How Enfield Council deals with complaints made by civilians. Policy and Procedures: Code of Conduct & Disciplinary Procedure

Katerina Panagiotou made this Freedom of Information request to Enfield Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Waiting for an internal review by Enfield Council of their handling of this request.

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

Please provide the information outlined below,

In regards to Complaints made by civilians at Enfield Council,

Please provide the annual reports of complaints for the last 7 years (starting from the year ended 2005 concluding with the year 2012 and month September or October-depending on when a response would be provided).

The annual reports should outline very clearly,

(a)The number of complaints received at Enfield council, for each year (2005-2012) and Department.

(b) The number of complaints that have been resolved at the first stage.

(c) The number of complaints that have not been resolved at the first stage and moved on to the next stage whether that was the second stage when the complaints procedure was consisted of three stages or second and final stage after the complaints procedure or structure of it has been altered to reach its current form.

(d) Following and based on the above,

(i) The number of complaints that have not been resolved at the second stage and moved on to the third and final stage.
(ii) The number of complaints that have not been resolved at the final stage by Enfield Council.

(e) The number of civilians that have decided not to continue following the Council’s complaints procedure and to give up or withdraw their complaint at any stage of the complaints procedure or halfway through the process. In other words, the number of civilians that have decided not to pursue the resolution of any matters and/or incidents through the Council’s complaints procedure any longer even though that was their initial choice and decision.

(f) Following and based on the above, at what stage of the complaints procedure (first, second, final), the specific civilian/s had decided to withdraw their complaint/s or more precisely themselves from the Council’s complaint process (????!).

Please note that in this case, I am referring specifically to unresolved matters by the Council and number of civilians that have decided to withdraw their complaint/s and not follow the Council’s complaints procedure for the resolution of the specific matters they have brought forward.

(g) Any official recorded information which are not included in the annual report but held in Enfield Council in regards to the reasons that civilians have decided not to follow or continue to follow the Council’s complaints procedure and withdraw themselves from the whole process before the whole process was completed.

In regards to recorded incidents before the exhaustion of the complaints procedure e.g (a) withdrawal of complaints by citizens during the complaints process, (b) Legal Notices served by civilians to Enfield Council during the complaints process and (c) complaints being sent to the LGO service prematurely instead of following or continuing to follow the Council’s procedure.

Please provide the following information,

(a) Number of civilians that have given up on following the complaints procedure for the resolution of matters brought forward by them and expressed that they would like to resolve matters through the court.

(b) Number of civilians that have given up on following the complaints procedure and had not turned to any other service and/or court of law for the resolution of their differences with Enfield Council. In other words, number of civilians who have given up completely.

(c) Number of civilians that have given up following the complaints procedure and turned to the LGO (premature complaints that were sent back to Enfield Council by the LGO)

(d) Number of civilians who have chosen to turn to the LGO service instead of a court of law after the Council’s complaints procedure has been exhausted.

(e) Number of civilians who have officially notified Enfield Council about their intention to take legal action against Enfield Council and/or the individuals concerned (legal notifications served by civilians in the last 9 years, starting from the year 2003).

In regards to tackling and dealing with dishonesty, lies, efforts of intimidation and/or inappropriate, degrading treatment of civilians by officers and/or members of staff at Enfield Council.

Please supply the following information,

(a)The policies in place which tackle and deal with intimidation, deliberate efforts of intimidation, degrading and inappropriate treatment of civilians by officers and/or members of staff at Enfield Council.

(b) The key responsibilities and obligations of officers who become aware of any form of victimization and/or any efforts of intimidation and victimization made by an officer towards any member of the public.

(c) On how many occasions Enfield Council has dealt with or had to deal with inappropriate, efforts of intimidation, intimidation and degrading treatment even abuse of civilians by officers.

In regards to dishonesty, lies and inappropriate behaviour on the behalf of officers specifically please provide information in regards to how this is tackled and dealt with by Enfield Council.

In regards to the investigation of complaints and Code of Conduct for officers,

Please provide the following information,

(a) The number of occasions that complaints and/or matters brought forward by civilians have been dealt with taking into consideration and or based on the Code of Conduct for Officers. More precisely, the number of occasions the Code of Conduct for officers has been applied or put into practice when a judgement about the specific behaviour and/or incidents brought forward had to be formed.

(b) The number of occasions that a civilian had specifically requested the application of the Code of Conduct for officers and a judgement about the specific behaviour and/or incidents brought forward to be formed taking into consideration or based on the Code of conduct for officers.

(c) The number of occasions that complaints and/or matters brought forward by a civilian HAVE NOT been dealt with taking into consideration and/or based on the Code of Conduct.

In regards to the Disciplinary procedure,

Please provide the following information,

(a) The last time Enfield Council has applied or put into practice its disciplinary procedure.

(b) The number of civilians that had clearly requested consequences to follow actions or in regards to the behaviours and/or incidents they had brought forward.

(c) The number of citizens that have not clearly requested consequences to follow actions in regards to the behaviours and/or incidents they had brought forward but hoped or trusted that Enfield Council would deal with their matter fairly and bring them justice.

(d) The number of occasions the disciplinary procedure has applied or put into practice.

(e) The number of occasions that the Council’s disciplinary procedure has not been applied or put into practice.

(f) In general, the number of occasions the Council’s disciplinary procedure has been applied or put into practice in the last 9 years.

In regards to the Council’s complaints procedure,

Introductory Note: The Council’s complaints procedure used to be constructed by three stages instead of two stages as in its current form.

Following and based on the above, please provide the following information,

(a) When exactly the alteration was made
(b) Reasons why the above alteration was made
(c) Who has decided about the above alteration and based on what criteria exactly.

In regards to the final stage of the Complaints Procedure,

(a) The number of occasions that the complaints procedure has been followed by officers and/or members of staff

(b) The number of occasions that the complaints procedure has not been followed by officers and/or members of staff.

(c) The number of occasions that the Chief Executive of Enfield Council has followed the Council’s complaints procedure and done his part by reviewing and responding to the matters brought forward.

(d) The number of occasions that the Chief Executive of Enfield Council has not followed the Council’s complaints procedure and has not done his part by reviewing and responding to the matters brought forward.

In regards to the independent investigation of complaints at the final stage,

Please provide the number of officers involved in the investigative process.

In regards to the means and ways used by Enfield Council to resolve matters outside court,

Please provide information in regards to,

(a)The ways and means used by Enfield Council to resolve matters during court proceedings and after a legal notification or pre-action letter for a judicial review had been served.

(b) The number of civilians being threatened with the persistent complainer policy in an effort to intimidate the civilian or deliberately cause upset, distress and fear in the civilian during pre-court dealings and negotiations for the resolution of matters between Enfield Council and the civilian.

(c) The number of civilians being threatened with the persistent complainer policy during pre-court negotiations and dealings and have not provided with a copy of the specific policy even though, they have specifically requested to be provided with a copy from their “intimidator”.

(d) The number of occasions that the specific threat was vague, unreasonable, unnecessary and was done purely for the deliberate purpose of intimidating the civilian.

(e) The number of occasions that the civilian was not provided with a copy of the specific policy deliberately so the civilian will not be informed about what the specific threat entails or that the specific threat was not only unreasonable, unnecessary but vague and not substantial as well.

(f) The number of occasions that you have deliberately left a civilian thinking and believing otherwise or more precisely, that the specific threat may take place by not providing them a copy of the specific policy so the civilian would be informed what the specific policy entails and context of it.

(g) The number of occasions Enfield Council has made a negative decision that concerned a civilian and have not provided the civilian with information about its intention and/or warned the civilian prior to executing the decision made and/or about the negative consequences the civilian had to bear.

In regards to legal action taken by civilians against Enfield Council,

Please provide information in regards to the number of civilians who have taken legal action against Enfield Council in the last 9 years.

Yours faithfully,

Katerina Panagiotou

[1]Enfield Logo

 
 Response
Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 22/09/2012 06.19
PM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 22/09/2012 06.19
PM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Thank you for your question. Please take a look at these Answers from our
knowledge base that might answer your question.
[2]What responsibilities will I have managing my Direct Payments?
[3]Can someone else help me manage the Direct Payments?
[4]What can I use my direct payments for?
[5]What is meant by Direct Payments?
[6]Can I get a direct payment for community equipment?

If no Answers are shown this means we do not currently have any
information regarding this subject matter within our knowledge base.
 Discussion Thread
 Customer (Katerina Panagiotou) 22/09/2012 06.19 PM
==================== text File Attachment ====================
Attachment 1.txt, 12867 bytes, added to incident
 
 
 Question Reference No120922-000003
Date Created:  22/09/2012 06.19 PM
Last Updated:  22/09/2012 06.19 PM
Status:  Correspondence team
 

References

Visible links
2. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
3. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
4. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
5. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
6. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

An account was created automatically for you, but you can't log in until your password has been set.

Your username is: [FOI #130803 email]
Your registered email address is: [FOI #130803 email]

Click the following link to continue to a page where you can enter your new password.
http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

Please note that this link will expire 24 hours from the time that it was sent.

Heather Littler, Enfield Council

5 Attachments

Dear Ms Panagiotou

 

Thank you for your FOI request received on 24 September 2012.  The
information you have requested is attached to this email.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be
submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your
original letter and should be addressed to:

 

Heather Littler

PO Box 61

Civic Centre

Silver Street

Enfield

EN1 3XY

 

or email: [1][email address]

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF.

 

Heather Littler

Senior Admin Officer

Communities, Communications, Policy and Performance

Chief Executive's Unit

London Borough of Enfield

Tel:        020 8379 4037

Email:   [2][email address]

 

"Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole borough fairly,
delivering excellent services and building strong communities"

 

show quoted sections

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

[3]www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.clearswift.com/

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

We can all agree that none likes to be lied to and being lied to repeatedly especially when a Council agreed to transparency or to be open and honest with the public.

When a Council signs up with a website that aims to serve transparency and establish trust between members of the public and registered authorities through openness and honesty and this same Council LIES PUBLICLY and OPENLY both to the requester for information and public then, we can only be talking for a complete lack of care towards people, arrogance, very bad selfishness, no conscience whatsoever and most certainly, HYPOCRISY.

The response you have provided me with includes a series of LIES...it is not necessary to tackle all of them publicly but, I do want the requested information. As for me requesting you to bring openness and honesty to the table, first, I had lost count of the times this has been requested and then, I realised that requesting this, is pointless.

Lying to people is not a healthy way of relating to people whether that is taking place behind the scenes where none can know of what is happening or publicly when it can be witnessed by the public. The latter as far as I am concerned implies no conscience whatsoever and then, a complete lack of care towards people.

Withholding information or trying to deceive others that you hold the information requested while you clearly hold this, is not acceptable either.

I very much question all those times you have told people that you do not hold the information.

I also very much question the truth of the context of information you have provided to people as well.

This is for the reasons that in this request for information,

1. INFORMATION HELD IN THE COUNCIL IS NOT BEING PROVIDED

2. THE COUNCIL CLEARLY HAS IT AND CLEARLY CHOOSES TO LIE THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE IT.

A specific request for information was made which regarded the Annual Reports of Complaints and not the Annual Statistics of Complaints. The annual reports of complaints have not been provided to me even though, that is what the specific request for information entailed.

Instead of being provided with the annual reports of complaints, I was provided with the annual statistics of complaints which is not the one and the same.

Annual Reports of Complaints and Annual Statistics of complaints are not the one and the same but different and even though, you are aware of this, you have chosen not to provide the Annual reports of complaints.

You have chosen to withhold the annual reports of complaints and then, lie that you do not hold the number of complaints received at the Council prior to 2009. In other words, no annual reports or statistics of complaints are held in the Council that demonstrate the number of complaints received prior to 2009.

Not only you hold the number of complaints made starting from the year 2005 as requested to be provided with but even prior to that.

I refer you to your own website and documents published online and are available to the public.

More specifically I refer you to the following link,

http://governance.enfield.gov.uk/mgAi.as...

Please click on the above link and let us both go to the relevant page where the only annual report of complaints for the year 2007/8 that Enfield Council has published online and made available to the public can be found. In addition, statistics that include the number of complaints received at the Council starting from the year 2003/4.

In other words, the information is held by Enfield Council which is the exact opposite of what I and rest members of public are being told by you, Enfield Council itself.

Based on your own website and information that your own person published on it, on the 26 of November 2008 at 8 p.m the Cabinet met to discuss item 9 which was the annual report of complaints for the year ended the 31st of March 2008.

On this page different supporting documents can be found including the annual report for the year 2007/8 and then, statistics of complaints. From this page we can see exactly what constitutes an annual report of complaints, annual statistics of complaints and the differences between the two which can be found by making a comparison between the two.

What was requested was annual reports of complaints and not statistics; in my opinion, you should have provided the annual reports of complaints starting from the year ended 2005 as requested. If the wanted information now could not be found in the annual reports, attach the statistics as supporting documents to the annual reports where all of the information sought could be found.

However, what you have chosen to do was attach the annual statistics of complaints and say that you neither have annual statistics nor annual reports of complaints prior to 2009.

From your own specific page now and from all the supporting documents that you, your own person has published online and made available to the public, please click on the third pdf document and with the title
• Appendix A - Enfield Complaints Scheme 2007, item 9. PDF 14 KB

Tell me now what you see for, I have seen with my own eyes the truth of what is which is not what you say that it is...if you went to your own page and clicked on your own document...you will see that you hold the number of complaints received at Enfield Council not only for the year ended 2005 as requested but you do have the number of complaints received at the Council starting from the year 2003/4.

• The number of complaints received at Enfield Council based on your document Appendix A - Enfield Complaints Scheme 2007, item 9. PDF 14 KB
• found on your website and link http://governance.enfield.gov.uk/mgAi.as...

is as follows for each year,

Year Number of complaints received
2007/08 852
2006/07 714
2005/06 661
2004/05 781
2003/04 918

Evidence found on your own website, link, and documents that your own person has published online and made available to the public show very clearly that you have LIED PUBLICLY both to the requester of information and public.

