Tuesday, 23 December 2014

'No prosecution' decision in Kensal Rise Library email fraud investigation provokes anger

--> Brent Council has been informed that the Crown Prosecution Service is to take no action regarding the fraudulent emails sent in support of Andrew Gillick's original planning application for Kensal Rise Library.
Arnold Meagher, Brent Council's Principal Lawyer, Housing and Litigation Team wrote:
I write to advise that the Council has been informed of the outcome of the investigation regarding Mr Gillick and the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support any prosecution against Mr Gillick and therefore, no further action will be taken against him.

The Council has been advised by the Metropolitan Police that the partnership Brent Borough Chief Inspector, Andy Jones, is aware of this decision. The Metropolitan Police has requested that any queries regarding the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service go through Andy Jones.
70 or so fraudulent emails had been sent including one using the name and address of local business woman Kirsty Slattery.

Reacting to the news this afternoon she said:
I think the whole process has been purposely drawn out and detrimental to the people and businesses it affected. 

So somehow no one is responsible for these acts of fraud (?) according to the CPS and at no point has anyone even received an apology from Brent Council. 

The fraud affected my business as it misrepresented my standing in the community. This should never have been allowed to happen, someone ought to have been held accountable for these deceitful actions and the very least I would expect is a sincere apology. 
Kensal Rise Councillor Dan Filson was even more scathing: 

This news seems released by the CPS deliberately at a time when attention is elsewhere. Shame on the CPS.
I am appalled that an attempt - by whoever, though the email thread heading may offer a clue - to pervert the planning process had not resulted in a prosecution. 

It would be useful to know if the reason for this decision is insufficient evidence linking the alleged perpetrator to the offence(s) or an unclear charge upon which a prosecution could be hung? 

A dangerous precedent has been set, that a fraudulent attempt to mislead a planning authority as to the level of support for a planning application from the community and as to who in that community is supporting it by way of impersonation. We don't now know whether this stunt has been pulled in respect of other applications in this or other boroughs.

Questions should be asked in the House of Commons

The issue of the fraudulent emails has been a long and complicated affair. In September 2013 The Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign wrote on their website:
We are expecting the council to pursue the origins of the fraudulent submissions of support for the planning submission as reported in The Kilburn Times and The Evening Standard last week.
We have been promised an investigation and report as soon as possible.

Help us to keep up the pressure on the council to find out where this dodgy support comes from by writing to the Leader of the Council and your local councillors asking them to make sure the council makes every effort to find out who is guilty of this fraudulent support. We can’t allow local democracy to be undermined  by such abuse of the consultative processes of the council.
The police later appeared to have dropped the investigation but after the demolition of the pop up library in February 2014 both the Council and Muhammed Butt made statements to the Willesden and Wembley Observer:
A spokesman for Brent Council said:

The council undertook its own detailed enquiries before referring the matter to the police and provided the police with a summary of the outcome as part of the agreed referral process through the National Fraud Reporting Centre. The council remains very concerned about the way that the planning portal was used on this occasion and has subsequently made changes to forestall future problems arising. The council wants to continue to maintain the highest level of integrity with its planning process, since the authority continues to have statutory responsibilities to consider planning applications that are submitted. 

Labour leader of the council Muhammed Butt said:

It is bitterly disappointing that the police have chosen to ignore the evidence found in the council’s own inquiries and drop their investigation. When the future of the building affects hundreds of Brent residents and the entire Kensal Rise community, any issue of alleged fraud must surely be a priority in order to maintain the trust of local people. 

Whilst I know that this Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government has cut the police force by a fifth in the last three years, I am troubled that this investigation has not been carried out as a matter of urgency. Brent Council will be writing to demand that the police review their original decision and launch an appropriate investigation.
The investigation was reinstated with various sections of the police  responsible at any one time and recently there has been a long silence on the matter despite frequent requests for information.
I agree that the final outcome is far from satisfactory.






220 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220
Anonymous said...

The chance was blown when everyone was pushed into accepting the Gillick solution !

Given that we now know completion date was Jan 2014 and it was exactly this time FKRL started to support his proposal and Gillick would have required full support from Trehaven Group who were fronting up the finance.

My guess now is that Trehaven Group would not have fronted up the finance for completion in Jan 2014 without FKRL signing a silence agreement.

Just pure speculation, but a good educated guess given what has transpired since and complete silence from FKRL.

I should remind readers of WM that if you go back, FKRL were very worried about people speaking out against the proposal and legal implications.



The community could have resi

Anonymous said...

Good point.

This issue with security guards actually using a building as their sleeping quarters needs to be challenged.

Security guards should not have the right to sleep in the building unless there has been agreement with Local Authority for the building to be used as "Meanwhile Space" ie some other temporary use while waiting redevelopment such as security guards not just guarding but using as sleeping quarters.

A Local Authority could then use discretion in respect to Business Rates. Ie if the building were open for community use Business Rates might not be payable. If however owner does not allow community access during the interim full Business Rates should apply.

Anonymous said...

The planning application wasn't even submitted in January 2014. FKRL was have its books tossed out on the pavement. So where do you get the gist they were supportive in January 2014. Some people here need to wake up. FKRL accepted the best solution they could get as the plans evolved in mid 2014.

Now please wake up and get your facts right before commenting.

Anonymous said...

What a load of rubbish.

FKRL were not supportive of any planning in January 2014. There was no planning application in January 2014, indeed at this time the pop up library was being tossed out on the pavement.

