Is this mystery Councillor merely being benevolent? Or is he using his public position for personal gain by taking advantage of a down on his luck constituent?
Note: Do not post any names in comments - they will be deleted.
Tuesday 20 July 2010
An Anglesey True Story.
Is this mystery Councillor merely being benevolent? Or is he using his public position for personal gain by taking advantage of a down on his luck constituent?
Note: Do not post any names in comments - they will be deleted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments:
True benevolence would be to pay-off the mortgage of the owner and let him live in peace. This is taking someone's property under cover of 'rescuing' them, reducing the former owner to a servile tenant with few rights other than to do as the landlord says.
OK, the man still has a home, whereas the bank would have turfed him out with no argument. But what's the difference between being a tenant of said Cllr. and any other landlord that the man could have ended-up with? If none, then the deal is purely for personal gain, surely? A mortgage of £45k would cost what? about £300-350 a month, depending on which deal applied, and the cheapest rent is about £450. So, is the Cllr. offering below-market rate rental? Does the former owner have a guaranteed long-term let? What happens if the man's situation gets so bad that he can't even pay rent? Did the Cllr. advise the owner to see Citizens' Advice or the bank to discuss all the options, rather than just the one that benefited the Cllr?
Doesn't sit well with the Code of Conduct, either:
Selflessness - Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
Honesty and integrity - Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.
Sorry Druid, but
"The Councillor, a man of property, then donned his opportunist hat, bought the property for £45K and allowed his constituent to stay on as a tenant."
does really break your own rules of naming persons, however obliquely they are referred to..
Again and your not to blame but you have fallen foul of typical Anglesey gossip especially of those above a certain age.
But at least it's a good diversion tactic.
11.35
Who is it who denies this story ?
Who's identified? Nobody.
Maybe it's time to show the evidence.
We're working on it...
Who is it who denies this story ?
but that's all we have isn't is a story, and no real evidence of any wrongdoing. How much rent is being charged now, and was the house really worth 80K and more.
What was the alternative at the time, was there a court order for repossession and
"Sorry mate I could help but as Councillor it's better that I don't."
11.53
Its about ethics ?
"Sorry mate I could help but as Councillor it's better that I don't."
and
"Its about ethics ?"
Yes, these are the crucial points. I gather there is good evidence that this story is true, but it's right to say that, without the full story, evidence and names, we have to assume it isn't a true story, for the moment, at least.
More importantly when saying they would help the individual, where they doing do so, as a Councillor, or as a private individual.
There is a difference, otherwise no Councillor would give money to relatives. Not that any relatives are involved in this case apparently.
This story, and its truth, is well known in those parts !
Ha.. we are getting closer to the truth about this story then.
"It's well known in those parts" a bit like the advert then..
So as you are not from 'these' parts you must be relying on hearsay.
14.05 makes too many assumptions.
14.05 makes too many assumptions.
Councillini has it in nutshell.
Hypothetically, if such a thing were to happen then the following would apply:
http://www.anglesey.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=1541
The model code of conduct for councillors.
The relevant bit, regarding the hypothetical situation is:
Part 2. General Provisions.
7. You must not -
(a) in your official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use your position improperly to confer on or secure for yourself, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for yourself, or any other person, a disadvantage;
Breaking this down the key points are -
You must not:
1. If you are a councillor, whatever the situation
2. Use or attempt IMPROPERLY
3. To gain an advantage for anyone
4. Create a disadvantage for anyone
In the situation you described I would have thought that the proper advice would be for the homeowner to seek help from a housing association. There are government backed schemes where people having problems with their arrears could enter into agreements with local housing associations or building societies to part purchase and even later buy back the property. I would have thought that would be the advice CAB would have given. I believe that there are specific government mandated directions that put a duty on the banks to exhaust all possible alternatives before making a charge or repossessing the property.
The issues for the model code are:
1. Did the councillor act improperly? We may say he acted immorally but that is not the same as improperly. It could be said that because he was privy to information because of his position as a councillor that it breached confidentiality.
2. Has he gained an advantage? Yes he has gained pecuniary advantage of £35K. It could be said that he has taken on the responsibilities and duties of a landlord, but that is not equivalent to £35K of assets. And if the tenant is paying rent then again he is making money and this offsets against his duties as a landlord.
3. Is the homeowner disadvantaged? He has lost capital assets of £35K in exchange for a tenancy, which presumable would mean that he could be evicted under certain circumstances, so he would have lost personal security. If he could have made arrangements where he retained some degree of ownership of his property then he is again disadvantaged.