Apart from the number of complaints and on the same page and link, you and all the rest of us can also see that you hold the 2007/8 annual report of complaints. In other words, it is neither true that you do not hold the number of complaints prior to 2009 nor it is true that you do not hold any annual reports of complaints prior to 2009 as the Council itself had published the 2007/8 annual report of complaints and for the period of 1.4.2007-31.4.2008.

Lying publicly both to the requester of information and the public that you neither hold the number of complaints prior to 2009 and then, withholding the annual reports of complaints and saying that do not have any annual reports of complaints prior to 2009, while the annual report of complaints for the year 2007/8 can be found online on your website is NOT ACCEPTABLE in any case.

Please provide the requested information and which you clearly hold while you lie that you do not hold immediately.

LIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Yours Sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

Heather Littler, Enfield Council

I will be out of the office on Monday 15 October 2012 and returning to the
office on Thursday 18 October 2012.

 

If you require an urgent response please contact either:

 

Rachel Gibson on Tel: 020 8379 3903

Diane Adams on Tel: 020 8379 4145 or

Angela Pringle on Tel: 020 8379 3902

 

 

Katerina Panagiotou

http://governance.enfield.gov.uk/mgAi.as...

Agenda item

ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2007/08

• Meeting of Cabinet, Wednesday, 26th November, 2008 8.00 pm (Item 9.)

A report from the Director of Finance and Corporate Resources is attached. This outlines performance and organisational learning in respect of complaints handling for 2007/08.(Non-key)
(Report No.143)

Minutes:
Councillor Ann Zinkin (Cabinet Member for Customer Focus, Communications and Corporate Improvement) introduced the report of the Director of Finance and Corporate Resources (No.143) outlining performance and organisational learning in respect of complaints handling for 2007/08.

NOTED

1. the content of the report in terms of performance and organisational learning derived from complaints handling;

2. that responses to Ombudsman enquiries had for the third year running been within Ombudsman’s target time and the percentage of Council Complaint Scheme responses within target time had improved from 78% in 2006/07 to 85% in 2007/08;

3. the annual letter from the Local Government Ombudsman and statistics as set out in Appendix C to the report. A similar level of complaints had been received (113 in 2007/08 and 109 in 2006/07). Complaints had been targeted and dealt with speedily. The Ombudsman had praised the Council’s action in settling complaints.

Alternative Options Considered: None.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate focus on complaints handling performance and learning from complaints was maintained.
(Non-key)
Supporting documents:
• Annual Complaints Report November 2008 - separate appendices, item 9. PDF 22 KB
• Appendices - cover sheet, item 9. PDF 10 KB
• Appendix A - Enfield Complaints Scheme 2007, item 9. PDF 14 KB
• Appendix B - Organisational Learning from Enfield's Complaints Scheme, item 9. PDF 52 KB
• 2Enfield annual letter 2008 - main - Appendix C, item 9. PDF 75 KB
• 3Enfield Statistics 2008 Appendix C, item 9. PDF 69 KB
• Appendix D - Analysis of LGO Complaints 07-08 LBE, item 9. PDF 14 KB
• Appendices E F G, item 9. PDF 25 KB
http://governance.enfield.gov.uk/mgAi.as...

Yours sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

LIES, LYING and LYING PUBLICLY both to the requester of information and members of the public is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Lying publicly and while you have agreed to transparency and to be open and honest with the public in order to establish trust between you and members of the public is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Lack of honesty and openness is NOT ACCEPTABLE...LIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Since you have LIED PUBLICLY that you do not hold the number of complaints prior to 2009-clearly you do-, I would like to know on how many other occasions you have done so.

• Annual Complaints Report November 2008 - separate appendices, item 9. PDF 22 KBMUNICIPAL YEAR 2008/2009 REPORT NO. 143

MEETING TITLE AND DATE:
Cabinet –
26th November 2008
REPORT OF:
Assistant Director of Revenues
& Benefits
Contact officer and telephone number:
Stuart Dennison, x4614
E mail: [email address]
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines performance and organisational learning in respect
of complaints handling for 2007/08. The report covers the operation of
Enfield’s Complaints Scheme and of complaints about Enfield Council
services that have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Response to Ombudsman enquiries have for the third year running
been within Ombudsman’s target time and the percentage of Council
Complaint Scheme responses within target time improved from 78% in
2006/07 to 85% in 2007/08.
In 2007/08 Enfield had no cases decided by the Local Government
Ombudsman as maladministration.
Organisational Learning from complaints continues to develop.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet is recommended to note the content of this report in terms of
performance and organisational learning derived from complaints handling.
Subject: Annual Complaints Report
2007/08
Wards: All
Agenda – Part: 1
Cabinet Members consulted:
Cllr Rye & Cllr Zinkin
Item: 8 3. BACKGROUND
Enfield’s Complaint Scheme
Complaints falling within Enfield’s complaints scheme received in
2007/08 are set out in Appendix A.
Key results are: -
I. an increase in complaints received principally because of
improved complaint identification in the Housing Repairs
Service
II. 85% of Stage 1 Complaints answered within timescale
representing a significant improvement compared to 2006/07
(78%)
III. around 88% of complaints are settled at Stage 1
IV. 61% of Stage 1 complaints are fully or partially upheld
V. approximately 150 staff have received the “Effective
Complaints Handling” course run by the Local Government
Ombudsman
VI. Organisational Learning has been reviewed at CMB quarterly
(monthly from January 2008)
Complaints to Local Government Ombudsman
The annual letter from the Local Government Ombudsman and
statistics are set out in Appendix C. Key results are: -
I. similar level of complaints received (113 in 2007/08, 109 in
2006/07)
II. no cases determined as maladministration
III. the Ombudsman made 76 decisions about Enfield
(disregarding Premature complaints) which is well beneath the
median level of London Boroughs – see Appendix E
IV. “at fault” decisions at 19 were well beneath the median level of
London Boroughs – see Appendix F
V. the percentage of total Ombudsman decisions decided as “at
fault” at 25% for Enfield is beneath the London Borough
median level of 28%
VI. the number of “at fault” decisions in 2007/08 is approximately 1
for every 15,000 residents in the Borough
A selection of Organisation Learning is shown in Appendix B.
Organisational Learning is reviewed at CMB monthly from January
2008 (quarterly hitherto).
Enfield’s complaints handling performance is gaining greater
recognition with contact from three other London Boroughs seeking
advice upon good practice complaints handling issues from Enfield. 4. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
None.
5. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure the appropriate focus on complaints handling performance and
learning from complaints is maintained.
6. COMMENTS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE
RESOURCES AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS
6.1 Financial Implications
There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
6.2 Risk Management Implications
None.
6.3 Legal Implications
The Local Government Ombudsman has statutory powers under the
Local Government Act 1974. The effective resolution and monitoring
of complaints (both internal and involving the Ombudsman) is likely to
assist in maintaining and improving the Council's performance. It may
also lead to the early identification of possible legal issues, which
should then of course be brought to the attention of the Borough
Solicitor.
6.4 Property Implications
There are no property implications arising directly from this report.
7. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Complaints handling feeds into the CPA assessment both in terms of
performance in responding and in organisational learning derived from
complaints with a practical difference being implemented.
8. COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS
An effective complaints process may have a positive impact in providing
widespread access to complaints and assurance that issues are fairly and
thoroughly investigated.
9. PUTTING ENFIELD FIRST
Supports aim 5a – “deliver a customer-focused approach that helps all
people access council services”.
Background Papers
Local Government Ombudsman Annual letter 2008.

Appendices - cover sheet, item 9.

D:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000107\M00005585\AI00011816\Appendices0.doc
APPENDICES
A Enfield’s Complaints Scheme Statistics 2007/08
B Organisation Learning from Enfield’s Complaints
Scheme
C LGO Annual letter
D Analysis of LGO Decisions 2007/08 - Enfield
LGO Comparative statistics 2007/08
E Volume of decisions for each London Borough
F Volume of “At fault” decision for each London
Borough
G Percentage of Ombudsman decision (including
premature complaints / decided as “At fault” for
each London Borough

Appendix A
Enfield Complaints Scheme 2007/08

• Appendix A - Enfield Complaints Scheme 2007, item 9. PDF 14 KB

D:\moderngov\data\published\Intranet\C00000107\M00005585\AI00011816\AppendixAEnfieldComplaintsScheme20070.doc
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
Department Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 answered
within time limit
Stage 1 fully or
partially upheld
FCR 5 0 0 2 4
ECSL 92 2 1 83 55
ESSP 237 43 20 196 150
PPP 433 49 8 357 262
HASC 28 2 1 28 11
C.EXEC 57 0 0 57 40
TOTAL 2007/08 852 96 30 723 (85%) 522 (61%)
2006/07 714 70 28 560 (78%) 345 (48%)
2005/06 661 62 21 494 (75%) 354 (54%)
2004/05 781 46 18 (76%) (77%)
2003/04 918 80 27 (82%) (57%)

Yours sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

[1]Enfield Logo

 
 Response
Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 15/10/2012 08.36
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 15/10/2012 08.36
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Thank you for your question. Please take a look at these Answers from our
knowledge base that might answer your question.
[2]What responsibilities will I have managing my Direct Payments?
[3]Can someone else help me manage the Direct Payments?
[4]What can I use my direct payments for?
[5]What is meant by Direct Payments?
[6]Can I get a direct payment for community equipment?

If no Answers are shown this means we do not currently have any
information regarding this subject matter within our knowledge base.
 Discussion Thread
 Customer (Katerina Panagiotou) 15/10/2012 08.36 AM
==================== text File Attachment ====================
Attachment 1.txt, 8917 bytes, added to incident
 
 
 Question Reference No121015-000002
Date Created:  15/10/2012 08.36 AM
Last Updated:  15/10/2012 08.36 AM
Status:  Correspondence team
 

References

Visible links
2. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
3. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
4. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
5. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
6. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

Not only you have LIED PUBLICLY that you do not hold the number of complaints prior to 2009 but currently the CONTEXT OF INFORMATION you have provided me with is currently under disrepute and the truthfulness of its context pretty much in question.

As already expressed behind the scenes in the past and which you have not listened or considered or cared to listen or respected for, you did not care,

There is no excuse for certain actions and I will not be accepting any excuses, defenses and support of LIES as well as of any unacceptable and unhealthy, indecent behaviours.

Someone else is running the universe and in life, there are forces beyond our control (this includes you as well); it has been proved that you cannot control it all and the truth not only came and found you but it has also been served to the public.

Maybe you can send your Head of Legal services to defend the LIES in this request for information VIGOROUSLY by the same way she made clear that the defense of the claim would be vigorous in court.

I perfectly know or had become very well acquainted with the sort of defense of your Head of Legal Services, how this takes place and what exactly it entails-further lies to support the existing ones, effort of deception, put downs, blame, transference of responsibility to other person, disrespectful communication etc.

In this request for information, it has been confirmed that you have abused your position of trust and took advantage of people’s trust in you that you would provide them with true and accurate information or just simply, tell the truth or be open and honest with them as you have agreed to do when signed up with this website.

There is no conscience about the impact of your actions in this case, lying to people, members of the public and lying to them publicly on a website. It is widely known to the public and people that all you care about is your own self and person, are there to operate as a business and make money without having the slightest care in the world about people and services provided to them.

Most people do not like or care about you by the same way you do not care about them and given all the behaviours I experienced in your hands, I do not blame them at all; very rightly they do not trust or like you. Pretty much, there is nothing to like or be interested in from you.

Lying, deception, lack of honesty and openness, hiding and withholding information and while you are under legal obligation to provide the information and while you have made an agreement between you and people or members of the public to be transparent, open and honest with them is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

This is also non compliance with the law or not upholding the law and in this case, the Act under which you are obliged to provide the specific information.

Whereas, in another request for information and more specifically in the request with the title “Leader of Enfield Council. A record of holidays and meetings.” http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/le...

It is nothing but apparent that you think you have the right to deceive the requester for information and members of the public by stating down in writing a different context from the one the request for information had and really entailed.

Then, copy and paste legislation to support and defend your false statements as if legislation is there to serve your LIES and you can apply and use the law and not just people in whatever way that you like.

It has been proved that you think you have the right to state down in writing not the truth of the context of the request for information but a different context from the one the request had.

In addition, use legislation in whatever way that you like by copying and pasting legislation next to or underneath the refusal as if legislation and the Act is there to serve you, your false statements and as if parts of an Act are applicable just because you say so.

Legislation is the means that have been set in place to enable the truth to surface for the distribution of justice and this with great certainty, does not include using legislation to support/defend untrue and false statements as well as refusals of requests for information just because that is what you chose and decided to do.

Your ARROGANCE, thoughts and beliefs about the way you think you can behave is just absolutely unbelievable, appalling and unacceptable-it does not imply any conscience whatsoever.

Or true service of the members of the public and especially you being in service of people’s best interests and welfare. It implies nothing but one and only service taking place-the service of your own self and own selfish interests by using the Law and legislation in whatever way that you like as if now, the Law is there to serve you, your own selfish interests and to support LIES and your own false statements about the context of request for information.

First, you do not comply with the Law, then, you do not uphold the Law and agreements made with the public when signed up on this website then, you lie that you do not hold the information while you clearly do hold the information and prior to this, you make false statements about the context of what was requested and use legislation in whatever way you like in order to support and defend your actions or false statements about the context of the request for information.

If this is a Civic Centre or a Centre that have been set up for people, I am sure people cannot turn to a Centre where there is no honesty in Council’s officers and no conscience about harmful and hurtful actions against people-it is a fact that you really do not care how people would feel when they find out that you have lied to them as if you did, you would not have lied to them in the first place.

You simply do not care as you underestimate people that they would not find out as you are so arrogant and full of yourself that you thought no information was available online and on your own website.

I very much question the truthfulness of the context of the information you have provided me now as well as the truthfulness of all the information you have provided to the rest members of the public who have requested information.

In 2009, the only year that I do not hold the number of complaints, Stuart Dennisson, the assistant Director of the Corporate Department and whose presentation of the annual report of complaints for the year 2007/08 was and can be found online had left his position in Enfield council and is nowhere to be found in the Council.

