Parliament intended that statutory powers were exercised in good faith and for the purpose for which they were conferred.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office was designed to target ‘the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power’ in the event of a person suffering loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful or carried out with reckless disregard or indifference to the consequences.

The offence of ‘Malfeasance’ takes the reckless element a stage further and is when a public official intentionally does something either legally or morally wrong which he had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons. It is conduct in violation of the law.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is an intentional tort that can be committed only by a public official and the core concept is abuse of power. This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty, bad faith, and improper purpose.

Power is granted to a public official for a public purpose. It is an abuse of that power for him to exercise it for his own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge, or merely self-advancement.

If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences the official cannot argue that he did not intend the consequences of his actions or that they were not aimed at the person who he knew would suffer loss.

In a legal system underpinned by the rule of law, administrative power must be exercised in good faith and not for ulterior or improper purposes. Where it can be shown that a body or official was not acting in good faith, liability in the tort of misfeasance in public office might exist.

The constituent elements of the tort of misfeasance are as follows:

• That the act or conduct has been committed by a public officer.
• The act or conduct must have been done by him in the purported exercise of his power as a public officer.
• That the act or conduct must have been done either:

a) maliciously; or

b) knowing that the impugned act or conduct is invalid/unauthorised and knowing that it will probably injure the claimant.

• The act or conduct must cause loss or harm to the claimant.

There are two forms of liability for misfeasance. The first form of the tort involves targeted malice by a public officer, or in other words, conduct specifically intended to injure a person. Where a public officer had this intention, it is irrelevant whether the public officer exceeded his powers or acted within the letter of the law.

The second form of liability applies where the public officer acts knowing he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act will probably injure a person or persons. The element of bad faith arises, as the public officer does not have an honest belief that his conduct is lawful. In this scenario, it is not necessary to show that the public officer acted with the purpose or object of inflicting harm on the claimant.

Misfeasance does not require a claimant to identify a legal right that is being infringed or a particular duty owed to him, beyond the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate or reckless abuse of power by a public officer.

The tort of Misfeasance in Public Office is concerned with preventing public officials from acting beyond their powers to the injury of the citizen, not with compelling them to exercise the powers they do have, particularly when they have a discretion whether to exercise them or not.

1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.
2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.
3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example, taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.
4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit, for example, where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance.

It appears that the paid officials lied to planning committee members when telling them that I had built a new bungalow on a site that had a bungalow on many years ago but which was no longer in existence. They weren’t aware that I had properly purchased a bungalow with long-standing, established residential user rights and that the actual bungalow was still in existence.

Councillors were led to believe that demolition was the only course of action and they were not informed of the correct procedure, as determined by the Town and Country Planning Act, which required me as the owner to return the property to what it was before any alleged breach took place.

A Councillor has admitted that Council officials deceived the Planning Committee leading up to the demolition of my home. It was also revealed that the Council instigated a crude ‘smear campaign’ against me in order to unfairly influence Councillors to vote for the demolition of my home.

This reinforces the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator and Accredited Mediator who also concluded that the Planning Committee were deceived when they reached the decision to demolish my home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

In a statement, dated May 2009, the Councillor wrote:

“We were misled about the demolition of your bungalow…but at the time I was new to the council and naive enough to believe that officers don’t lie!!!!! 

As I was new to the council, I naively believed that the officers would always tell us the truth; something that I came to realise in later years just was not true, as some of them would mislead the council with half-truths or by omissions.

I had a falling out with John Clayton (who was then the Director of Planning and Technical Services) over the way that he misled councillors, and the galling thing is that he professes to be a ‘Christian’ and I understand is very devout when he carries the cross at the church whilst he was involved in misleading the council.

I remember John Clayton stating that: “Mr. Moulder was not married to the woman that he was living with” At the time I did not take much notice of this statement as it would not influence me either way, but I now realise that this was character assassination obviously designed to persuade certain sections of the council to support his view that the property should be demolished, even though this could not even be considered as a planning consideration.

I also remember, and I must admit I was taken in by, Mr Clayton’s statement to the Planning Committee that this was not the first time that such enforcement action had been taken against Mr. Moulder as he had been involved in something similar with another local authority.

As I have stated, I was new to the Council and was very naïve and did believe that the advice given to us by officers would be true and unbiased. In subsequent years I came to realise that some of the officers could not be trusted and would mislead by the use of half truths and omissions to get their own way”.

It is evident that the Director of Planning lied when he told the Planning Committee that I had been involved in a dispute of a similar nature with another local authority. I can state categorically that I have never before been the subject of enforcement action nor, at any time, had even the slightest dispute with any other local authority.

I can only assume the Director of Planning made such a false statement in order to unfairly influence the Planning Committee to reach a decision that accorded with his desires.

There is irrefutable evidence that the Council’s action was founded on deceit and incorrect and misleading advice. The present administration is aware of this but continue their persecution in an attempt to cover-up the corruption while at the same time Councillors are protecting the wrongdoings of the paid officials. It appears that the more evidence I collect the more it points to a criminal aspect.

