Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (legislation.gov.uk) Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (legislation.gov.uk) (and see Ch.7)
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know.”
― William Wilberforce.
Updated page: 28.04.24 I have just noticed that several links pertaining to equality legislation throughout this website have now broken. I still have original paper copies from the source,😏 because… I am fully aware that when authorities and their company friends, are caught out breaking policy/laws etc, they rewrite them after the fact, just like the solicitor attempted to do in her letter – page 3 down the page , which just so happens to be about one of the missing links!
An independent reminder, of CHA’s disrespect for people.
As I had already emailed CHA on 12/04/17 to stay away from me, the company still had two holds over me;
1) Repairs/Maintenance and
2) Data Protection.
From the outset they had decided to harass me with these. My evidence below is not a complete list there is more, but I was aware of how big my web pages were getting, so I just included the main examples.
It has been very difficult for me to put everything in any kind of order, not least of all because I had to wade through 73 pages of my subject access request, which was deliberately presented to me by CHA (email) in PDF and in a format which was virtually impossible to process. This broke the Equality Law on reasonable adjustment, evidenced further down page.
The start of CHA’s campaign of harassment
I just asked housing officer Cheryl Connelly to desist from using an anti- social tenant (a.s.t.) to harass a 75 yr old man and other tenants, but instead of dealing with the a.s.t. they went on the offensive and dealt with us by using the same a.s.t and other people, to harass us.
My son and were then *unlawfully hounded out of our home by the ‘thugs in suits’ at Caledonia Housing Association, by making life very difficult and impossible for us to remain. These are *criminal offences, including how CHA got contractors to tamper with our electricity (see bottom section of this page) which are fire and electric shock hazards. The authorities do not have the right to preach legislation to anyone, as they cannot even abide by it themselves. They have invalidated the legislation and their authority because of their corruption.
Applies to multiples sections of this law. CHA committed fraud again to a sheriffs officer see Ch.7 and/or the actual document CHA put on our front door supposedly signed by a sheriffs officer, may be another example of fraud see Ch.7.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/when-service-provider-responsible-what-other-people-do Update28/04/24 I have just noticed the direct link (and the one below the quote I originally copied from their website), has now been removed form the source. It happens frequently when you catch them out exposing their lies or hypocrisy. They are also inclined to rewrite/alter policies/legislation etc. Look in archives and you will see for yourself. Unfortunately for them, some of us have original copies😛 and I am not removing what I have posted from source, to suit their altering of information after the fact.
It is not just the people in charge of organisations providing goods, facilities or services to the public or carrying out public functions who must avoid unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
If another person who is:
– employed by a service provider, or
– carrying out a service provider’s instructions (who the law calls the service provider’s agent)
– does something that is unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation, the service provider can be held legally responsible for what they have done
– What happens if a service provider tries to stop equality law applying to a situation?
A person must not help someone else carry out an act which the person helping knows is unlawful under equality law.
…It is a criminal offence, punishable by a fine, to make a false statement which another person relies on to help to carry out an unlawful act.
We lost a lot of money/property and time spent on the house/garden and had the additional expenses of moving etc. All to appease the morally repugnant company, who are still operating above the law.
Business Service Garry Savages complaint response letter (a whitewash) omitted the main aspects of my complaint: Two early violations of privacy, falsifying information, data breaches, prioritising anti-social tenants above others and using one against the decent tenants.
Dated 08 February 2017
The CHA Directors and staff trivialise/alter/embellish complaints and lie about everything, including stating we cancelled the MSP meeting. We turned up, but Operations Director Tim Calderbank didn’t need to appear, as I thought he had already coerced (bullied) the MSP into their way of thinking. (I later changed my views about her!) in Ch.3. Service users are not allowed to get outside help, as the CHA bullies, will make sure no-one assists them, and authorities fiercely protect the manipulative, narcissists.
Garry also lied about stating Tim will contact the residents and offer to meet with them, and said elsewhere, the CEO would be willing to speak tenants! These claims never materialised but like all the twaddle that comes out of CHA, it’s just for ‘show purposes’.
Complaint; email communication to the Directors.
To: garry.savage@caledoniaha.co.uk
12 Jan 2017 at 15:06
Good afternoon Garry
I would like to know if you are going to take my complaints seriously and remove irrelevant comments/notes from CHA records as I have requested on at least 2 occasions. I realise you are more interested in finding out what I know and what action I may or may not take and that your only concern is in damage limitation to CHA and its staff. This has been my view since Tim placed himself into the complaint (and has now passed over to you). Well the practice of falsely recording information, especially with the clear intention to influence others is a pretty serious complaint. After all, I know the reason Tim wanted to pay me a visit is to see if what Cheryl had claimed about (amongst other remarks) me supposedly going to the press about CHA over the neighbourhood complaints. So not only does Cheryl lie about tenants in her reports, she is also quite happy to feed her superior those lies too. Incidentally you may want to explain to her what a ‘self -fulfilling prophecy is!
I have made some enquiries and done some research on the Caledonia full complaints procedure, and with this in mind …..”The aim is to keep service users at the heart of the process, with complaints handled quickly and effectively through thorough, impartial and fair investigations”.
I believe there is a need to speed up the process. I will be happy to accept a visit from yourself, (as Tim has not communicated with me in a while, I will only deal with you now) at my home next week if it is convenient with you. I can be more flexible of the time and not insist on my son being there as a witness, providing you are happy with me recording the conversation. If you don’t feel comfortable being recorded, that’s fine but it means we will have to arrange around my sons timetable too. If you are agreeable to a visit a.s.a.p., then I will make sure you leave with a clear understanding of my complaint and how I expect it to be resolved following your own complaints handling procedure and staff code of conduct.
e.g. A.13 You must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals, groups or interests”. Favouring a known troublemakers’ complaints against genuine tenants complaints “
A.14 You must avoid any situation that could give rise to suspicion or suggest improper conduct”. The responses and credibility to LJ’s vexatious complaints by CHA is very suspicious indeed. It is not the usual practice of housing associations to allow a known trouble maker to make regular complaints and then act upon them knowing this will cause anxieties to her victims.
Allowing your staff to write incorrect reports as common practice and allowing or encouraging unauthorised visits to pry around homes and failure to disclose the reasons of the visits, certainly suggests improper conduct to me.
