stress and engaging in unscrupulous actions to cause harm.

 

6.Manipulation: The Use or Control of Others as an Extension of Oneself ….(regulators, sheriffs, police, contractors etc) Director Garry Savage is very adept at turning on his glib superficial charm or switching to his nasty side on demand. Tim Calderbank bullied a 75 yr old man into removing CCTV which Citizens Advice and the police told him to install, making out CHA had more authority than the police. They threatened him with court, if he did not comply.

 

They will have their own way and don’t care how they get it or who they hurt. Lack of empathy for others is central to this. 

They need to be stopped. People are being harmed.

 

N.B.  CHA have 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)

2. Court Matters; Denied My Legal Rights:

therefore the decisions made by Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown, to alter my claim, was unsound.

 

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

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

 

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.

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/guidance-social-housing-providers

 

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. 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 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.

 

 

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 )which allowed CHA to walk away from their atrocious behaviour and flouting of laws. 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 Ch. 3, 6, etc).

 

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)…

 

  1. 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 eg repair requests. I would like to receive a declaration that they have complied and evidence to support.
  2. 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.

 

  1. I would like to receive a declaration that CHA is in breach of Equality Act (Disability Discrimination) 2010
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

what sheriff changed intowhat sheriff changed into page 2

 

No 1. states wood lice but it was actually 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.

 

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 fictious claim of assessing rough casting repairs, which was not even plausible, see chapter 6. 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.

 

FactCHA 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 requires 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 a cognitive impairment 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.

 

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/30/0/FAQs

 

“ Impartiality is one of the fundamental principles of the legal system. The role of a judge is to interpret the law without bias or prejudice. Judges must not be on the side of either party to a case, and may not even wish to put themselves in a position which could lead to a perception of bias.  The principle is even enshrined in the judicial oath taken by judges on their appointment: “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.”

 

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 do 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? (then see my update on Introduction page  about this Sheriff who has been recommended by first Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It doesn’t matter to the gov that this Sheriff has no respect for people or the law just like CHA, or perhaps that was the reason she was selected!).

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act

 

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”.

 

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 of 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.

 

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

 

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

 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

 

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 Citizens 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. 2)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 actually gone into the realms of committing criminal offences e.g

.https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/law-and-courts/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/taking-action-about-harassment-s/

 

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.

 

 

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: 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:

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1179/access_to_information_held_in_complaint_files.pdf

 

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.

 

The 2nd email below which I submitted to the court with my dismissal; shows a deliberate act of deception whereby CHA tried to mislead Aberdeen Law Project, over what the ICO had said. CHA’s solicitor mislead the court over the same issue (and other facts about the case) until I proved otherwise in a second Case Management Discussion.

 

Misleading the court over the facts is against the Law Society Rules, especially as a Sheriff takes its lead from the solicitors. https://www.lawscot.org.uk/for-the-public/client-protection/standards-for-solicitors/

A second solicitor (see Ch.6) sent these lies and acts of deception, in a letter to me, making sure I received it after we had been to court. She also tried to rewrite a piece of legislation! Having already unlawfully harassed me out of our home, my son was later driven out (see Ch.7.) 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  to obtain a repossession notice.

I wonder how many other innocent tenants have been driven, out compared with anti social ones!

 

 

———- 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 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 —–‘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

 

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 do 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. 

 

As for claiming they will amend data as a goodwill gesture, they are having a laugh. I will not be coerced into allowing CHA 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 are extremely untrustworthy and have no credibility whatsoever.

 

 

 

3.CHA prioritises and protects the interests of anti-social tenants (a.s.t.’s)

and the regulators; prioritise and protects the company; who prioritise and protects anti -social tenants!

 

Q. When is the law not the law?

A. It would appear that there are no laws, when those who are supposed to uphold the law, cannot even abide by it or uphold it themselves, but prefer to protect those breaking it. Do not trust them.

 

The Caledonia Housing Association mantra ‘no evidence means no case’. This is right across the board in everything they do including, when they manipulated the Sheriff, to prevent my case being heard. Below is one of many areas, of CHA’s dishonourable business practices they did not want me to reveal in court.

 

CHA has social, moral, legal and financial obligations, yet CHA does the reverse of what is expected of them and in doing so, are actually 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.

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/guidance-social-housing-providers

 

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.

 

This law is applicable to us and the wider estate issues 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22

 

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.

 

Not only does CHA wilfully break the law itself, but anyone it uses to harass the tenants are also breaking the law including the anti-social tenant  and contractors. CHA promotes criminal behaviour in others, yet Sheriff  J Martin-Brown was not interested in hearing any of this, she only had ears for CHA and their solicitor. I kept on telling her; as someone who upholds the law, she should allow me to show her my indisputable evidence, but she did not want to know.

 

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, the a.s.t have committed multiple accounts of harassment and violations of privacy, 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 has 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.

 

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 tantamount to neglect.

 

CHA have charitable status.

Charity commission  https://www.oscr.org.uk/    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 the sadistic and dishonest people at CHA, conducts their business!

 

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 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 poor man and protected the a.s.t. Its 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 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, tried to make out the victim to be 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, because 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 trivialises 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 to her, 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 others), and his property and causing him unnecessary stress. 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. ordering them to remove something from their garden area, which had been in the ground for over 15 years! CHA love to throw their weight around and victimise people, it’s how they entertain themselves (and they call themselves professional)!

 

Prior to the above, when another set of neighbours dared to complain to CHA, about problems with a different set of 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.

 

https://www.spso.org.uk/decision-reports/2016/may/decision-report-201503760-201503760

 

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’

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.

 

CHA tried to get the tenants who raised the claim, to move out to resolve the issues, 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! 

 

CHA are liars and protect the ‘interests’ of anti-social tenants to the detriment of the others, and in doing so they have obviously promoted crime and victimised the victims. Then CHA engages in more dishonourable practices to make sure regulatory bodies take their side. There is a paper trail on the a.s.t.’s with the police (and court) and if  this is compared to CHA’s twisted version,  (and what they sent to the SPSO),it would reveal the truth. Other areas ( in newspaper articles )have tenants who said CHA did nothing about the a.s.t.’s and have turned their area into a drug haven,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 and then refuse to deal with them.

Tenants should put up CCTV themselves which will also act as a deterrent and to get evidence to prove CHA are lying.

 

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 stating we had cancelled a meeting with the MSP, which Tim Calderbank was supposed to attend with a group of us tenants. Tim Calderbank 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 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 a.s.t.’s. who are allowed to do whatever they like without CHA bothering them, unlike the decent tenants who get harassed by their sick twisted, law-breaking landlord.