When I contacted Conservative District Councillor Frayne, he replied:

“I have now read again your letter and am struck by your composure. By now I would have been throwing things around. From what I’ve heard you have at very least been diddled by DDC and it seems there is an impenetrable wall around their actions.”

“I cannot abide all this deviousness and naturally cannot put my true thoughts in writing.”

I’m not certain why he couldn’t put his true thoughts in writing, but it seems this is a big part of the problem within Dover District Council. There are many good councillors who are kept in check by the ‘dishonest’ ones running the show. Consequently those who do become aware of incidences of corruption do nothing.

They also stated that they would return my property to ‘rough grassland’ and in the process make me homeless.

Return to ‘rough grassland’ is an extraordinary statement to make because it has never been rough grassland. Research indicates, that if anything, the land was woodland prior to the construction of the bungalow in 1928.

Since that time I have had no contact from DDC and if there was reasonable excuse for the delay then they should have stated this in a timely way. Otherwise what was the point of them coming just prior to Christmas, other than to cause harassment?

Certain Dover District planning personnel are a law unto themselves. They’re an arrogant bunch that naturally assumes that what they say is gospel and expect everyone to kowtow to their demands.

It is not the Council’s duty to deceive, employ dubious tactics or punish people.

Various people who have taken an interest in my case have suggested that Dover Council must be waging a vendetta against me. That could be the case but I’m not sure, as it may merely be a need to cover up the original unlawful action carried out by the previous administration. I can think of no other reason why the Council would pursue an action that is so disproportionate and blatantly unjustified.

If Dover Council is waging a vendetta against me then it might have started as far back as June 1984 when I purchased my bungalow. Within days Mr Richards, an Area Planning Officer with Dover District Council, visited me. He was an extremely abusive and aggressive little man who made veiled threats before leaving. It was impossible to engage in a civil conversation with him so I immediately wrote a letter to David Sturt, the Chief Planning Officer, requesting a meeting in order to discuss the matter. He did not grant me a meeting but merely referred me back to Richards. Things did not get off to a good start!

There is overwhelming evidence to prove that DDC acted unlawfully when they demolished my bungalow and that may explain why their various reports and press releases have more to do with trickery than they do with the truth.

It does seem strange that Dover Council are not concerned with the truth, but seem more interested in being adversarial in order to disguise their original, unlawful action. They continually suppress any evidence that supports my case while their various reports are written in a biased, prejudicial way with their evidence being tainted as a result.

There are numerous examples of the Council’s ongoing deceit and dubious tactics and I have listed a few, as follows:

Dover District Council was hell-bent on destroying my home and in 1989 they succeeded. To achieve that, the Planning Department deceived the Planning Committee by falsely stating that I had erected a new bungalow. Evidence proves that the Planning Committee’s decision to demolish my home was based on false information presented to them by the planning department. This is confirmed by the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator. In his report into my complaint he states:

6.10     After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

6.11 This was maladministration.

Before Dover Council demolished my bungalow I legally sited a mobile home adjacent to it. This made it exempt from enforcement action because it was ancillary to the primary use of the land and continued, uninterrupted, the lawful residential use of the land. Despite that the Council unlawfully issued an enforcement notice on the 27 February 1990, ordering its removal.

In 2001 I submitted a planning application and whilst this planning application was being processed I sent a letter, dated 8 May 2001, to the case officer Mr J. Peall, informing him that I wanted my representative to attend the forthcoming planning meeting. I also requested a copy of his planning report. I did not receive a reply to this letter, thus both requests were ignored. I wrote again on 21 May 2001 and sent this letter by recorded delivery but this letter was also ignored. On Friday 25 May 2001 I telephoned DDC planning department to request answers to my enquiry. I explained my concerns to Mr Wallace and he stated that my planning application didn’t go to planning committee but had been refused by delegated decision. Mr Peall knew full well, when I wrote to him, that he had no intention of presenting my application to the Planning Committee and chose not to inform me but to blatantly ignore my letters.

During the course of events between 2002 and 2004 Dover Council Planning Officer, Mark Mortimer, prepared a ‘report’. Tim Flisher, the Council’s Development Control Officer, instigated the saga of the ‘Mortimer report’ and I requested a copy because he placed great emphasis on its importance and explicitly gave that as a reason why he could not progress matters. There were no less than fifteen letters exchanged with the Council relating to Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ and in view of such extensive correspondence over this specific document it is reasonable to assume that it did in fact exist. If it did not exist why did Tim Flisher refuse to release the document to me and why did Lee May (Council solicitor) quote relevant sections and subsections of the Freedom of Information Act in order to support his refusal to release this document to me? It didn’t make sense for the Council to go to such great lengths to refuse something that didn’t exist. Why did such a critical document never materialise? It might lead one to conclude that the document has been suppressed or destroyed because it contained information, which if released, could compromise the Council’s position.

In 2005 I submitted a planning application and Dover District Council started their dirty tricks again. The planning department tampered with the wording of my application and their planning report contained incorrect statements, misleading information and was written in a biased way designed to ensure a refusal. I withdrew my application for those reasons and submitted a formal complaint to the Council’s Professional Standards Department.

