Stockport Council News

Mr Parnell’s reasoned letter to Devon Sherwood, Stockport Council’s Don’t Bring Your Complaints to Me Officer on 16th April 2008. No help was ever forthcoming – just hundreds of custodies, dozens of arrests, court cases hanging over him all the time and especially over Christmas, often dropped on the day of the hearing, 2 years 8am to 8pm house arrest, refused access to the town centre, repeated imprisonment, hounding whilst terminally ill in Intensive Care over £24 in council tax arrears he didn’t owe – and vile LibDem council had him classed as a vulnerable council taxpayer, as they had driven him to attempt suicide in a police cell. If that is how the evil LibDems treat a vulnerable council taxpayer, then Heaven help those of us who are more robust!

1. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council has not acted with
due care and attention over its duties as a Local Authority. This complaint is
now to the facts, and is addressed that this local authority SMBC is
responsible and should have acted as to its statutory duty to the Laws, Acts
and Regulations under Government Guidance and funding that had been received by
SMBC.

2. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council has not followed
its own complaints procedure, in not following its own guidelines SMBC has not
informed me of the process of procedures, not following its own procedure, has
led to your misunderstanding of what the complaints were, and under which
procedure they should have been investigated, I put it, none of your past
correspondents have you ever stated how my complaints should be treated or
whether it should be treated differently under social services or education
special arrangement.

3. I put it to Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council has not
investigated all of my past complaints, I put it to SMBC that in not fully
investigating SMBC has not understood to see what the complaints are about, and
with that misunderstanding SMBC have not determined how my complaints should
have be dealt with and under which procedure.

4. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council has intended to
close my complaint even though SMBC has not fully investigated or followed the
complaint procedure to its end, when dealing with complaints that have been
submitted, and then have not been investigated, how can the complaints be
closed, in your letter dated 10/04/08 you state the three complaints that you
were looking at had now had a
comprehensive response, how can this be the case when the complaints that was
submitted were changed by yourselves to be different complaints yet the
complaint you state as number 1) request for help for your family, has not yet
been resolved, and as what has been disclosed to you the safety and protection
of looked after children who are in need, how can you say that your
interpretation of this complaint can it have any other resolve than help being
given.

5. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that under this Council failings to
recognise the principle of the needs of looked after children, who are taken
into care under a section 31, will always carry the need to have that principle
applied to their needs, and that principle of their needs does not stop when
their care is transferred to different Legal responsibility, the individual
situations of my two children who were looked after by a Local Authority, are
still in principle looked after children as they have been placed to their
needs with the approved and appointed, which was on behalf of the Local
Authority, and looked after children require the looked after principle to be
applied as to their needs for their wellbeing.

6. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that under the Council’s statutory
duty and Government guidance, has not provided appropriate social care for two
children that were looked after, and are living within the borough of
Stockport, by who have not ever appointed them a permanent social worker, has
meant that these two children are not being addressed as children in need by
Services within Stockport, those services, being Social Services, Health
Services, Education and Police, for which Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council has a duty as the Local Authority to be responsible for all of these
services to be provided.

7. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council in failing in its
duty under government guidance has caused other services to fail, SMBC has set
a lead and the other services that is provided under the control of this Local
Authority has just followed. my two children have not received the appropriate
care from Health services and were failed to be provided with all of their
Statutory Secondary Education to their needs.

8. I put it to Stockport Metropolitan
Borough Council that I submit a complaint that this Council has failed to act
to the request for statutory assessments to see what are this families Health
and adoption needs, not providing services to a care plan for my two children to safeguard and promote their
welfare, including their health and
Educational needs, in relation to their Health and Education the inappropriate
and withheld services have been suffered, my children are here living in
Stockport, yet The Local Authority in its failings is taking away there very
existence, Legal problems have meant my children could not be counted as part
of my household and the Local authority has failed to help with proceedings
which it started and has not followed through, children that don’t exist find it
hard to get the help what they require to their needs. Assessments to adoption
needs please read the following guidance

Michael Parnell

Mr M S Parnell

Date 16 April 2008

Dear Mr Devon Sherwood

Thank you for your letter I received on the 14th
April 2008 in which you say you are intending to close my complaint because you
now feel that I have now had a comprehensive response to all the three points
that you are looking at as my complaints, Investigate all complaints.

