Sunday 18 August 2013

'You can go to hell!!!' Brent councillor tells correspondent

This is a fuller version of the story first published under this heading.

A seemingly innocuous request to a local councillor last week escalated quickly into an exchange where the councillor told his correspondent to 'Go to hell!!!'

The correspondence begun thus:

 Dear Labour councillors

Are statutory declarations and Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements no longer considered legal documents? 

This is the final stages of the correspondence:
Subject: Re: 67 Church Lane, London, NW9 8ED
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:39:58 +0100

I am not prepared to answer any question from you. You can go to hell!!!
Cllr Dhiraj Kataria

Welsh Harp councillor

On 17 Aug 2013, at 20:35, "Rendall Mallakee" <> wrote:
Your not in favour of "Illegal" residential structures in gardens? Firstly, If it were "illegal" it would be a criminal offence, and its not. The criminal offence is breaching the enforcement notice if one is issued within 4 years. Imagine if Brent Council charged council tax on such buildings your not in favour of that contributed to your "basic" wage. 

I'm concerned you don't understand planning legislation, yet you're on the planning committee that pockets you an extra £2,113 on top of your "basic" £7,947 wage. 

Anyway, back to the question you keep avoiding, that I still require answering. 

Please confirm statutory declarations and Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements are no longer considered legal documents by Brent Council. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Or maybe, if you're interested in finding out, you could contact the planning department - your time would be better spent by asking the Fiona Ledden in the legal department.
I understand it must be annoying for you when a Brent resident knows a little and can't be bullied into going away. Close more libraries so people like me can't read planning books.  
Rendall Mallakee said:
 I'm not the applicant, I was just questioning the incompetence of Brent planners not knowing what a legal document was. The debate then spilled over when Cllr Dhiraj Kataria (who sits on the planning committee) gave his "personal" view on a planning matter, rather than approach it from a planning point of view. Makes me question how they think when it comes to the Willesden library, the Queensbury etc. Planning merits or personal opinion. 

Brent residents should be able to question Brent councillors without being told to go to hell.
 In response Cllr Kataria said:
I answered several emails  from  Rendall about his problem via email.  I had adequately answered his question that legal documentation submitted to the Council in support of his application should be something which can be verified independently. He was clearly not satisfied with this answer and pursued with more emails. 

When he made his rather rude comment that I did not understand Planning laws, I felt that he was going too far. The fact of the matter is that he has put in a residential unit in his garden. Normally, this is against the Planning law. The fact that his breach of the law was not discovered for four years, he is now seeking to exploit it by seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness, which the Council has already dealt with by rejecting his application.
There is clearly a discrepancy here in that Cllr Kataria thinks Rendall Mallakee is responsible for the building at 67 Church Lane and Mallakee says he is not the applicant. He does not appear on the 2009 electoral register at that address but I cannot find him anywhere else in the borough either.

When I put this to Cllr Kataria he said:
I have not met him and I am not sure of his identity. I dealt with his enquiry by responding to him three times .As a councillor, when people write to me attaching Council reply, I have to take them at face value. Councillors get lots of email and have to take these in good faith.
Responding to a complaint from Mallakee about being told to 'Go to Hell!!!', Cllr Roxanne Mashari, also a Welsh Harp Labour Councillor, wrote:
Unfortunately I do not have control over what Mr Kataria says and does, I can only answer for my own conduct.

I have reported Mr Kataria's comments to our leader and chief whip for investigation.

I will await the response from our officers on your query but please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this or any other matter in more detail.
Earlier Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt had also replied to Rendall Mallakee:

Dear Rendell
Thank you for bring this matter to my attention. 

I am on leave at the moment but will be asking the officers to explain the case to myself and will respond to your points about statutory declarations and short hold tenancy agreements. 

I sincerely apologise that you feel that one my Councillors conduct was not up to expectation. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me for anything else. 

Kind regards



claremounties said...

The hologram wouldn't have said that!!!

claremounties said...

This response illustrates perfectly, Brent Councils attitude to it's constituents!