It wasn't until mid 2014 FKRL supported the application as it was the best and only hope.

So please get your facts right. One thing you are right about is the community has got resi!

I'll leave you to go back to your dreaming.

Anonymous said...

It seems that 'the key to ultimately tracking back an IP address to a user is to engage with the ISP and get it (or force it via a judge) to release the data showing which client was issued with what IP address at a particular time of day'.

I wonder if Brent Audit and Investigation team or the local police took this step before matters reached the CPS, and whether FKRL has asked the same question? In a statement on its Facebook page, the group states that it 'regrets that the fake emails will not be pursued, but has to accept the CPS decision'. Clarifying this matter could be helpful.

Anonymous said...

Yes as I also recall FKRL were very silent after January 2014.

I think you might be onto something 10:04

Sale Completion could not complete until there was full cooperation from FKRL. It seems logical to many of us now and why the silence since then.

Anonymous said...

What do you think the police spent the last 18 months doing? For all you know the IP addresses could be in Afghanistan. Let's waste more Police time on this when people are being shot, murdered and drugs are being peddled on the streets.

Who really cares about this? I'll tell you. No one. Library is gone, we can't find who sent the emails or what group sent them.

Library is gone. Let it go. Find a new vocation for 2015.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 16 December 2014 18:21 from previous blog 'Disputing the facts...'

'In fairness to Gillick he is delaying completion to allow the community to put a bid together'.

What does this mean? The comment was posted the day before the auction which saw the reserve price increased from £1.15m-£1.25m.

Anonymous said...

'The topic'???

Anonymous said...

'It seems that 'the key to ultimately tracking back an IP address to a user is to engage with the ISP and get it (or force it via a judge) to release the data showing which client was issued with what IP address at a particular time of day'.

I wonder if Brent Audit and Investigation team or Brent police took this step before matters reached the CPS, and whether FKRL can clarify? In a statement on its Facebook page, the group states that it 'regrets that the fake emails will not be pursued, but has to accept the CPS decision'.

Meg Howarth said...

The cliches appeared amongst a number of the 78 supporting online planning comments, Mike, 70 of which were found to be fake.

Anonymous said...

10.43/1054 above

From FKRL's January update posted before destruction of pop-up:

''1. Negotiations about the library space
Following refusal of planning permission last September, the developer and his architect are submitting fresh proposals for the library building to the planning committee of the council. Negotiations with regard to the space reserved for the community have been on going since before Christmas in so far as we have been shown and have commented on preliminary drawings. According to the architect these were a ‘work in progress’.
The Trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library voted to agree, in principle, to accept the offer of two thirds of the ground floor, contingent on seeing the final drawings and the developer’s planning application and also subject to an agreement being drawn up that would give an assurance that the Friends would be the tenants of the space in which to run a community library. We have also had the support of the Brent Council Lead Member for Libraries, Cllr Mashari, for this".

From FKRL's February update following smashing of pop-up:

"We are shocked and dismayed that this destruction could happen when we are supposed to be negotiating about the library space".

Anonymous said...

I totally disagree with your assertion Police should move on to other more important crimes !

I consider the potential individual financial gain by a developer as being top priority for the police.

I suggest there might be less murders, drug pushing etc If we start stamping out financial abuse at the top.

Anonymous said...

You're speaking for everyone, are you, 14.20? I think you'll find some people care very much. BTW: 'who really cares' - same phrase as in the Gillick-supporting planning comments, as elsewhere on this blog.

Anonymous said...

CPS owe it to victims of identity fraud to explain why they are not taking further action.

I bet if this were identity theft using credit cards CPS would be prosecuting as credit card companies would keep pushing for a conviction as it reduces their potential liability if it acts as a deterrent.

Community / public asset fraud when there is wide scale privatisation of public assets needs to be a major priority for Police and CPS.

Anonymous said...

So if FKRL were so shocked and dismayed that they then proceeded to support Gillicks proposal and got a reasonsble number of people to then write to support planning approval ?

Seems to me like double speak !

Anonymous said...

Anon 14.20. The police did not spend the 'last 18 months' pursuing this. This would be just one of many cases it had to deal with. The question about ISP addresses remains valid. If the step outlined in 13.09 above wasn't followed, clearly not all avenues have been exhausted in the attempt to ID the perpetrator of the fake emails.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12.11 - a possible answer to your question of what the following comment means:

''In fairness to Gillick he is delaying completion to allow the community to put a bid together" ('Disputing the facts...' Anonymous 16 December 2014 18:21)

is that it confirms Francis Henry's view ('Kensal Rise Library fails to meet reserve price...', 22 December 2014 10:24) that the auction 'was not an attempt at a genuine sale'.

Question is: how did the Anonymous poster commenting the day before the auction know about Gillick 'delaying completion'? As anyone can bid at a public auction, how would this be achieved? Was a deal done with someone? Does this explain the raising of the reserve price from £1.15m to £1.25m 24 hours before the auction? Rigged bidding/phantom bidding? Or does 'delaying completion' refer instead to caretakers staying inside the building until the 6-month moratorium period is over? More questions...

Anonymous said...

Sadly it seems We Will never know the truth. FKRL are keeping very quiet now. They used to be very proactive !

Anonymous said...

Tedious fence-sitting, 22.34. What a philosophy for living...

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 220 of 220   Newer› Newest»