The Professional Standards Investigator upheld my complaint and found Dover District Council guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts. The Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, refused to accept his Investigator’s findings and informed me that that no further action would be taken in connection with the investigation or, indeed, in connection with my complaint, probably because of the calamitous implications its acceptance would have for the Council. The Professional Standards Investigator has not worked for the Council since.

“Unwise prosecution is an appalling waste of money”

A CROWN court judge has slammed Thanet council for an “appalling waste of public money” after prosecuting a Ramsgate man for breaching an enforcement notice over unauthorised development in his garden.

Judge Timothy Nash described the case as a nonsense and refused to fine Bernard Baldwin because it had cost him enough already.

He added that if there was a way he could order the council to pay Baldwin’s costs, he would.

The judge made his comments as he sentenced 64-year-old Bald­win who had admitted two offences relating to land at Pegwell Road, Ramsgate.

Sentence had, in fact, been brought forward because Bald­win is due to go into hospital for major surgery and Judge Nash commented that he did not want to add to Baldwin’s anxieties.

He said: “When the case was opened to me it passed through my mind that those people who seek to complain about the bureaucracy and red tape in Brussels, should look no further than Thanet District Council’s plan­ning authority.”

He added that ironically one of the photos used as an exhibit in the case showed two donkeys looking over a fence. “It is sometimes said the law is an ass, I say no more,” he said.

“You are in the dock because some well-intending person made a complaint to the council and the council then embarked on a course which wisdom and hindsight, aided by even the vaguest objectivity, would have revealed to them was unwise. “I hesitate to think what this case has cost the taxpayers of Thanet.”

“It is all an appalling waste of public and private money. All because your paddock was a matter of feet too high at one end and five feet or so high at the other. This case is a nonsense.”

“I have to deal with you in a way that is sensible and fair. Your counsel says I should fine you. No, I am not going to do that. You have paid enough of a price already. I could conditionally discharge you, I am not going to do that either because that means you are a hostage to any action the council may hereafter take. You have heard what Thanet District Council is asking by way of costs, you are not paying costs to anybody.”

He then wished Baldwin well saying he hoped the news from his surgery was good.

“When two or more people agree to deprive a person of something that belongs to him, or in the alternative ignore his proper rights, the law allows a charge of conspiracy to defraud based on dishonesty and suppression of evidence and a custodial sentence would follow”

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do something illegal, or to do something legal by illegal means. It is not even necessary to establish that the act they contemplated was criminal.

There are two categories of conspiracy which are criminal even though the agreed object would not be criminal if done by one person alone.

1. Conspiracy to commit a civil wrong.
2. Conspiracy to commit an act which is neither a crime nor a civil wrong, but which can be calculated to ‘injure the public’.

The penalties for conspiracy are a fine or imprisonment. There is no limit. A court can pass a heavier sentence for conspiracy to commit an offence than for the offence itself.

The fact that a person doesn’t have to commit an offence or break a law before he can be charged with conspiracy has not been overlooked by the police.

The statutory offence of criminal conspiracy:The Criminal Law Act 1977 redefined conspiracy and put it on a statutory footing. The offence-creating provision is section 1(1). So far as material for present purposes section 1(1), as substituted by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, provides:

‘…if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions … (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement …he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.’

The offence therefore lies in making an agreement. Implicitly, the subsection requires also that the parties intend to carry out their agreement. The offence is complete at that stage. The offence is complete even if the parties do not carry out their agreement.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

• Knowing when to come in out of the rain
• Why the early bird gets the worm
• Life isn’t always fair
• And, maybe it was my fault

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Gwyn Prosser has three homes paid for by the state yet he was a member of a planning committee which voted to enter my property and destroy my home. This action not only breached two sections of the Town and Country Planning Act but made a family with two children homeless.

In 2004 I wrote to Gwyn Prosser, when he was New Labour MP for Dover, asking for his assistance in resolving my dispute with the council and explained that my letters to the Planning Department and various District Councillors had been ignored. I asked him if he would allow me time to discuss this matter further at his next available surgery.

He wrote back informing me that he was a Member of the Opposition Group on the Council at the time my home was demolished and he had a recollection of the course of events that led to demolition. He didn’t agree to meet me but said that he would write to Dover Council’s Chief Executive.

Mr Prosser wrote back to me some time later advising me that there was little he could do at this stage. We exchanged a few more letters and I provided him with more factual information but no progress was made. I got the impression that he was not concerned about the Council’s wrongdoing.

During 2006, whilst gathering evidence against the Council, I discovered that at the time the order was given to demolish my home, not only was Mr Prosser a Member of the Opposition Group on the Council, he was also a Member of the Planning Committee that gave the demolition order.

When I discovered that fact I wrote to him and asked the specific question:

“Are you aware that Council Officials misled the Planning Committee and the Planning Inspectorate in order to achieve their aim to demolish my home?”

I explained to him that this had been confirmed following an investigation commissioned by the Chief Executive and the subsequent report highlighted serious failings of both the Planning and Legal departments.

