Menu

OBJECTIVE

HOLISTIC AND NATURAL HEALTH


Web Journal Friday 14th March 2008
  • RBK&C TMO EGM notification 04.02.2008. Originally, the TMO Company Secretary sent a letter about this Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). I received the official notification on 1st March 2008 for the 18th March 2008 EGM.
  • Tenant Management failures amid comprehensive notification. At the point of the July 2003 Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate inspection massive suppressive retaliation and extreme measures from the abuse by surveillance technology to cause physical injury and blindness were carried out against me.
  • 12.03.2008 Leader of the Council Email. I received this extraordinary letter today about the EGM which takes place in a few days on Tuesday next. I sent an immediate Email reply a copy of which is enclosed here.

1. RBK&C TMO EGM notification 04.02.2008. An organisation that survives by using surveillance technology 24/7 for a decade to suppress dissent and truth in reporting problems is an organisation that will eventually collapse. The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) is one such entity that is coming apart. Last fiscal year it posted an unlawful £200,000 deficit. Currently, the Board of Directors is attempting to remove two of its directors and deprive them of membership in the TMO. There will be an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) this Tuesday, 18th March 2008 at 1930 at the Great Hall at Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall, Horton Street, Kensington W8, for members to vote on these expulsions.

I first heard of this problem in a letter dated 4th February 2008 (received 6th February 200 from the TMO Company Secretary announcing the EGM and outlining what was to be addressed (four resolutions) and urging that I follow the Board of Directors recommendation and vote in favour of all the four resolutions. The letter promised that more information would be forthcoming along with the official notification of the the EGM. Why was this letter sent at all?

On 1st March 2008 almost a month later I received the official notification with a cover letter that was not dated. This communication contained an explanator note, TMO Board letter, a statement of conduct about the two directors and postal and proxy voting forms.

The enclosed TMO letter from the Board of Directors was dated 13th February 2008. They have expelled two directors because they "refuse to accept the responsibilities that come with Board membership or be bound by Board decisions." These two expelled directors:

"have failed to abide by the majority decision of the Board that all Board Members consent to Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks";

"were offered a number of chances to apply for the checks, but they failed to consent";

caused a complete breakdown of trust and confidence in them by the remainder of the Board "by them not abiding by majority decisions of the Board, for example at the AGM in November 2007"; and

"have been found in breach of the Code of Conduct for Board Members due to their unacceptable behaviour towards other Board Members and TMO staff".

The letter went on to note that the supporters of the two expelled directors called an EGM to question the decision. The Board seeks to uphold the expulsions and concludes that it wants to "ensure that the TMO Board continues to build on the achievement of the 3 stars in 2006 and secure the future of the TMO for you."

2. Tenant Management failures amid comprehensive notification. I notified the Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate with two Emails on 2nd and 12th May 2003 about the tenant management problems. This was monitored carefully by those carrying out the surveillance technology and subjected to suppression and extreme abuse. Cataract surgery followed in early June and late July 2003 subjected to this extreme abuse. Six faxes were sent to the Prime Minister in May/June about this abuse since it was so bad. Copies were provided to an extensive distribution list including the Leader of the Council. The heat wave of early August 2003 then hit while the central heating was fully on at the Lancaster West Estate. My emergency correspondence about this on 11th August and 12 August 2003 went without a reply.

My position always has been that the TMO has not deserved the three-star rating by the Audit Commission as a result of the July 2006 inspection since this was achieved by means of fraudulent misrepresentation of its management. I further did not support the Audit Commission's award of a two-star rating in the July 2003 inspection for the same reasons. Nothing has changed in these years, and the situation has degenerated getting worse as I continue to document and report.

Correspondence to the Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate and others including the Leader of the Council

In May 2003 I sent a couple Emails (2nd and 12th May 2003) to the Audit Commisson Housing Inspectorate regarding the forthcoming housing inspection indicating the reasons why I could not participate and would not have an "open door" since I was subject to extensive surveillance and punishment from tenant management which had been in effect for almost five years at that point. I have made these communications and another related item available on my web site at Abuse of Power for £36 Million.

I provided several photographs of tenant management failures regarding serious safety and health issues which are available on this same web site page. I provided a comprehensive written summary at that point of the failures which I had noted and had been bringing to the attention of tenant management for years along with the included photographs to show exactly what was still happening. You will see that the second Email was widely distributed with its distribution list at its end which is specified in the paragraph after next. All those in key positions of responsibility were notified almost five years ago after this activity had been underway for five years.

