Dear Liverpool City Council,
Sue Grindrod raises fresh questions with her involvement at GGSD Ltd (Great George Street Development Ltd)
a) Please explain as to why our Liverpool city council still has not asked for the long overdue 106 fees from Liverpool Chinatown (GGSD) and from Chinatown Town Development Company Ltd?
GGSD had its Liverpool base at Avenue HQ 4 St Paul’s Square in March 2020 Neil Hunter and this company move out it was a pop-up desk only and never a full working office.
14th March 2019 - Investably took out a loan from Brick owner. [Mortgagor:
China Town Development Company Ltd
14th March 2019 - Great George St Developments took out a loan from Investably . [Mortgagor: China Town Development Company Ltd]
b) Why after these loans given to (GGSD) did not the Liverpool City Council ask for the full payment of £998,000 past due in 106 fees?
Sue Grindrod – Non Executive CEO of (GGSD) knew all about the past affairs with NPG Ltd and Chinatown Development Company, she was told of the SFO investigation, she is also a Director of (Liverpool Waterfront Business Partnership CIC) is known to the Mayor of Liverpool and many others in the Cunard building so how could this happen?
The two Directors of: LIVERPOOL WATERFRONT BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP CIC
Sue Grindrod & Nick Kavanagh l Liverpool city council Officer
34 The Colonnades, Albert Dock, Liverpool
As of 7th October 2020 the buyers (Investors) are been offered only 25 cents on the Dollar.
Cllr Ann O’Byrne made a statement all the investors would be safe and get full refunds and the company (GGSD) backed her up is it more lies from Cllr O’Byrne
Mr & Mrs Thomas Liverpool
Dear Mr & Mrs Thomas
Please see attached our response to your recent information request.
We note that a number of elements of the published request make comments,
assertions and allegations in relation to individuals, in respect of which
Warning – Submission of Information Requests with potentially Defamatory
We would advise that it is our assessment that elements of your request
comprising comments in relation to individuals may be considered
defamatory in nature.
We would further advise you that the defamatory statements made by
yourself either directly or through recognised aliases and contained
within the information requests referenced above fall within the meaning
of Article 14(1)(a) of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). Under the
law of England and Wales, a defamatory statement is one which tends to
lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society
generally (Sim v Stretch  2 All ER 1237).
We would further advise that a defamatory statement is published at the
place where it is read, heard or seen, and is not where the material was
first placed on the internet. In internet cases, therefore, provided a
small number of people have access to the material on the internet in
England, the English courts will have jurisdiction to hear the claim
against a foreign defendant (Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd 
We would therefore advise that you take prompt action to remove or disable
access to the Offending Webpages.
In the event that this confirmation is not received, the individuals named
directly or by implication within the above referenced information
requests and publicly displayed on the Offending Websites shall reserve
the right to issue proceedings against you seeking relief for defamation.
The remedies that may be available to the these individuals include an
injunction restraining further publication of the Offending Statement
[pending trial], damages, legal costs and interest.
Liverpool City Council
Be strong kind safe autosign_Protect each other small
1. mailto:[email address]
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now