“B.5 You must respond to requests for information positively and must not prevent people or bodies from being provided with information that they are entitled to receive.
B.6 You must not use confidential information acquired through your work as one of our employees for your private interests”. Well clearly Cheryl has issues with me, as her contemptuous attitude when having to conduct business with me has shown or perhaps she is disrespectful with all of the tenants, apart from L.J. of course.
Respecting confidentiality
B.7 You must respect confidentiality and ensure that you do not disclose information to anyone who is not entitled to receive it, both whilst you are a member of staff and after you have left our employment”
I have to wonder if she has passed on any of the conversation, we had to anyone else! She thought that by trying to defame my character in her reports, she was gaining something over me as she certainly did not expect me to find out. Despite me trying to explain things to her, she allowed her arrogance to cloud her judgement and thought she was going to get away with it, but instead, it has resulted in a complaint being made about her unacceptable practices.
Now that I have found your own policies on the code of conduct which she has repeatedly breached, I do hope you will be taking disciplinary action against her and point out to Miss C, you cannot poke a stick at people and expect them to thank you for it. Incidentally You may wish to review other tenants reports if you haven’t already done so….
This is the second letter I had sent to CHA, informing them to stay away from me. It was sent in response to Garry Savage misrepresenting the facts about what my complaint was actually about. He also made up comments about what I was supposed to have said. He also claimed I recorded the meeting (which I wanted to do ) but on the day, I suddenly realised you cannot record and listen at the same time, so he just sat listening to it with it, in his hands because it is quiet.
To:garry.savage@caledoniaha.co.uk
12 Apr 2017 at 10:26
Mr G Savage,
I am writing to inform you that due to CHAs stance on ignoring my health issues and causing me unnecessary anxiety, I can only conclude that you intend to cause me harm. As you have demonstrated many times, you are happy to impact on my health issues, I will protect my own interests.
Communications with CHA have now irretrievably broken down; therefore, I cannot and will not; trust you with anything. I will no longer send any communications to CHA, and will not receive any, so I am notifying you that I want you to desist from; using my email account, I do not want any phone calls, nor do I want any letters. Amongst many other things, you have proven to me you cannot be trusted with my personal/sensitive information so I am reducing the opportunities for you to abuse it again.
You have a legal duty to do repairs, and therefore you can communicate to my son (Mr) —–by letter only, at the same address, who will be acting on my behalf. He does not wish to share personal information with you either so he will not give you any other contact information.
Please remove me from your mailing list. My recycling bin does not need any more junk mail.
Yours sincerely
There is a strong correlation between how CHA Executive Team operate and what constitutes pathological narcissistic behaviour.
Difference Between a Narcissist vs. Narcissistic Behavior | Psychology Today United Kingdom
SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS (SAR) DIRECTLY FLOUTING THE EQUALITY ACT 2010
Page 23 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/2259722/subject-access-code-of-practice.pdf
I had said to Garry that it was so easy to tear apart the 1st Subject Access Request (SAR) and “find more holes in their report writing, than you would find in a string vest”. His response, was to make a concerted effort and bulk up this 2nd SAR which comprised of 73 pages in a format that was virtually impossible to read and process, which is a direct breach of the Equality Act 2010. Instead of making reasonable adjustment as defined in Equality Law, CHA deliberately put obstacles in my way.
This SAR comprised of pages with just company logos or multiple anti- virus information, sideways screen shots, duplicated and triplicated pages in PDF, in no particular order of information; which I already received in my 1st SAR and did not ask to be repeated. Garry Savage also stated I would have to ask for the codes for abbreviations etc *see below. It must have taken someone absolutely ages to compile. It most certainly would not have held on their records like this. It should have been about 8 pages maximum and yet the only new information received was many more of Garry savages, made up (after the fact) backtracking notes to cover themselves for their wrongdoing, which I had previously highlighted to him.
1st page of cover letter for second SAR.
My 3rd SAR sent to Aberdeen Law Project acting on my behalf, was totally different, more professional and just about 8 organised pages including a document list and codes were supplied. Without even seeing any of this, Sheriff J. Martin-Brown accepted CHA’s lame excuse, the reason they gave Aberdeen Law Project my 3rd SAR, in a tidy package, was because they now had a new Information Governance Officer. This is not even remotely plausible and is an admission they have been breaking the Equality Act 2010, for many years, by delivering it in the same format I received. CHA can’t have it both ways.
Lawyers are not supposed 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.
Gillian Buchanan, partner in the law firm and 2nd legal representative for CHA, engaged in deliberate actions of deception. She tried to rewrite the legal requirements under Equality Law stating the duty of reasonable adjustment is a reactive one, rather than an anticipatory one. See further down in her letter page 3, under the heading Discrimination in 3rd paragraph. You couldn’t make this stuff up! It is astonishing how many people are willing to deceive to protect CHA, and desperate I suppose; because Caledonia Housing Association did not have a legal or moral leg to stand on. But it speaks volumes about the solicitor’s integrity too.
This same lawyer, tries to imply CHA was not aware of my disabilities, therefore did not know they had to make reasonable adjustments. Liars, when there are references in emails, on a tenancy registering document with CHA and on my 1st SAR request and in my last communication, instructing them to desist from contacting me. I realised from other tenants that CHA make a concerted effort to deceive and leave out relevant information, so I told them to keep putting it back in, when communicating with CHA or anyone in relation to them. I knew CHA would try to claim ignorance as an excuse.
The Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20
What the law actually states;
Duty to make adjustments
(1)Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.
(2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.
(3)The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(4)The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.
(6) Where the first or third requirement relates to the provision of information, the steps which it is reasonable for A to have to take include steps for ensuring that in the circumstances concerned the information is provided in an accessible format.
Equality law recognises that bringing about equality for disabled people may mean changing the way in which services are delivered, providing extra equipment and/or the removal of physical barriers.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/multipage-guide/using-service-reasonable-adjustments-disabled-people Updated 27.02.24 The link at sometime has broken and now Equality law has been altered [after the fact] to state it is not anticipatory. This happens when the frauds in authority positions are caught out breaking laws. Unfortunately for them, they cannot alter the evidence the public have in their possession or on every site which has the original quote, such as the two below which I screenshot and accessed on 26.02.24.