I cannot criticise the MSP as I saw her as a thoroughly decent individual who genuinely wanted to help. The manipulative bullies at CHA with many years’ experience of intimidation, can be very persuasive. I bet others have had similar experiences. CHA needs to be investigated for denying tenants their rights and for bullying others to prevent help from being given.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22

 

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. CHA knowingly promotes criminal behaviour in others, yet the first Sheriff in court was not interested in hearing any of this, she only had ears for CHA and their solicitor.

 

CHA then victimised 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. 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 responded by victimising me. You tell CHA they should not be doing something and they respond by doing it again. CHAs stance is that nobody is going to stop them from doing whatever they like, to whoever they like, because the narcissists believe they are entitled

 

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! They know the regulators will ignore legislation too and will cover their backs. The ICO will also unlawfully share  information to anyone they suck up to. Their word is not credible either.

 

garden structure photogarden structure photo

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 actually all one piece. It cost a lot of money and my sons hard work to build and we had permission from a different maintenance officer who 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. Harassing tenants to suppress and is entertainment for the a.s.t. and the sick twisted people at Caledonia Housing Association.

 

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 on violations of privacy.

 

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 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, again 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 trouble maker; 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.

 

http://www.caledoniaha.co.uk/248_ScottishHousingRegulator.html

 

“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 trouble makers, 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 trouble maker, 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 trouble makers.

 

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 )

 

There is something seriously wrong when a housing association goes to such lengths to appease and cover for anti- social tenants to the detriment of others.

4.The Scottish Housing Regulator Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests.

 

A  group of us tenants tried to take our case to the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), she was not interested and just pointed the tenants into areas they had already been, and back to CHA so we could go around in circles all over again. This is a common tactic which CHA encourages in their ‘go to people’, because CHA enjoy playing silly childish games and persuades others to follow suit.

 

22 March 2017

“Dear —–,

Thank you for your Significant Performance Failure (SPF) form which you submitted on 12 March on behalf of yourself and some of your neighbours –

You advised us of your dissatisfaction with the customer service received from Caledonia Housing Association in relation to a number of issues including a permission request, dealing with alleged anti-social tenants and Caledonia Housing Association’s complaints handling procedure.  You have explained the difficulties that you feel you have experienced in terms of resolving the issues satisfactorily with your landlord and asked for the Scottish Housing Regulator’s advice. 

You have indicated that you wish to report the issues concerned as a significant performance failure (SPF).  SPFs are a way for tenants to raise serious concerns when their landlord’s action, or failure to take action, puts tenants’ interests at risk.  An SPF significantly affects a number of the landlord’s tenants.  In this instance, as the issues raised relate to several different tenant complaints or potential complaints about a variety of issues, we would therefore consider these as individual tenant complaints. Separate responses will therefore be issued by Royal Mail to your neighbours”.

 

These were not separate issues but all concerning the same 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.”

 

SHR Tracey ignored all the facts we presented to her, and by breaking up the complaints she waters it down and in doing so protects the interests of CHA. This is another manipulative tactic which is commonly practised by CHA to deflect, I guess they taught her well!

 

“I am sorry that you feel that the situation has not been resolved with your landlord.  However, you may wish to be aware that the Scottish Housing Regulator is not able to intervene in complaints from individuals about a Registered Social Landlord (RSL).

 

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 notbecause according to the SHR own website :

 

( copy and paste ) https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/about-shr

 

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:

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! ‘

 

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 latest communication to me, in chapter 5 and again with the other so called regulators in Ch.8).

 

 

The Association is the appropriate body to take any action that may be required.  If you are unhappy with the response received from the Association to the various circumstances outlined in your e-mail of 12 March, then you have the right to make a formal complaint.  The information that you have provided indicates that you have already made a formal complaint in relation to a Caledonia Housing Association staff member.  You may of course raise separate formal complaints in relation to any other issues that give you concern.

 

The Scottish Housing Regulator is just cherry picking who they want to regulate and CHA is allowed to regulate itself, indicating the SHR is not fit for purpose.  Several of the tenants had individually and collectively complained to CHA and Tracey was fully aware of the facts. She deflected and ignored what we submitted to her, and again just told us to go around in circles to indulge CHAs’ game playing tactics. All of CHA’s ‘go to people’ do this.

 

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.

 

 We expect Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to have a clear complaints procedure in place.  We also expect them to provide complainants with full information about their investigations, including whether action has been taken and if, or how, their complaint has been resolved.  Anyone can make a formal complaint in person, writing, phone or email to an RSL.  A copy of your landlord’s Complaint’s handling Procedure, which details what someone making a complaint should expect from the Association when a formal complaint is lodged, should be accessible via their website and copies should also be available from their offices. 

In this instance, after completing the Association’s complaints procedure, if you are unhappy with the outcome as your complaint which has not been upheld by Caledonia Housing Association, you may then refer your complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).  The SPSO provides a free, independent and impartial service for dealing with complaints about public services in Scotland.

The contact details for the SPSO are:

       http://www.spso.org.uk/housing-complaints

       Freephone advice line: 0800 377 7330

       Online form: www.spso.org.uk/online-contact

       In person, at 4 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7NS, or by post at FREEPOST SPSO

 

The SPSO has also 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.  Please find a link below for your ease of reference:

http://www.spso.org.uk/sites/spso/files/communications_material/leaflets_public/subject_factsheets/13_05_31_RSL_tenants.pdf ”

 

Evidence from the tenants who had been to the SPSO, was provided to Tracey but hey, let’s continue giving the tenants the run around. CHA makes sure no-one holds them to account and uses many tactics to deflect and exasperating them is just one! Those who went to the SPSO found out that CHA had defamed them (just like they did about me in my reports) and CHA withheld the facts to cover for the a.s.t.’s. who CHA actually made out to be the victims! This could be easily be proven by comparing what the police say about the a.s.t.’s and what CHA claimed to the SPSO.

 

This SHR did not even try to do her job:  and because of the SHR’s failings and other equally selfish people, many service users suffer unnecessarily at the hands of CHA.  As long as it’s not happening to them and they can collect their wages (for a job they haven’t done) 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. 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. So Dr Tracey Houston is indeed one of theirgo to persons ‘at the SHR. and a second puppet is evidenced in Ch.8

 

After the first Case Management Discussion, having got the sheriff on their side, (because manipulative narcissists/gaslighters  make sure they control all of 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, because she not bothering with it? CHA has at some point influenced her decision.

 

Other people had already commented ‘it’s all friends together’ but let’s be clear about this; 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 has to be asked: what are they getting out of the arrangement?