He didn’t answer my question so I wrote and asked him again. Once more he refused to answer! It makes me wonder why. Perhaps the planning committee were fully aware of what they were doing and were not being misled. If so that makes them complicit in the criminal act of demolishing my home.

We exchanged a few more letters but Mr Prosser didn’t seem very helpful. In fact he told me that he wouldn’t help pursue protracted grievances that were the responsibility of the constituent. He added that if I did attend a ‘surgery’ he would allow me fifteen minutes of his time but not time to re-visit the ‘unfortunate events of the past twenty two years’.

• Mr Prosser obviously realises there has been a wrongdoing and a criminal act committed, so why does he want to ignore it?
• Is our local Member of Parliament content that Dover District Council acts above the law and should it be asked, is he part of the problem?
• When he was on the planning committee was he deceived or was he in fact an active, knowing part of the wrong and the public deception that followed?
• If it was an ‘unfortunate event’ but a genuine mistake, what is he afraid of in helping to put it right?

It is important to emphasise that DDC were found guilty of maladministration with injustice regarding the demolition of my home by the outcome of their own investigation.

Whilst Mr Prosser appears to be genuinely concerned about Dover town he isn’t willing to help remedy a proven issue of maladministration and injustice within Dover District Council.

Is it naive for a constituent to expect their MP to abhor a proven wrong carried out by a public funded body?

In connection with the much publicised MPs’ expenses scandal This Is Kent reported:

Dover and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser’s expenses revealed

Thursday, June 25, 2009 – This is Kent

• A PANASONIC TV costing £718
• A £200 TV stand
• A £330 bed
• A £170 armchair 

They are just some of the items Dover and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser has paid for with YOUR cash.

Using the second homes allowance, covering the cost of having somewhere to live in London while carrying out Parliamentary work, the Labour backbencher also used taxpayers cash to buy £229 light fittings, £199.50 blinds and pot plants worth £49.99.

The claims were made between 2005 and 2007.

The former seaman, who has two flats in the capital and a family home in River, also racked up £11,118.66 in food bills from April 2004 to March 2008 and claimed £3,334.13 in January 2006 for items which have been blacked out by the Commons authorities on expenses documents made public last week.

On top of Mr Prosser’s salary, which was upped from £61,820 a year to £64,766 on April 1, the father-of-three has also claimed for items including £32.50 for Fairtrade coffee and hot chocolate for his Dover office, £24 for a toaster, £229.99 for a washing machine, £219 for flooring, £35 for kitchen utensils and £44 for a fan.

This is in addition to monthly mortgage interest payments ranging from £765 to £913, £650 of public money he used to pay his brother Huw to lay flooring at one of his London properties in 2006, £375 of incidental expenses for office costs towards a wifi laptop bought from ebay and a whopping £769 to have his yearly tax returns done. Regular claims were also made for utilities bills and for BT and two mobile phone service providers.

In March Mr Prosser slammed attempts to keep expense claims under wraps saying secrecy shattered the public trust in MP’s. He told the Express:

“There is the impression that we are all crooks.”

Mr Prosser, elected in 1997, has defended the claims, saying: “When my washing machine at home blows up I pay for that and all other things for my house in Dover I pay for but there are additional costs for having a home in London and if I didn’t have to live away I wouldn’t have those costs.”

The father-of-three has expressed dismay at the huge swathes of information blacked out by Parliamentary authorities and has offered to show the Express unredacted copies of the documents at the end of this week.

He said: “The Clerk of the House and Chief Executive gave written warning to all MPs in all parties that publishing their accounts in their raw condition could make us liable for prosecution under the Data Protection Act. In my view they have been over protective and the whole-scale redaction of documents has only served to reinforce people’s views that there’s a big cover-up going on.

“Like most of my colleagues I have got nothing to cover up and as long as I can protect the privacy of my staff’s personal details and bank account numbers, I am more than willing to invite the local press to my office to examine my unredacted accounts. Once I have assurances of the legal position I’ll be pleased to publish the lot – without redaction – on my website.”

Tory parliamentary hopeful Charlie Elphicke said items such as food should not be claimed for. He said: “We are in a deep recession and hard-working families struggle to buy basic food, knives and forks, toasters and a TV licence. Many families can’t afford to replace a washing machine. They will be asking how it can be right that an MP should be able to claim these things on the public ticket. I struggle to understand how it can be appropriate under any circumstances to claim for food but rather than commenting on Mr Prosser I am more interested in reform and rebuilding trust. We need to move forward.”

And The Daily Telegraph carried the following report:

Gwyn Prosser paid his brother, from his taxpayer-funded expenses, to carry out work on his London flat – despite the fact that he lived almost 200 miles away.

His brother, Huw Prosser, who lived near Swansea, was paid £650 of public money to lay flooring at the flat in 2006.

The same year, Gwyn Prosser also made claims totalling £2,782 for work at another flat he owned in London, even though it had not been his designated second home for three years and he was renting it out.

The MP bought his first London flat in Elephant and Castle upon his election in 1997. It was his designated second home until 2003, when he bought a second flat a 10-minute walk away and rented out the first property.