Cataract surgery in June/July 2003 and correspondence to the Prime Minister and others including the Leader of the Council

The inspection occurred in July 2003. I had also had cataract surgery on one eye at a time in early June and late July 2003 with about a five to six week recovery period after each eye surgery during which I was subjected to very intense and continuous abuse 24/7 from those using the surveillance technology to do as much harm as possible hoping to destroy the benefit of the cataract surgery. The surveillance technology was also used to abuse me while I was on the operating table since this was performed under a local anaesthetic while I was awake. The intention was to create damage during the eye surgery by causing me to move.

This situation was so extremely bad that I sent six faxes to the Prime Minister from 15th May to 11th June 2003 concerning the Cataract Surgery 9th June 2003 Resulting From 58 Months of Surveillance Technology. Copies of these faxes were also sent to a distribution list including President George Bush due to the presence of US government agents who had been "invited" here as thugs to carry out lethal surveillance technology abuse, Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer now Prime Minister, Secretaries of State for the Home Office, Health, Works and Pensions and Trade and Industry, the Chief Executives of St Mary's and St Charles Hospital, Western Eye Hospital General Manager, my Member of Parliament, the Leader of the Kensington & Chelsea Council since the EMB and TMO were both Council creations for which he was responsible and 16 media recipients. This distribution list can be seen in the web page for these faxes/Emails whose link is noted in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Early August 2003 heat wave and emergency corrspondence to the Leader of the Council and TMO Chief Executive

During the first week of August 2003, there was the worst heat wave in the UK for a considerable length of time (perhaps since 'time out of mind') that has been estimated as causing the death of some 2,000 people. The central heating was on permanently in the Lancaster West Estate causing the temperature to be even more elevated in my flat. I sent an emergency Email to the Leader of the Council enclosing a letter sent to the TMO's Chief Executive on 11th August 2003. One Email was sent to the Leader of the Council as a follow up 24 hours later including copies to the media since I received no reply and the heat was still on. There was no subsequent reply to this second emergency notification either.

I included this problem in further correspondence to the TMO Chief Executive at the beginning of September after the excessive heat of August 2003 was over and finally received a reply toward the middle of October which was useless. My Emails to the Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate in May 2003 were unbelievably accurate in characterising the failures of tenant management which persisted throughout the summer, during the Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate inspection and, most especially, throughout the early August 2003 heat wave.

Rather than solve problems tenant management and others tried to suppress their reporting by the most extreme methods possible in the interest of image management

Evidently, tenant management did not want to acknowledge the central heating problem until the result of the inspection was accomplished with an award of two-stars to the TMO. Thus, thousands of people's lives were put at risk in the early August 2003 heatwave at the Lancaster West Estate. To not even respond to emergency Emails/letter at a time like that is one of the greatest abuses of power and deliberately disregard for the safety and health of tenants and residents imaginable. It was, however, consistent with my experience for over a decade so far.

All the while, of course, I was subjected to 24/7 second-by-second surveillance technology abuse that sought to do as much damage to me as possible continuing what I described above. Those using the surveillance technology were not going to report the problems about which the knew, and I was reporting. They wanted these problems to persist so that maximum harm could be done to me during the heat wave with the central heating on while I was recovering from cataract surgery on my second eye. This has been the same for the past decade. Nothing has changed, and this abuse continues while I write this web journal entry.

Tenant management has instead planned, prepared, constructed and managed 38 business units in the Barandon Road at the Lancaster West Estate at the expense of the 900 residential units

During this period of several years including the summer of 2003 and after, there occurred the preparation for and construction followed by the renting of 38 business units in the Barandon Road known as Baseline. At a cost of over £1 million time, attention, energy and money were misdirected for years toward the creation of these 38 business units by tenant management while the needs of the the 900 or so residential units in the Lancaster West Estate were deliberately disregarded.

Naturally, these business units require attention as well on an ongoing basis. This served the greed, glory and power of the few in charge at the expense of the thousands of residents calling into question the very purpose of tenant management. Anyone like me who was going to address these problems at their source would be subject to intense abuse as I have been 24/7 for almost a decade to suppress these devastating revelations. Those in power remained so by virtue of the violent abuse of surveillance technology in the hands of the criminal and antisocial elements.