Copied ⬇ [exactly] from one of my original documents (from the official source) for court: and I would swear it under oath!
“1.”Using a service: reasonable adjustments for disabled people
MULTIPAGE GUIDE
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.
This is the ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’. A duty is something someone must do, in this case because the law says they must.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments aims to make sure that if you are a disabled person, you can use an organisation’s services as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
If an organisation providing goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public, or carrying out public functions, or running an association finds there are barriers to disabled people in the way it does things, then it must consider making adjustments (in other words, changes). If those adjustments are reasonable for that organisation to make, then it must make them.
The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means an organisation cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use its services, but must think in advance (and on an ongoing basis) about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need, such as people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, a mobility impairment or a learning disability.
An organisation is not required to do more than it is reasonable for it to do. What is reasonable for an organisation to do depends, among other factors, on its size and nature, and the nature of the goods, facilities or services it provides, or the public functions it carries out, or the association it runs.
If you are a disabled person and can show that there were barriers an organisation should have identified and reasonable adjustments it could have made, you can bring a claim against it in court. If you win your case, the organisation may be told to pay compensation and make the reasonable adjustments.
The rest of this section looks at the duty in more detail and gives examples of the sorts of adjustments organisations could make.”
Last updated: 02 Dec 2019″.
“Oh what a tangled web they weave….when first they practice to deceive”- adapted from the original by Sir Walter Scott.
Nobody in nearly 5 years , has contacted me to say what I accused them of – is not true! It speaks volumes.
AN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST (O.T.) WAS IGNORED SO CHA COULD WITHHOLD SERVICES FROM ME… and then CHA delivered shoddy work to put more obstacles in my way, because CHA does not like to help those they wish to upset or anyone assisting them.
CHA’s solicitors lied and misled the court about the O.T.’s involvement in an adaptation to the front and back doors of my home (see page 2 of solicitors letter). The O.T. had requested a meeting with CHA to discuss how to alleviate my pain caused by my arthritis prior to any work being carried out. Notice how the solicitor writes it up in her letter further down below, under heading; Repairs and completely avoids mentioning CHA were supposed to be dealing with an adaptation. Manipulating the facts to water down my claim and deflect from breaching equality law again. This was also part of the evidence of the criminal offences of forcing us out of our home by withholding services etc.
I had reported another tenant’s door handles at the same time as mine and her doors were done within two weeks. The joiner came to my home weeks later. CHA split mine in two halves, spread over many weeks. When the joiner, Jim Cathro finally appeared and only after he removed the 3-point locking system, (which was painful for me to use, and why I needed an adaptation.) he left me without the means to shut the door for 2 hrs; whilst he went for a drive, supposedly getting equipment. When he returned, he refused to do the back door (most important one) and did not do it until months later, when he removed the kitchen. He then announced the handle was broke and left it in this state.
Neither of the doors closed well and sprung open easily on their own. My son had to put locks on the front door and he did what he could to make the back one more secure. Instead of making the handles easier to use, to prevent pain, CHA left us with an insecure house with doors harder to shut.
When I phoned the O.T. to inform her what CHA had done with the doors and how they were now broken, she kindly agreed to contact CHA on my behalf about the repairs, as I explained I had problems with the company.
The O.T.’s are lovely customer focused people who are completely trustworthy and professional; and who offer an excellent customer service, are very courteous and they respect confidentiality. In fact they are the exact opposite of CHA and their enablers who pretend to do the job they get paid to do, instead do everything in reverse.
Much later, Ian Beeching Team Leader came to my home about the same outstanding repairs, which were supposed to be done 10 months earlier. In front of the support worker, I discussed with him; how he had denied me services by preventing an Occupational Therapist (O.T.) from doing her job. He denied it. Ian tried to make out the OT “was unprofessional” and “she’s not telling you the truth,” “and would have filled in a form,” and ” I don’t think she is being honest with you” etc.
The people who work for this company are disgusting when they make disparaging comments about decent people behind their backs. It is another narcissistic trait to deflect, project and blame others. I showed him the document above (taken from my 3rd SAR) which proved he was the liar, so he finally shut up. I also have a partially completed form direct, from the O.T. herself.
Joiner Jim Cathro turned up at my house and held up the support worker for about 2 hours.. I would not have anyone connected to CHA, in my home unless supervised, due to their trustworthiness. He just spent the time on the phone, but did no actual work. This was for the dealing with the damp source which was supposed to be done 10 months earlier. Twice he came and did no work, before getting on with it. CHA is generous with company finances to pay contractors to mess service users about. CHA will have done the same to others.
Look at the play on words, my clients interpretation of what the ICO said and over what the solicitor claims in page 3/4 , “my clients when replying to the ICO ( 2017) said they will remove inaccurate and excessive information…” They have known since 2016 what they needed to remove, and were originally instructed by the ICO, to remove it. Its all in the word games! Just lame excuses to deflect whilst having a laugh.
As for denying CHA discussed information with 3rd parties, obviously as contractors had messed me about they must have been told something about me by CHA, to get them to do their dirty work for the Directors. Jim Cathro made comments several times, which indicated he had knowledge of me e.g., “I wouldn’t like to get between you and your landlord”. He would not have known I had a problem with them, unless CHA told him.
The contractors did not just wake up one morning, and decide to tamper with my electricity and bypass the electric box or leave my house insecure or violate my privacy with CHA’s clerk of works using a camera etc. Neither did Sheriff Jillian Martin Brown randomly decide she was going to go against everything she is supposed to represent and make a mockery of the law. The regulators/government did not suddenly decide to refuse to do their jobs and ignore legislation.
A reminder of what Willow Warder from the ICO stated, when she originally instructed Garry Savage, then later ignored to please CHA. Both have ignored legislation.
From: casework@ico.org.uk
To: Garry Savage
Subject: Data Protection Concern [Ref. RFA0669181]
Date: 11 April 2017 11:38:16
11 April 2017.
Case Reference Number RFA0669181
Dear Mr Savage,
Re:- Subject Access Request –
Ms— has contacted us with a concern in relation to the way that her subject access request (SAR) has been dealt with by Caledonia Housing Association.