He changed his second home designation to the new flat, but in March 2006 Mr Prosser attempted to recoup the costs of work on his first flat three years previously.

In the local newspaper, dated 23 April 2009, it was reported that Dover’s MP, ‘Three Homes’ Gwyn Prosser had claimed £91,463 in expenses on his second home while earning income from letting out his third home. Mr Prosser owns his home in his constituency and two London flats.

The following is an extract from a report in the Dover Express of 14 February 2008:

‘Three homes’ Gwyn wants property reform

DOVER and Deal MP Gwyn Prosser has called for a reform of the system that allows MPs to build up property portfolios using taxpayers’ cash despite buying two London homes using cash from a parliamentary housing allowance himself.

The Labour MP was revealed as one of 43 MPs declaring rental income from properties in London or their constituencies while claiming the additional cost allowance. This allowance should be used for mortgage interest and not for capital repayments. The maximum pay out is £23,083 a year. Mr Prosser has claimed £17,713 from the allowance.

He owns two London properties, a two-bed flat which he stays in while in London and a one-bed flat near the Elephant and Castle, which he rents to tenants. He also owns a family home in the affluent River area of Dover.

But Mr Prosser said his allowance has only been used for interest payments although he agrees the system is open to abuse. He said: “I would really welcome a complete reform of the system. There has been much discussion about MPs and some have been abusing the system to a severe degree and that tars us all with the same brush. I was elected in 1997 and I started to buy a one-bed flat in London to live in. I didn’t know if I could afford it and I paid a deposit out of my own savings. I started paying the mortgage with my own money but was drawing the interest element from the fees office. It was no longer fit for purpose so in 2003 I put it on the market and looked for a two-bed flat. It did not sell but I needed to go ahead with my purchase and the estate agent suggested I let it. I have just continued letting it since then.”

Mr Prosser said the rent payments offer little profit and mainly cover the mortgage repayments although he admitted the property is a capital asset.

He added: “It’s all completely within the rules.”

www.thisiskent.co.uk

If you would like to know more about Gwyn Prosser, his Parliamentary work including questions he raises, plus where he features in the expenses table then go to… theyworkforyou.com

The original action by Dover District Council, when they destroyed my bungalow in 1989, was unlawful and therefore it follows that every action that the Council has taken against me since, is also unlawful.

The current action is a continuation of events which are a direct consequence of the council demolishing my home. Sometime after I was evicted from my property my neighbours contacted me to say that my garden was being used as a local dumping ground, so when somebody wanted to use my land as an allotment, it seemed a good idea to keep the fly tippers away. But it wasn’t a good idea and in fact made matters worse because the person who used it liked collecting scrap vehicles.

Despite the Council destroying my home and evicting me they continued to hound me and eventually took enforcement action, because as the landowner I was responsible for clearing the accumulation of rubbish.

I returned ‘home’ on 15th June 2002 and set about clearing the scrap cars and the huge amount of rubbish that, over the years, had been dumped in my garden.

My family, friends and myself all worked extremely hard clearing the garden and replanting it. It was a very disturbing experience to return to my family home and find it in such a disgusting state, particularly so because it was Dover Council’s wrongful action that had created the mess.

On the 26th July 2002 I noticed somebody peering through my front hedge with a camera and guessed he was from the Council. I introduced myself to him and made it very clear that he was welcome to call in at any time, explaining that it was not necessary for him to sneak around peering through the hedges to make his observations. He was extremely embarrassed and gave his name as Mark Mortimer, a part-time Officer with Dover District Council.

He went away and I did not hear anything further until I received a letter from him almost two months later. The letter was so absurd and contained such nonsense that I immediately wrote a letter, dated 16th September 2002, to Michael Dawson, (pictured) Chief Planning Officer, explaining the situation and offering to attend the Council offices or meet him at my home to discuss matters.

Michael Dawson responded on the 26th September 2002 stating:

“Thank you for your letter of 16th September 2002. Rather than respond to your letter point by point, I think the best way forward is to accept your offer of a meeting. Therefore my Development Control Manager, Mr Tim Flisher, will be in touch with you in the near future to make arrangements”.

Tim Flisher never did get in touch with me that year and neither did he at anytime throughout the whole of the next year, 2003. In fact there was no contact from the council for almost two years until the morning of Thursday 13th May 2004 when my attention was drawn to two men acting suspiciously near to the boundary of my property. When they saw me they concealed the camera they were using. Obviously I was concerned and felt it necessary to enquire as to the reason for their suspicious behaviour.

I introduced myself and I learnt that they were employees of Dover District Council, namely Mark Mortimer and Paul Francis, who were carrying out enquiries on behalf of the Council, apparently in furtherance of the ongoing conflict about my lawful right to reside on my property. We had a discussion for a short time at my entrance gate.

I advised them, that should they be required to carry out any similar tasks in the future then they were welcome to park on my drive, rather than 100 yards along the narrow lane, which would avoid possible inconvenience to other road users. At Mr Mortimer’s request I gave my telephone numbers so that he was able to contact me more easily in future.

Mr Mortimer stated that Dover Council would be taking renewed action against me in respect of the ongoing dispute over my lawful right to reside on my property.