“Please also find below a link to our own factsheet, ‘Complaints about a Regulated Body’ for your convenience.

 

https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Complaints%20about%20a%20regulated%20body.pdf

I hope that the above information is helpful to you.” 

Yours sincerely

Dr. Tracey Houston

Scottish Housing Regulator

 

https://www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/news/root-regulatory-problems-lie-weak-governance-blog-michael-cameron

 

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?” (and again when given a second chance see Ch.8)

 

Just  look at my evidence, how once you let them off the hook, they progressed further into even more dishonourable practices.(chapters  5, 6 & 7) The SHR empowered CHA just like how CHA empowered the  anti-social tenant see chapter 3.  Had the SHR done their job, we (and other tenants would not have suffered more extreme stress and harassment) and we would not have been unlawfully driven out of our home and lost £thousands on property we bought; eg kitchen, garden etc or had to have time wasted preparing for court. The SHR is not fit for purpose when it is protecting and prioritising CHA’s dishonourable practices, especially when CHA deliberately cause service users harm and cover for anti-social tenants.  The SHR  did fail to do their duty based on the evidence we supplied and made a conscious decision to prioritise CHA’s dishonest interests.

 

I bet there are many others who have stories to tell of how badly they have been treated by CHA and their ‘go to people,’ or perhaps relatives/friends of those in sheltered/very sheltered and care homes run by CHA, have had concerns. Now would be a good time to come forward.

 

5. The ICO Protects CHA’s Dishonest Interests because it is not fit for purpose.

 

Q.When is  the law is not the law.

A. When dishonourable companies can easily manipulate regulatory authorities, to go against the legislation they are supposed to uphold.

 

The 2nd sheriff advised me to go back to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). I had been denied my legal rights, by Sheriff J Martin-Brown to stop CHA processing my data. I tried again to protect my data with the ICO  and once again CHA blocked my attempts.

 

 

Subject Access Requests (SAR)

Everyone is (supposedly, but only if the law is applied!) entitled to see the data which organisations hold on them and can apply for a SAR

 https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-of-access/

 

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 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.

 

I have been trying to get CHA to remove this Data since October 2016.  Operations Director Tim Calderbank has repeatedly thrown in my face, “you don’t know what we are doing behind the scenes”I know as a fact; they break laws, commit fraud; create false reports, defame service users,  manipulate regulators and Sheriffs,  use contractors and others to harass their tenants, break laws, cover for their anti-social tenants and employ bully tactics against anyone who dares to question their unethical business practices. They are undeniably dishonourable and should never be trusted in any capacity or allowed to process anyone’s data not just mine. They deceived two courts over the facts one in Simple procedure case and the other to get a repossession notice falsely claiming my house was unoccupied, See chapter 7.

 

CHA did not like how the ICO originally went against them, so they made sure it did not happen again. They manipulated  Lead Case Officer Willow Warder do their bidding, to protect CHA’s twisted interests and the bonus for CHA; is how Willows Manager covered for her. They got two puppets for the price of one!  So the pair are happily ruining the reputation of the ICO as a whole, by demonstrating how they are willing to cover for dishonest companies and ignore the Data Protection Act themselves. As  the ICO have stamped their approval on CHA’s unscrupulous practices, then surely this is maladministration by the ICO too?

 

Why should anyone  trust the ICO  and other regulatory authorities when dishonourable companies like CHA, can so easily corrupt them.  New measures need to be put in place to show the public that their data is actually safe, not just claim it is.  The problem for those ‘go to people is that once they have covered for CHA’s dishonourable practices,(or anyone elses) they will be expected to do so on a permanent basis because CHA will have a hold over them.  

The ICO make many claims; including  they are ‘promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals’ 

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/

 

‘The lawful basis (for processing data)….. 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 do not have a lawful basis for processing some of the data they hold and are flouting the Data Protection Act, but as long as they can get other dishonourable people to break laws on their behalf, knowing they are causing distress, they will continue business as normal.

This was the final straw as far as I was  concerned. CHA and their ‘go to people’  have proven they will do whatever they like and show no respect to people or the law, so I will show them none.  I will protect myself and others in the only way left open to me. By exposing CHA and their ‘go to people’  I will discredit them with what CHA have avoided for so long…the whole picture being known. We have gone a full circle. So I now have a put a mountain of data on CHA and all their buddies, online for the public to see, and they cannot control it (and my web host; for free speech, is based in foreign waters, way out of the jurisdiction of the Sottish Government). Oh dear, just what narcissists hate the most, 1. being unmasked and 2. losing control.

What goes around comes around! I would advise others to do the same to them.

Unlike them, I have done nothing wrong. I have not lied, nor committed fraud, nor broken any laws.  I am exercising my right to speak out in the public interest to try and make sure no-one else trusts any of these rotten people. Decisions should be made on facts and evidence instead of what the lying, manipulative people claim.

I wonder if the departure of the Finance Director Ron Hunter earlier this year, had anything to do with trying to dissociate himself from the company now they are exposed. Maybe he was retiring anyway. Don’t suppose I will find out. Here’s hoping it is a sign the rats are fleeing the sinking ship! But some of them should still be pushed through the criminal courts and the laws actually upheld this time, otherwise they need to rip up all legislation, as it clearly is not worth the paper it is written on.


Included in what I sent Willow were the documents below which CHA had sent me in my 1st SAR. I 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 me! Take note in Willows responses, of how she deflects from my accusing CHA of fraud.

 

‘Here’s one I made earlier ’by CHA

corporate complaint

https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/site-data/uploads/2015/12/Criminal-fraud-in-Scotland-4th-edition-December2015.pdf

Garry claiming I made corporate complaints

Backtracking typed up file notes by Business Services Director Garry Savage, were added to my bulked up 73 pages of 2nd SAR, for the purpose of covering for their wrongdoing. My corporate complaint actually disappears in one of these notes, dated 25.11.16.  which states  ‘ Cheryl was unaware of any specific complaint being made about Ms —-s tenancy other than a minor estate issue relating to a garden ornament that her colleague Susan Stewart (Maintenance Officer)had dealt with last month’. (The garden ornament, described as such to trivialise the complaint is the huge structure, (Ch3) they wanted me to remove to appease the  anti -social tenant who makes vexatious complaints).