His position was taken over or Mr Stuart Dennisson was replaced by Mr John Austin who is also the monitoring officer of the council who controls and directs investigations or "co-ordinates" these at the final stage in the Corporate Department.

In addition, he is there to make sure that the investigation of the matters is done "properly" or a fair and objective investigation into the matters to take place.

And of course, it is his responsibility to reduce the number of complaints as the number of complaints the year 2007/08 was absolutely overwhelming. The year 2007/08 and last year Mr Dennisson was still in his position, the number of complaints was 852 in just a period of 12 months.

If someone takes into consideration that a year has 52 weeks and that there are five (5) working days in a week that equals to at least three (3) complaints being made for each working day of the week. This also equals to at least 16 civilians making a complaint officially following the complaints procedure in just a week and then, 65 complaints received by the end of each month and in just a matter of 20 working days.

In other words, it is not every single day or every other day of the working week that a civilian made a complaint officially following the Enfield Council's complaints procedure but... every single working day of the week at least THREE different civilians complained officially to Enfield Council following the Council's complaints process.

What we do not know is what happened afterwards as Mr John Austin the person who held and withheld the annual reports of complaints, had not even provided all of the information that he lied he only had.

Heather Littler does not hold any annual reports or statistics of complaints or does it belong to her job role to deal with complaints or deals with complaints at the final stage so she would have the reports.

Mr Austin the monitoring officer and assistant director of the Corporate Department does and is the one who withheld information and lied that the Council does not hold any number of complaints prior to 2009.

And as always has been the case lied and withheld information with the support of his seniors as Mr Austin withholding information during the investigation of my complaint, the matter of the flawed investigation and Mr Austin treating me unfairly did go to the seniors with the seniors giving him the green light to carry on doing what he was doing.

Heather Littler had gone to Mr Austin who held the number of complaints and requested to find out in order for the information to be provided.

It is a fact and so it seems that Mr Dennisson had published the annual report of complaints before he left his position at the Council and before his position was taken over by Mr Austin.Or was it another member who published it online on your website? Please correct me if I am wrong and state this clearly down in writing but...no false statements this time.

It is nothing but obvious that Mr Austin was not aware of Mr Dennisson’s action before he left his position at the Council and so he thought, he could lie and get away with it as well as obviously, all the rest without having the slightest care in the world about "openness and honesty" towards members of the public.

It is a fact that the number of complaints for the year 2009 and year that Mr Austin had taken over as an Assistant Director of the Corporate Department and monitoring officer, was not provided even though, the Council said that it held the number of complaints for the year 2009.

There is a gap of one year or whole year-the year in regards to the number of complaints that concerns both Mr Austin and Mr Dennisson.

It is nothing but obvious that Mr Dennisson still held his position at the Council by and at the end of the year 2008 as on the 26.11.2008 at the meeting held by the Cabinet (Leader of the Council, Deputy Leader of the Council and 8 Councillors chosen by the Leader of the Council), he presented item 9 which was the annual report of complaints for the year ended the 31st of March 2008.

The number of complaints missing and the one that is withheld by Mr John Austin and not provided concerns the time period of 1.4.2008-31.3.2009.

What was provided to me was the number of complaints starting from the 1.4.2009 -which is pretty much in question as there is a series of lies and not just one-.

As you can see Mr Dennisson’s or what also concerns Mr Dennisson or what concerns both Mr John Austin and Mr Dennisson had been excluded from the information, was left behind or was hidden somewhere in a drawer or much better, in the wardrobe with the rest skeletons.

I really do not believe in coincidences or accidents and if this report of annual complaints was not provided then, that did happen for a reason. In other words, this was hidden, withheld and was not provided for the reason that there was a reason this to be hidden.

And the same goes for all the information that Enfield council had and held and LIED that it did not have and hold.

It was indeed much better to go down to the Horror Chamber at Madam Tussaud's rather than follow the Council's complaints procedure. Much better than having a monitoring officer hindering the investigation of my complaint with his seniors giving him the green light to continue covering the matters and not offering a fair and objective investigation into the matters.

And the Leader of the Council giving me the impression that he would be requesting the Council to acknowledge and respond to the rest matters as the Ombudsman service said that it should do only to have the council's solicitor emailing me on the second working day. This in order to collect more information about what I was told, by who and what exactly it is that I know.

And what I had expressed to the Leader of the Council that I was told was that the monitoring officer is getting paid for all these-to cover matters up and not offer people with a fair and objective investigation into the matters.

What also happened behind my back is the Council had already applied its internal complaints procedure behind my back IN AUGUST after I met the Leader of the Council, after the Leader of the Council got in touch with the Council. In other words first, they had acted behind my back and against me and then, invited me over telling me that meeting with them would be the first step of building my trust towards the Council-Perfect! All this time, they would not bother or care and suddenly they started bothering and caring-yes sure!Too fishy...

Where there is smoke, there is also fire. As soon as the Council realized now that it acted unlawfully behind my back, it returned to threaten or provide me with a warning in order to do it right or the right way now.

Then,it started provoking me in order to react and this to be taken advantage of and the application of the procedure to be excused and defended only, I was gone and no longer available.

And I had found out about what went on behind my back and their actions against me on the 25/9/2012, accidentally-just absolutely shocking and appalling.

I had also found out about their pretense of care and that rightly, should not offered them any trust-nevertheless, they had exhausted all of it, there was not a single trace of it left.

And all these, instead of this Council, carrying out a decent investigation into the matters and get over and done with it. And instead of them communicating in a respectful manner and conduct negotiations for the resolution of the matters.

However, solicitors want to get paid and as for the defense there is no defense just UNREASONABLE NONSENSE-bullying, put downs, efforts of intimidation, blame just full of UNREASONABLE little, small people who behave in a complete unacceptable way and create problems where there are no problems because they do have a problem with their own selves.

Now Enfield Council let us continue with your LYING PUBLICLY further,

I very much question all those times you said that did not hold the information as it had been proved you do hold the information but lied that you did not have this.

Please find further matters or NEW MATTERS in regards to the truthfulness of your words and context of your information below.

New matters as the ones that the Ombudsman service said that you should have acknowledged and responded to and have not done so.

For all those people that you have treated unfairly and especially harmed and hurt deliberately during any investigation of any matters and for all those that you did not care at all-all people who live in Enfield town unless of course, they serve your own selfish interests, please find further truth about who you really are and further questions in regards to the truthfulness of your words and context of your information below.

Please see below,

CONTEXT OF INFORMATION PROVIDED UNDER DISREPUTE

It has been brought forward that the complaints procedure used to be consisted of three stages instead of two as in its current form. The question about when exactly this alteration had taken place was posed to you. Your answer was April 2009...I refer you now to the statistics you have provided me with starting from the year ended March 2010.

As we both know, an annual report concerns the time period from April of one year till March of the next year. In relation to the statistics provided to me these start from April 2009 when the alteration of the complaints procedure had taken place.

Please have a look at the statistics you have provided me with...the annual statistics of complaints make reference to three stages of the complaints procedure with the exception of the last and this year’s annual statistics(April-September 2012) which make reference to two stages or first and final stage and current form of the complaints procedure.

And let us take an even closer look and notice further interesting information that is worth bringing forward. For the year ended March 2010 starting from April 2009 when the complaints procedure no longer was consisted of three stages, all six Departments can be found at all stages of the complaints procedure-including the no longer existent since April 2009 stage.

All Departments can also be found at both stages of the complaints procedure and for the year 2012. However what happens in regards to the time period of April 2011-September 2012, at stage one there are six Departments whereas at the final stage seven-same goes for the list in regards to the number of complaints that have proceeded to the LGO.

In other words, the seventh Department (Enfield Homes) appeared like a mushroom in a field at the final stage or “Enfield Homes just gone straight to the final stage and then, LGO without following stage one?”.

Or Is it the case that you have not given Enfield Homes the opportunity to go through stage one and not treated them fairly and equally.
Or
Was it that Enfield Homes were too keen not "to go through the system to conclusion" so, they headed straight to conclusion and much "quicker" than all the rest.
Or
Was it the case that you did not want to deal with them and so you sent them straight to conclusion so it would be quicker for you?

If Enfield Homes now were too keen NOT to "go through the system to conclusion given what I went through going through your system to conclusion, I do not blame them at all.

It would have been much better if some of the complainants of Enfield Homes just headed straight down to the Horror Chamber at Madam Taussaud's. Or go and be tormented elsewhere where they know for certain that it is the job of the beholder to torment them, if to be tormented is what they want.

In regards to the years ended 2011 and 2012 now, we can see very clearly three stages in regards to the complaints procedure-including the nonexistent one. However, all Departments but one (Health and Adult Social Care) can be found at the second stage of the procedure and then, all of them, at the third stage.

If the complaints procedure had been altered or reduced to just two stages from three in order to make it “quicker for complainants to go through the system to conclusion if they remained dissatisfied” (see answers and your own words), does this means that the Council wanted to increase the length of time going through the system to conclusion for complainants raising a complaint that concerned the Health and Adult Social Care Department if they remained dissatisfied?

If cutting short the complaints procedure and reducing this from three stages to just two in order to serve people’s best interests and having people’s welfare in mind, does this mean that the welfare and best interests of the above category of complainants was not considered? In addition, that you have excluded this category from your widely known to the public consideration of people, people’s best interests and welfare?

If “quicker” meant easier for “complainants to go through the system to conclusion if they remained dissatisfied” does this mean that you wanted to make it harder and more difficult for this just one category of complainants (Health & Adult Social Care) “to go through the system to conclusion if they remained dissatisfied”?

It is apparent that in the future there is going to be just one stage instead of two and I can bet on it. And this, would not happen because you would want to make it quicker for people "to go through the system to conclusion".

The truth is that this would happen because you would want to make it quicker for you to get over and done with their "conclusion" in just one stage or to place it nicely, to pursue your own selfish interests on the expense of people.

Nothing was and is done for people and it is a fact that your Autumn show was nothing but a complete disaster and failure as the majority of people neither likes or trusts you and why should they given that you have reached the point to lie publicly to them. In addition, the context of all the information you have provided is currently under disrepute and pretty much under question.

It has been proved that you have lied publicly in regards to you not holding the number of complaints prior to 2009. You did say that you only hold the number of complaints starting from 2009 so, where are the annual statistics or number of complaints for 2009? The statistics of complaints you have provided me with, start from time period of 1.4.2009-31.3.2010.
Of course, it can be supported by you that, this is what you meant- April 2009- but, what about the report found on the website for the year 2007/08 prior to 2009 and number of complaints starting from the year not 2005 as requested but even prior to 2005?
You have not even provided all of the information that you lied that you only hold and included in the time period you said that you only hold.
And what about the truth about the rest points raised above in regards to all that has been noted and noticed from the statistics you have provided me with?
Excuse me but what is the reason that you are on this website if the purpose of the website is to establish trust between members of the public and authorities through honesty and openness if you are not being open and honest, if you do not even comply with the law publicly, lie that you do not hold the information, withholding the information that you say that you have and do not have?

Excuse me, what exactly is it that you do in the Civic Centre and a Centre that is supposed to be there for people not being and not being able to be open, honest, clear and straightforward with people?

And what about the complaint that follows below which I copy and paste-in which way have dealt with it? when did you acknowledge and respond to it-However, my apologies this is part of the whole process of going through your system

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Cc: "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2012, 18:02
Subject: The Laughing to my Crying

Dear Ms Rosa Cuffaro,

I did hear the laughing to my crying and would like to register this down along with all the rest-however, I can reassure you that I would be the one who would be laughing last and not you-in no case when someone cries. As previously expressed and requested, please do not send me any further e-mails and keep your abusive, dishonest, cunning solicitors under control and request them to resist the temptation of emailing me to bully, abuse or harass me. Now, how come someone be laughing with someone else about the matter, it gets to show the reality of the Civic Centre and demonstrates in practice the so called "duty of care" and to what extent it cares about people as well as how much that care is real.

Please request the solicitor Asmat Hussain to be herself in court and as much ferocious, atrocious, vigorous, cunning, deceptive and as much dishonest she wants to be. Please do not forget to bring all the ruthlessness, cruelty, lack of sensitivity, consideration, care and abusive, humiliating, disrespectful treatment. Please make sure to humiliate and put me down as well as lie in front of the eyes of the judge.

I would like the judge to see exactly that and who you really are, how the duty of care is demonstrated in practice by the Civic Centre. No need to worry about me as, crying and feeling bullied, harassed and abused is not the same with giving up or means that I have given up.

Please do not email me again and leave me alone to do what it is right to do and not what you want me to do.

You are the ones who have failed and not me.
be yourself when we go and meet in court because, I will not fail. I will get there and when I get there there would be no backing down or giving up by the same way there was no giving up despite all the humiliation and degrading treatment you have put me through.

I am still here and not planning to give up no matter how much you wish me to.

as there would be a prIn addition and since we are all here whether that was a nervous laugh or not, I really do not care and little does it matter, it is just this abusive behaviour on the behalf of Council's officers is getting out of hand.

I had made my point very clear that t and I can reassure you that I would be the one who would be the last laughing. As previously expressed I am not up for any games, mousetraps, set ups,blame, intimidation, efforts of initmidation and all these from th

Yours sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

I can confirm that NONE HAD BLOWN THE WISTLE FOR ME and the Wistleblowing policy had not been applied as it is written down in the answers that it should happen.

And nothing happened in regards to the Anti-harassment policy even though, the right people had been emailed and called. However, my apologies again...this is part of going through your system...this is part of how you deal with complaints or much better citizens who DO NOT GIVE UP...and just DO NOT GET EXTERMINATED...I can confirm that the only thing left for you to do is just hire or send someone to exterminate me or do the job for you...make this person SHUT UP...or SHUT THIS PERSON UP.

As for the meeting you could have payed someone to say whatever...as for bringing someone along with me that would have meant risking someone else besides me getting upset.

No member of staff is there to help members of the public and what I have personally concluded was that Equality, Anti-discrimination, Information officers are not there to serve the public. They are there to serve the senior members of staff in case someone gets discriminated against or had not being treated equally.

The senior officer can refer to the information, equality, anti-discrimination officers, solicitors in order to be informed about how to best protect themselves and how to best serve their own selfish interests.