3. 12.03.2008 Leader of the Council Email. Today I received a letter from the Leader of the Council which appeared to be sent to each and every TMO member with regard to next Tuesday's Emergency General Meeting. I sent a reply to the Leader of the Council by Email immediately. Here's a copy of that Email:

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: Your letter of 12th March 2008 re TMO Emergency General Meeting (EGM) Tuesday, 18th March 2008
Date: Friday 14 March 2008 17:08
From: Gary D Chance
To: Leader of the Council, TMO CEO, TMO Company Secretary, news24@bbc.co.uk

Cllr Merrick Cockell
Leader
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
Town Hall
Horton Street
London W8

Dear Mr Cockell

I was quite amazed to get this letter from you today in regard to this Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) EGM next Tuesday and assume that it is part of a general mailing to all TMO members.

Your concluding statement:

"A period of disarray is likely to prevent your Board and Chief Executive directing their attention to essential reforms that will lead to better services and improved housing quality."

opens two questions of great concern to me:

1. In my twelve years of residency since May 1996 just after the TMO was founded c April 1996 I have not experienced anything that could be construed as adequate management by the TMO. The opposite has been my experience about which I have dealt in essential correspondence during these years.

2. I take the statement you are making which is consistent with other written statements concerning this matter from the TMO as blackmail. Are you going to deny essential management services to the social housing stock in the Royal Borough if you do not get your way?

A. My big problem with this issue concerns the paucity of information which has been provided for voting purposes. Therefore, I have voted against the TMO recommendations for the following reasons:

(1) I know nothing about the content of the petition presented by TMO members which the Board wants to [include] [for] presentation and discussion. I cannot vote for the [inclusion] of a petition about which I know nothing and have, therefore, voted against such [inclusion] of this petition. It should [not] be presented and discussed. It should have been circulated to every member [beforehand for preparation purposes]. What is being hidden?

(2) Two directors have been removed from the Board and as members of the TMO.

(a) Failure to consent to a criminal records background check is most serious, but I do not quite understand why this has become such an issue.

Anyone in such a position can be supervised if they should come in contact with vulnerable people pending the results of such a background check. Why is consent required when it is part of the requirements of being a director of the TMO? Isn't this in the hands of the Board and the TMO administration to carry out such checks? Further, why isn't this done as a prerequisite for candidacy as a director?

I am amazed that the TMO Board would take such a stern position when it can do this itself and should be required to do this regardless of whether the person being checked consents or not. This stunning tough stance flies in the face of my experience after reporting child abuse from the flat below mine almost ten years ago on Tuesday, 5th May 1998, to the Chief Executive of the Council.

Following police intervention on Friday, 8th May 1998, these child abusers carried out an intense harassment campaign against me from a public declaration to do so on Monday, 11th May 1998. They were provided with surveillance technology in mid-August 1998 to augment this harassment campaign which has gone on 24/7 up to and including this writing driven by the mother of the abused children.

Where is the TMO concern and tough stance on the child abuse which actually exists in the community to preserve and protect those who report such child abuse? Instead the TMO has knowingly allowed such continuous violent suppressive abuse to be carried out against me 24/7 despite a significant amount of correspondence to the three consecutive TMO Chief Executives.

How can the TMO Board carry out this action against two directors for a relatively simple background check when it knowingly tolerates child abuse to continue with surveillance technology used by child abusers to thwart the reporting of this ongoing violence against children and adults for almost a decade?

(b) These two directors have lost the trust and confidence of the Board by not abiding by the majority decisions of the Board with an example cited for the Board meeting in November 2007 without any specifics provided.

No facts are provided pertaining to the issues with which these directors disagreed. Only general statements were provided that these two directors behaved in an intimidating, domineering and aggressive fashion as well as expressing adverse views about the competence of some board members.

They did not treat TMO officers with respect at meetings while acting contrary to the interests of the TMO at meetings. They were noted as acting in an intimidating and threatening manner towards a number of elderly or vulnerable residents when seeking votes for board elections in June or acting contrary to the interests of the TMO at meetings of the Senior Citizens Forum in October and November.

I do not know what was said and am only provided these personal attacks by the TMO against these two directors by means of general statements. There is a whole range of varying degrees of such kinds of behaviour that may or may not be considered for such action as has been taken and is sought by reinforcement from the TMO membership.

Further, the abuse carried out against me by those using surveillance technology against me 24/7 for almost a decade nonstop goes beyond anything that is humanly conscionable. This abuse has caused me grievous personal injury and continues to attempt to cause my death. Almost all Human Rights Articles have been breached with regard to my treatment during these past almost ten years.