Ms–has raised concerns that third party information in relation to a neighbour who made a complaint relating to Ms — have been disclosed to her.
She has also noted that information in relation to this concern has not been disclosed.
The data subject has also advised us that she did not receive your organisation’s Customer Data Protection Notice or sign the relevant paperwork.
Finally Ms –has noted that she has concerns in relation to a Contact Report of the 15 September 2016 as she states that the information recorded is inaccurate and excessive.
The ICO’s role
Our role is to ensure that organisations follow the Data Protection Act (DPA) properly. If things go wrong we will provide advice and ask organisations to try to put things right. Our overall aim is to improve the way organisations handle personal information.
What happens next?
From the information provided, it seems likely that Caledonia are in breach of Principle 6 of the DPA which relates to an individual’s rights. This is because in the file notes provided to Ms — of 14 December 2016, it states that the information on permission requests had not originally been provided to her as part of her first SAR response. However it does seem that this information was provided to Ms — at a later date.
In relation to the fact that it was disclosed to Ms– who the complainant was regarding a neighbour complaint, please can you provide the ICO with further information. Please can you provide a summary of the reasons why this information was disclosed to the data subject?
Furthermore please can you outline in relation to the DPA, the reasons why the information regarding this complaint has been withheld from Ms — under the DPA. Please find our guidance on disclosing information in relation to complaints below:
s40 Access to information held in complaints files v3.0 (ico.org.uk)
The concern regarding the fact that Ms — was not provided with the organisations Customer Data Protection Notice relates to principle 1 of the DPA which states that data must be processed fairly and lawfully and in a way that data subjects would reasonably expect. Furthermore fair processing information should be provided regarding how information will be processed in order for organisations to be transparent.
In light of the concern raised by Ms — I would now advise that your organisation should adhere to your data protection policies and that measures should be put in place as remedial action in regards to this.
In relation to Ms –query regarding the accuracy of the Contact Report, please be advised that for the purposes of Data Protection, accuracy relates to the accuracy of a matter of fact. The content of the Contact Report consists of the opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections. Furthermore from the information provided by Ms –, your organisation will accommodate Ms –request to have excessive information removed. In light of this it does not appear that further involvement from the ICO in relation to this aspect of this concern is necessary at present.
Please can you provide me with the requested information requested above by 25 April 2017. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter, If you would like to discuss this case further please do get in touch.
ICO Statement
We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website
(www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Willow Manuel
Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
01625 545 655
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest.
Aberdeen Law Project kindly acted as my agent getting my 3rd SAR. This was what CHA claimed the ICO said, omitting the crucial points to engage in a deliberate act of deception.
———- Forwarded message ———- From: Lorna Miller <Lorna.Miller@caledoniaha.co.uk> Date: 3 January 2018 at 11:48 Subject: RE: Subject Access Request – Caledonia Housing Association (SAR012) To: Representation Team <representation@abdnlaszproject.com>
Dear
I can advise that no information in the Contact Report has been amended or removed, this is due to Caledonia waiting on Ms– providing us with what information she feels should be amended or removed.
The last correspondence we received on this matter was an email from Ms –, dated the 11th February stating that she would be seeking additional advice on this to make sure she was confident that it is done correctly. Please let me know if you would like a copy of this email, as it was out of the timeframe of the information provided in this latest subject access request.
This email was a reply to a letter emailed to Ms on the 8th February 2017, responding to a stage 2 complaint. Ms request to have information in the contact reports for the entry on the 15th September was addressed by advising the following “I have to advise that I do not believe that the Association has breached the Data Protection Act in relation to the way in which the meeting on 15 September was handled and recorded or other notes relating to your tenancy. I would restate our position that the note represents a summary overview of Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day, and as such it is a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view.” The letter also included an offer to amend the records “I would advise again however that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of your files as noted in previous email correspondence. I would also have to advise however that this would be as a goodwill gesture as opposed to any admission that information itself was incorrectly recorded.”.
On the 27th February 2017 we received a second Subject Access Request from Ms for records dated from 2ndNovember 2016 to March 2017, completed 5th April 2017.
When the ICO contacted us (11th April 2017) regarding Ms– complaint they advised that accuracy of information under the Data Protection Act relates to the accuracy of matter of fact and that the Contact Report consists of the opinions of * a professional and an account of her recollections. The ICO did not take further involvement in this matter as Ms– had advised that we were prepared to accommodate the request to remove excessive information.
On the 12th April we received the email from Ms– requesting that we cease communication with her, unless for repairs.
Our position still remains, we are happy to consider Ms — amendments to this entry on the Contact Report, and will amend this entry to note what parts Ms– is in disagreement with.
If you require any more information on this please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
Lorna Miller
Information Governance Officer
Caledonia Housing Association
As for stating ‘opinions of a professional and an account of her recollections” Cheryl Connelly kept interrupting me to write her notes (which was the only reason she came). I recorded the conversation and know the facts of what we were talking about, so recollections has nothing to do with it. Facts are facts and some of what she wrote was none of their business and they did not have my expressed permission to process/alter it, and therefore CHA did not have a legitimate reason to process in the first place. She also made up comments. I was happy to show the recording in its entirety to the sheriff with a written transcript, and what I was wanting removed, and I offered this in my court evidence form. I strongly object to the word professional, being used to describe anyone I have known from CHA,(or those protecting them). It is a self-proclaimed title and like everything else which comes out of this company, is entirely without substance to substantiate their claims.
Reference to the last paragraph on breaching confidentiality: “the housing officer is entitled to record the attendance…” but not to use it to commit fraud and write up sensitive or personal data without the tenants permission and without a legitimate reason for processing it; such as being none of CHA’s business.
Update 28.02.24 See more about why companies, authorities etc are enthusiatically gathering data – it is to be used against the data subject.
The name at the bottom is not the solicitor who represented CHA in court; that was Sarah Cooper (formerly Matheson).
Dated 27 June 2018
VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY AND HARASSMENT
The solicitor lied (at bottom of 1st page), that CHA don’t know what unannounced visits I am referring to, in an attempt to water down my violations of privacy and harassment complaint. Yet they are clearly discussed in communications to and from CHA and in his made up backtracking file notes!