What follows below is how the council resolves matters or "takes care of the matter" or what the citizen heard or was told. As for the unfair policy this council designed and that I would be tackling head on like a bull that sees the red sheet, it applied it unlawfully behind my back and had not let me know of this.

Enfield Council carrying out pre-court negotiations and dealings.

Effort of citizen to have the specific behaviours cease and establish RESPECTFUL COMMUNICATION- a term that Council's officers cannot grasp or understand as they have absolutely no idea what it entails.

Deep down respect for them means, making money and sitting on a chair bullying people and causing aggravation.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2012, 19:46
Subject: Efforts of intimidation by the Council's solicitor during pre-court negotiations

Dear Kaunchita Maudhub,

Please accept a report of how exactly pre-court negotiations are dealt with by the Council's solicitor.

The incidents can be found in the e-mails forwarded to you so, I will not elaborate much.

Firstly, the solicitor had ignored completely the pre-action letter for a judicial review and just noted that this had been sent. That is called devaluing the other person and that is also degrading treatment as far as I am concerned which serves no other person but to "break me down" or break my morale down.

A notification that a pre-action letter had been served meant following the court's protocol and carrying out negotiations for resolution of matters. A purpose that the solicitor Jayne Middleton Abooye has been called to do or at least that is what she had told me in her first e-mail to me.

Instead of responding to the matters, Ms Jayne Middleton Abooye, had emailed me(11/9/2012) after the deadline for a response to be provided(10/9/2012) informing me that an e-mail account has been created specifically for me and to receive my e-mails and then, threatening me with the "persistent complainer policy".

That was nothing but an effort of intimidation of me being taken on the behalf of a solicitor through threatening me with invoking the specific policy. In addition, a solicitor who had told me that meeting with her was the first step towards building my trust towards the Council which was nothing but dishonest and was said just to lure me into meeting with her at the Council's offices. It is my understanding that the solicitor would have got paid extra for the specific meeting.

This is the first time in my entire life that I have witnessed any negotiations being carried out in such manner or someone who says that she had been called to try and resolve matters conducting themselves in such manner in any negotiations for resolution of any matters. With threats and efforts to intimidate me and without supplying the specific policy as requested so I would be informed about its context and requirements plus criteria that have to be met for its application.

This is for the reason that the threat is vague and was done deliberately in an effort to intimidate me in order to get me under her control or control me. However, these means for "resolution" and efforts of intimidation are just absolutely unacceptable.

Efforts of intimidation by this solicitor who does not know how to conduct themselves in negotiations or conduct negotiations for resolution of any matters and through threatening me to invoke the persistent complainers policy after the pre-action letter for a judicial review are recognized for what exactly they are-that is a tactic.

And to think that this is coming from a Civic or Civilians Centre is just absolutely unbelievable and more unacceptable than ever!

So many policies are there, how many does the Council apply in practice? To be threatened with the specific policy and not being provided with a copy of this threat as requested is not acceptable either.

How on earth can this solicitor threaten someone with a policy and not provide the other person with a copy of the specific policy as the other person requested in order for the other person to be informed what exactly the rediculous threat entails?

And how on earth can we consider this as a decent way someone to conduct themselves during any negotiations for any matters.

Who gave this solicitor the right or green light to conduct negotiations in such manner and way or to conduct herself in such manner and way?

And what about the dishonesty and being told that she had been called to try to resolve matters? Can we consider this as a way of resolving matters?

Absolutely not!

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>; Jayne Middleton- Albooye <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 9:32
Subject: Fw: Claim for a judicial review at the High Court

Please substitute the word "concerns" in the e-mail below with the word "offers". Please carry out negotiations free from intimidation and threats against me during the pre-court proceedings and respect my life, my human rights, my feelings and my personality.

You have been called to try and resolve the matters and not to create more matters over and above the matters already been created by the senior officers. You work at a civic centre that means a centre for people who supposedly works with people's best interests at heart and mind. This at this stage means, considering actions in favour of the claimant's best interests and not threatening or considering actions against the claimant during the pre-court proceedings and negotiations for resolution.

Please demonstrate decency and respect during negotiations(free from intimidation and threats) and negotiate or try to resolve matters in a civilised, respectful, democratic way which respect my life, my rights, my personality and my feelings.

Threats and efforts of intimidation during pre-court negotiations for the resolution of matters are not decent means of resolving the matters and do not demonstrate any effort to resolve the matters.

Please come to the table and communicate with me in a respectful manner or do not come to the table at all. Threats and efforts of intimidation have no place in any negotiations for resolution or any effort for resolution of the matters or can they be considered that they constitute a decent, civilised, democratic, respectful way to resolve matters.

In addition, the timing that the threat and effort of initmidation is taking place implies that this is nothing but and just a tactic and/or is recognised as one of Enfield Council's tactics in dealing with the matters during pre-court negotiations and "efforts for resolution" of the matters.

It is not proper or right or fair or respectful.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: Jayne Middleton-Albooye <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2012, 17:16
Subject: Claim for a judicial review at the High Court

Dear Ms Middleton-Abooye,

Thank you for explaining the situation with the TRUST MANAGER. You are saying that all of my e-mails have been diverted to one e-mail account so to whom exactly does the e-mail account belong to or who exactly receives my e-mails?

I am sorry but there were not several offers for discussion of my complaint and that is not what I had been told by you. You have invited me just twice; on the first occasion you have mentioned that you wanted to discuss any outstanding concerns I may have as if the matters have been dealt with sufficiently and satisfactorily.

On the second occassion, you have mentioned that you wanted to meet so you would discover if there were more matters to be investigated over and above those already been investigated. This as if the investigation has been conducted properly as it ought to be conducted.

So to summarise, the concerns were not several ones but just two which they have not stated any truth in regards to the matters and which do not imply that I can have an open conversation with someone who is there to protect the senior officers' best interests no matter how wrong they may have been in their actions and behaviours.

Where does this leave me? In a much worse situation than before and in the same unfair towards me situation.

Someone else will come along only the matters to be investigated and responded in exactly the same way. People would be treated unfairly once again for the reason that the unfair tactics used have worked. Well, they have not worked as I have not given up as expected and as the aim was.

I am sorry but the Council has not dealt with my concerns sympathetically or sensitively. The senior officers have dealt with my concerns with no trace of sensitivity or sympathy. In other words, quite the opposite.

I am sorry but the Council has not done "all it can reasonably be expected to do to assist or rectify a real issue",

This has not been communicated to me at all-who exactly responded my e-mails or my questions?

I will be emailing the pre-action letter for a judicial review material 13. If you do not wish to receive this so you will respond to this or if you are not interested in responding this at all, please inform me accordingly.

I am not making and have not made any more complaints but what I have done is to send the pre-action letter for a judicial review. What I would be making if the matters are not resolved during this stage and with the pre-action letter is a claim for a judicial review at the High Court.

I think it is nothing but absolutely unreasonable to invoke the persistent compaliner policy NOW that the pre-action letter for a judicial review has been submitted to you and the aim of it is to save the court's time and resolve matters outside of it.

Threatening me at this stage with the above policy and while pre-court negotiations have been set through the pre-action letter for a judicial review is just absolutely unreasonable especially, when you consider that the last complaints have been made on the 27/7/2012.

It is September now and not July that is almost two months further down the line. If you have wanted to do that, you should have done this ages ago and not now but it is just another tactic which definitely does not imply that you would like matters to be resolved on your behalf. Your threats do not make matters better during negotiations but far worse as they do not allow these to take place at all or create a proper ground for these to flourish or to be brought into fruition.

Hearing this, I am very tempted to close these pre-court negotiations as well.

Yours Sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

From: Jayne Middleton-Albooye <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2012, 15:05
Subject: Your e-mails

Dear Mrs. Panagiotou
I write in response to your e-mail of 29th August 2012. My apologies for the delay in responding but as I advised you in my e-mail of 24th August, I was away until 3rd September 2012 and have been very busy since my return. As your complaint has been dealt with at Final stage and noting that you do not wish to come in to the Council to discuss your complaint despite several offers, I write to advise you that you should now refer further complaints about this matter to the Local Government Ombudsman PO Box 4771 Coventry CV4 0EH.
I acknowledge your subject access request of 3rd September which has been forwarded to our Freedom of Information officer, who will co-ordinate a response.

In relation to your e-mails of 5th September stating that your e-mails have been blocked; they have not been blocked, but due to the volume and repetitiveness of your e-mails to different officers and councillors, your e-mails have been diverted to one e-mail account for the sake of administrative efficiency.

In relation to on-going communications with the Council, it is always the desire of the Council to deal with the concerns of complainants sympathetically and sensitively. However, where, as in your case with the Final Stage Complaint, the Council has done all it can reasonably be expected to do to assist or rectify a real issue, and this has been communicated to you effectively, then it may be necessary for the Council to consider whether your behaviour is now becoming unacceptable and to invoke its persistent complainer policy and to manage your contact with the Council accordingly.

I note also that you have sent a letter before action; this will be responded to by the legal department. Therefore, in relation to your letter before action and any follow-up correspondence, please send these directly to me.

Yours sincerely

Jayne Middleton-Albooye
Solicitor
Principal Lawyer (Corporate)
Legal Services
Enfield Council
Silver Street
Enfield
EN1 3XY

DX 90615 Enfield 1

Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole
borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building
strong communities.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012, 11:21
Subject: Civic Center or Didactoric Centre?

Please inform me what exactly the Council and your office is planning to do to tackle this inappropriate, out of order, unacceptable and appalling behaviour.

The civic center is supposed to be there for people NOT for the Chief Executive to sit on the chair intimidating civilians through the Council's solicitor.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: Chief Executive <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>
Cc: Mark Brincat <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012, 14:14
Subject: Re: Expenses

Dear Ms Gibbson,.

I remember the last time I have spoken to you on the phone, there was no way I was going to be understood or have a proper conversation. What is very memorable is the struggle to have a conversation with you and then, the lies that the Chief Executive supposedly provided the response. Well, if he structured the response he should take responsibility for it or much better, he cannot be avoiding responsibility as all of it, whether he structured it or not belongs to him.

Could you please specify the reason why Mr Rolfe is taking over now and whether I will have to deal with more indecency on your behalf?

And clarify the reason why because Mr Rolfe is not the accountant of the Chief Executive. The chief Eecutive is the one who is solely responsible as an individual for all the hassle, struggle, trouble, ordeal, distress and upset the way the investigation has been carried out and response was constructed and not the London Borough of Enfield.

And what he should do is take up his responsibilities and stop sending people to intimidate or threaten me with whatever nonsense they can use against me.

I do not wish or accept to have any correspondence from and/or any communication with Mr Rolfe. This is for the exact reason that Mr Rolfe could have intervened in regards to the flawed investigation of the matters and deal with the complaint about my treatment from the monitoring officer, my rights being taken from me, the flawed investigation of the matters, the investigator not responding to my e-mails or questions, the hiding of information, the lack of honesty, the games, the mousetraps, the set-ups and most importantly REMOVE Mr Austin from the investigation. Where was the acknowledgement back then? And where exactly was the response then? And where exactly was the dealing with the matters then? But that is exactly what your "dealing with the matters" was and this was exactly the way you deal with the matters, do business and treat people.

He had failed to act but now, he would like to take action in regards to the less than £15 bill sent to the Chief Executive for the Subject Access Request.

I do not accept any correspondence or email communication from Mr Rolfe or your own person or the Chief Executive himself or the specific solicitor of the Council. Please provide the contact details of another solicitor for court correspondence and if the office of the Chief Executive needs to contact me then, Heather Littler can email me instead of your person.

The information Enfield Council has provided on the website Whatdotheyknow says that you have four in total. The Chief Executive has sent someone to try and intimidate me-that is his tactics and that is exactly how he is taking care of the matters.

Please provide Mr Mark Brincat all PHONE CONVERSATIONS and leave me alone. I do not wish to communicate with your office or Mr Rolfe or the Chief Executive or the solicitor you have sent to threaten me or try to intimidate me or your own person.

After you answer my questions, I would be extremely greatful if you could never email me again.

Thanks,

Katerina Panagiotou
From: Chief Executive <[email address]>
To: "[email address]" <[email address]>
Cc: Mark Brincat <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 24 September 2012, 12:06
Subject: Expenses

Dear Ms Panagiotou

I have been passed your correspondence to the Chief Executive, regarding your expenses, by Mark Brincat as you requested.

I am writing in acknowledgement of your correspondence and to advise you that a copy has been passed to the office of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services who will arrange for a response to be sent to you in due course.

Yours sincerely

Rachel Gibson
Secretary to the Chief Executive's Office
London Borough of Enfield
020 8379 3903
[email address]

"Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building strong communities"

*************************************************************************************
Enfield Council - a 4 Star Council and Beacon Authority for Supporting Independent
Living for Disabled Adults 2009-2010
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and are
not necessarily those of the London Borough of Enfield. This email and
any attachments or files transmitted with it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the named addressee. It may contain privileged and
confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient you
must not copy, distribute or use the communication in any other way.
All traffic handled by the Government Connect Secure Extranet may be subject
to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.
If you receive this email in error please contact the sender as soon as
possible and delete the email and any attachments.
*************************************************************************************
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

[1]Enfield Logo

 
 Response
Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 16/10/2012 09.47
PM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 16/10/2012 09.47
PM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Thank you for your question. Please take a look at these Answers from our
knowledge base that might answer your question.
[2]What responsibilities will I have managing my Direct Payments?
[3]Can someone else help me manage the Direct Payments?
[4]What can I use my direct payments for?
[5]What is meant by Direct Payments?
[6]Can I get a direct payment for community equipment?

