| Topic: | Does corporate LBH hold grudges for life, or is it simply dysfunctional? | Forum Home |
| Posted by: | Phil Andrews | |
| Date/Time: | 02/11/21 16:29:00 |
| I haven't posted anything of a contentious nature for a very long time, as my years of local political involvement are long behind me. But a few recent events have moved me to consider whether being involved at any time in any kind of activity without the jurisdiction of the political in-crowd triggers the issue of a one-way ticket to Coventry from which there is never any prospect of return, and whether such banishment is extended to any who may come into contact with me, no matter how unwittingly. A year or so I contacted an Isleworth ward councillor, of whom I had heard only good things, to seek his help on behalf of a local man who was being evicted from his family home following the death of his mother. The man in question was not a personal acquaintance of mine nor somebody with any history of community activity or known hostility towards the established order. Just a guy with a problem who had been given my name by a member of the public who had mistakenly thought I was still a councillor. From the man who really is a councillor I received no response - not an offer of help, not a refusal of help, not an acknowledgement of receipt, not even a stern entreaty to go away. Nothing. In case my communication had become lost in the system I chased it up. Again, nothing. More recently I had occasion to contact adult care at LBH to express my concerns about the safety of a vulnerable adult who was being cared for in my locality. The e-mail address I used was, not unreasonably, the one published on the council website. No reply was forthcoming. Bearing in mind that a vulnerable person's safety was potentially at risk, I pursued the matter with a follow-up e-mail. Response came there none. This was followed up with a Stage One complaint. This seems also to be being ignored. Now when I was an elected member in a previous life I know there were individuals who were deemed by persons unknown, but who seemed to wield unchallenged and unchallegeable authority, to be "vexatious complainants", whose communications could be safely consigned to the shredder without fear of reproach. Usually these were not people whose complaints were actually vexatious, but rather individuals who raised matters of concern which were considered inconvenient. I personally put a stop to the mistreatment of one local campaigner who was being blackballed under this mysterious unwritten decree. But as I have not made a complaint to the London Borough of Hounslow, vexatious or otherwise, for at least the last eleven years, it would be rather stretching things for the entire organisation to be ignoring me under the terms of this particular dictum. So could this simply be good old-fashioned inefficiency? After all I am sure no responsible local authority would be so petulant, not to mention nasty and downright reckless, as to allow the plight of a vulnerable adult whose safety is potentially in jeopardy to be overlooked in pursuance of a decade-old grudge? I would be interested to receive a response from anyone who is in a position to comment on such a matter. Should that be you, you'll have the honour of being the first. |