Those
three points being in the letter dated 10/04/08 from yourself are as,

1) request for help for your family

2) issues regarding ban to the
council premises

3) issues regarding council tax
benefit ).

After
you had decided to close this complaint, you write and I quote from your
letter, “However if you remain dissatisfied with the response at stage one,
could you please inform me of what aspects of the response you remain
dissatisfied with.

It
is my intention to respond with what I feel dissatisfied with, and in doing so,
I shall be guiding you through, in a step by step account of my complaint, it
is not intended to be made in a patronising way but in a simple straight
forward account, so as to help all other parties that will be involved to
understand what has already proceeded before now, and has brought us here to
this situation.

This
complaint is now to the facts, and is addressed that this local authority
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is responsible and should act as to its
duty and to the Laws, Acts and Regulations.

BE IT ENACTED by
the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and with the authority of the same.

In the issues of this complaint there has been one
fundamental issue that has been there all along, and should have been enacted
upon, this is that there were two
children and that their welfare is paramount.

Whatever
the other issues are, these are complaints that are being put to Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council, that have been required to be submitted to help secure and promote the welfare of
those two then young children, who are now, one in law is an adult of eighteen
years and the other is a child of sixteen soon to be seventeen years, that have
been both children that were looked after for the last fifteen and a half
years.

To
the complaints, as with all things, they can go wrong from time to time and
this does happen, because we are, all only human, and none of us are perfect,
and we should not be, this is what makes us all individuals, but what is
important, is how when we have done a wrong, that we can acknowledge this, and
show what we can do to make amends, and show how we can change our ways to
reaffirm we won’t carry on making the same mistakes.

When
dealing with professionals, it should not be taken that they get things right, they too are human and we all
have made mistakes, be them slight ones, yet be it professional mistakes are
harder to put right.

I
consider that to formal responses, my name is Michael and request that when
replying to any correspondence it is acceptable and would please me, if you
address any letters with using Mr M Parnell or Mr Michael Parnell, this will
help secure no misunderstanding to whom, correspondence are legally addressed,
in your letter dated 10/04/08 you did not do this, just a word of advice, to
acknowledge this and to work at this, to improve your service to everyone, just
another small comment check what you are writing, small mistakes from a
professional does not build confidence ( in your letter you wrote “complains”
does this mean someone who complains, or my complaints and you also wrote “dealt”
does this mean given out, or do you mean dealt with.)

None
of us have infallibility, even myself, but let us all understand when we are
dealing with matters such as this, professionals should not just let simple
things slip, this is what can create small thing to get bigger and then cause
problems……(Quoting from Council Customer Care leaflet)

..Who
can give you help and advice?

We
want to make it as easy as possible for you to let us know your compliments,
comments and complaints and there are many ways of doing this. If you need any
additional help:”

Ask a member of council
staff (how could this be possible when staff have been told that when I
enter Council premises they have to contact the police in order for my removal
in the interest of their safety )

Visit your local
Citizen Advice Bureau (there
is no help here because the Citizen Advice Bureaus in Stockport are funded by Stockport Council so the Bureaus
can’t help because of the conflict of interest)

Talk to other voluntary
agencies (I have contacted
agencies from all over the country and as most of these are charities, and
funding means their costing to help it is not beneficial to them to assist)

Seek the support of
your Councillor, or (I have
tried this to no avail the Councillors are not qualified to assist or they have
not returned my contact to them)

Contact your MP (this
has been done as far back as in 2000 and in 2005 Andrew Stunell MP stated he
was not qualified enough to help, and I should seek the advice of a lawyer,
Andrew Stunell MP did write to the Stockport Council Chief Executive then and
again in 2007 to find out what was happening and requesting to be kept
informed, and as far as it is now the Chief Executive has still not yet
replied, and after my attending The Houses of Parliament with the permission
from Metropolitan Police of London under the Serious Organized Crime Act, I
have been allowed to demonstrate at The Houses of Parliament on seven
occasions, sometimes there for twenty nine and a half hours, and after waiting
in central lobby for six hours with the placards that seem to offend Stockport
Council, why is it that in Stockport the police are called By the Council to
portray I am not of good character and I should be feared, but when at the Houses
of Parliament the police were stood along side me supporting and repeating what
I was saying to government politicians? On Gordon Brown’s first Prime Ministers
Question Time, “Good Morning” and “Hello How Are You“, on other occasions MP’s
came to me showing concerns over the problems this family was suffering. Many
MP’s wanted to help but protocol does not allow this. Ann Coffey MP took
details but could not help because she is not my MP. In the Prime Minister’s
Question Time the first one for his right Honourable Prime Minister Gordon
Brown he made a statement “ this Government is committed not just to helping
some children but to helping all children“.