If no Answers are shown this means we do not currently have any
information regarding this subject matter within our knowledge base.
 Discussion Thread
 Customer (Katerina Panagiotou) 16/10/2012 09.47 PM
==================== text File Attachment ====================
Attachment 1.txt, 55751 bytes, added to incident
 
 
 Question Reference No121016-000061
Date Created:  16/10/2012 09.47 PM
Last Updated:  16/10/2012 09.47 PM
Status:  Correspondence team
 

References

Visible links
2. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
3. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
4. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
5. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
6. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

How about this complaint below, in what way have you dealt with it?...I have never ever ever met people in my life that create so many problems to others just so they would have something to do in the Council...can't he not go and write another Constitution to pass his time?...or go and amend the complaints procedure that is not up to date or bothered to update this...however, he did bother with receiving all of my e-mails behind my back and reading ALL OF THEM without letting me know!!!...what is he doing in there apart from frustrating people?...and causing aggravation?...in what good actions has he resulted lately which are in the best interests of people?

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: John Austin <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>; Heather Littler <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 17:23
Subject: Enough with the games and mousetraps

Dear Mr Austin,

Please find letter and further complaint about yourself below. You cannot be doing these things and these things are not descent or moral or proper. You and I, obviously, do not share the same book in life and I will not let you transferring responsibility where it does not belong.

You are not allowed to use your chair and position to play games and set mousetraps and you have no right to use your chair and position destructively instead of productively and constructively. If you cannot control or help yourself from setting mousetraps and playing games and think that your position and chair enables you to result in setting mousetraps and playing games then, what enables you to result in these, has to be removed.

I will not allow you to do all these and if there is something that is within my grasp which enables me to do something about all that you have done then, I will use it. Whether that is an e-mail or making a complaint or writing to the Central Government about all of your actions, omissions, games, mousetraps etc. If you wish to fight me then, use descent means for the purpose-no games, no mousetraps, no set-ups, no more hide and seek, no effort to control me, no effort to intimidate me so you will control me, no games whatsoever

I will let you read what follows,

Dear Mr Austin,

Intimidating or trying to intimidate a simple citizen in an effort to control them or get them under your control and power is never a descent way of dealing with any matters.

On the day before I was emailed from a different generic address than the one for complaints and from an unknown sender, I was told that you were the Head of the Complaints Department or part of your job was to deal with complaints. Nevertheless, the complaint was going to reach you as the complaint was about the investigation being flawed.

It all points to the direction that the unknown sender who emailed me from a different address than the one for complaints was you. In the past, you have concealed information and based on the information you have concealed you have grabbed the opportunity to control or direct the investigation, course of it, investigator, response and outcome.

It is my belief that you were the one who concealed his identity in the e-mail I have received after sending the matter of the investigation being flawed to the complaints Department. Please make sure to write your name down when you decide to email me from a different generic address and not conceal your identity so I will not know who the person emailing me is.

I was not intimidated but extremely disappointed and once again, felt sick in my stomach by all your games, mousetraps, lack of honesty and all that you have engineered and still engineering. And I was disappointed for the reason that your name is related to the Code of Conduct for members and you are the one citizens to call if they want to be informed about their rights.

It is nothing but hypocricy a person who is there to oversee the Code of Conduct not being able to follow the Code of Conduct or be the person who did not follow it but went against it. It is like getting a wolf to watch the sheep only, you know that the sheep will not be there for long. All of them will not disappear in a single day but very gradually and slowly, whatever you can get, you will get it.

It is nothing but hypocricy a man who is dealing with complaints or his job is to deal with complaints not to acknowledge these. And it is nothing but hypocrisy to be the one that citizens have to call if they want to be informed about their rights and to be the one who has taken over the overseeing of the investigation and removed all of my rights.

You are a very hard and difficult man to deal with because of all the mousetraps you set and games you play, your ruthlessness, cruelty, lack of honesty and openness. The games that you play, tricks you come up with and the mousetraps you set do not seem to end. They are endless and absolutely exhausting having to deal with them and you resulting in them.

It is a fact that as long as you were involved with the investigation, I would have had to deal with all of the above. I did request you to back off and then, request Mr Rolfe to remove you from the investigation but unfortunately, this did not happen. For the reason that it did not happen and you were not removed from the investigation even though, I have expressed concerns about the investigation being flawed and reasons why, now I have to deal with the response you have prepared, further games and mousetraps on your behalf.

It is my belief that you have managed to deceive everyone involved and you are definitely very skilled in getting the ball rolling in the direction you want. Do not feel confident about that for the reason that you are not using descent means to fight me and you are not fighting me decently.

The means you use to reach your destination are important and if you have used the same means to reach where you are now, you are definitely not worthy of sitting on the chair you sit or have the position you have now.

You do not deserve that chair or position if you are going to use that chair and position to hide on the 6th floor and behind that chair and play games and set mousetraps. I have brought matters forward about you concealing information from me in regards to the investigation and that means, lack of honesty, clarity and openness.

And I have brought matters forward about you not handling the matters properly in regards to the investigation and how you have handled the lack of communication and cooperation between the investigator and me. I have brought matters forward about you creating problems between the Council and me by concealing information from me and letting me believe falsely that the deadline expired and the Council has not provided me with a new deadline.

I have brought matters forward about you getting the ball rolling in your direction and field and grabbing an opportunity to serve your own best interests and purpose. And now and for the reason that you have not been removed from the investigation but you were left to continue controlling everything and everyone in regards to the investigation, I have to sit down, write this e-mail and send it out.

And I have to for the reason that I do not want you to get away with all these actions, behaviours, mousetraps you set and games you were left to play until the end and this very moment.

I will not let you use or take advantage of people no matter who they are. You got a man at the forefront and hid behind him in regards to the investigation of the matters, you have been the man directing and controlling everything and everyone. You have prepared everything including the response and if Mr Eccles did not communicate with me, you are responsible for that.

Nevertheless, you were overseeing the investigation of the matters, much better controlling the investigation of the matters and directing this to where it wanted to reach and in whatever way you wanted to direct this.

If Mr Eccles was instructed by you not to respond to any of my e-mails from the person controlling everything and everyone or from the person supposedly in charge what would Mr Eccles do?

The response was not prepared by the Chief Executive but YOU and in paper,

1. You are presenting Mr Eccles as the person who has conducted the investigation and that the paper or response includes his findings.

I absolutely disagree with you, it was you who have been instructing Mr Eccles, it was you who was overseeing the investigation and it is you who is really responsible for the findings and not Mr Eccles.

You should have let Mr Eccles to present his own work and findings from his own investigation and you should have let him investigate without you interfering with the investigation especially when the procedure nowhere talks about you.

This is not Mr Eccles’s work, findings and investigation but this is your work and “masterpiece” and you cannot use people like that or in whatever way that you want. You cannot come up with a piece of junk and say that this is somebody else's work while it is you who have engineered and prepared it all.

2. You are presenting Mr Rob Leak as the one who has prepared the response based on Mr Eccles's findings and the one who has not responded to the matters brought forward. And of course, the one who has simply copied and pasted whole parts from the first response.

You are the one who has copied and pasted whole parts from the first response, you are the one who has not responded to the matters brought forward and you are the one who has not even investigated the matters brought forward.

It is true that Mr Rob Leak did not take up his duties and responsibilities from the Council’s procedure as he has not even reviewed the matters as he ought to do. But, presenting what you have engineered and prepared as other people’s work and hiding behind others so you will escape the responsibility, transferring the responsibility and blame for the findings and investigation to Mr Eccles and then, the blame and responsibility for the response to Mr Leak that is completely out of order.

You are the man behind both the investigation and response in which you went to say that Mr Eccles is responsible for the findings and conducting the investigation and then, Mr Rob Leak responsible for the response I have received. All has been prepared and engineered by you who have not been removed from the procedure even though, I have expressed my concerns about you very clearly.

You have prepared a piece of junk or simply a junk and you are the man responsible for the piece of junk or simply a junk that you have prepared. You cannot play games, set mousetraps or use people in whatever way that you want or prepare a piece of junk and write down that these are Mr Eccles's findings and Mr Leak's response.

You are using your chair and position in a very destructive way and if you cannot control or help yourself from acting in the way expressed in this e-mail or are not able to use proper and descent means to do what you want or be open and honest and fight in a descent way if what you wish is to fight and then, play fairly if what you wish to do is play then you either have to be removed from the chair and position or the chair and position has to be removed from you.

If the local Government does not wish or want to deal with your actions and behaviours or means that you are using then, I will be writing to the Central Government so it will deal with all of these. First, you went to email all the Councillors and tell them not to come out or forward then, you went to prepare a response as quickly as possible and provide me with it.

It is way too easy to play hide and seek and engineer everything from the chair and position that you are in. And you should not be using your chair and position or safety and security of the Council to play games or set mousetraps to me.

You are not allowed to do all the things that you did and you have no permission whatsoever. The chair you are sitting on does not give you permission to do all these but you have used your chair to do all these. The position you are in does not allow you to do all these but you have used your position to do all these.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE AND CONTROL PEOPLE AS IF THEY ARE OBJECTS OR DOGS

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SET MOUSETRAPS

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PLAY GAMES WITH PEOPLE

AND

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CREATE PROBLEMS SO YOU WILL RESOLVE THEM

From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: John Austin <[email address]>; "[email address]" <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2012, 11:01
Subject: BACK OFF FROM THE INVESTIGATION, RESPONSE AND OUTCOME

Dear Mr Austin,

I have gone back to the acknowledgement letter provided to me by the Council to copy and paste the last part of it and in which I am being told that if a full response is not provided to me by the 9/7/2012 then, I was going to be provided with a new deadline for a full response.

I have gone back to the acknowledgement letter only to read that I have actually being told that a full response is going to be provided to me not by the 9/7/2012 as I wrongly thought and believed all this time but the 9/8/2012. Not only you have chosen to hide and conceal this fact from me, you have left me think and believe wrongly and all this time that what I thought was true and the case.

Not only you had not let me know as you should have done, you have made sure not to comment and make reference to it in your last e-mail which means that you have consciously chosen and decided to let me continue believing falsely the 9/7/2012 to be the deadline I was provided with.

Not only you have left me believing falsely the 9/7/2012 to be the deadline I was provided with, you have left me acting upon it as well believing this to be the case.

Not only you have chosen to let me believe falsely that the 9/72012 was the deadline I was provided with and to conceal the fact that this was not the case and not let me know about this but, you have chosen to reinforce this as well. In your last e-mail you have been very careful not to comment and make reference to this date but you have chosen to make the comment that according to your records, my request for the complaint to escalate to the final stage was made on the 20/6/2012 so the last day for a full response to be provided is the 1/8/2012.

You have chosen to point out that it is 30 working days that a response should be provided and not 30 calendar days. However, you have not chosen to point out to me that the deadline I was provided with was not the 9/7/2012 as I wrongly thought, believed and acting upon it as if that was the case but the 9/8/2012.

You are and were very well aware by the same way that I am aware now that the deadline provided to me was not the 9/7/2012 but the 9/8/2012. Nevertheless, you are the man representing the Council and overseeing the procedure, in my opinion, you are representing nothing but yourself, thinking nothing but yourself, working for yourself and overseeing nothing but your best interests or overseeing the process in order how to best make the most of the situation, serve and pursue your own best interests. Isn't this what you have been doing up to now and is this not the reason you have taken over and up trying to direct everything and everyone?

Not only you have harmed and hurt me by letting me thinking and believing this to be the case, you have let me harm and hurt myself by me being upset and distressed for a new deadline not being provided to me and having to request this from others. You have harmed and hurt me consciously and that was your choice and decision and all this to pursue your own interests to prove that can direct and you are really up for the position of the Director.

You have also harmed and hurt me consciously and without having the slightest care and consideration for me or someone being hurt-as long as your aim was accomplished, it did not matter the scapegoat or person you have turned into a scapegoat getting hurt and harmed on the way of you pursuing your own best interests.

You knew how I felt but you could not care less, it was not important at all, you were not going to think about me or consider me, you were going to think of yourself and serve your own best interests. It did not matter if I got hurt or harmed or you hurting and harming someone along the way as it was your time to take advantage of the situation to the maximum, it was the time for you to shine and prove that you can direct.

You and the chief Executive overseeing the investigation and with you directing the investigation, course of investigation, outcome, response, you directing everything and everyone.

You have hurt and harmed me consciously by letting me believe and think falsely that the 9/7/2012 was the deadline, re-enforcing this, letting me act upon it, keeping quiet, hiding the truth, being very careful not to make reference to or comment on this.

You have turned me into a scapegoat by blaming me for the situation and considering me responsible and removing my rights and rights provided to me by the procedure. You have given a call to the office of the Chief Executive and spoken to Ms Angela Pringle who has told you that I have sent too many e-mails. Who did not want to receive any further e-mails and who has received the e-mails.

You do something for the office of the Chief Executive, they do something for you tomorrow and after you proving yourself capable of directing and taking care of the problem and nuisance for the Council, who knows? You are up for the position of the Director and you are no longer an assistant.

Your lust and craving for sitting on that chair is way too obvious and if it requires you to treat someone unfairly, blame someone else for what happened, considered someone else responsible and patch things up by taking what happened afterwards and making what happened before right then, you are going to do it.

There is dignity and integrity in life and you may be bothering with rules and regulations but you choose to copy and paste only the parts that suit you. In life you do not do what suits you and you may be craving for power and to be on top but I can reassure you that you people do not need people like you.

People do not need people who are just after the chair and money, they want people who will really care about them and not use or take advantage of them or their situation to serve their best interests. They do not want inconsiderate individuals or people who treat them unfairly, you have no idea what fairness is, you are serving nothing but your best interests and do whatever suits you.

The investigation is flawed because of you and because you are overseeing it, the course of the investigation, the investigator, me, everything and controlling or trying to control and direct everything and everyone . Why would a man who responded to a matter and used a situation or what happened afterwards to make the situation before right, wants to oversee the investigation, investigator, course of the investigation, me, everything and everyone?

You are influencing the investigation negatively and against me and I really wonder for what reason, the reason does not matter for the reason that you are going to back off. You are going to back off from the investigation, course of the investigation, investigator, you will not contact the investigator and you will let him do his job without you influencing him and the investigation negatively towards me.

You will not direct or influence the outcome and response by "overseeing" this. You are just going to back off from the investigation and the investigator completely and you are going to go and find someone else to use, direct and take advantage of because you have hurt and harmed me more than enough with your lack of consideration, care, bad selfishness and you taking advantage of me and my situation. Please find other people and situations to use in order for you to become a director if that is what you wish and want to do. As a matter of fact, you have no right to use and take advantage of people and their situations in order to serve your own best interests.

