I still believe this decision is wrong. If a company, especially one dealing in housing receives a complaint about a member of its staff then that complaint should rise immediately to a manager. Why not just copy the police? if someone complains about a police officer then that complaint is dealt with by a senior officer it is a safe fair system and everyone knows it works and if it is true that Amicus Horizon have changed their complaints procedures they should inform us of the changes.

There is nothing wrong with this so long as it is not the senior manager who is the subject of the complaint.

The Stage 3 Panel is a much fairer way of resolving complaints but it is an extremely difficult stage to reach. Our experience with the complaint procedure is that the only thing wrong with the Stage 3 Panel hearing is that Stages 1 & 2 seem to be nothing more than difficult hurdles to jump before anyone can get there and the lack of information provided to that hearing by 1066 H.A is worrying. Also the hearing is run a little like a court hearing and the questioning is aggressive I think this should go both ways and witnesses or at least witness statements should be allowed especially as they are allowed from 1066.

This is not a surprise considering the Panel did not invite statements or appearances from those who were present at those two meetings. The panel heard from Anne Goddard-Christine Cope-Steve May-Robin Deane-Kevin Andrews-David Chidwick-Graham Morrow. Not one person from Churchill United was allowed to attend nor were they invited to submit statements so nothing has happened to change our minds that the 1066 H.A complaints procedure is geared against the complainant if the complaint is against 1066 H.A.

I would agree with this if the inaccuracy of 1066 record keeping had not caused so much distress already and if 1066 are sincere in the keeping of accurate records/minutes then I cannot see why they refuse to have meetings recorded? Again why not copy the police and use cctv. If you are not telling lies then you have nothing to fear and the advantage works both ways not just against 1066. No one is trying to trap them here. There can be no greater accuracy than a tape recorder or a cheap video camera. It is a great shame that 1066 refuse to see this suggestion as a protection rather than a threat but of course that only works if you have nothing to fear.

If that includes staff email records it is good.

I think it is a great shame that 1066 have decided to continue “Ducking and Diving” in an effort to escape this blatant breach. It makes no difference to our complaint if they attempt to pretend that they would have supplied the football kit in June 2007. The fact is they promised it would be given on January 11th. It makes no difference to our complaint if they construct a replacement meeting for June (which they have) and then supply a football kit via RLRA to someone else. The football kit is “owed” to those to whom it was promised the “Churchill United” football team who have not been invited to any meetings and who will not attend unless these matters are resolved first. Our efforts to obtain this justice will not cease there can be no alternative to the keeping of this promise and there should not be. 1066 are as always anxious to avoid any reference to the setting up of a fake presentation photo shoot that deception was so callous and cruel there cannot be many judges in this country who would not lock most people up for such a fraudulent act. It was a despicable thing to do.

Our records (yes we keep them to) of the conversation regarding Sandown field differs from this. Our record shows that 1066 H.A at that Panel hearing agreed to ask Sandown school if they would give them the field not that it matters very much who owns it if all of the local people are allowed to use it but I doubt it will happen.

The play area at Rock Close is already in use by mixed ages. Drug Users by night and young children and Flashers by day. I find it bizarre that the panel and Sandown School and 1066 feel that a group of over 18 year olds require suitable supervision to play football in a field that they have used safely for years but that under 10,s require no supervision in such a vulnerable play area like Rock Lane where there have been a number of recorded incidents. Hillcrest has already shown its determination to be completely unsuitable for the very young and those from under privileged families because of all of the reasons we discussed at the Panel Hearing such as; 1.) Cost! if you are an unemployed teenager how can you pay to get in? No income. No Benefit. The only useful access to Hillcrest facilities would be Free or Sponsored access for those who cannot afford to use those facilities.

2.) Are 1066H.A-Hillcrest School-ESCC- happy to guarantee safe passage across the main road for the under 10,s? I should not think that they would because it is so very dangerous. The whole purpose of everything that we were trying to do can be summed up in two words “Under Privileged” Give them somewhere to go! Making a business out of Hillcrest School does not help anyone but Hillcrest School it is not a gift to the community it is just a fake like everything else they promised originally and Hillcrest School should remember that being greedy and making residents pay for their new facilities is very wrong after all did,nt we already pay one way or another for everything at Hillcrest? TAX?

Once again the goalposts appear to be on the move! no one has ever suggested that the pathway at the rear of Broadlands was/is a right of way we have always referred to the pathway through Broadlands to the field and it is another great shame that 1066 were wise enough to consult a few residents about how they felt about the field being locked off but not wise enough to consult all residents about how they would be affected after it was closed and at the panel hearing Ms Goddard was extremely vague regarding who had been consulted and suggested a wider consultation following the meeting this of course has not happened.

In plain language the only way forward acceptable to 1066 would be if we linked with Red Lake RA?

May we remind 1066 that the “Furthering the aims” as they call it to the young people in the area were proposals put forward by Churchill United. Those aims were rejected by Red Lake RA even though they were without question accepted at the time by 1066. The matter of training/insurances/supervision are unarguably essential and we would ask 1066 once again if they are completely happy and confident in the people they are promoting and supporting and encouraging to enlist the support and involvement of the children of this estate? and this matter is so important we do once again urge them to reply. If 1066 respond to this clear question with a clear yes or no we will post their reply in this space.........................................................................................................................

If they do not I for one will not be entrusting my children to anyone who is not officially trained and registered by the authorities and I suggest everyone who reads this wonders why they refuse to give a clear reply and everyone who has been involved from the beginning will also be aware that it was RLRA who objected to Churchill United not us who objected to them.

I think this is a very fair way forward so long as it is not just a scam. If the intention is to repeat the same meeting without any promises being made then it is nothing more than a poor escape route for 1066 to avoid their responsibilities by saying all past promises are exempt and this cannot be acceptable to any fairminded person or RA. If everyone is going to hear repeated promises like the Playbus is coming then those present should make sure it happens. If anyone present at this meeting wants to provide Churchill United with a recording of this meeting we will gladly post a clear and accurate and totally unbiased account on theavenue website and we hope that this meeting is a success and that this time promises are kept but I remain sceptical and I,m not alone in that 1066 have a very poor track record when it comes to keeping promises.

Hopefully this means that 1066 staff will no longer breach those rules and perhaps 1066 would like to tell us for our website exactly how many of those teenagers actually got the promised interviews? the answer is 0.

It would be impossible for me to provide names of 1066 staff and ill advised but this is another section of the panel hearing where our record differs from that of 1066. Our record suggests that the reason parts of that meeting were not minuted was because the discussion referred to the supervision of children by people who were not suitable or properly trained for the task.

Actually the agreement at the panel hearing was that 1066 would write to East Sussex County Council supporting our request for Disabled Access to properties in Churchill Avenue as originally promised by Christine Cope. It is a great shame that they do not appear to be doing so and if they are now aware of ESCC intention not to provide that access perhaps they would agree that it is not appropriate to house disabled tenants here in the first place.

We fully agree with the panel on this point and thank them for hearing our complaints.

There were a number of other things brought up at the meeting that 1066 dismissed as having been dealt with such as; 1.)Lock changes. 2.)State of interior decoration for new tenants. We are not suggesting that they have not dealt with these matters only that they are refusing to say how they have dealt with them. We are passing all of our original complaints to the Ombudsmans office today 04th June 2007. This is a slow process but when we receive a decisin from them we will post it here.