Sent: 05 December 2016 14:33
To: Tim Calderbank <Tim.Calderbank@caledoniaha.co.uk> Subject: This is an informal conversation concerning my SAR
Dear Tim,
Having received some paperwork from my SAR I felt it was necessary to warn you prior to a meeting with MSP—- is arranging with yourself, that I am not particularly happy with the information CHA hold on me and would like it amended to record the actual truth. I have a little knowledge of the Data Protection Act and know that any information kept on the service users has to be accurate and up to date.
I would however, like to discuss with you sometime soon, how I can have my information corrected. Another issue which will have to be discussed is also as a result of the information in my SAR and that is my complete distrust I have in Cheryl Connolly’s ability to behave honourably. As a result of every interaction I have had with Mrs Connolly, she has demonstrated how rude and untrustworthy she is. I now wish to make a complaint to you about her, from which I expect to receive a written full apology from her to avoid me making it into a more formal complaint.
My complaints are as follows:
Two housing officers arrive unannounced at my address on two previous occasions, both this year I believe. I did not receive copies of this in my SAR so I cannot give you actual dates. Whilst Gary (sorry cant find his second name) led me out into my garden, Cheryl took the liberty of looking around my house and started in the sitting room, then I found her reading my messages on the blackboard in my kitchen.
She does not have the right to do this, especially as it was never made obvious why they turned up in the first place. I assumed it was to check on the alterations in the garden I had permission for but this does not explain why Cheryl was being nosy around the rest of my house. My garden is not in the sitting room, to the best of my knowledge, and she had absolutely no reason to be in there without my permission.
When Cheryl came to my house about my complaint about my neighbour Mrs —- son taking pictures over the fence of a planter I have in my garden, Cheryl cancelled appointments several times and then when she turned up, she plonked herself down on my settee and pulled out her mobile and chatted to someone. On my return from the kitchen into the room, she then put up her hand and gesticulated that I was to stay out of the room until she finished the call. She then apologised as an after thought; making some explanation to the urgency of her need to use the phone. I can honestly say I have never had anyone so blatantly rude, in my own home.
The conversation she had with me, further concludes that this housing officer was on some kind of power trip, trying to let me know she was in charge. She was patronising and insulting and unbeknown to Cheryl, I recorded her because I do not trust her. ( a bit naughty I know, but the end justifies the means)
My previous experiences of her have all been unfavourable, and the actions were necessary due to my ‘brainfog’ which puts me at a significant disadvantage when in discussion with others. To add insult to injury, she twisted around and blatantly lied when she wrote up her account of me, trying to discredit me, and I can prove it to anyone who I chose to reveal my recording to, including yourself. I have made this known to MSp–.
I will make no apologies for recording Cheryl Connolly, I feel the need to prove that I am honest, unlike Cheryl who tried to make out people in the neighbourhood are not feeding me the truth. Clearly she is projecting herself as she is the only person who has proved herself to be completely untrustworthy to me.
There are some other minor points such as how she has addressed me in her report, but the main issues are outlined above. I will raise them when we speak. I will also discuss how my SAR revealed confirmation that Lj does get preferential treatment when complaints are made.
I will be requesting the information from the SAR I made, that I did not receive, a.s.a.p. No doubt it will also prove to be revealing!
I look forward to hearing from you.
___________________________________________________________________________
(CHA withheld all data surrounding 2 unannounced visits to my home from my first SAR, I have reason to believe they were initiated by their favourite anti- social tenant, serial vexatious complainer L J and the gossip next door to me)
CHA claimed the staff did not make reports at the time, but Garry later added more detail to his storytelling, in his backtracking file notes, made up after he visited me in January 2017. He just slapped on a previous years date! see further down the page. He does this a lot, its so unprofessional and amateurish. It was presented in PDF in the second SAR,
Please be wary when dealing with CHA or their puppets:
As a result of my recording Cheryl Connelly, Garry Savage pulled out his phone when he was at my address, immediately after I mentioned Director Tim Calderbanks name. He apologised claiming “they make us report in”. Did he think I was taken in by this? Staff turn up unannounced, but Directors need to report in!!
He had obviously meant to turn on his phone before entering and then suddenly remembered. He was either recording me or had Tim listening in, to get his own back because I recorded and got evidence against Cheryl Connelly. Do not be taken in by them. I had a legitimate reason for recording her, but they did not have one for recording me. The reason they contacted me, was to push me through their pseudo complaint procedure find out what I had on them, so they could rewrite the facts.
After the first Case Management Discussion (CMD) in court, the solicitor asked to speak to us. Tim Calderbank pulled out his phone and carefully placed on his knee. The CEO would have been dying to know how they got on and I guess she was listening in. All she got was me deflecting their gas-lighting tactics! How disappointing.
I wonder if they recorded the Court case too! Narcissists believe rules, laws do not apply to them and they wrongly believe that they are cleverer than everyone else.
I would advise the least amount of communication anyone has with these people, the better it will be for them. Plus narcissists thrive on attention and get really upset when they are ignored. Unfortunately I am giving them attention by my website but it has to be done to warn/protect people. However, exposure is a narcissists nightmare!
This appeared after Director Garry Savage came to my home and was put in pdf format of 73 pages of second SAR.
File note 14/12/16
1.Information on permission requests not provided with SAR information
Two housing officers arriving at her home unannounced on two previous occasions this year (Ms—- was unable to provide actual dates)- she mentioned in one of the visits that one of the officers led her into the garden (she wasn’t sure but mentioned Garry ) whilst Cheryl remained in the house….
…On the second occasion she had advised again that the reason for the visit was not explained.
2.Vanessa Baxter advised that Susan Stewart and Carol Constable had visited to check on an internal threshold repair (whilst carrying out a joint visit to another neighbour and taking pictures for a repair quote). Cheryl could recall visiting once before meeting with her back in September this year but was unsure whether it was Garry Smith or George McLeod and could not recall if she stayed in the house as there would be no reason for her to record this…
To Garry Savage
2 Jan 2017 at 11:29 AM
Dear Garry
I have spent some time thinking about what to write and am forwarding some of my thoughts to you.