Steve Burns (of the planning department) is constantly quoted in these minutes but he wasn’t at the meeting – customary SMBC incompetence. The meeting was held at Bredbury Library because Mr Parnell was not allowed into the town centre despite being a completely innocent man. And despite all the high profile attendees at this meeting, no help was subsequently offered to the Parnell family, even though their legal obligation was to help.

Thursday, 15 July, 2010 20:43

From:

“Barry
Khan” <barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Parnell

Please find attached the draft minutes of
the meeting of our meeting. If you wish to make any changes to the minutes
before they are agreed, please let me know.

Kind regards

Barry

Barry Khan

Service Director (Legal and Property)

Council Solicitor

Business Services Directorate

Stockport Council

Barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk

0161 4743202

CONFIDENTIAL

Minutes of Meeting at Bredbury Library
Community Room

5th July 11:00 am

Duration: Approximately 2 hours.

In attendance:

Mr and Mrs Parnell

Alison Roberts Adult Social Worker

Barry Khan Service Director, Legal &
Property

Terry Dafter Service Director, Adult
Social Care

Steve Brown Head of Community Safety

Colin Masters Benefits Processing Manager

Peter Jones Recovery Team Manager,
Revenues & Benefits

Robert Jenkins Welfare Rights Central Team
Leader

Dominic Tumelty. Head of Children’s Social
Care

Mr and Mrs Parnell

Barry Khan chaired the meeting and took
the minutes.

Everybody introduced themselves.

A brief history of the claim record was
described regarding benefits and the issues with regard to the receipt of the
adoption allowance. A previous claim for benefits had been rejected on the
grounds that the income to the family was higher than the rate set for support
and this decision was appealed by Mr Parnell in 2006. The decision of the
Council not to give the benefit was upheld by the Commissioner who agreed with
the Council’s interpretation of how the adoption allowance should be treated.

Subsequent to that, a meeting was arranged
with the Service Director of Finance and Mr Parnell to discuss the issues. The
Council then contacted the Department of Works and Pensions to ensure that they
had treated the income into the family appropriate and the DWP confirmed that
the Council had given the correct interpretation on the regulations.

A further claim was received in February
2010, with a request for backdating the claim. This claim was discussed.

In addition Robert Jenkins discussed the
situation with regard to Jobseekers Allowance for Mr and Mrs Parnell’s
children. It was stated that they could be entitled to “sign on” but it was
recognised that any income that this was bringing into the family was not be
used to support the family – redacted by Sheila – . This did not address the greater issues with regard to the
behaviour of the daughters to Mr and Mrs Parnell. However if they were signing
on, then this would mean that the Child Benefit and Child tax credit should not
be paid and it could be recovered.

An issue was discussed about whether child
benefit and child tax credit was still being claimed and whether this was
actually allowed under the benefits scheme. It was discussed that if child tax
credit and child benefit are still being paid when the daughters were ‘signing
on’ then this could be an overpayment and that money may have to be paid back.

Redacted by Sheila – and Mr Parnell stated that he considered that historically
the family should be entitled to Council Tax Benefit when he was receiving the
adoption allowance.

Mr and Mrs Parnell explained the issues
that they were having with the daughters whilst they still stayed in the house – redacted by Sheila

Redacted by Sheila

Steve Burns stated that he would try and
discuss getting someone to look at the benefits issues and arrange for someone
to talk to the Daughters, from example someone from MOSIAC.

Redacted by Sheila

Mr Parnell stated that he was just a
normal dad but that he had been put in a situation whereby he was having to
find out more about the rules regarding benefits and adoption than the average
dad. There were complicated issues and it was recognised that sometimes things
might not be right.

They recognised the problems now caused
with the daughters living in the same house and that they had started filling
in forms with Stockport Homes for separate accommodation for the daughters.