(I can’t upload the pdf as it has too many of my I.D.’s which I cannot remove). For a start if this had been a genuine report on file it predates my first SAR cover letter above; dated 28/11/16, and would have been in the staffs reports, (see dates on corporate complaint) as communication between myself and CHA, especially as they would have written to me about the outcome, but there is no record. Instead they just sent me the above separate document which Garry Savage then mentions in his cover letter for that 1st SAR. This bunch of liars at CHA regularly drop themselves in it because they lie so much and make everything up as they go along. But as long as fraud is acceptable to the ICO, Caledonia Housing can claim whatever they like about anyone they choose!

This 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 at that time, just a leaflet, on their website.(see below) More fraudulent claims for show purposes, pretending they follow policy etc.

The Rights of the Individual/Data Subject (or otherwise know as CHA making more false claims)

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.

 

7. 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 tenanin my reports, as seen in first image in Ch.3).

 

Below is the leaflet we got 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.

 

 

data protection leaflet

2nd page DP leaflet

Below in second paragraph, is evidence from Garry Savages cover letter to 2nd SAR which clearly indicates, CHA did not get 10000’s 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 reason to process in first place, which they altered to defame me, (to prejudice the opinions of others) and have refused to remove since 2016.  

covering for fictitious signed data protection notice

 

 

This was what Willow originally instructed 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!)

 

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:

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1179/access_to_information_held_in_complaint_files.pdf

 

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. To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

 

The last emails I sent to the ICO after being to court.

 

After having ‘talkies’ with  CHA, Willow has decided to do a u-turn on what she originally stated and also ignore the Data Protection Act preferring to support the dishonest practices of CHA. Willows new responses are filled with lame excuses to deflect from breaches of the  Act (DPA). CHA has spoon fed her what to say.

One of the many  areas of the Data Protection Act  Willow and her friends at 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, 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”. It will usually be obvious whether personal data is

 

(but only to people who do not have a twisted perspective and hidden agendas!)

 

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

 

For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice

 

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 igored

– ( 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 removedIn 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.”

 

  1. 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 proveable 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?

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/guidance-social-housing-providers

 

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 confidentialThe 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.

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/guidance-social-housing-providers

Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 6 is an absolute right

 

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.

 

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/   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 emit?

 

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, proveable.

 

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/subjective

 

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+,  which 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.”  Non compliance 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.  https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf

 

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, and 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 later send 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

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf

 

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”.

Yours sincerely

 

Willow wanting me to go round in circles with CHA again just like the SHR to play CHAs childish mind games. see chapter 1 on narcissism.

Taking photos of the inside of my home especially of private messages on blackboards on my walls is still data and is my sensitive data.

Take note she 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 and the one actually taking the photos, as evidenced in communication from Bell Group, See chapter 6.

Willow is being a good little puppet and deflecting from CHA’s involvement to blame the contractors; who CHA manipulated to do their dirty work. This is what happens to CHA puppets once they have served their purpose! But I expect Willow feels safe for now, as CHA Directors will have use for her ‘obedience’ the next time they need someone at the ICO to cover for their abuse of Data Protection laws.


 

I made a complaint about her handling of my data concerns. Her managers response is below.

casework@ico.org.uk <casework@ico.org.uk>

 

To:

11 Dec 2018 at 17:35

 

11 December 2018

 

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.

(Same tactics given by the Scottish Housing Regulator, informing me to do what I have already tried to do, because CHA’s favourite game is to make their tenants go round in circles and start at the beginning again with them. They also did this with the tenants who formally complained about anti-social tenants )

 

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 if 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.

Would anyone reading this trust CHA or  the ICO when they can be so easily manipulated to cover dishonesty?

 

 

6. CHA DISREGARDS THE EQUALITY ACT 2010, THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 AND THE LAW ON HARASSMENT AND UNLAWFUL EVICTION

 

Q. What is to be done about this company’s flagrant disregard for legislation?

A. Absolutely nothing because they have been given the approval of government authorities  to break laws, falsify reports and cause harm to anyone they like.  These don’t even abide by or uphold the law themselves and are protecting CHAs dishonourable and unlawful practices.

 

 

 

A reminder: Caledonia Housing Association Limited  has charitable status; registered no. SC013988 

But there is nothing charitable about how this company conducts its business, despite what they 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

Vulnerable people are easy targets for the bullies at CHA who are happy to exploit, harass and victimise them. CHA gathers information from its tenants for one purpose, to use to their own advantage. They know people’s vulnerabilities and sensitive data and when they target individuals for their ‘special customer service’, they use the knowledge they have acquired, against them.

 

see chapter 8 how OSCR deflects and ignores CHA’s dishonourable practices.

 

As I had already emailed CHA on 12/14/17 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.

 

I 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 I have been *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, but those who are supposed to uphold the law have turned a blind eye to all of it, including how CHA got contractors to tamper with our electricity (see bottom section of this page) which are fire and electric shock hazards.

 

*https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22

 

Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier.

 

(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.

 

(4)Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice any liability or remedy to which a person guilty of an offence there under may be subject in civil proceedings.

 

(5)In this section “residential occupier”, in relation to any premises, means a person occupying the premises as a residence, whether under a contract or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of any other person to recover possession of the premises.

After driving me out of my home,  CHA went on to drive my son out  by committing fraud again to a sheriff.see Ch.7

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/when-service-provider-responsible-what-other-people-do

 

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.

(This  applies to contractors and the rest of  CHA’s ‘go to people; regulators, solicitors and one sheriff  and what about the gov, they all discriminated by ignoring ours and the public’s right to protection/redress from this law breaking company).

 

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. This includes CHA Directors, staff and their solicitors. If I wanted to split hairs over this, Sheriff Jillian Martin- Brown aldo discriminated against me by disadvantaging me and treating me worse than a criminal.

 

These people have no right to preach legislation when they don’t abide by it themselves. They have no more integrity and credibility than CHA and have proven how untrustworthy they are.

 

 

Business Service Garry Savages complaint response letter (a whitewash) omitted the main aspects of my complaint: 

Two early violations of privacy, falsifying information, prioritising a.s.t. above others and using one against decent tenants.

 

Due to withholding and altering the facts; CHA’s pseudo complaint procedure is the epitome of why companies should never be allowed to regulate themselves. Especially as so-called regulators are complicit in covering their dishonourable actions by ignoring mistreatment and fraud etc. Nice perks of the job for dishonourable law breaking companies/organisations.

 

Dated 08 February 2017

 

Garry savages complaint response letterpage 2 complaint response


page 3 complaint response


 

The CHA Directors and staff lie over 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 the MSP into their way of thinking. Service users are not allowed to get outside help because CHA bullies will make sure no-one assists them.

 

Garry also lied about stating Tim will contact the residents and offer to meet with them, he also 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’.