In view of Michael Dawson’s letter of 26th September 2002, accepting my offer of a meeting and promising that Mr Flisher would be in touch to make the necessary arrangements, I was somewhat dismayed to find his officers snooping around threatening enforcement action, particularly as Tim Flisher did not get in touch first.

I immediately wrote a letter dated 14th May 2004 to Michael Dawson reminding him that almost two years had elapsed since he accepted my offer of a meeting and explained that it seemed only fair, just and courteous that a meeting, as promised, should have been the first logical step. It was my intention that a meeting would be a way forward to resolve the dispute fairly and amicably.

Michael Dawson did not reply to my letter.

However I did receive a telephone call from Paul Francis (Enforcement Officer) with the offer of a meeting, which of course I agreed to.

In the meantime, I again wrote to Michael Dawson on the 2nd June 2004 to remind him that he had originally promised a meeting with Tim Flisher, the Development Control Manager. I also confirmed acceptance of Paul Francis’ offer of a meeting and explained that, with no disrespect to Mr Francis, he had only been employed by DDC for a short period of time and yet my case spanned some twenty years. I urged that a senior officer, who is familiar with my case, should also be present.

Once again, Michael Dawson did not reply to my letter.

A meeting was subsequently held at 2.30pm on Thursday the 10th June 2004 at the council offices with Mark Mortimer, a part-time officer and Paul Francis, but neither Tim Flisher nor any other suitably qualified officer attended as I had requested.

At the meeting Mark Mortimer’s attitude made it clear that the council were not interested in resolving the situation fairly or amicably, which I thought was the intention of the meeting. He said they intended to take further direct action against me and Paul Francis warned me that if I did not remove my mobile home then the Council would forcibly do it for me.

The council refuse to accept compelling evidence of the long-standing residential use of my property, despite Council records confirming its lawful use, but instead continue to act as if I had placed a mobile home on a Greenfield site (which is categorically not the case).

The officers then stated that they needed to inspect my home to confirm that I was living there and a visit was arranged for 3pm on the 18th June 2004.

It seemed a strange demand because I had openly stated that I was residing in the mobile home and Council Tax, for residential use, has always been paid. But when they arrived their real motive was made clear. They soon went in to ‘the good cop, bad cop’ routine with Paul Francis whispering to Mark Mortimer (but loud enough for me to hear) how and where they would fix the chains on my mobile home in order to drag it off my land. They were clearly trying to intimidate.

It transpired that the two meetings I had with these officers were merely a convenience for them to gather evidence, contrary to my understanding, which was an attempt to seek a fair resolution to this dispute.

In view of their behaviour I wrote to Tim Flisher on 12th July 2004 to seek confirmation regarding the council’s proposed action. I also expressed my concern that over the past few years I had entered into lengthy and carefully considered correspondence with Dover District Council but often received no reply and that on numerous occasions I requested a meeting but those requests were either ignored or refused.

I also asked Tim Flisher to confirm when my case was to be heard, in order that I had the opportunity to present a full summary to the Planning Committee for their consideration, before a final decision is made.

As I did not receive a reply to my letter, Debbie (a friend who is assisting me) telephoned Tim Flisher on 26th July 2004 and discussed with him the contents of my letter of 12th July. He admitted to having received it but not having read it.

She explained the frustration of never receiving a timely response to any issues raised with the Council. Tim Flisher explained this delay, was in part, because he was awaiting a copy of a report from his officer, Mark Mortimer. Tim Flisher stated that he placed great importance on receiving this report before matters could proceed.

This marked the start of protracted correspondence regarding Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ and resulted in an exchange of fifteen letters, including me requesting sight of a copy of the report from Tim Flisher, who refused my request and referred me to DDC’s legal department where the council’s assistant solicitor, Lee May, informed me it was exempt information.

The Council went to great lengths to refuse me access to this ‘important document’ only for me to discover much later, that the crucial report does not exist! If it does not exist, why was I refused access to it?

Tim Flisher did not reply to my letter of the 12th July so Debbie telephoned him again on 9th August 2004 and discussed their previous telephone conversation of 26th July (most of which he needed reminding of). He undertook to reply to my unanswered letter of 12th July.

Tim Flisher did eventually reply to my letter informing me that on 19th February 2004 (in a secret meeting, six! months earlier) the Planning Committee resolved that funds be made available to employ contractors to remove my mobile home. At no time did the Council have the courtesy to inform me about their intentions or give me the opportunity to present any form of defence, which is a clear breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. The Planning Committee made their decision based solely on the Planning Department’s report, which was biased, misleading and incomplete.

Clearly, during my meetings with Mark Mortimer and Paul Francis, they were hiding under a cloak of deceit. They knew of the Planning Committee’s decision when they met with me on the 10th and 18th June and said nothing. Equally, when I wrote to the Council’s Chief Planning Officer, Michael Dawson, on 14th May and 2nd June he should have informed me that the Council had already made a decision to forcibly remove me. But he said nothing, which amounts to deliberate suppression. He didn’t even acknowledge receipt of my letters. The Council went through a charade knowing what their intentions were, all along.