Steve Brown stated that they would try and
get MOSIAC involved

Mr and Mrs Parnell made it clear that they
have never given up on the girls and that the girls had been through a lot by
going through the care system and suffered before they were placed with them.
They stated that they have been very open with their daughters and have told
them all the information they were given. When the daughters were 18, they only
had a letter and photograph. They considered that there should have been more
information and more involvement with the Social worker.

They discussed the birth mother who had
the age of 36 had 9 children who were taken into care.

Mr and Mrs Parnell had been keen to adopt
when they unfortunately discovered that they could not have children
themselves. They had spent a certain sum of money on fertility treatment. Mrs
Parnell was told that she would have to give up her job and Mrs Parnell agreed
to do this as they were keen to have a family. They had two children placed
with them when they were young.

Mr Parnell stated that the issue regarding
the funding and benefits was very confusing. It was suggested to him that we
needed to concentrate on current benefits and not issues that were a number of
years old when the children were very young.

It was noted that the daughters’
behavioural problems increased when they got older, with a noticeable increase
in behavioural problems when they were about 10 years old. Mr Parnell had
previously been told by the police to give his daughter a ‘good hiding’ but he
did not consider that this was an acceptable course of action, nor that a
police officer should give this kind of advice.

Redacted by Sheila

The details of the amounts of money going
into the household were discussed.

Dominic Tumelty clarified that once the
children are adopted they are not classed as “Looked after Children”. Once the
children were adopted, they are considered to be the children of the adopted
parents.

Mr and Mrs Parnell clearly explained that
they considered that there issue was that they had asked for help and that the
buck was passed and nobody took overall responsibility for dealing with their
issues. For example they claimed that that the Early Intervention Team was
going to do a CAMS assessment but this was denied as the case was passed on to
the YOTS team due to an incident with the daughter on a bus.

They had issues in the fact that due to
the destruction caused by their daughters, the house had been repaired too many
times to keep getting it repaired.

Alison Roberts stated that she is an Adult
Social Worker that has been involved with the family. She stated that she had
concerns about the safety of the household. She stated that it was hard for the
parents to set boundaries with the daughters – redacted by Sheila

Steve Burns stated that if that behaviour continues then the police may become
involved. It was recognised by Mr and Mrs Parnell that they did not want to get
their daughters into trouble and that they have always been supportive of their
children. They did not feel it was their daughters’ fault that they were
behaving in this way but that they had reached their limits in having to deal
with the obviously difficult situation at home.

Steve Burns stated that the Council would
look into the benefits issue and get somebody to engage with the family to try
and assist with the issue regarding housing and behavioural issues of their
daughter

Barry Khan thanked everybody for being in attendance
and stated that the meeting was beneficial for all those concerned. Mr and Mrs
Parnell had conducted themselves in a civil and dignified manner at this
meeting and that the consistent attendance at the town hall was not the best
way of resolving the matter.

Alison Roberts stated that when there were incidents with the children, Mr
Parnell would then displace the frustrations he feels by obsessively attending
the town hall. The real issue was not with the Town Hall but with the issues at
home.

It was agreed by everyone that the meeting
was useful and that the Council would explore ways in assisting the family.

Meeting Ended.

“The section 5 restraining order was
wrongly imposed, a section 5 is different from a section 5A in that one is on
conviction and the other is following acquittal and in all the guidance
available for my viewing these two sections following amendment by section 12
DVCVA 2004 are separate in that there are questions of conviction or acquittal,
Section
12 of the DVCVA 2004 amends section 5 of the PHA 1997 to allow the court to
make a restraining order following a conviction now for any criminal offence,
where the conviction occurs after 30 September 2009 (Schedule 12, paragraph 5
of the DVCVA 2004 provides that section 12 amends the section 5 and also adds a
new section 5A and applies to conviction
or acquittal that occurs after the commencement date.) It follows that the
section 5 or 5A restraining orders can be made when the date upon which the
offence was committed is prior to 30 September 2009, this is an appeal after
that date appealing conviction before commencement date and overturns the
judgement of 10thJuly 2009, appeal conviction and acquitted when is
start date.”