However if the homeowner is perfectly satisfied with the arrangement then there probably is no problem, as anyone can sell their property to whoever they want.
If however, the homeowner changed their mind after entering into such an agreement then there would be cause to examine whether the homeowner was in a state of stress or in such a situation that they were vulnerable to persuasion.
Section 6 also says :
6 (1) You must - (a) not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
I think I made one assumption which was that as Anon 13:54 said
"This story, and its truth, is well known in those parts !"
They weren't from those parts, and therefore it was hearsay.
Though protest to much me thinks.
Does anyone know any more facts?
There was equity in the property; what arrangement was come to in respect of this?
Is the property wholly owned by the Councillor or has he bought an interest?
Is the tenant living rent free?
What was the expectation of the constituent when he approached the councillor? There was little that the councillor could be expected to do in the normal course of things.
14.19
The Councillor knows who he is.
Let him make a sworn statement in defence of his action, if he has nothing to hide ?
You see the problem with gossip is that we do not know the full story so things like:
"which presumable would mean that he could be evicted under certain circumstances, so he would have lost personal security"
can be asked, but what if they have been offered a secure tenancy for the rest of their life with no rent payable.
Maybe not, but we do not know, it's a story, an urban or rural myth you decide.
To 14:24 The so called Councillor may know who he is, but we do not.
And talking of sworn statements a certain Mr Durkin, had I recall to change his sworn statement see:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0006/13659/OnlineVersionFOI3307alldocuments_27150-20079__E__N__S__W__.pdf
What a sceptical lot we are!
But in truth everything hangs on the facts.
There is a scenario whereby the councillor, realising that he cannot effectively help his constituent, decides to protect him with finance which he has access to. The councillor takes reasonable precautions to protect his investment and derive some benefit but not an extortionate amount. In return he offers his tenant reasonable protection from eviction and properly carries out his duties as a landlord.
Has he then profitted from his position as a councillor? If his conduct is honourable how does he bring his position into disrepute?
Charitable assumptions are made by the above comments.
To 15:02
"Charitable assumptions are made by the above comments."
But surely as suggested by Anon 14:49 that's the Christian thing to do, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, which I have not seen any to date.
Innocent unless proven otherwise etc...
"If however, the homeowner changed their mind after entering into such an agreement then there would be cause to examine whether the homeowner was in a state of stress or in such a situation that they were vulnerable to persuasion. "
This is very true. If the story itself is true, then I would expect a responsible councillor - or anyone else - to take very great care with the person, because that situation of potential repossession is a terrible one for anyone to face, and will put the person under immense stress.
It isn't possible for a councillor to claim the same private rights as any other member of the public, for he occupies a public position and should act impeccably. In reality, though, this case must hinge on whether the man was taken advantage of, and whether there were other options - which there clearly were - available that were better than signing it away to someone else.
To anon 15:31
"It isn't possible for a councillor to claim the same private rights as any other member of the public, for he occupies a public position and should act impeccably."
Thank you, I agree i.e when a councillor claims he has a tape and then when challenged will not produce it.
Sorry but to good an opportunity to miss.
15.52 Yes, this is a digression...or an intentional (?) diversion even, from the thread ?
The Councillor knows who he is..and will be aware of this posting....if he has nothing to hide.....????
to 16:00
Of course, unlike Cllr Durkin who first mentioned the tape and hence all the questions thereafter, the Councillor in this thread (the one that has brought allegedly the house), was not the source of the story (unless the Druid knows differently) and cannot therefore be expected to implicate himself even of he is not the Councillor referred to (there could be more than one, black swans and all that).
16.58
Yet another crude attempt to distract and divert attention from the current thread...tut tut !!
This is not about BD, this once.
So this thread is about a certain Councillor who allegedly brought a house from someone for allegedly £45,000 (the outstanding figure)when the house was worth £85,000. And this was because the homeowner could not keep up his repayments.
And we do not know what the terms of the agreement they must have entered into was ?
And we cant mention the name of the Councillor otherwise our comments will be deleted, even if they had done nothing wrong.
And we expect the unnamed Councillor to name himself even if there is a chance it's not him.
No, this one is an urban myth, or prove it otherwise so to speak. (Papers, ombudsman, TV etc.)
and not letting go.....
The problem is, Anon. 18.00, that all complainants become serial complainants if they don't get an answer easily. Its the nature of the beast. If a person is tenacious enough he is branded as a "crank" and then that term is used to justify not giving him answers.
I've seen it a few times. BD might not be smart or well liked but to cut through the crap... does he have a point to answer?