You may be craving for that chair, the Director's chair and you may be craving one day to be a director so badly that you had lost completely control and trying to control not only the course of the investigation but me, the investigator, the response, the outcome.

You cannot take people's rights off their hands and people do not need someone like you to be a director because you are not fair or objective. You are not doing a good job in this situation and I am letting you know, of course, you do not care because you are the assistant director who one day, is going to become a Director so you would like to practice by directing everyone and everything without exception.

That is not how people lead, people who do not care about people and are after just for the chair are never leaders, they are just sitting on a chair . They are powerless, weak creatures who crave to be in power so they will feel powerful. They are small in their minds and hearts, the smaller they are the bigger the chair they dream. These people of course, they are not going to help or support people when the time comes, they are going to use them to pursue their own best interests. And this is exactly what you are doing, pursuing your best interests which is going after the director's chair.

If you are trying to prove that you can direct then, I can reassure you that you are doing a very bad job, taking people's rights is never a good job at all. Here is how your response is going to be if you were ever to respond,

You are going to use what happened or the situation afterwards to make right the situation that happened before. Exactly as you did with your response to me e.g "He did contact you" and now, "I did send the Code of Conduct"

If you are thinking that you are fooling me, you are mistaken. Back off from the investigation!!

Back off from the investigator!!!

Back off from the response!!!!

Stop trying to direct the course of the investigation, me, the response and influencing negatively people by trying to direct them. You are not a director and I hope that you will never be, Mr James Rolfe is, not you!

You do not have to prove that you can direct because you are not directing, you are just trying to influence others and control everything and everyone. That is not directing, that is being a controlling freak, weak and powerless individual and you have had more than enough so far.

The investigation does not need to be overseen by you. I do not need you to oversee the investigation, none has given you such authority and I definitely do not recognize such an authority which comes over sabotaging me and getting all my rights off my hands. What is the reason that you need to oversee the investigation, course of the investigation, investigator and me? What is the reason that you do not allow a fair decision to be reached? What is the reason that you are trying to influence the outcome and response? What is the reason that you are trying to influence the outcome and response even investigation negatively? What exactly is there for you? What best interests exactly are you pursuing?

What is the reason that you do not leave the investigator alone to do his job and are overseeing him or you need to oversee him? The information has been processed, it is obvious from what you are writing down, only you want to get involved and oversee the response and outcome now. In what way you can best respond to the points and in a way that serve your own best interests so I should let you think about how you are planning to go about it which is nothing but obvious how you go about it. I have already witnessed and experienced your way of going about things which is nothing but wrong and unfair.

You are saying that Mr Rob Leak and you are overseeing the investigation which is absolutely unnecessary, why would you need to oversee the investigation process, even the response and why would you need to control the response/outcome and investigation while at the same time you are acting against me? In what way is Mr Rob Leak overseeing the investigation process, he does not seem to be there or available.

Ms Angela Pringle is the one who logs onto his electronic account, reading and responding his e-mails and not Mr Rob Leak so you must mean Ms Angela Pringle that you have spoken to is overseeing the process along with you. It is Ms Pringle you have spoken to about the situation you have decided to make the most of to serve your own best interests, is it not?

Have you realized that you have handled the matter wrongly or are you still not getting it or you are never planning to admit it? Have you realized that you have not followed the procedure or are you still pretending that nothing is the matter or are you trying to patch things up by the same way you have taken care of the first matters. Yes sure, you have provided me with the Code of Conduct and after I have searched for hours on the Council's website to find this so all this hassle, upset by you not providing me with it all the previous days does not really matter. Well, it may not matter for people who are serving their own best interests and do what suits them in this case, it matters for me and those who really care. And that is definitely not you.

Your own records are wrong. My request was made on the 21/6/2012 at 19.39 and not on the 20/6/2012. Even though, it was successfully sent and arrived at the mailboxes of members of staff they had become aware of this on the following day(22/6/2012) unless they checked their mailboxes while off work.

In other words, Mr Eccles (and NOT YOU-YOU BACK OFF! )can add two more working days on top of the date you have provided me with as the last day to provide me with a full response(3/8/2012) and then of course, Mr Eccles(NOT YOU!-YOU BACK OFF!) can inform me if more time is required. You are right about the timescale for dealing with complaints at the final stage that is, 30 working days and not calendar ones as I thought.

And based on the same procedure, I will be expecting to receive an acknowledgement in regards to the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure at the final stage by the 18/7/2012 (5 working days).

You are not a man to be trusted and I do not believe a single word you say. I definitely do feel like you are treating me as if some kind of problem or like a problem and that you do not count, consider, value or care about me at all and whatsoever. I have filed a complaint about all this lack of inconsideration and care experienced from you and whoever feels the same should do the same.

As for the Codes of Practice and Code of Conduct,

The Code of Practice provides guidelines to member of staff about how a specific profession should be carried out and deals with practical matters e.g acknowledgments, responses etc. The Code of Conduct is an ethical framework that is related to behaviours, values, principles etc.

My title is not Mrs as you have addressed me but Ms.

I have already found the Code of Conduct, attached and emailed this to you before you emailed this to me. I have found the Code of Code of Conduct after spending hours searching on the Council's website. This is an aid that is provided to the public to bring matters forward and should have been provided to me without me having to search for hours and even days to find this. I have requested the Code of Conduct on the 9/7/2012

I agree that there is no point communicating any longer as there is no main purpose or even ground. I would have considered all facts for my decision but you have not. I would have considered everybody involved but you have considered all but me. I would have made a decision based on the rules and regulations in regards to complaints, you have not. I would have provided someone with the Code of Conduct if that was an aid to bring matters forward and especially, if they have worked so hard for a good purpose. I would have provided them with all of their rights even in the case, I did not wish to do that because they are allowed to all of them. I would have provided them with the Code of conduct not because I was obliged or had to or to show that I did provide them with it in the end but, because I wanted to provide them with it. I would not have taken what happened and the situation afterwards and made the situation before right.

I would not have blamed the wrong person or say that it was the victim's fault, weak people tend to exploit the vulnerable as, they can get away with it. Some cannot take up responsibility for their actions so they dump or transfer it onto others, some are so weak to attribute responsibility where it belongs that they transfer it onto others. You have turned me into a scapegoat and you have taken a situation that happened afterwards and made what happened before right.

I cannot possibly know what you are doing, I do not trust you and definitely do not believe your words. I thought you were dealing or were going to deal with the matters I brought forward to you only to take what happened afterwards and make what happened before right. You have used the situation afterwards

Not only I will not be sending you any further e-mails but I will not be doing so even in the case that you require a response from me. If I think it is necessary to provide the Council and not you with a response then, I will be sending this to someone that preferably I do not know or have definitely spoken to before and know that they will consider me as they have already done in the past.

You have not considered me and I really do not think that is going to happen in the future either. I will definitely do not sit here hoping a man who does not not consider me to consider me because I know that is not going to happen.

The timescale for the dealing with complaints is 30 working days but the acknowledgement of a complaint should happen in just 5 working days and time is definitely passing by very quickly. I will be expecting an acknowledgement in regards to the complaint about the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure in regards to complaints at the final stage within this timescale(5 working days). The matter was firstly raised on the 11/7/2012 so an acknowledgement of the specific complaint should be provided on the 18/7/2012.

Please do not send me any further e-mails either, I do not need or want people who do not count or consider or value or appreciate me to email me any longer or further.

I refer your decision which I find flawed and unfair to your senior to deal with it.I find this flawed for the reason that it did not consider all facts and then, unfair because it did not consider me. You do not really care about me and you will never care. You have not considered me and that will not happen in the future either, your decision should have been made on the rules and regulations in regards to complaints and not based on what you heard from others when you spoke to them.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, you can turn right into wrong and wrong into right but that does not make right what is wrong and wrong what is right, right remains right and wrong remains wrong. Wrong is only the person who turned right into wrong and wrong into right, wrong is the man who insists that the wrong is right and the right is wrong, wrong is the man who insists he did right by turning the right into wrong and the wrong into right.

Please do not email me again and find someone else to direct, use, take advantage of, turn them into a scapegoat, blame, take advantage of their situation or make the most of their situation.

Back off from the investigator, investigation, response and outcome. Stop influencing the investigation, outcome and response negatively against me in an effort to pursue your own interests.
Sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

From: John Austin <[email address]>
To: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>; James Rolfe <[email address]>
Cc: Rob Leak <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012, 9:58
Subject: RE: Deadline for a full response the 20/7/2012

Dear Mrs Panagiotou,

I refer to your e mails dated 14 & 15 July. I'm not quite sure what you mean by Code of Practice for members of staff so I have enclosed the Council's code of conduct for officers.

I can assure you that Mr Eccles is undertaking the investigation into your complaint as quickly as possible and is working through the large amount of information received. You will be hearing from him shortly. Could I please ask therefore that you refrain from sending any more e mails until he has concluded his work.

According to my records, your request for a final stage complaint investigation was received on 20 June. The Council's timescale for considering such complaints is 30 working days (not calendar days). Therefore, you will receive a response no later than 1 August 2012.

John Austin
Assistant Director, Corporate Governance

020 8379 4094

From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 15 July 2012 17:09
To: John Austin; James Rolfe
Subject: Fw: Deadline for a full response the 20/7/2012

Dear Mr Austin,

Just to correct the date written down in the context of the e-mail and which constitutes the deadline provided for a full response to the matters brought forward,

I copy and paste the following,

I will be expecting a full response in regards to the matters about the Trading Standards Department, its members of staff, way it works and operates by the 20/6/2012.

Correction of the month in the overall date: 20/7/2012
&
Substitution of the date 20/6/2012 with the date 20/7/2012
where this can be found in the overall context of my 14/7/2012 e-mail
and as it was stated in the subject of this e-mail

Thank you

Katerina Panagiotou

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: KATERINA PANAGIOTOU <[email address]>
To: John Austin <[email address]>
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012, 15:25
Subject: Deadline for a full response the 20/7/2012

Dear Mr Austin,

I would like to deal with matters before my birthday which is in just 10 days time so there is no time for waiting for anyone to provide me with a deadline. A deadline should have been provided to me for both the processing of information and a full response without me having to request it. In your e-mail, I am nowhere to be found, everybody is being considered but me while I have to accommodate people's needs, incompetencies and unprofessionalism, them not taking up their duties and responsibilities, not following the Council's procedures and them not working in accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct.

I cannot be taking up responsibility for others' incompetencies or unprofessionalism or be blamed for other people's actions. If that is what you wish and want to do, I suggest you take all the paperwork and come to court where the procedure is definitely going to be followed and all my rights will remain intact. In court, you can all continue doing whatever you want, whenever you want and definitely, whatever suits you and whenever it suits you.

I will be expecting a full response in regards to the matters about the Trading Standards Department, its members of staff, way it works and operates by the 20/6/2012.

If more time is needed for a full response, all you have to do is just send me an e-mail and inform me in regards to it. After the deadline elapses and in the case that I do not hear from you in regards to any of these matters and the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure is not dealt with by the Council then, I will be proceeding with other means and find other ways to deal with all responsible for all actions that should not have happened and could have been prevented.

All the matters will either be dealt within the Council and outside a Court of Law or within a Court of Law and outside the Council. It is up to the Council to choose and decide where these are going to be dealt with and demonstrate this in practice. Words should match actions and words should be kept otherwise there is no point of writing these down and email them to me informing me that a, b, c is going to happen and that not happening in practice.

I have requested to be provided with a copy of the Code of Conduct and a Code of Practice but none responded to my e-mail so I have searched and found the Council's Code of Conduct myself. I am currently searching the Code of Practice for members of staff so if you have one available please email this to me along with any relevant regulation.

Please find the Council's Codes of Conduct which includes the Code of Conduct for members of staff and which makes reference to consequences following actions when the Code is violated, a disciplinary procedure for staff members and even dismissal in the case of gross misconduct, attached to this e-mail. This is one of the component parts of the basis of my complaint and of course, the basis of the request of a disciplinary procedure, dismissal and in this way restructure.

The matters in regards to the specific Department from the way I see it belong solely under Mr Eccles and your authority, while the matters in regards to the Chief Executive not following the procedure should be referred to where they should be referred to. Advice received says that they should either be dealt with by a senior officer in the Council or the Leader of the Council.

I prefer these to be dealt with by a senior officer in the Council and based on Council's procedures and definitely, Code of Conduct. I have been emailing a Chief Executive who was not following the Council's procedure requesting him to deal with members of staff who do not follow the Council's procedures. How does that sound?

If the man in charge is not following the Council's procedure, how are the members of staff going to follow it and why should they follow it when the Chief Executive himself does not follow it? And where exactly are the consequences for the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure? I am requesting consequences to follow the Chief Executive's actions as well.

I would like the Chief Executive to willingly step down and someone else to take up the position of the Chief Executive in the Council. I would like his resignation and all requested remedies to be applied in the case of the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure as well. Consequence on me: Complete loss of faith, he is in a position of trust, is he not? If the Council does not wish or want to deal with this matter then, the Council has to join the Chief Executive in a court of Law and gives its reasons for not dealing with the matter.

You have requested me to follow your words once again, what about the procedure being followed and what about the Code of Conduct? Everybody agreed to follow this when hired at their positions and are abided by it, including the Chief Executive himself. What happens when the Code of Conduct is violated or certain rules are broken or their actions go against the Code of Conduct and rules that they have all agreed to follow when they have signed the contract when hired at their positions?

Consequences follow which may be a disciplinary procedure or even dismissal in the case of Gross Misconduct. These are Council's rules and not mine so why do the members of staff do not take up their duties and responsibilities and what is the reason they have committed themselves to follow the rules, procedures, abide by the Code of Conduct and not doing it? Where exactly is this demonstrated in practice apart from the appointment of an investigator and what exactly happened in this case?

Everyone seems to be doing whatever suits them whenever it suits them without having the slightest consideration or care about me. You have given me a procedure and I have followed it, what is the reason that they cannot do the same?