Taken from your last email…“Cheryl can also recall visiting your home sometime before this along with one of the Association’s Maintenance Officers (possibly Gary Smith or George McLeod) whilst carrying out various other visits jointly that day. However, Cheryl is unable to recall when exactly this visit was and the specific reason why Gary or George had arranged to call at your home on that day.”
Before Christmas, I had remarked to —-MSP that CHA housing officers appear to be doing their own thing, based on their individual personality traits rather than following any codes of practice. I would have thought it would be standard practice to make note of appointments and record the visit, including the reason why a visit would be necessary.
Poor work practices just make a convenient (but unconvincing), excuse to avoid revealing more information; CHA would not like the tenant to view. It conjures up images of CHA housing officers wandering aimlessly around their patch and randomly deciding who to visit.
To admit to failing to keep records of one appointment would be careless, but two to the same tenant is incredulous especially when there were two H.O. present on each occasion. Yet Cheryl wrote down notes in front of me when she last visited me at my home, after I said I have memory/concentration problems she announced she would take notes because she has these problems! I would like a copy of these notes because I have not received those either.
Its also quite astonishing she managed to write so many (of her versions) of the comments about my neighbours; she was very quick to tell me she was not allowed to discuss. If you cannot discuss 3rd parties then you certainly can’t write about them on my records either. I did not even know the surname of one of my neighbours until Cheryl pointed this out to me.
I would also like an explanation of why I was mainly referred to as Mrs W when my neighbours were always addressed with their full names. I think this is disrespectful. In my opinion, people who clearly treat others with contempt, as Cheryl does, should not be working with the public. When they cannot keep accurate records without the need to embellish, they should not be allowed access to confidential and sensitive information either. So much trouble can be caused by these failings.
It was also incredulous that Susan Stewart bothered me about a complaint from a deviant tenant but to actually consider asking me to either a) move the structure or b)replace the roof; when Susan had not even verified there was even sufficient validity to the complaint. It is absolutely outrageous that CHA would even consider these options, when the structure cost my son and myself so much money, hard work and pain, to build, just to appease this one neighbour who is known to cause trouble. Is there no limit to what CHA will do for her?
Incidentally, Susan did not ask me to remove the planters but to cover up the roof, which I flatly refused to do ( a different version to her written comments! ) Had anyone from CHA bothered to come to view the planter’s roof from LJ’s home, they would have realised that it was highly unlikely any reflection would have managed to find its way down the street into her window at any point. The roof is barely visible above the height of my fence……
… ( here I mentioned the sensitive data they held, but did not have a legitimate reason to process ).
…You are only required to maintain records which are pertinent to CHA business and these comments are deemed by me as being of a personal and sensitive nature and also factually incorrect. I want them removed. After all, you didn’t keep relevant records, you certainly shouldn’t be keeping irrelevant ones.
It is painfully obvious to me that not only do some of the staff fail to record information accurately, they like to embellish what the tenants say. Not surprising that I only received some of the information I requested. I would surmise from this that no formal training is required to become a housing officer with CHA and the staff are blissfully unaware of record keeping and ethics.
There is so much I can criticise about the few comments I did receive, but it is so upsetting for me to realise that I have in the past put my trust in the staff who are less than honourable. If people wish to be treated with respect, they need to remember it is a two way process.
(look at CHAs *disrespect for Data Protection, not only did they give me the anti-social tenants name over the phone, but they embedded it into my Subject Access Request! More details are in CH3.
After the Director Garry Savage came to my home, he made up many backtracking file notes to cover for *this in new notes dated 25/11/16 and again in 16/02/17 and then to the ICO.
They sent these ‘new’ file notes in my 2nd SAR at the bottom of the 73 pages in PDF, via email in 2017. As they made up these notes after the fact, they forgot they had falsely claimed I had made corporate complaints. I have never made any complaints about the contractors. The document below and then Garry Savages stating as a fact, I made complaints in the cover letter, are fraud. But I bet it came in handy when turning the contractors against us!
Now the corporate complaint disappears, in this made up file note which they dated as being 3 days before the above letter. Look at the year date on the actual corporate complaint form above: 2014 and 2016. This is what happens when pathological liars make things up as they go along and don’t follow policy and procedures. It is also the reason why they say ‘liars should have good memories’.
‘The garden ornament’ is a deliberately misleading statement to trivialise on paper what they were asking, as it is a huge structure.
Email below from Director Garry Savage after informing them of falsified reports written by Cheryl Connelly, and how they had withheld data about violations of my privacy from my first SAR.
On Friday, 6 January 2017, 14:13, Garry Savage <Garry.Savage@caledoniaha.co.uk> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Regarding our email correspondence from earlier in the week – I have been able to discuss your thoughts in detail with Tim and can advise on our own thinking following this.
In my discussion with Tim we reflected on the information that we have checked and provided to date as part of the subject access request and also the discussions that we have had with the relevant members of the staff team on this. We agreed from this that it would be difficult for us to fully resolve your concerns as we do not have records / notes of the other two visits that you have referred to and the staff members have been unable to provide any information on these other than that they have provided already.
Given this, I have to advise that we are unable to provide information about or notes of these visits as requested in your email. I would also advise however that we would be happy to re-visit the issue again if you are able provide information yourself that might help clarify the situation.
As regards the note of the meeting on 15 September that you expressed particular concerns about, our understanding is that the note represents Cheryl’s understanding and recollection of the discussion you had on the day and as such it’s a factual account from Cheryl’s point of view this includes the personal comments that you referred to.
From my discussion with Tim, however, I can advise that we would be agreeable to amending the sections of this record (and any other records within the information provided) that you feel yourself are factually incorrect. As regards your concern about the use of the term ‘Mrs W’ in the note, I am satisfied that that was more a case of a typing ‘short-cut’ being taken as opposed to any intention to be disrespectful to yourself.
More generally, we do accept the points made in your email relating to the importance of good record keeping and information management by the Association’s staff team in relation to service issues.
I can advise that over the coming months the Association will be providing data protection training for the wider staff team to ensure that there is a strong understanding across the Association of data protection good practice (including the accuracy of recorded information and the handling of subject access requests). I have agreed with Tim given the concerns that you have raised that we will ask the consultant we have appointed to provide the training to also highlight the importance of good record keeping as part of the training. We are confident that this will help ensure that we adhere to data protection requirements whilst also providing good customer service.