Yet, the TMO with full knowledge of this activity including participation in it has allowed it to continue 24/7 in order to prevent me from communicating this extreme criminal activity being carried out against me. I took the exceptional step to write to each individual Board member two years ago about this situation and was further subjected to an attempt to intimidate me by threatening to reroute any further similar communications to the Company Secretary. This was provided to me in writing by the then TMO Company Secretary.

All I was doing was trying to save my life from the abuse being provided by tenant management, and for this I was being officially and further blocked by the officers of the TMO.

I have further brought the issue of corporate governance to the attention of the TMO Chair, Juliet Rawlings, who replied to my correspondence and indicated that further comments to me about corporate governance would be forthcoming.

I have received nothing further in this regard despite the fact that there is a requirement to engage in communication regarding all issues of corporate governance which are raised. There was a failure to do this with me and a failure to do this in this instance where the Board now seeks to banish those who are raising the issues.

I cannot support the Board's recommendation in these instances and have voted against having these two directors removed from the Board and removed as [TMO] members.

The TMO Board is demonstrating to me a double standard that I cannot support. With respect to its concern for protecting the vulnerable of any age, it has taken actions which are arbitrary and capricious when it suits it power purposes at the Board level without regard to a fundamental standard of such protection applied objectively in the community.

I believe that dissent on a Board of Directors is a healthy activity and should be encouraged not suppressed and squashed with a brutal dismissal such as appears to be the case here. I don't know what was said, and it might very well be a simple matter of one group of directors no liking another group or, in this case, pair. The case has not been made without the facts being presented. General statements of an ad hominem character do not suffice.

[NB "It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted."

["The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion."

[See Wikipedia ad hominem. I add this definition information here for the web journal entry since I am subject to this kind of verbal abuse daily from those using the surveillance technology. They never deal with facts and evidence but only personal abuse in general terms because they are trying to manufacture a hoax and incite others where they realise that what I describe is "correct and cannot be refuted." In fact, I've said this thousands and thousands of times over the years during the past decade.]

The matter of the criminal background check can be taken care of as described above.

(3) "That the meeting requests the TMO Board to continue to act in the best interests of the company."

I can't support this at all and have voted against it. The objective of the TMO is the best interests of the tenants and residents of the Council's social housing and not its own interests which might very well be the personal interests of certain board members who can control and dominate the entire Board of Directors.

I have not noted in the past that the TMO has acted in the best interests of the community and tenants which they purport to represent through the Board of Directors of the TMO. My experience has been exactly the opposite.

Concluding Comments:

I believe that it is the Council's responsibility to ensure that its social housing is managed according to basic standards of safety and health for all concerned. It is the Council who is ultimately responsible which is explicitly noted by the fact that the Council has created two separate but overlapping and competing entities to accomplish this responsibility: the TMO and the Lancaster West Estate Management Board (EMB). Both of this entities have failed in practise and as organisations as can be seen by these and other events.

If, as Leader of the Council, you perceive that that the TMO and/or the EMB are failing to provide the essential management services, you must assure that the Council then takes over such management forthwith to preserve and protect lives and property.

It is not your position to blackmail members of the TMO into voting for such proposals by stating that a failure to do so will result in disarray which will deprive tenants and residents of proper management for their homes.

I have called on you earlier to takeover these organisations as failed organisations based upon my decade long experience of such failure first hand which has been communicated extensively and continuously to all people in positions of authority throughout this decade.

My position remains the same. The TMO as it is currently constituted cannot and will not manage the properties properly. There is an overriding concern for power and sustaining it. I consider the activities of the TMO and EMB to be criminal by nature of the conduct specifics which I have communicated extensively for more than the past decade.

I do not believe that these organisations will improve the management and will hinder the so-called essential reforms being considered for this year about which I am sceptical as a solution to the existing problems. Tenant management of whatever shape or colour is a failure because it has been predicated upon a foundation which cannot sustain a standard of proper management, heath and safety for everyone who resides in the Council's social housing.

I believe that the Council will have to act with dispatch to take over the management of the social housing base from these tenant management organisations in order to ensure that the well being of everyone is preserved according to objective standards agreed upon and supported by the democratic rule of law which is absent at present in the Council's social housing management.

Yours sincerely

Gary D Chance

Go Back

Post a Comment