You can come to court and support that you have told me not to send any further e-mails and I have not done what you told me to do and I will be dealing with it accordingly. Starting from what the Council's Code of Conduct says that you should do and then, the Council's procedures and what exactly it is that members of staff have chosen to do and not do, how they acted and behaved.

I will start with the following from the Council's Code of Conduct,

Reliability in time-keeping

I will request you to explain what time-keeping exactly means

Then, I will go to the following,

Ensure that you:
• comply with the timekeeping requirements of your job
• are in the workplace and working when you should be

Then, I will be going through the Council's complaints procedure and request from the Chief Executive to read loud in court the procedure followed at the final stage and then, to point out his own duties and responsibilities and which stem from the procedure.

I will be requesting you to explain the complaints procedure step by step and at both stages and explain how each component part of the final stage is carried out or how the procedure says that it should have been carried out.

You do not consider or respect me and my requests while I am trying to resolve matters with you with none of you making any effort but instead of doing so, creates more hassle by not following a simple procedure, members of staff including the Chief Executive himself not taking up their duties and responsibilities while you transfer the responsibility onto me and expect me to follow your words once again and then, accommodate your needs.

Where exactly am I to be found apart from at the receiving end of the members of staff's actions, omissions, unprofessionalism, incompetencies, irresponsibility, lack of care, consideration, fairness and members of staff doing whatever they want and whenever it suits them.

There is only one person carrying the consequences and paying for the incompetencies, unprofessionalism of members of staff not following the procedures and then, handling matters wrongly and that is me. In addition, I am considered responsible for all these so I will have to receive my punishment by having all my rights taken from me.

Please inform me where exactly in your e-mail, I can be found and what exactly it is there for me. What is the reason that all the rest have been considered but not me? And what about your Code of Conduct in regards to time keeping and what about your complaints procedure? You do not follow these while you expect me once again to obey and follow your words. I have already done so, in what way has it helped and benefited me following the Council's procedure with all the rest not doing so?

I see no reason why I have to pay or carry the consequences of them not doing so. If you do not wish or want to apply the Council's Code of Conduct then either you give all the rules and regulations for members of staff to me so I will examine all behaviours in relation to them, form a judgement and apply these in practice. Or take the Council's procedures, Code of Conduct and come to court when invited to explain to all of us what was done in regards to the situation and then, give the reasons why the Code of Conduct has not been applied.

Then, explain where exactly I am to be found in the e-mail you have sent me, why I am considered responsible when I am not the one who has chosen to refer all matters to the investigator or his time-keeping. Furthermore, explain the reasons why you have chosen to strip me off my rights at the first stage, why you have chosen to punish me and why you have made sure to take care of everyone but me with reference to the Council's procedure and Code of Conduct.

Members of staff can do whatever they want as far as I am concerned including the Chief Executive himself and consequences will definitely follow actions in this case and time. I can definitely not be treating people differently because of their position and requesting consequences to follow actions for all members of staff who have not followed the Council's procedures and not the Chief Executive just because he is the Chief Executive(Same rules apply for all and all are abided by the same rules and procedures).

Someone should lead by example which is definitely not happening in this case and I will be working on this until there is change based on my experience and then, consequences to follow actions exactly as it should happen. Especially when the message that is given so far is very clear,

An apology will be offered to whoever complains, the complainant will accept this, go away, not bother them again and they can rest assured that now, they can go back to their own normality and ways of behaving, comfort zone, habits, what they have learned and got used to. As for the Chief Executive,

The Council will have to decide what exactly to do, if this has not already been done and since behaviour is behaviour, there are procedures in place and the Chief Executive is employed by the Council then, the Council should deal with it. The Chief Executive gets paid to do his own part in regards to the complaints procedure and for all those parts and elements he has chosen not to take up his duties and responsibilities then and since he is abided by the code of Conduct as well then this should be applied for the Chief Executive as well.

In case that does not happen, then, the lawsuit should be filed against the Council as well and not just against the Chief Executive and specific individuals. In that case, all of you should come to court and explain all the effort made on your behalf to resolve the matters and definitely why you have chosen not to apply the Council's Code of Conduct and deal with incidents.

In addition, the members of staff should explain why they have put me through all that they have put me through by not following the Council's procedures and Code of Conduct. In other words, provide an explanation of what exactly it is that they are doing there, what exactly it is that they were hired to do, their duties and responsibilities and what exactly it is that they are doing. Who is really responsible for all these?

It is up to the Council to decide whether the matters will be dealt within the Council or within the court. If you continue not following your procedures and blame me for the members of staff incompetencies and unprofessionalism then, you have decided not to deal with them or want to deal with them but do not have the ability and skills to do so. You treat everybody fairly and not strip the one person out of the three off their rights, you consider everyone and not everyone but one person.

You have requested me to follow your words, I have followed every singe word and sentence of the procedures you have sent me, what about your members of staff including the Chief Executive?. I have been following your words for a whole month now and dealing with your members of staff doing whatever they want and suits them and then not carrying out their duties and responsibilities, carrying them only when they are forced and have to and then, carrying them whenever they want and it suits them.

It is time we opened the book of Code of Conduct and the Council's procedures and see whose really fault is and who is really responsible for every single action and omission.

Let us take the Council's book Code of Conduct, provide me with the Council's book Code of Practice(if there is one) and then, let us take the Council's procedures and based on all the Council's books, your own code of conduct, your own standards let us see who has followed the WORDS in them IN PRACTICE. Let us take the words and actions of everyone involved and then, the words in the Council's Code of Conduct and Council's procedures.

Let us see who exactly has gone with the Council's Codes and Council's procedures, reasons why, excuses, the impact these had on me by them not following the Council's rules and let us go through the Council's Codes of Conduct and Procedures then, add all the rest relevant rules and regulations and read what they have committed themselves to keep and follow when they were hired at their positions and signed the contract. Including the Chief Executive himself

Let us go through all the Responsibilities, Duties, Principles, Mission, Values, Codes of Conduct, Code of Practice(if there is one) and Council's Procedures and examine all the incidents and behaviours, what exactly happened in practice.

They have made a commitment and a promise to be abided by the Code of Conduct, including the Chief Executive. Let us take the Council's procedures and the Code of Conduct, go through all of them and see where exactly words have matched their actions, whether any rules have been broken, which ones these are and what the consequences for all these are.

You make an agreement, you follow it, you commit yourself to a task you carry it through and you start on time(see Code of Conduct). You serve people and do not place your self first, isn't this what Enfield Council's Code of Conduct say?

The matters in regards to the Chief Executive again are,

1. Not following the Council's procedure
2. Handling the matters wrongly for the reason that the procedure was not followed based on the procedure
3. The complainant having to email the Council's procedure to the Chief Executive and request him to follow this.
4. The complainant being ignored and not receiving any response in regards to the above
5. The Chief Executive not leading by example
6. The Chief Executive not doing his own part at the final stage of the procedure

I also copy and paste the following from the Council's Code of Conduct,

Our standards are higher than those of other employers because Council
services can affect the health, wealth and well-being of local people. The
Council is often the only source of services - there will be times when there is
no-one else local people can turn to. Council services are also funded by the
public, and in law Council staff are expected to have very high standards of
conduct.
Our work is democratically controlled and open to public scrutiny. It is often
politically sensitive, and can depend on public confidence in the Council.
This code is binding on all Council staff. Breaches of the code and the
standards it expresses may result in disciplinary action. We also expect all
staff to operate within the law. Unlawful or criminal behaviour, even away
from work, may lead to action against you.
Breaking some rules is so serious that you can be dismissed for a first offence
without notice. It is your responsibility to read this code and work in
accordance with it.

And the following,

We are here to serve the people of Enfield. This requires a positive
commitment to public service and putting our service users, customers and
the community first. Our services can have a profound effect on the quality of
their lives and we have a duty to give our best at all times. They have the
right to expect us to listen to them, be open, helpful and professional in our
approach. They are entitled to have confidence in our services which
depends on you being considerate, responsible, sensitive and mindful of the
need to respect confidentiality.
Ensure that you:
• meet or exceed established standards of service when dealing with
people in person, by phone, letter or e-mail, whether they are service
users, members of the public, colleagues at work or colleagues
employed outside the Council. Always be:
- polite, positive, responsive and considerate. Always take a positive
approach in all dealings with our service users
- as clear as possible about the decisions and actions that we take and the reasons for them

According to the Council's Code of Conduct, it is the responsibility of members of staff to read the Code and work in accordance with it. Since the Chief Executive is employed by the Council and he is a member of staff, then, he is abided by the Code of Conduct.

Have the members of staff taken up their responsibility to read the Code of Conduct? Well, they should have read it as they are abided by it and especially since consequences follow their actions if this is not followed in practice or they go against it.

So let it be examined to what extent the members of staff including the Chief Executive himself has worked in accordance with the Code of Conduct and then, the Council's procedures.

1. Complaints Procedure

2. Activation of the Complaints Procedure

3. Who has followed it and who has not

4. Consequences to follow FOR THEM and THEIR actions. Enough with the consequences of their actions following me and enough with me paying for their actions. All of you, you take up your responsibilities and follow your procedures and keep your words. And make sure your actions match your words otherwise words should never be spoken-it is not your trust or faith that is lost by all these, it is mine and if you do not care then, I do.

5. Application of the Code of Conduct NOW!

6. The complaint and matters to be dealt with as promptly as possible.

The Council deals with,

1. The Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure

2. Members of Staff at the Department and Department itself

3. Whoever is responsible for what happened including the person who has hired the specific members of staff

If the Council does not wish or want to deal with the above then, it should come to the court along with its procedures, Council's Code of Conduct, mission, values, principles, all relevant regulation that all members of staff are abided by and all members of staff involved and responsible for all that had happened.

I will be coming on my own bringing only myself and of course, the evidence which I will present there, you bring all to help you and each one of you take care of yourselves, serve your own best interests instead of the community and people and help each other against me.

No need to worry about me at all not that anyone got worried or concerned, people have been so busy doing what was best for them on my expense that they did not have the time for any concern or consideration of me or others.

If they had the time, they would have invested their time thinking about how to save themselves, turn things against me and in favour of themselves on my expense(e.g Head of Regulatory Services).

As long as the procedure is being followed as far as I am concerned and none is taking my rights off my hands, all the rest is a peace of cake and even a walk in the park.

It is the Council's choice and decision about what will happen in the future. Please allow this complaint to proceed and do not do the opposite by stripping me off my rights, not providing me with a deadline about any of the two matters(you have already been given a deadline, that is the 20/6/2012) and continuing to do whatever you want and whatever suits you without taking me into consideration and with me having to tolerate patiently all that you do.

Is what others say and do part of the procedure? If yes, it will accepted

Does what others do demonstrate consideration of me? If not then, it will not accepted

Is what you do different or the opposite of what the procedure says?

Then, consequences should follow those who do something from what the procedure says and not me.

What do the rules say?

What does the Code of Conduct say?

What does the procedure say?

What was done?

If you or the Chief Executive want or wish to consult your lawyers now, please feel free to do so. If you do not wish or want to follow the Council's procedure and resolve the matters within the Council that, will become obvious in the next week and days. I will definitely not sit and wait to be informed as you will not inform me or sit and wait for any of you to respect or consider me as that is not going to happen either.

What happened is that all did whatever it suited them and that is what will continue happening while the message that Enfield Council serves the community and builds strong communities comes into my mailbox and people's words "they do not care" "they are just there for the money" "things are not as they used to" come into my mind.

Not even the Chief Executive of the Council is following the Council's procedure the Council's procedures are still there though along with the Code of Conduct that all staff is abided by along with the Chief Executive.

I no longer have faith in the Chief Executive as he does not lead by example in my opinion and this case and he is responsible for my loss of faith and trust not in the procedure but him.

It a fraud and deceit to be sent a peace of paper informing you that a, b, c is going to happen only, everyone to do whatever suits them and a, b, c not to be happening because it does not suit them or is not convenient for them.

Please refer the matter where it should be referred to, I will not sit here waiting for a response from the Chief Executive about reasons that are way too obvious. The procedure did not suit the Chief Executive and was not convenient for him, he was too busy to bother or care about a service provided to people. The Council's procedure did not suit him and was not convenient for him to follow this.

We are here to serve the people of Enfield. This requires a positive
commitment to public service and putting our service users, customers and
the community first. Our services can have a profound effect on the quality of
their lives and we have a duty to give our best at all times(Code of Conduct, Enfield Council)

This code is binding on all Council staff. Breaches of the code and the
standards it expresses may result in disciplinary action.

I base my complaint about the Chief Executive on the Council's complaints procedure and Code of Conduct. He is in public scrutiny and has to follow the Council's procedures and Code of Conduct as well. Please provide me with a reference number in regards to this complaint and inform me who has taken up the investigation of it.

If you do not accept complaints about the Chief Executive not following the Council's procedure based on the Council's complaints procedure and Code of Conduct then please, inform me where this should be referred

Thank you for reading,

Katerina Panagiotou

*

Yours sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

[1]Enfield Logo

 
 Response
Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 17/10/2012 10.18
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 17/10/2012 10.18
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Thank you for your question. Please take a look at these Answers from our
knowledge base that might answer your question.
[2]What responsibilities will I have managing my Direct Payments?
[3]Can someone else help me manage the Direct Payments?
[4]What can I use my direct payments for?
[5]What is meant by Direct Payments?
[6]Can I get a direct payment for community equipment?

If no Answers are shown this means we do not currently have any
information regarding this subject matter within our knowledge base.
 Discussion Thread
 Customer (Katerina Panagiotou) 17/10/2012 10.18 AM
==================== text File Attachment ====================
Attachment 1.txt, 69809 bytes, added to incident
 
 
 Question Reference No121017-000008
Date Created:  17/10/2012 10.18 AM
Last Updated:  17/10/2012 10.18 AM
Status:  Correspondence team
 

References

Visible links
2. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
3. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
4. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
5. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
6. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

Thank you for the threat of legal action against my person-if my behaviour is repeated- including an injunction to cease my behaviour.

In addition, the refusal to provide me with all the requested information under the Subject Access Request submitted to you yesterday and which concern decisions and actions made and taken behind my back and against me and you had not let me know or provided me with a warning.