As regards the service concerns that you raised, I would advise again that we would happy to consider these in more detail as a Stage 2 (Investigation) Complaint as per our email correspondence in December. Again, both Tim and myself would be happy to meet with you as part of the investigation process to talk through your concerns in more detail, with a view to responding formally in writing to you on these in line with the Association’s Complaints Procedure.
Hopefully this information is of some help in explaining our thoughts on the situation.
Kind regards
(with reference to training…If staff and Directors haven’t grasped how to do their job in 15 years+ then no amount of training is going to change that! Its all written for show purposes, more word games to pretend they are doing things correctly).
ANOTHER VIOLATION OF PRIVACY-taking photos without permission.
After sending Garry the email instructing CHA to stay out of my way, CHA violated my privacy again. The same pattern; you tell them the shouldn’t do something and they do it again.
CHA withheld all reports on two violations of privacy, from my Subject Access Requests. When I pointed this out, Garry Savage produced file notes which he made up after the fact and placed in my next SAR to pretend they were valid, then denied their existence via the solicitor for show purposes to the court!
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” by Sir Walter Scott
I came home in October 2017 to find two men peering through a back bedroom window with a large lens camera, they refused to identify themselves and continued to the front of my house, taking photos of my sitting room, through the windows. They knew they were upsetting me and mocked me when I asked them to identify themselves and explain what they were doing.
When they had taken enough photos, one muttered ‘clerk of works checking on painting standards’, I watched them walk away to a Bell Group van and when I had eventually calmed down, I sent the communication below on their web page. I asked around and they never went near anyone else’s home.
This was clearly designed to harass me to cause further distress. I later discussed this with Police Scotland, who asked me if CHA were trying to drive me out of my home, as it is a criminal offence. They advised me to put up CCTV which I did. I had already told Garry Savage at our meeting, CHA should not be trying to drive the other good tenants out to protect the a.s.t.’s so his response was to engage in more dishonourable actions, to drive us out. CHA seriously need an investigation into misconduct etc.
Communication to Bell-group painters via a communications box on their website.
‘I have had my home painted by yourselves under a contract with Caledonia Housing in—-. I came back home after going to shops to find 2 men taking photos close up of the front and back of my home. When I asked them who they were they seemed somewhat reluctant to identify themselves, but when I pressed them, they said they were clerk of works and were taking photos to check painting standards. They did not show me identification. Clearly when someone is taking photos of people’s homes without their permission it is good practice to ask permission first and to show identification. I would like to know if you can verify that these men were authorised by yourself or by Caledonia housing, and could I possibly have copies of photos sent to my email address to prove to me there was nothing sinister going on. They took photos of the front and back of my home yet walked past other tenants home. If you cannot identify them I will have to report this as sinister to the police.
Take note they ignored my request for the photos in the response below.
’Stephen Duncan <s.duncan@bell-group.co.uk> 04.10.17 Today at 15:36
Message body
Hi ————
The guy taken photos was Ian Brown the clerk of works from Caledonian housing I myself was with him this morning
We are sorry that this may have caused you some distress we did identify ourselves as being who we said we were .
We were down having our usual site meeting on a Thursday .
Kind Regards
Stephen
Stephen Duncan | Contract Supervisor | ( 01224 891032 |Mob 07585954135 7 01224 894476 | s.duncan@bell-group.co.uk
Despite claiming the above date was a Thursday, it was actually a Wednesday!
For the purpose of misleading the court (in the above solicitors letter page 1,) CHA s solicitor falsely claimed to the Sheriff, CHA were pricing up rough casting, which is a different story to the one in the contractors email above.
This was not even remotely plausible as they were in the middle of painting the outside walls, windows and doors which they only do at least every 5 years. There was nothing wrong with the rough casting and why would anyone believe that after painting the external walls etc that they would then come around to do expensive, unnecessary remedial work on the walls and then have to repaint them?
Neither was it mentioned in CHA’s planned schedules for that year or the following one. They lied but it was accepted by Sheriff J Martin-Brown in court because she was only interested in CHA’s best interests, not the facts and evidence.
They also painted our bedroom windows shut, several days after they had painted them, by touching them up. I had to use a knife around the windows twice, before my son forced them open. I slightly damaged the wood. Anyone who has work carried out by CHA, should be very wary as they are capable of anything and so are their puppets! Service users should not have to be put at risk; to stroke the egos of CHA’s narcissists.
WITHHOLDING SERVICES AGAIN AND PUTTING OBSTACLES IN OUR WAY
The kitchen we ended up having to buy.
The top image shows one of the blackboards which often displayed reminders of appointments and other personal data. Photographs of personal possessions/ information violated my privacy and is against data laws.
A long period of damp related issues caused a book lice infestation. Addressing these issues was the responsibility of CHA but they took their time in doing something about the humidity. They then maliciously caused us more financial hardship after asking for them to help reduce our electric bill. They also left us without a fully functioning kitchen so we had to buy our own. It took us two months before we were able to install a full kitchen ourselves, due to the unexpected expense and my son having to do the work himself. But it is entertainment to CHA and their equally sick, twisted supporters.
When my daughter informed CHA that my son and me could not use the kitchen, due to the mites, she was told “tell your mother to put ant poison in her fridge and it will solve all her problems”. (The conversation was withheld from my 3rd SAR but it recognises a phone call took place). This was Tim Calderbank advising his staff. This man was in charge of Housing support services (now customer services) for some of society’s most vulnerable! Nobody should have to trust a malicious bully to look after their vulnerable relatives!
We knew we would not get anything sensible out of CHA, so my son in- law phoned Rentokil. They were great, with advice and said spraying was not enough and emphasised that we must get rid of the source. We informed Ian Beeching (CHA Team Leader) at the time, that we believed a floor hatch in a cupboard was the potential source of damp infestation, as it existed for a very long period prior to the infestation (I had reported it several times). The damp mouldy patch was caused by condensation or a leak, from a dripping pipe on to the floor. I said I would not be happy having to go through the expense and inconvenience again if it reoccurred, so they needed to deal with the source.