19th August 2004. I wrote to Tim Flisher stating that the contents of his last letter contradicted the information he had given Debbie during his telephone conversation with her on the 9th August, when he said that the Planning Committee was still to be advised upon the full facts before being asked to decide on whether any action was to be. Yet, in his letter to me he stated that the decision had already been taken, six months ago. I asked him to clarify the position.

14th September 2004. Tim Flisher did not reply to my letter so Debbie telephoned him. He cited resource problems as his reason for not responding to my letter.

He also confirmed that a decision was indeed taken at the February Planning Meeting to take direct action against me but as a result of the representations I had made it was decided that the Council should further research matters to ensure that any action they may take was lawful. He added that it was now the Council’s intention to put the matter back to the Planning Committee with the further information obtained by their enforcement officers and as a result of research carried out by their legal department.

It became clear that another rash decision, taken by the Council in that secret meeting in February, was based on insufficient and incorrect information. Yet another example of a heavy-handed blunder by the Council with them acting first and asking questions afterwards.

Debbie attempted to discuss the historical situation with Tim Flisher but he refused to discuss or comment on any action taken historically and advised her that his responsibility was solely in relation to current matters and he repeated this several times during the course of their conversation. Debbie remonstrated that current matters were a direct consequence of the Council’s original, unlawful action and therefore all subsequent action would be unlawful also, which makes the historical events highly relevant. Tim Flisher continued to refuse to discuss any action taken historically.

15th September 2004. Tim Flisher responded with a letter in which he confirmed that the Committee’s decision taken in February 2004 was made on the basis of the information then available to it, since when the Council had retracted its decision because of the information I had submitted.

In his letter, Tim Flisher also informed me that I would be served with a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) within three weeks but emphasised that it was not an enforcement notice but a means where the Council can find out about activities on my land, adding that I would later be invited to meet officers to discuss the Notice. He also informed me that Mark Mortimer had now left the Council.

20th September 2004. I wrote to Tim Flisher thanking him for clarifying the situation and to inform him that I would be pleased to complete and return the Planning Contravention Notice.

11th October 2004. The PCN was not served within the time stated so Debbie telephoned Tim Flisher. He stated that the document was with him, awaiting his comments, before being returned to the legal department for the final touches before it was despatched. He anticipated this would be completed by the end of the week.

18th October 2004. The PCN still did not arrive as promised so Debbie once again telephoned Tim Flisher enquiring as to the current progress of it. He was unable to indicate when it would be ready but stated that personal service would be necessary, advising Debbie to contact Lee May (Council solicitor) directly and arrange a suitable time for it to be collected.

During the conversation Debbie complained to Tim Flisher about the Council dragging its heels and not replying to correspondence in a timely way and his response was:

“This case is unprecedented in that never before had anyone chased for a PCN before, many people would consider it advantageous that no action had been taken to date, people were usually happy to let sleeping dogs lie”

As Tim Flisher had previously placed great emphasis on receiving Mr Mortimer’s ‘report’ before matters could be progressed, Debbie asked whether we could be furnished with a copy. Tim Flisher stated that this was not usual practice and that he would have to seek advice from his legal department. It was agreed that if a formal written request were made, it would be considered and responded to.

Debbie telephoned Lee May regarding the PCN, as advised and he anticipated that: “It would be ready on Tuesday 19th and Mr Moulder would be welcome to collect it” Lee May told Debbie that he would telephone me to confirm when it was available for collection and if for any reason I did not hear from him on Tuesday, then I was to telephone him on Wednesday.

I did not receive a call from Lee May and so I telephoned him on Wednesday morning, as arranged. Lee May bluntly told me that the PCN had been sent the previous day by recorded delivery.

This was completely at odds with our arrangement, which was put in place because it was likely, as actually happened, that I would not be at home to sign for the letter.

This was yet another example of Dover District Council not carrying out their undertaking.

23rd October 2004. I wrote to Tim Flisher to formally request a copy of Mark Mortimer’s report, which detailed his findings following his investigation into my residence of ‘The Oaks’.

1st November 2004. An email from Lee May confirms that a meeting has been arranged, in connection with the PCN, for the 16th November.

3rd November 2004. Tim Flisher refuses to provide a copy of Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’.

5th November 2004. In an email to Lee May I make a second request for a copy of Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ that Mr. Flisher refused me access to.

Lee May replies, informing me that the ‘report’ I require is exempt information but in order to assess whether or not the information I requested should be made available to me, it will be necessary for him to go though the relevant papers in consultation with the planning department (the department I contacted in the first place).

9th November 2004. In a letter to Lee May, Debbie questions Lee May’s reasons for refusing to provide a copy of Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ and refers to the Freedom of Information Act which is due to come into force on January 1st 2005.

12th November 2004. In response to numerous requests for a copy of Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’, to which Tim Flisher had repeatedly attached great importance, I received a letter from Lee May in which, for some bizarre reason, he enclosed copies of two brief, typed notes written by Paul Francis, although it had been made abundantly clear that it was a copy of Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ that was required.