You have witnessed him pursuing information through the FOIA but look at the allegations against him! Would you allow someone to claim that you were a bankrupt and ex-con and, knowing you were not, just shrug and walk away?
And now you too infer that he IS an ex-con!!
Well put up or shut up; what was he convicted of and when and how long did he serve?
I've removed a number of comments which had nothing to do with this thread. Plenty of other threads to discuss Anglesey's most famous cassette tape.
Problem is 18:37
You need to know who's was making the allegations to be able take action.
That's why nameless allegations are not worth a fig. As you say put up or shut up.
its all just gossip and tittle tattle unless we are given names ,
I suppose if there's enough reason to suspect a breach of the various codes of conduct - or even the law - then a complaint can be made. The Council will probably try to defend the person and issue a 'thanks, but no thanks' sort of reply. But then there's the Ombudsman, and beyond that?
8.27 If this comment relates to the original thread of this Post...the said Councillor knows who he is, in his conscience he knows the impropriety of his action, and many others know the facts...which may or may not be exposed !
CONGRATULATIONS DRUID and wise subscribers. You have had a good write-up in the 'Mail' with great praise for the People's Manifesto.
By them asking for suggestions I do hope the paper will not try to filch all your good work. The paper could simply have given the web address for you Druid.
Anglesey Islander
Now THIS is stupid.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-10709956
A Cardiff councillor who referred to Scientology as "stupid" on a social network site has been referred to an ethics committee.
The Public Services Ombudsman has ruled there is a case to answer under the councillors' code of conduct.
Gog help any councillors on Ynys Mon who would do something as serious as criticise the 'esteemed and feared' Church of Scientology
Puck
The thing is, as a Councillor, you represents the Council (the Councillor not you so to speak), and need to be careful about the things you say. So saying that a particular religious group is stupid is wrong.
Asking all religious groups to be open and transparent about how they recruit new members, and what restrictions they place on members is acceptable.
You see discrimination is about picking on a particular group. Saying all religion is stupid isn't.
And there ends my sermon for today.
I have no idea if this is true, but according to Wikipedia Scientology isn't a recognised religion in the UK.
"Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States and some other countries,[7][8][9][10] and the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion.[11] In other countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, Scientology does not have comparable religious status"
I wonder how he feels about Jedi?
SO THE WILY OPPORTUNISTIC COUNCILLOR GETS AWAY WITH ABUSING HIS PUBLIC POSITION.....?
TYPICAL OF YNYS MON.
THE MAFIA IS ALIVE AND PROSPERING.
And then there a Councillor who claims he has a tape, but when challenged etc....not letting go...
As 12:46 said
The horse looked around nervously, it had survived another night. How it wished he was on the island of Sicily, he would be much safer there.
14.58
The God of thunder rode out
Upon his mighty filly
I'm THOR he cried!
His horse replied
You forgot you Thaddle Thilly
The Godfather rules...the Mafia is alive and well, preying on the weak and hopeless.
09:33
You'd better believe it.
20.37....WHAT...AGAIN ??
Still a lot of Abuse Druid.
Don't let it bring your excellent Blog site into disrepute, bin it please.
we are said persons involved in this sad tale,we have not said anything yet due to possible repercussions against our family,the figures quoted are all wrong the house was worth a great deal more than what he paid for it,the one next door was valued in excess of 160000!!!!! we moved out because said counciler started to pull celings down etc etc!for the health&safety of our family we moved on,leaving with nothing but our possesions! we still have nothing and cannot get a council house as we do not have enough points!!!!!!!!! we are stuck in a tiny house with damp issues but as the person from the council who came round said "not an issue" even though the few remaining possesions we have left are getting destroyed by damp......
Better still, e-mail it to Rebecca:
editorial@rebeccatelevision.com
You can be sure of thorough investigation and no-nonsense, fearless reporting from Paddy French.
If the anonymous couple partially identified on another thread as Mr A & Ms W are genuine and if it is they who posted on 13th Aug at 2020 then what they need to do is a no-brainer, they should pursue the cllr with every means at their disposal. They have already been advised on here to get the Ombudsman involved - toothless and ineffective as he is in my personal experience but at least this would start the ball rolling. Furthermore, they have been advised to contact Rebecca. This advise by TGC is excellent, I know Paddy French and I think we all know who this cllr is, and believe me nothing would give Paddy more pleasure that to nail this teflon coated individual once and for all. Paddy has been on his trail for a long time. I trongly urge this couple to take the advise offered here, this man has been ducking and diving for a number of years now and getting away with things often by the skin of his teeth. He has been wallpapering over the cracks for a long time (if those who are familiar with said cllr will pardon the pun)and this is the opportunity to nail him once and for all thereby ridding the island of one of the cancers that has been eating away at its governance all these years.