“What
does this mean for me, my now overturned conviction of the 10th July
2009 to the alleged common assault on the 22nd October 2008 with the submitted
appeal July 2009 is prior to the 30th September 2009 and in allowing
the successful appeal on the 15th January 2010 of the alleged
offence, therefore could not carry a section 5 PHA 1997 restraining order which
are imposed on conviction, If on conviction 10th July 2009 I did not
receive the s2 or s4 PHA order, then why is it that on the 15th
January 2010 following the successful appeal could a section 5 PHA 1997 on
conviction be imposed, technically only a Section 5A(1) Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 as inserted by section 12(5) Domestic
Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 could be, and that is only after the
commencement date if the court finds it necessary to do so.”

“Why is it that I am requesting an application to
discharge a section 5 PHA 1997, it is being sort so that I will correctly be
dealt with, in accordance to set
procedures and correct sections that are set out within the current laws.”

“Laws are made to protect and if they are
not enforced in the correct way then they only serve to destroy their own
purpose, I wish to uphold the law and respect everyone’s views of their
judgements to the facts they are given, a charge of a breach of an order that
has not been correctly imposed must not be allowed because it is wrong in law,
something that is wrong in law should not pursue a course of justice just for
conclusion it can only serve to damage common law of what is right or wrong.”

“My belief is that I have not breached
the order just because I thought it was wrong, if I did breach any order it was
by reasonable excuse, and if the order was enforced in the correct way then the
order and arrest would have been made to a section 5A(1) PHA 1997 as amended by
section 12(5) DVCVA 2004 and the charge would have been under those laws and
the correct sections, the charge in court for breach of the section 5 is
incorrect, the CPS have never produced the restraining order, I should only be prosecuted as to the correct
law and section.”

“Section 12 DVCVA 2004 introduced a new section 5A into
the PHA 1997, which will allow the court to make a restraining order after
acquitting a defendant of any offence if the court considers it necessary to do
so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant. Unlike restraining
orders on conviction, there is no power to protect a person from fear of
violence that falls short of harassment where the defendant has been acquitted.

The elements of the offence of harassment in section 2
PHA 1997 are:

·
a course of conduct;

·
which amounts to harassment of another;

·
which the defendant knows, or ought to know, amounts
to harassment.

Harassment is not
defined in the PHA 1997, except that it includes causing a person alarm or
distress.”

Michael Parnell

Mr Parnell was battling dodgy Stockport Councillors and senior council officers, dodgy Magistrates’ Court decisions, dodgy CPS decisions and dodgy senior police officer decisions – and in the end they all helped drive him to his grave aged 58 and destroyed his lovely family in the process.

Anti-social behaviour order on conviction.

This order was imposed following the conviction in Stockport Magistrates Court of the allegation of sneezing contrary to Section 39 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1988, which was immediately subject to appeal. The order was
made on the day of conviction – this raises question of rules of procedure.

Schulz never helped despite his legal obligation to do so. Is he fit to hold public office?

From Mr Michael S Parnell

To
Mr John Schultz Chief Executive

Business
Services Directorate
Stockport

Stockport
Town Hall

Edward
Street

Stockport

SK1
3XE

Date 4th Oct 2007

Dear Sir

I Michael Stewart Parnell do hold you Mr John Schultz
Chief Executive for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council personally
responsible for all council’s departments
to be answerable to yourself for their actions and the delays in dealing with
my situation.

Firstly
as a suggestion to find out what had gone wrong
will you instruct the appropriate departments to produce a report that
takes into account of how much they know of what should have been done and why
the delay has taken so long I have tried from 1998 to get related issues
addressed.

I
trust with your help and your investigations that this matter can before it
goes to official complaint be concluded, for what should be done, it is in bad
practice to only do things after a complaint, this shows in bad light a poor
image of a council for where I chose to live.

I along with I hope yourself want to be proud
of what this council can do and not that of being ashamed of what it does not
do.

It
is not my intension to damage the image of this council but as you may probably
know I have been stood outside Stockport town hall for 13 weeks now and I will
be here or at the Houses of Parliament and other Local Authority Town Halls
until all of the issues are addressed, if there is anything you do not
understand feel free to ask, and as you have not ever replied to my previous
letters Please reply under your citizens charter I hold you to all the charters
statements

Copies
of this letter along with any attachment will be sent to other parties.

Yours sincerely