 

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.

 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

 

If service users tell CHA their actions are causing them stress or annoyance it is the green light for CHA to cause them more. CHA maliciously wanted to impact on my health issues as they have done with other tenants. I tried to get them to back off and theyjust escalated. CHA has vulnerable people on its schemes, and in sheltered, very sheltered and care homes who are potentially at risk from harm by this company. CHA has deliberately caused my son and myself, emotional/physical and/or financial harm.

These sick, twisted, individuals enjoy making people suffer and will engage in any dishonest behaviour to feed their nasty, overly inflated egos and to avoid accountability. These personality types actually take pride in their harmful behaviour because it makes them feel powerful when they cause anguish to others. It is a typical trait of narcissists and is very dangerous. I do not expect you to take my word for it, look at the evidence below (and knowledge on personality type)and then ask yourself if you would trust these people with your loved ones?


SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS (SAR) DIRECTLY FLOUTING THE EQUALITY ACT 2010

SAR asking to take disability into consideration

 

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 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 because their huge egos; believe they have entitlement to do whatever they like and flout  laws.

 

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 which I did not ask to be repeated. Garry Savage also stated I would have to ask for the codes for abbreviations etc.  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 more of Garry savages, made up (after the fact) backtracking notes to cover themselves for their wrongdoing, which I had previously highlighted to him.

 

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; the Sheriff J. Martin-Brown accepted CHA’s lame excuse was 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 anyway is an admission they have been breaking the equality law for many years, by implying they have been delivering it to other disabled people in the same format I received, which is still against the legislation. CHA can’t have it both ways.

 Lawyers are not meant to deceive the courts over the facts.

 

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.

 

 

A partner in the law firm representing CHA tried to rewrite the legal requirements under Equality Law saying 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 lie to protect these people, and desperate I suppose, but it speaks volumes about their integrity too.

This same lawyer, tries to imply CHA was not aware of my disabilities, therefore did not need know they had to make reasonable adjustments.  The legislation and the solicitors letter is in Ch.6. Such 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 telling them to desist from contacting me.

 

I tried to tell Sheriff J Martin -Brown I had indisputable evidence against CHA and she did not want to know. Lying, bluffing and pulling strings is all CHA had and yet they walked away from numerous examples of misconduct and breaking of laws. What a mockery CHA, their solicitors and the sheriff have made of legislation!

 

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.

( a fact also ignored by the ICO and Sheriff J Martin-Brown)

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 and their solicitors lied and misled the in court over everything, including 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 offence 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. They 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.

 

shows Ot menat to be involved with adaptation

 

page 2 solicitors letter

 

 

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.

SAR 3 on doors not closing

 

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 people, who pretend to do the job they get paid to do and instead do everything they shouldn’t do.

 

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. Ian tried to make out the OT “was unprofessional” and “she’s not telling you the truth” “and would have filled in a form” …” 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. They are just  projecting their own failings. It is another  narcissistic trait to deflect 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 on repairs, and he just spent time in my house on the phone, but did no actual work.(I would not have anyone  connected to CHA,  in my home unless supervised, due to their untrustworthiness ) . 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. They will have done this to others who they have turned against. It needs investigating. 

Updated November 2019

https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/caledonia-housing-association-director-of-finance-ron-hunter-to-step-down

Finance Director Ron Hunter at CHA stepped down in September 2019. He may have been trying to disassociate himself from Caledonia Housing, now the facts with evidence, of how dishonourable the company really is, have been publicly exposed. CHA use company resources for their own personal sick twisted agendas, including company finances (Ch.6). Is it a coincidence, he choses to retire a few months after my website appears or are the rats fleeing the sinking ship, by whatever exit route they can find to escape?

 

 

 


 

page 3 solicitors letterlast page solicitors letter

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 instructed by the ICO to remove it.

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 cameras etc.

CHA would not tell the truth about anything, but they are not good liars despite their years of practice, and ‘keep dropping themselves and each other in it.’

 

A reminder of  what Willow Warder from the ICO stated, when she originally instructed 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!)

 

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:

 

https://ico.org.uk/media/fororganisations/documents/1179/access_to_information_held_in_complaint_files.pdf

 

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. To find out more about our work please visit our website, or subscribe to our e-newsletter at ico.org.uk/newsletter.

 

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

 

and as for stating “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 it and no legitimate reason to process in the first place. She also clearly altered what I said. I was happy to show the recording in its entirety to the sheriff (not again to CHA)and what I was wanting removed, and offered this in my court evidence form

 

Warning to anyone on CHA’s books ….be very careful about what you tell these dishonest people, anything you say can be used against you as they will falsify the records and you will have the same carry on, trying to get them removed. Do not trust them!

 

Going round in circles making it up as they go along to feed the ‘inner child’ in the Directors. They have know since 2016 what to remove but lets just play silly childish word games to exasperate me and upset me. These people classify themselves as being professional! I strongly object to the word professional being used to describe anyone I have known from CHA. 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

1st page solicitors letter

 


 

VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY AND HARASSMENT

 

The solicitor claims (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! They lied ( yes, again) trying to water down the multiple violations of our privacy.

 

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 Connollys ability to behave honorably. 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! He does this a lot; typing up file notes after the fact, its so unprofessional and amateurish.

It was presented in PDF so I cannot remove my ID, therefore I  have had to retype but like everything else I have mentioned, I can show the original source to anyone who needs to see, to verify their existence.

 

File note 14/12/16

 

1.Information on permission requests not provided with SAR information

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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?

 

Incidently, 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……

SAR revealing LJs vexatious complaint

 

….. ( 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….


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-cameras through my windows

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 violations of privacy, from my Subject Access Requests and when I pointed this out about the first two, 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” 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.

 

Take note they ignored my request for the photos.

 

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.’

  • 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 it was a Thursday, it was actually a Wednesday!

 

 

Painting started about a month after they originally claimed they would do.

painting slips from contractors CHA

 

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 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 about 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 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.

SEALED PAINTED BEDROOM WINDOW 2ND SEALED PAINTED WINDOW


 

WITHHOLDING SERVICES AGAIN AND PUTTING OBSTACLES IN OUR WAY

 

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.

 

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 is in charge of Housing support services for some of society’s most vulnerable! Nobody should 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; 1) they arranged for the spraying of the kitchen and they even messed us about over that too, and 2) begrudgingly removed one large appliance because the local recycling centre was closed for 4 months, and it was too big to move ourselves like we had done with the other appliances we replaced as we did not know what was causing the problem for a month.

 

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 further down, or in a letter. 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 (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.