11.01 Hear Hear !
This is a truly awful case of blatant, opportunistic, immoral profiteering by A Councillor who, in their innocence, was trusted to help a young couple down on their luck, about to be evicted....he did not help them....no, he helped himself ....to their substantial equity in the house.
It beggars belief that A Councillor could do such a thing.
Let him face the serious consequences of his dishonest action.
"Let him face the serious consequences of his dishonest action"
To be fair, and although there seem to be several matters that need investigating in this case, we do not know whether the decision to sell the house to this councillor as is alleged was anything other than an agreement willingly entered into. It is not inconceivable that, by now, the couple may regret their decision and have a different view of what they decided at the time. Their vulnerability at that time is a material consideration, of course, so I'm not suggesting that what they did is purely down to them alone and that they must now simply live with it; it seems there were other possibilities available had they been told about them, possibilities that any reasonable councillor should have ensured were made aware to the couple.
We must be careful what we say when we do not possess the full facts, and when it is likely that many will know who the councillor in question is.
Undue influence ??
An equitable doctrine that where a person enters into an agreement or makes a disposition of property under such circumstances as to show (actual undue influence) or give rise to the presumption that he has not been allowed to exercise a free and deliberate judgement on the matter, the Court will set it aside. Such a presumption arisesin cases where the parties stand in relation implying mutual confidence e.g. adviser and client.
For what its worth !
To end this well-intentioned speculation...perhaps we should respectfully ask the couple concerned, if they wish to answer that is -
1. Were you happy to accept the terms of the deal at the time ?
2. With hindsight, are you still happy with the deal ?
to answer the question:
a.we were not happy with the deal but did not have much choice at the time!
b.no,in hindsight we are not happy as we are worse of now than we were before.
Anon at 14:37 on 20th July is not telling the truth Again.
"a.we were not happy with the deal but did not have much choice at the time!
b.no,in hindsight we are not happy as we are worse of now than we were before. "
Firstly, if you are genuinely the people affected, then I think we would all empathise with your situation and offer as much support and help as we can.
I think the response (a) is critical, because it is the options that were before you, and your ability to take up any of those options, that is important.
The post concerning undue influence is very well-presented and I would ask you to consider this very carefully, preferably with a solicitor (I'm sure there's one reading this who could offer help for free or much reduced fee?)
I don't think we are looking at any new questions at the moment - they are still: was it reasonable to expect a councillor to offer advice and support that provided you with full details of all the options available under the circumstances? Was he qualified to offer advice? If not, was it reasonable for him to direct you to a body that would act independently and represent your interests? Was the offer to buy at that point absolutely necessary, perhaps as a result of how far the problems had developed and the imminence of any proposed repossession? Did the owners make a reasonable effort to examine all avenues available to them themselves, independent of the councillor? Was it apparent to the councillor that the couple were under great stress, and therefore vulnerable, such that his actions may later be seen as predatory? Did any of his actions amount to an abuse of his position as councillor?
Of course, a proper examination to legal standards would take days in Court, so I don't propose my questions are in any way exhaustive. But I do think that most reasonable people do know, for example, about Citizens' Advice Bureaus, the government scheme for mortgage arrears (even if we don't know the details), and that most of us would have accepted we did not have enough knowledge to help with the specific advice on a potentially complex issue, and then advised a call or visit to one of these in the first instance.
Given the way in which people are interpreting this situation on the available facts, it is clear that the councillor has failed to take into account a key component of standards in public life: 'it is necessary to avoid not only wrongdoing but also the appearance of wrongdoing.'
You can`t get the toothpaste back in the tube, Councillor !
I suspect this may be a contentious post.
There appear to be two types of postings on this (and other similar) topics.
1. Those that seek justice and redress for those who have been wronged
2. Those that seek retribution against alleged wrongdoers and miscreants
The key word in this second case being alleged.
While I am fully in favour of this blog for exposing injustice, wrongdoing and undemocratic governance I have deep reservations about a 'trial by blog' and the distress that this causes individuals named or unnamed.
There are other avenues available for holding individuals to account and though it may be frustrating that the wheels of justice turn slowly, these wheels do grind exceedingly small.
I'm not naive enough to suppose that justice is obtained when politics is involved, what with dodgy dossiers, protracted enquiries, (Bloody Sunday) and restricted remits, (David Kelly and the Iraq War enquires).