14th November 2004. Debbie wrote to Lee May stating that the two file notes he had sent and which were written by Paul Francis, merely provided ‘details’ of the two most recent meetings that had taken place. She confirmed to him that for the avoidance of doubt the document required is the Mark Mortimer report that Tim Flisher stated was important for him to see before he could consider a meeting to progress matters. Debbie made a further request for a copy of the ‘report’.

15th November 2004. Received an Email from Lee May intimating surprise that we were seeking a different document from those that were enclosed with his letter! He added that the information I seek would feature on Mr Flisher’s file so he had forwarded my request to him so that he may identify whether it exists and, if so, that it is open to inspection. (He offered this ‘advice’ knowing full well that it was Mr Flisher who refused me access to the ‘report’ in the first instance)

He ended by saying that either Mr Flisher or himself would revert to me on this point as soon as possible.

The Mortimer ‘Report’.

It didn’t make sense for the Council to go to such great lengths to refuse something that didn’t exist. Tim Flisher instigated the saga of the ‘Mortimer report’ and I requested a copy only because he placed great emphasis on its importance and he explicitly gave that as a reason why he could not progress matters.

There were no less than fifteen letters exchanged with the Council relating to Mark Mortimer’s ‘report’ and in view of such extensive correspondence over this specific document it is reasonable to assume that it did in fact exist.

If it did not exist why did Tim Flisher refuse to release the document and why did Lee May quote relevant sections and subsections of the Freedom of Information Act in order to support his refusal to release this document?

Why did such a critical document never materialise?

It might lead one to conclude that the document has been suppressed or destroyed because it contained information, which if released, could compromise the Council’s position.

16 November 2004. A Time and Place meeting, to discuss the PCN, was held at the Council Offices with Tim Flisher, Lee May and Paul Francis. Debbie, along with Mr Lawson, a lawyer, accompanied me. At the meeting the Council recommended that I submit a planning application, which I agreed to but I suggested that a meeting at my home would be useful before confirming the type of application I should submit.

Tim Flisher indicated that there might not actually be a Mortimer ‘report’ after all, although some rough notes might have been made! We were advised to make a formal, written request (again).

Lee May stated (wrongly) that one of my difficulties was that my land was a Greenfield site. I challenged him on this false statement and informed him that it was in fact a Brownfield site. He promised to go away and check.

Brownfield land is the common term for ‘Previously Developed Land. It is defined in Planning Policy Guidance Document 3 (PPG3) “Housing” (2000) as land which “is or was occupied by a permanent structure……….” And occurs in both built-up and rural settings.

Greenfield land is virgin land, a field or area where development has not previously taken place, a site which has not been built on before, any land that has not been previously developed, most often in rural areas such as farmland.

24th November 2004. In a letter to Tim Flisher Debbie made a formal, written request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for all relevant notes relating to Mark Mortimer’s investigation into my case. She also requested a copy of the report of the Chief Planning and Building Control Officer which was put to the Planning Committee on Thursday 19th February 2004 which resolved that funds be made available to employ contractors to remove my mobile home.

29th November 2004. Letter to Tim Flisher telling him that I am pleased to accept the advice he gave me at our meeting at the Council offices and I will prepare and submit my planning application as soon as possible.

29th November 2004. Email from Tim Flisher acknowledging my intention to submit a planning application and suggesting that we can discuss the details at the meeting at my home scheduled for the 9th December 2004.

9th December 2004. A meeting at my home went ahead as planned, attended by Tim Flisher, Lee May, Paul Francis, Debbie and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to enable DDC employees to familiarise themselves with the site and its current appearance and clarify any areas of uncertainty with regard to my planning application. From my point of view I wished to ensure that DDC were fully acquainted with all aspects of the site and its surroundings, update them as to my intentions and obtain their view on my proposed course of action and time scale.

I stated my intention to submit a planning application for a bungalow. Tim Flisher advised me that it would be easier to regularise an existing situation than consider the merits of a new one and committee members would look more favourably if I were to, initially, submit a planning application regarding the current use of my mobile home and that I should consider making an application for a bungalow at a later date. I accepted his recommendation, as it was my desire to proceed in the most appropriate way. Tim Flisher also advised me to plant a second row of hedging in the front boundary to provide additional screening. I took him to the boundary and showed him the young beech hedge plants, which I had already planted next to the existing hornbeam hedge. (He later told Mr Grieve during my complaint that screening would make no difference to my application. In other words, he advised me to waste my time and money)

Debbie asked Lee May if he had been able to clarify whether he considered the status of my land to be a Greenfield or a Brownfield site. He stated that since our meeting at DDC offices when this issue was first raised my file had been returned to his tray and he had not been able to consider it further (Obviously not that high a priority!) Rather concerning as the land’s status is an important material consideration.

Lee May never did clarify the classification of my land as Brownfield or Greenfield. However, later during my complaint against the Council, their Professional Standards Investigator confirmed that the Council accepted it was indeed a Brownfield site and not Greenfield.

28th February 2005, submitted my planning application, entitled “Use of Mobile Home, Garden Sheds and Greenhouse for Residential Purposes”.