CHA completely distanced themselves from helping with the kitchen, until pushed into it, but only arranged for the spraying of the kitchen and they even messed us about over that too, and begrudgingly removed one large appliance because the local recycling centre was closed for 4 months. It was too big to move ourselves, like we had done with the other appliances.
My daughter, on a weekly basis had to phone the contractor Grahams Pest control, (even when she was abroad during this period,) to get lab results from samples, which originally, they claimed would take 2 days, but actually took them a month to identify the pest(book lice). I believe CHA instructed the contractors to cause delays, especially as after 2 weeks Grahams claimed they had lost the sample and needed another. We had to stay at my daughter’s home because we could not use the kitchen. CHA happily took our rent money for the home we could not even occupy at the time. My son said we will just have to install our own kitchen, as he knew they were putting obstacles in our way to harass us.
In court during the first Case Management Discussion (CMD), CHA’s solicitor lied and claimed they had offered us a kitchen and that they could have had the kitchen taken away and cleaned. This was all news to us, and if it had been true, there would have been evidence to support what they said; either in my 3rd SAR see above, or in a letter to and from us. Take note there is no mention of offering me a kitchen or cleaning the old one, just notes about removing the kitchen and spraying. I said to the Sheriff, “ask them to prove it and anything else they claim, as they will fall flat on their faces”..but I was ignored.
We would not have bought a kitchen if we had a choice. I had to borrow money and my son paid for most of it. We also had to buy large and small appliances and replace kitchen equipment as we did not know what we were dealing with. My support worker was also outraged by CHA’s lies in court (she has seen the whole evidence and knew the bigger story) and spoke up as did my son, but they too were also ignored by Sheriff J Martin-Brown.
CHA’s solicitor, in a second Case Management Discussion (CMD) pressed the second sheriff into turning my claim into an alteration issue (at that time, he did not know my side and the evidence), to water down my claim of CHA withholding services (a criminal offence), and causing us unnecessary financial hardship and inconvenience. CHA claimed in court they would pay us for the kitchen alterations after we moved out. They had no intention of paying us money or doing anything at the time, so they would have stolen our kitchen and in order to get them to pay us for it. We would have had to take them back to court and pay all the court fees and their expenses.
(The serial vexatious complainer a.s.t. harasses tenants, gets repairs and maintenance on demand without any problems, because CHA looks after their own kind! )
(my scribbles were from my notetaking at the time)
The job sheets above prove how long it took to get around to treating the source of infestation as they were clearly hoping it would reoccur, after all our expense and trouble in the first place. CHA gloats at other people’s misfortune because that’s the kind of people they are…twisted narcissists. The same joiner Jim Cathro, who messed us about over door handles, delayed doing the source of infestation too and then he went to work for Novus. He then tried to blame the previous company for the delay, hoping I would not recognise he was the same joiner. What a farce! CHA is full of lame excuses and encourages the same in their puppets! Then CHA blame the contractors behind their backs.
CHA INSTRUCTS CONTRACTORS TO TAMPER WITH OUR ELECTRICITY
This is dangerous, especially as they sealed us in our home with paint and the electricity was long overdue to be checked.
Due to financial hardship caused by very high electricity charges, I could not heat the house as needed, (one heater only was being used)I had made a point that I did not want to continue heating a huge hot water cylinder, as we don’t have a bath and only needed to heat water for small amounts, and I have a cold fill dishwasher and washing machine.
The first I knew another huge cylinder was coming was when two electricians were carrying it along my passage. The electricians stated CHA said I had to have it. Two small appliances on the wall, which heat as they go along, would have been a cheaper solution for us and for CHA and would have only required one electrician. But I guess CHA and their puppets would not have had the opportunity to further increase our bills!
Many months later, when the overflow started pouring out water, the plumber came and he said the thermostat had been turned up high, resulting in the huge cold-water tank in the attic reaching a very high temperature. He tried to correct the problem only to find he could not turn off the electricity to the cylinder, because it had bypassed the breaker box, he said it was dangerous. He was noticeably shocked and he immediately phoned it in to McGills, his employer. You would have to be the worst electricians in the world, to not know that the cylinder should be connected to the breaker box, especially already having disconnected the previous one.
When one of the original electricians came to undo what he had done, he gave no explanation or apology, and just remarked “it was not dangerous, I will put it right”. This is also a clear example of how CHA uses company finances and contractors for its own personal twisted agendas to harass tenants. I bet other tenants have been treated the same way. It needs investigating; as I am not the only person CHA has turned against.
Culpable and Reckless Conduct – Crime.Scot
“Culpable and reckless conduct is deliberate conduct that exposes an individual, or the public generally to significant risk to life or health…there is no requirement for actual injury to have been caused; the offence is the exposure to the risk..”
Image below was from gov website. https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2008/04/07144231/69
(Electric was also long overdue to be checked when son left in March 2019)
We turned off the hot water as we still did not know if had been done properly (the word of anyone connected to CHA could not be trusted after all this and other things they had done to us) and we soon received a £253 refund and reduced monthly payments from the electric company, for the first time in years as indicated in the bill further down.
Instead of reducing my electric so I could afford more heating, CHA had seized the opportunity to maliciously cause harm. These were financial and health/safety and hygiene issues and electric shock and fire hazards. In addition; by having to use cold water to wash restricting movement in my arthritic hands, and having to carry kettles of boiling water about, if I needed to heat the water in the bathroom.
According to 04/07/17 in a report in my 3rd SAR, an email was to follow about the above, but I have not had access to this information because it was withheld from my SAR and when I asked via the court; for communication, and worksheets from McGill, I only received the work sheets. CHA had already blocked my first attempt to get any information via the court. They did not want me or the Sheriff to see the whole picture. The fact the job ticket states “still live” says it all and CHA claiming there was a fault on the cylinder to the court, does not explain why it was not connected to the breaker box!
Below is evidence of reduced payments for electric after turning it off, (because we could not trust CHA or their contractors) and the refund we received. Would anyone trust these people?
How corrupt and rotten is the Scottish legal system/govt which refuses to protect the public, but covers for those who engage in criminal, dangerous behaviour? They are all just criminals, protecting criminals and should be treated as such. No-one should be put in a position whereby they have to deal with dishonourable people. Protect yourselves and gather evidence.