(I might add the serial vexatious complainer a.s.t. who harasses tenants, gets repairs and maintenance on demand without any problems, because CHA looks after their own kind!)

 

job sheets damp source

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. 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 they blame the contractors behind their backs


 

CHA INSTRUCTS CONTRACTORS TO TAMPER WITH OUR  ELECTRICITY…Dangerous

 

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 been 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. 

 

Regulators don’t care and protect CHA’s unlawful practices.

 

Image below was from gov website. https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2008/04/07144231/69

no breaker box a fire hazard  electric not been recently tested

(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; financially and health/safety and hygiene issues. Electric shock and fire hazard and in my case, by also having to use cold water to wash hands, restricting movement in my arthritic hands, and having to carry kettles of boiling water around if I needed to heat water in the bathroom.

 

CHA engages in sick twisted actions, some of which are downright dangerous, for their own entertainment and to the detriment of service users by paying the contractors to break laws and harass tenants. Then CHA pulls strings and the regulators refuse to protect tenants.

 

 

still live cylinder sheet

 

My first attempt to recover documents from the contractors via the court for more evidence, was blocked by CHA. (no surprise!)

 

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 Mc Gill, I only received the work sheets. I guess CHA did not want me or the court 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 after turning off, because we could not trust CHA or their contractors and the refund we received.

Do not trust  CHA or these contractors.

 

edf bill

 

 

7.After I was forced to move out, CHA harassed my son

 

cheryl acknowledging I have moved out and son remaining.

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 works 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.

 

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.

 

shows premeditation to harass

My son’s car is parked there nearly every night and Housing officer Cheryl Connelly asked at least one neighbour, who told her my son was still living there. Yet the liars at CHA claim the house is unoccupied. Knowing CHA’s track record, they must have lied again to deceive a sheriff, to persuade them to give a repossession order. Common sense would tell them, we would not pay rent if there was no-one in the house, but they were only interested in harassing again, because its what they do best.

 

 

The wording on the accompanying solicitors application to the court (12/02/19), 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 the sheriff as they are supposed to prove the house has been abandoned.See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22

 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. 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. 

 

We have lost £thousands due to this companies malicious intent to drive us out, all  because we asked them to deal with a.s.t.’s.  CHA cannot deal with anyone questioning their behaviour and go into ‘attack  mode’ because these  personality type have no people skills and they go into overdrive. They like to dish it out but cannot take even the slightest hint of criticism. They are the worst personality types for the positions of trust they hold. 

 

I wonder if all those at CHA named on this website and those who supported them,  would like it if someone harassed them out of their homes!

 

 

Below is taken from legislation, and none of it was applicable but CHA manipulators managed to get a possession order from the court. See what is achievable; when you are prepared to lie and commit fraud and you are in a position of trust?

 

….and authorities turn a blind eye…….and cover for CHA’s dishonesty and malicious actions.

 

 

https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2002/08/sst/1      repossession (section 18)

 

Ground 1 The tenant owes the landlord rent or has broken some other condition of the tenancy agreement.

N/A

Ground 2 **The tenant, or someone residing in or visiting the tenant’s house, has been convicted of using the house or allowing it to be used for illegal or immoral purposes or a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, which was committed in the house or the locality.

N/A

Ground 3 The condition of the house or common parts has deteriorated because of the fault of the tenant or somebody in the tenant’s household.

N/A

Ground 4 The condition of any furniture the landlord has supplied has deteriorated because of the fault of the tenant or somebody in the tenant’s household.

N/A

Ground 5 The tenant, and the tenant’s spouse or co-habitee, have been absent from the house for more than 6 months without good reason or have stopped living in it as their principal home.

N/A

Ground 6 The tenancy was granted as a result of false information given by the tenant in the application for the tenancy. Landlords should make sure that questions posed on any application for a tenancy are sufficiently comprehensive and explicit to ensure that all necessary information is elicited at the time of application and there is no opportunity for a prospective tenant simply to omit relevant information.

N/A

Ground 7 The tenant or someone residing in or visiting the tenant’s house has been anti-social to anyone else in the locality or has pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment of such a person and it is not reasonable for the landlord to transfer the tenant to another house….**doesnt apply to us but does apply to CHA staff, contractors and Directors Tim Calderbank and Garry Savage

 

 

Paragraph 7(2) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act defines “anti-social”, “conduct” and “harassment”. In summary these are:

**“Anti-social” means causing or likely to cause alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance to any person or causing damage to anyone’s property.

“Conduct” includes speech, and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

“Harassment” is as defined in section 8 of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 and includes causing the person alarm or distress.

.

Management Grounds
Ground 8 The tenant, or someone residing in the tenant’s house, has been guilty of harassment, nuisance or annoyance in or in the neighbourhood of the house, or has continued to cause alarm or distress to someone in the locality and it is appropriate, in the landlord’s opinion, to transfer the tenant to another house. Doesn’t apply to us but CHA used an anti social tenant against us and other tenants.

 

Ground 9 The house is overcrowded as defined in section 135 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

N/A

Ground 10 The landlord intends to demolish or carry out substantial work to the house (or the building in which it is located) within a reasonable time and that work cannot be done if the tenant is still living there.

N/A

Ground 11 The house has been designed or adapted for people with special needs and no one in the tenant’s household has such special needs but the landlord requires the house for someone who has.

N/A

Ground 12 The house is part of a larger group of houses which have been designed or adapted or located near facilities for people with special needs and no-one in the tenant’s household has those needs but the landlord requires the house for someone who has.

N/A

Ground 13 The landlord has leased the tenant’s house from somebody else and that lease has ended or will end in 6 months.

N/A

Ground 14 The landlord is an islands council, the house is held for education purposes, it is occupied by someone who used to be employed by the council for education purposes and now it is needed for someone else for those purposes.

N/A

N.B. Please note that there are no mandatory grounds for repossession. All grounds are subject to the test of reasonableness.!!!

Rent (Scotland) Act 1984

A reminder of the legislation  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/58/section/22

Unlawful eviction and harassment of the Occupier

(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. 

 

(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.

 

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

 

 

Q. Is the law going to be upheld?

A. No, because authorities  would prefer to protect those breaking laws than their victims.

 

 

A summary of the facts

 

Anti- social tenants can stay forever in CHA houses; free from harassment and services are not withheld, and they are fully protected by CHA.  My son and me who do not break laws, paid our rent, didn’t cause nuisance to neighbours but actually put ourselves out to help them, were unlawfully driven out by the landlord; Caledonia Housing Association. CHA prioritises and protects the interests of anti- social tenants and victimises their victims.