That is where campaigning organisations like Amnesty International and investigative media like Private-Eye and Rebbecca come in.
Establishing the facts of the matter is a pre-requisite to making accusations especially when identifying wrongdoers.
I appreciate the difficulties involved in publicly verifying the facts in this particular case and strongly suspect that Druid had reservations in posting this thread as the full facts are not public knowledge.
I also suspect that the prime motivation of the Druid in posting this was to seek justice for the couple involved, which I applaud.
I am concerned at the sustained attacks on the councillor (allegedly) involved without verification of the facts.
I welcome the fact that the couple involved have decided to speak out, (I'm assuming it is indeed they who are posting as there have been no claims to the contrary), as this will throw some light on the affair, but still draw the line at pre-judging the guilt (or innocence) of others involved.
I would also point out that there is a considerable difference between those who have been wronged seeking justice AND retribution; and those who aren't involved yet still just bay for blood.
I'm sure the Druid would agree that there is a lot of difference between a Druid and a Witch-finder General.
I am given to understand that there is more to this saga that is immediately apparent and I ask the couple, if indeed it is they who are posting on this thread, to reply to the following question:
Were you, at the time, on the point of selling your property to another interested party for an agreed sum only for the councillor in question to gazump this other party? This is what I have been told by three reliable sources. I have no axe to grind and make no comment regarding how this particular councillor has behaved in the past to develop his reputation as a dubious wheeler and dealer. It is up to the couple involved to tell us if what I have stated above is in fact true. If it is then I personally cannot see that there has been any unlawful act carried out by the councillor. Gazumping is not a nice practice but it does happen and is not illegal in England and Wales - although I believe it is in Scotland. If the couple do think they have been wronged in the eyes of the law then they would be better getting proper legal advice - and I would certainly echo the sentiment of another poster to get that advice from a firm of solicitors well off the island.
The facts are known to many, but not all.
The facts speak for themselves.
This Blog is committed to exposing abuse and corruption in public life.
Prometheus - you are quite right.
To the couple - please can you kindly contact me by clicking on "contact" button above. Thank you.
TGC
I do agree with you. I realised in my posting that I was describing the extremes of behaviour on this (and other posts) and that there is a lot of middle ground in-between. (Thus contentious)
I also realise that there will be cases when there will be an absence of 'public facts' and that in these cases a narrative firsthand account will have to suffice.
I also firmly believe in freedom of expression, but don't extend that freedom to 'freedom of abuse' as regretably happens here from time to time.
As with all things in life 'balance' and moderation go a long way.
I also think the Druid does a good job in moderating the blog, treading well the fine line between allowing outspoken opinions and removing those comments that break the rules.
Prometheus,
Yes, there are certainly meaningless and abusive comments here, and those I agree should not be made.
You are right to point out that this blog is well-run; if you compare the utter drivel and frankly unacceptable nature of so many blogs and forums, then it's quickly apparent how lucky we are to have this blog. Something, at last, to be proud of on Anglesey!
Prometheus and TGCouncillini...the two wise men of this Blog...their wisdom and logic always clear as glass, and a joy to read....let us take our cue from them and "think"...before we commit words to this Blog.
It is so very easy but patently wrong to tap out ill-considered intemperate words on a keyboard.
The moral is "think" before we tap send ?
This is just another example of how the gutter politic's of Anglesey County Council Works, when one exercises the mind in the public interest against the back pocket fillers that are now running the Council. Abuse lie and try to destroy.
Bowles's little bully boy tactic's may be working with the spineless minority but not with those of use who will see the garbage in hell first.
Comment made at 13:18 removed on request.
15:33 - It was deleted for reasons of privacy. This blog follows a policy of not allowing the naming of persons "however obliquely'. By identifying the address you identified the persons concerned.
As you have reposted it, I will delete it again.
Fair comment Druid, apologies for over looking this error, however I still fail to understand the earlier comments regarding another party being gazumped, if the said Cllr gazumped another party then how much had the other party bid? when the alleged price paid was supposed to have been £45k, having searched for information i found that the house was in fact sold for the sum of £91k, this is the truth, obviously someone is telling lies and afraid perhaps of the truth!
The facts will come out in a pending investigation !!
What Pending Investigation?
I think what we have here is the Anglesey County Council dirty tricks machine in full throttle, spewing out their evil attempts to bring someone into line. the pattern is now well known.
18.31....be patient...it is afoot...wait and see !
Wait and see......!
Rebecca cometh !!
AND who is this cosy Meg lady we hear about ?
.........not at all, we are on to him.
The crooked pipe puffer.....its not over yet......!
Post a Comment