The Local Authority should have been sending me an e-mail saying,

We are looking into the truth of facts you have presented along with the evidence. We will investigate and if that is the case then, we would take responsibility for our actions and words.

We do value honesty very highly and always strive to the best standards possible, we would not tolerate members of staff who have been found lying both to individuals and members of the public.

We or The Local Government clearly holds the information and the number of complaints prior to 2009 but had chosen to lie publicly or say that we do not hold this when we clearly do.

We, the Local Government along with all the rest members of the public can view online the annual report of complaints for the year 2007/08 that you have searched, found and presented to the public.

This Local Authority along with all the rest members of the public can clearly see the number of complaints prior to 2009 and this Local Authority said that it did not hold.

We, the Local Government can also see that the context of information this Local Authority provided to you and rest members of the public is under disrepute.

This is among others because we have said that the alteration of the complaints procedure took place in April 2009. More specifically what this Local Authority has said was that the complaints procedure has been reduced from three stages to two.

However, all of us can see that the chart this Local Authority has created for the number of complaints starting from April 2009 when the alteration was made, is consisted of three stages instead of two as we told you.

We can also see that indeed the Department Enfield Homes had found itself to the final stage and is absolutely nowhere to be found at the first stage.

We can also see that only one Department is following the three stages of the complaints procedure in the chart and specific year concerned whereas all the rest Departments do not. This when, as this Local Authority itself said that the complaints procedure was no longer consisted of three stages. In addition, that the reason for the reduction as this Local Authority said and in its own words was to make it quicker for complainants "to go through the system to conclusion".

The requester for information asked and still asks to be informed and demands an answer to the following question which would serve transparency the reason for the creation of this website and one of the obligations of Local Authorities and agreements made-to be transparent and comply with transparency,

So the requester for information asked and asks again the same question that can be found below,

If that is the case and if quicker meant easier for the complainants does this mean that you wanted to make it harder and more difficult for this specific category of complaints to go through the system to conclusion?.

Furthermore,

The context of the information you have provided just does not make any sense whatsoever. All of the context of the information you have provided is currently under disrepute and question.

I and rest members of the public would like to hear from this local government and this authority specifically an explanation about the context of the information you have provided. Not only this is requested but it is also demanded as well as I see no reason why an authority to be on a website that aims to serve transparency or to establish trust between all authorities who have signed up on this website and members of the public through OPENNESS AND HONESTY.

More specifically, we would like to hear the reasons why you have lied publicly that you do not hold the number of complaints prior to 2009.

I am extremely sorry but LYING PUBLICLY both to the requester for information and members of the public that you do not hold the information while you clearly do is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Or it is acceptable to be threatening me with legal actions and an injunction as well as refusing to provide me with the information that concern me personally behind the scenes and this for decisions and actions you have taken behind my back against me without letting me know.

It is exactly this kind of behaviour that has to cease and more specifically LYING PUBLICLY that you do not hold the information while you clearly do that has to see.

It is exactly the and this lack of HONESTY AND OPENNESS that has to see as well as any pretense and arrogance that go along with it, including the threats instead of taking responsibility for your own actions and behaviours.

You have said words that were untrue and provided false untrue information both to the requester for information and members of the public. And what you ought to be doing is TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for what you have consciously chosen and decided to do.

And you have consciously chosen and decided to do without having any consideration whatsoever how people would feel about what you have consciously chosen and decided to do as well as the impact this choice and decision to lie would have on people.

It implies no conscience and a complete lack of care about people and how people would feel about your conscious choices and decisions which obviously, are not beneficial to me. Quite the opposite.

I would like to be provided with an answer in regards to the choice and decision of this Local Authority to lie publicly and openly to ALL OF US without an exception.

These are your words, these are your choices and decisions not mine. What was brought forward was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth which could be found in your own documents and the ones your own person or this Authority had published online and made available to the public.

It was your choice and decision to LIE PUBLICLY AND OPENLY and you have consciously chosen and decided to do exactly that.

As a citizen I want this kind of behaviour to cease and not to be repeated ever again. As a citizen, I would like all of the lies and lying as a way of relating to members of the public to cease and the establishment of openness and honesty in the place of lack of openness and honesty or LIES AND LYING PUBLICLY.

Taking responsibility for your own words, choices, decisions and what you have consciously chosen and decided to do which was to LIE publicly both to the requester for information and members of the public.

That is what I would like to see and witness as a member of the public for,

Your behaviour is utterly and absolutely UNACCEPTABLE-when did lying become acceptable in your Authority and what gives you the right to lie publicly both to the requester for information and members of the public.

Believing and thinking that none would know about the truth of facts or find out does not give you the right to LIE PUBLICLY. It is just NOT ACCEPTABLE!

Please provide us all with an explanation for this behaviour that really has to cease. Lying, deception, not providing true and accurate information. Lying that you do not hold the information while you clearly do HAS TO CEASE as it is harmful and hurtful to people.

Lying is harmful and hurtful to people and lying publicly both to the requester for information and members of the public implies no conscience or a complete lack of care towards people and the impact your own choices and decisions would have on them.

The truth could be found in your own documents, papers and website to which your Authority has been referred to. These are your lies and your choice as well as decision to lie publicly and openly both to the requester for information and members of the public which is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Please provide us all with an answer in regards to the information and the annual reports of complaints starting from the year ended 2005 that you clearly hold but had consciously chosen to lie that you do not hold.

I am extremely disappointed and angry about your behaviour as well as how you have handled the matter behind the scenes. Threatening me with legal action against my person including an injunction and especially, saying that you do not hold the information that concern me personally and were requested under a Subject Access Request made yesterday is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Not only you do not take responsibility for your actions but you continue with exactly the same behaviours behind the scenes refusing now to provide me with the information that concerned and still concern my person and under the Subject Access Request made.

It is exactly this kind of behaviour that has to cease; not mine but yours, I have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not only I have told the whole truth but have supported and proved the truth of facts by using your own documents and the ones that your Authority had forgotten that it had published online and thus, made available to the public.

Lying and not being open and honest while you have agreed to be open and honest is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

It is extremely and further disappointing that is exactly what it is.

Yours sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

[1]Enfield Logo

 
 Response
Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 18/10/2012 10.03
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Dear Sir / Madam

We acknowledge your request for information received on 18/10/2012 10.03
AM

Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate team or service holding
the information and that team will respond to your request and contact you
where required.

If the information you are seeking exists, and we are not prevented from
releasing it by an exemption, the Council aim to provide you with the
information within 20 working days from receipt of your request.

Yours Sincerely
Enfield Council

Thank you for your question. Please take a look at these Answers from our
knowledge base that might answer your question.
[2]What responsibilities will I have managing my Direct Payments?
[3]Can someone else help me manage the Direct Payments?
[4]What can I use my direct payments for?
[5]What is meant by Direct Payments?
[6]Can I get a direct payment for community equipment?

If no Answers are shown this means we do not currently have any
information regarding this subject matter within our knowledge base.
 Discussion Thread
 Customer (Katerina Panagiotou) 18/10/2012 10.03 AM
==================== text File Attachment ====================
Attachment 1.txt, 14189 bytes, added to incident
 
 
 Question Reference No121018-000010
Date Created:  18/10/2012 10.03 AM
Last Updated:  18/10/2012 10.03 AM
Status:  Correspondence team
 

References

Visible links
2. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
3. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
4. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
5. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...
6. http://enfield-council.custhelp.com/app/...

Katerina Panagiotou

Dear Enfield Council,

Please provide the annual report of complaints starting from the year ended 2005 and as requested. I am particularly interested in receiving the annual report of complaints and number of complaints for the year ended March 2009.

I am extremely intrigued in finding out why it was so important for this Authority the number of complaints for the time period 1.4.2008-31.3.2009 to be withheld, kept hidden and a secret.

This given that your own person expressed that you do hold the number of complaints starting from 2009.

As far as the rest is concerned you do have to provide us all with an official answer about you lying publicly that you do not hold the number of complaints prior to 2009.

In addition, provide an official answer and response in regards to the context of information provided, each and every single point raised as well as in regards to the truthfulness of the information provided.

This Authority should take up responsibility for its choices, actions, decisions as it was your choice and decision to lie publicly that you do not hold the requested information while you clearly do.

In addition, it was your conscious choice and decision to produce the chart containing the information that its truthfulness is under disrepute.

You had made a conscious decision to lie and deceive publicly for the reason that you thought that the requester of information and rest members of the public would have never found out which for you, gave you the right to lie publicly and deceive.

You have no right not to be open and honest and to lie simply because none would find out or you think others would not find out.

With your action and decision you have also demonstrated a complete disrespect towards the requester for information and members of the public.

Furthermore, no conscience, consideration, honesty, openness and it is a fact that you have underestimated the requester for information and members of the public as them not being able to find out the truth because you had it all covered up.

What was covered up and what you thought you have covered up was the truth which you thought that you have managed to conceal so well that the requester for information and members of the public would have never find out that you have lied to them publicly.

Instead of taking responsibility for your actions now, you go behind the scenes threatening the requester for information with legal action-if their behaviour is repeated- including seeking an injunction in order for their behaviour to stop.

In addition, you refuse to provide the requester for information, the information requested under the Subject Access Request and regarded decisions and actions made and taken behind their back and against them.

Furthermore, not only you have not responded to my tremendous disappointment and upset with you LYING PUBLICLY TO ALL OF US that you do not hold the requested information and not only you have not taken up responsibility for making the decision to lie publicly and lying publicly but you have reported this request for information for administrative attention with the purpose and aim of escaping accountability.

I am very sorry to remind you that this Authority is accountable and should be held accountable for its choices, actions and decisions. And I am also very sorry to remind you that all of us would like to see you taking responsibility for your actions, choices and decisions as mature, grown up, responsible, considerate adults do.

You would like to hide or remove the whole truth from the website that had provided me a step and a place when you have excluded me. You would like to remove or get rid off my written speech as well as yours and then, my voice and a voice that you clearly do not wish or want to hear. You want my voice to be quieten and be removed from the website as you have arranged my voice not to be heard or listened as well as quietened behind the scenes.

I will fight for the truth to be kept on the website as well as for my rights and to preserve these-rights that behind the scenes you have taken from me and not provided to me.

And what I would be fighting mostly to retain is my right to express myself freely-a right that you not only removed and violated but stepped all over it as well. See Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to your actions.

You do not want to provide the information requested and annual reports of complaints starting from the year ended 2005. And most importantly, you do not want me to process information any further as there is more to be discovered and found from the information you have provided me with.

Most importantly, you would like to retain the annual report of complaints for the annual year 2008/09 hidden and this not to be revealed publicly. Not only you do not want me to find out about the number of complaints received at the council for the year ended March 2009 but in addition, why it is so important for you this not to be revealed. What is the reason for so much secrecy and what is the big secret?

What I also be doing from now onwards is that I would be going through all the information you have provided to all members of the public and investigating the truth of your answers and context of information provided to them. I would be keeping an eye on the truthfulness of your answers and context of the information provided to members of the public.

If the opposite is discovered then, I would be pointing this out and substituting this with the truth. That is one of the means that I would be using in order for your behaviour to cease once and for good and honesty and openness to finally be established.

In other words, it is your behaviour that has to cease and not to be repeated again and this is a great opportunity to provide an open and honest answer to all of us officially and be accountable for your actions, choices, behaviours and decisions.

You would like to remove your answers or answers you have provided me and rest with, the chart that contains the information that its truthfulness is under disrepute,the published annual report of complaints for the year 2007/08, the number of complaints prior to 2009, your answer in regards to it and escape from accountability plus responsibility.

You would like to hide the truth of your actions and decision to lie publicly and openly.

You do not want to accept any accountability or responsibility for your actions and you want to get away with it all, hiding the whole truth at the same time and without having to provide an official answer to all of us for your actions, choices, decisions and for which you are accountable.

I refer you to the blessings that take place during formal meetings at the beginning of the meetings even though the High Court decided and judged that these should take place prior to the beginning of meetings.

Since blessings are so important to you that you went against the High Court's decision and judgement in the relevant judicial review, I refer you to the Bible and the story of Goliath and David.

Even though, David defeated Goliath this part of history and the story of David defeating Goliath had not been removed from the Bible for the reason that Goliath did not like being defeated by David and did not want the rest to find out the truth.

The organization and website had been designed for specific purposes and you have made the agreement to be open and honest with the public.

You have not kept the agreement to be open and honest with us or the agreement to be transparent and not only we want an answer as well as openness and honesty but we demand this.

Please provide the requested information and an official response about you lying publicly to us as you ought to have already done.

Yours Sincerely,

Katerina Panagiotou

Mark Brincat, Enfield Council

Dear Ms Panagiotou

 

I refer to your related request for information dated 15th October.

 

After careful deliberation it is the view of this Authority that this
request is designed for the purpose of defaming and causing disruption to
it and lacks any real value or purpose. This Authority has made
considerable effort in dealing with all your requests and wherever
possible it has provided you with the information it holds. With regards
to this request this Authority is of the opinion that it is a misuse of
the right of access and it is with regret that this Authority is
responding accordingly.

 
In accordance with Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
this Authority is not obliged to comply with your request on the basis
that it is vexatious.

Furthermore, in accordance with Section 17(6) of the Freedom of
Information Act it would be unreasonable to expect the Authority to
continue to give a further notice of vexatiousness for subsequent related
requests. You should therefore not expect to receive any further
acknowledgements or refusal notices in response to such related requests.

Given the manner and the substance of this request as well as the
surrounding context, this Authority is of the view, that offering an
internal review of this decision is not appropriate.  Accordingly, if you
are dissatisfied with the decisions made in relation to your request you
may make representations directly to the Information Commissioner’s
Office. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

 

 

Regards

 

Mark Brincat 

FOI Officer

Legal Services - Corporate

London Borough of Enfield

Enfield

EN1 3XY

 

Tel 02083795056

 

Enfield Council is committed to serving the whole

borough fairly, delivering excellent services and building

strong communities

 

show quoted sections

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

[1]www.clearswift.com
**********************************************************************

References

Visible links
1. http://www.clearswift.com/