 

CHA have engaged in deliberate unlawful actions to harass, cause stress, put obstacles in our way, withhold services, cause financial hardship and violated our privacy. CHA have denied me my data protection rights and our legal rights.

 

 

CHA abuses the trust placed upon it and once that happens, service users have no rights, because CHA makes sure they do not get any help to remedy this. CHA are completely untrustworthy and will use bully tactics to suppress  anyone in their way. They are nothing more than thugs in suits, who should be knocked off the pedestal they have placed themselves upon.

 

Service users be warned; the minute CHA signs a contract they are committing fraud by false pretences, as they have no intention of honouring any it, the policies or legislation. Weak regulators are covering their backs. They  falsely claim they act in the public’s interests. My evidence proves they do not.

 

CHA has breached numerous acts, committed fraud and got their own solicitor to lie and mislead the court over the facts,  and have encouraged own staff and contractors to break the law on their behalf, made it impossible to remain in our home. They then ousted my son by threatening us with court action ( as a result of lying to another sheriff to obtain a repossession notice) causing us to lose a lot of our property.The term ‘fraud’ refers to the deliberate use of deception or dishonesty to disadvantage or cause loss (usually financial) to another person or party. 

 

https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/site-data/uploads/2015/12/Criminal-fraud-in-Scotland-4th-edition-December2015.pdf

In Scotland, criminal fraud is mainly dealt with under the common law and a number of statutory offences. The main fraud offences are: ◆ common law fraud; ◆ uttering; ◆ embezzlement; and ◆ statutory frauds

 

 

They have found it incredibly easy to make  a mockery of the regulatory authorities and legislation by manipulating individuals  to do their dirty work. 

 

No – one should  trust this company or those named and shamed. No one with any sense of decency would support this company.The reality is that CHA should never be allowed to hold a position of trust to harm anyone else again, as they are no better than the anti-social tenants/lawbreakers they fiercely protect.

‘If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck…………’

 

Q. What is going to be done about them?

A. When I find the answer, I will place it on my website.

 

 A nation that will not enforce its laws, has no claim to the respect and the allegiance of its people.’   Ambrose Bierce

 

After sending my website link to these other regulators; the GOV, OSCR, SPSO and the most worrying; The CARE INSPECTORATE, all  choose to ignore harassment with malicious intent to cause us harm, tampering with our electric (dangerous), privacy violations, fraud, withholding services, Data Protection breaches etc. They are clearly protecting Caledonia Housing Associations dishonourable practices and cannot use ignorance as an excuse. 

 

None of the relevant principles below are being upheld. I would like them to prove me wrong and provide concrete evidence they are not just covering CHA’s back, because all they have proved is:  they are as untrustworthy as each other by refusing to protect the public’s interests. 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/board-guide-members-statutory-boards/pages/55/

 

Introduction to Ethical Standards in Public life

The Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (Ethical Standards Act) 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.

*** https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/your-narcissist-boss-destroying-you-amour-setter

 

 

REVISED HIERACHY CHART

 

When I sent my website link to Nicola Sturgeons office, informing them that CHA is operating above the law with impunity, and that service users are being harmed, they deflected. They would rather protect the law- breaking individuals like CHA and their supporters. Afterwards, The First Minister; recommended to the Queen, the same Sheriff who showed no respect for legislation (see Ch. 2) and who had denied me my legal rights when I took CHA to court.

 

 

//www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/2252/New-Sheriffs-appointed

‘Her Majesty the Queen has appointed’ Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown; to the office of sheriff, on the recommendation of the First Minister.

 

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/leader-comment-jury-corruption-is-a-threat-to-the-rule-of-law-1-4727376

 

A sheriff who ignores her solemn oath, court rules and article 6  of the Human Rights Act is a major threat to the rule of law

 

 

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 support this statement, but shows the opposite is actually true!

 

 

  1. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENTS response to the evidence on my website was to bury its head, and deflect from taking responsibility by signposting.

‘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

 

Fact; This was not just about a Housing Association complaint, it was about a company operating above the law, and making a mockery of the law with impunity; to the detriment of the service users, entrusted to the care of CHA. As usual they just ignore the facts and expect me to go round in circles.

I think all of this helped me decide, who not to vote for at the next election.

 

2. SCOTTISH CHARITIES REGULATOR; (OSCR) who also deflected responsibility by signposting.

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 again the SHR go round in circles again ignoring the lawbreaking morally repugnant practices of their buddies,with another member of their staff whose name has appeared in minutes for several CHA meetings I have read in CHAs downloads. Puppet number 2 protecting CHA, denying the public their legal rights.

9 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:

– http://www.spso.org.uk

– Freephone advice line: 0800 377 7330

– Online form: www.spso.org.uk/online-contact

– In person, at 4 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7NS, or by post at FREEPOST SPSO

 

If you require further assistance you can obtain free and impartial advice from Citizens Advice

Scotland. It can be found at www.cas.org.uk.

Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow G4 0HF

Tel: 0141 242 5642 www.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk

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 the harassment which occurred after going through CHA’s pseudo complaint procedure and then because how they deliberately played and deceived the court etc see Ch. 2, 6, 7.

 

My son was also unlawfully harassed out of the property in my name, when CHA committed fraud again to another Sheriff and obtained a repossession notice (received by us in February 2019) by falsely claiming to the court, the house was abandoned, when Housing officer Cheryl Connelly was fully aware of my son was still living there, and a neighbour had confirmed this to her, see chapter 7.

 

This was still in time limit, as was the ICO refusing to abide by legislation but I guess the SPSO were just wanting to help their ‘friends’ at CHA to be consistent with all the other obedient regulators. “one for all, and all for one.” Picking up their wages under false pretences as they are serving their own dishonourable interests and refusing to protect the public. They have no more credibility or integrity than their buddies. All rotten to the core.

 

They are playing word games over the evidence they have seen. They were sent my website link and then made their decision  04/06/19 They saw everything, but are trying to claim they have only seen my letter from CHA’s pseudo complaint procedure. Such underhand tactics just like CHA and the others use. They are all just rehearsed speeches and lame excuses to deflect and are equally dishonest, which is why they get on so well with CHA.

 

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 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 then 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.

 

 

 

 

first page

 

page 2 govs rebuff

Updated 13.08.19 following a phone call (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’

SPSO letter to remove name

SPSO letter to remove name     SPSO remove name page 2

 

 

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.)

 

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 group. 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.

 

 

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

 

 

Update December 2019

 

Servite Court Care Home at Leuchars is closing down.

 

https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/health/fife-care-home-could-close-1-5041963

 

 

In November 2019 Caledonia Housing Association (CHA) claim financial problems and that they have looked at various options, via the press, yet there is no evidence to support this in the minutes of the CHA Management Board meeting held on Tuesday 17th September 2019 at Mcdiarmid park, Perth or even the month before.

(Now I have highlighted this fact, CHA will probably amend the minutes to include financial problems within the care home! After all, it won’t be the first time CHA has altered data afterwards for personal gain. They routinely falsify records as they go along which is how it is so easy to catch them out in their lies!). Manipulative liars should never be trusted.

 

 

 Read about your rights here; https://careinfoscotland.scot/topics/your-rights/legislation-protecting-people-in-care/

 

 

 Removing CHA and putting in situ a professional, and trustworthy company, would have been less upheaval and distress for the vulnerable residents, instead of forcing them to move, which could impact on health issues. But doing the right thing; would have highlighted and attached blame to CHA’s narcissistic Directors, some of their staff, and failings by the regulators. Once again, they are protecting their own interests, to the detriment of vulnerable service users and feeding the twisted egos, of those who will resort to any underhand or malicious tactic, to get what they want, as described in the excellent article in the link below.

 

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/communication-success/201908/difference-between-narcissist-vs-narcissistic-behavior

 

Directors Tim Calderbank and Garry Savage from Caledonia Housing are clearly text book cases.

 

There is a distinct correlation, between the experts knowledge of what constitutes pathological narcissistic behaviour and that of the Directors, as demonstrated throughout my website. I can’t comment on the rest of the Executive Management Team as I have had no dealings with them, but I do know the company’s finances were being used for self-serving twisted agendas in my case (Ch.6) and that of the gentleman they ordered removal of CCTV (Ch. 3.). CHA are long overdue for having ‘their playground’ taken away from them and legal action taken against them.

 

 

Any concerns by relatives, relating to negligence, harm, falsified reports etc should be raised with a lawyer, perhaps as a group.  Feel free to share my evidence. It could help your case by demonstrating; the level of deliberate, harmful and potentially dangerous behaviour exercised by CHA Executive Management Team, and ignored by the regulators. Malicious intent to cause harm (Ch.’s 3 and 6) and falsifying reports (Ch.’s 2 and 5 )etc are serious issues.

 

 

You too, could put your case(s) online or as a group, to share any negative experiences and warn others.  Force their hand into doing their jobs in the public’s interests, instead of their own. It will be difficult for them to recruit people when they know they will be publicly named and shamed for wrongdoing or refusing to do their jobs. It will also limit their opportunities when they leave and stop them doing the same elsewhere.

 

 Don’t forget, it is your legal right to Subject Access Requests from regulators and CHA https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/

A lawyer would be able to help make sure the Data Protection Act is upheld, seeing how the ICO themselves refuse do so, as they are too busy crawling to CHA bosses and other companies. See Ch.5 and at other people’s views of the ICO and SPSO on trustpilot:

 

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/ico.org.uk

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.spso.org.uk

 

 

Regulators are just expensive ornaments to make the government look like they care, when the opposite is true. They collect your data for themselves. Don’t waste your time on them. Protect your own interests.

 

 

A reminder of what the gov and its  regulators are ignoring and sanctioning by doing nothing, in order to protect Caledonia Housing Association from accountability:

 

CHA DISREGARDS THE TENANCY AGREEMENT, DATA PROTECTION ACT (past and present), THE EQUALITY ACT 2010, THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 and criminal offences under the  **LAW ON HARASSMENT AND UNLAWFUL EVICTION ( RENT SCOTLAND ACT 1984).

** Directors encouraged contractors, staff, and an anti-social tenant to engage in criminal offences on their behalf by harassing us out of our home CH.s 3, 6 & 7.

Routinely falsifying data and reports and defaming tenants behind their backs to prejudice the opinions of others to ensure they achieve their twisted objectives. (seen throughout the website).

Pulling strings with a Sheriff and lying and misleading the court over the facts via their solicitors, in Ch. 2  & Ch. 6. CHA also later falsified information, to mislead a Sheriff to procure notice to repossess and harass my son out of his home (Ch.7).

Directly involved and/or inciting others to engage in harassment, intimidation and malicious intent to cause harm, alarm or distress to tenants. Criminal offences. CHA uses the company’s resources for own twisted agendas in Ch.’s 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Withholding services, including instructing contractors to tamper with our electricity to raise the bills and was dangerous (fire and electric hazard) as they bypassed the breaker box. Left our home insecure, refused to cooperate with an OT because CHA don’t like anyone helping the ones they wish to victimise (anyone who asks them to do their job will qualify!). Ch.6

CHA obstructs tenants’ legal rights, by preventing them from obtaining redress or assistance from Police, Courts, MSP, Regulatory bodies and legislation etc. evidenced throughout my website. CHA manipulated my court proceeding by prejudicing the sheriff prior to my court session, and instructed their solicitors to alter and withhold the facts of the case, Ch.2.

CHA broke  Equality Laws including reasonable adjustment several times Ch.6 Also prioritised anti-social tenants needs to the detriment of decent tenants. Ch.’s 3 and 7

Multiple violations of my privacy; including sending a contractor and CHA clerk of works to take photos of inside of my home. Ch.6

 These Executive bullies at CHA need to be taken down because no-one should be above the law especially when they sadistically cause people harm. But they are not the only ones whose integrity is highly questionable and should not be in positions of trust. 

All of this proves the tax payer is paying for services they do not get and that no-one is protecting their rights or upholding laws. The people of Scotland deserve better.

 

DNT

Knowledge is power.

I did not get redress at the time from what the sick twisted people at CHA did to us, but I am damned sure I will not allow other innocent people to suffer when I am able to help prevent it, by sharing my knowledge.

 

Simple Procedure/legal Aid  disadvantages the public because it only allows a lawyer for advice. Still speak to one and show my evidence to demonstrate what they are up against.

 

Anyone with a strong case else should make sure they are represented by an honourable lawyer. 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. Learn from my mistakes…how silly of me to expect the Sheriff to be honourable!! When dealing with any of the nonprofessionals I have named, expect any underhand tactic especially corruption.

 

CHA executive had a lot to lose, including their liberty, as they committed multiple criminal offences, so they fight dirty to protect themselves. They are terrified of being taken to court by someone with evidence against them, because despite manipulating the court with me, the law is the law and not all Sheriffs are dishonest and would not risk their reputations to support the likes of them. It is highly unlikely CHA will get away with it again if people are knowledgeable.