The first we knew was when we received the following email last Thursday from our web-hosting company saying that they had been contacted by WCC who were accusing them as being a "secondary" publisher of defamatory remarks by hosting our website, and therefore they had no option other than to pull their server.
Knowing that WCC had made no mention of suing us, I immediately emailed Chief Exec Mike More highlighting the email we had received and demanded an explanation. However, whilst awaiting his response, we had to act quickly as we were "off-air", and that's when our IT crew stepped up to the plate and with almost military precision had located a more-than-willing new supplier; downloaded everything from the old; uploaded to the new; run all the necessary checks; and within 2 days we were back, stronger than ever.
Knowing we were secure, I could concentrate on ascertaining what ahd actually happened. Turns out that HWS Hosting sub-let from another company referred to as an "upstream" provider, and that had received a phone call (which is very unusual as normally complaint emails would simply be forwarded!) telling them that WCC's head of legal would be contacting them.
Sure enough, when the email arrived from PLarge@westminster.gov.uk, and was started with
"My name is Peter Large. I am employed as Head of Legal and Democratic Services by Westminster City Council",
the illusion was already in place, and, despite PLiarge then claiming to be writing in a "personal capacity",
they were already fooled into thinking the Head of Legal from WCC, and thus WCC, were issuing proceedings.
As the owner was to observe in an email to me, "If he is so confident he can win a case personally then why not use a personal email address, and why go into such great detail about the Council and go out of his way to mention them? As I’ve said previously, it is misleading and – as we’ve seen – makes me and my company look like the bad guys".
Hence it must be assumed that PLiarge was deliberately, pre-meditatedly & maliciously using his WCC email address, and his unmerited title to add gravitas and undue influence to what would have been an easily dismissed gripe. You can read his actual email
(here)
, and note how all his supposed "facts" are actually only his "opinion". Note the oh-so-typically-PLiarge phrase:"I attach a link to an article which summarises the law in this area, in my view accurately.", with emphasis of his get-out clause of "in my view" should it be challenged later.
But the best was yet to come in the response from Mike More. First, my aforementioned email to him (as it explains alot):-
"Dear Mr More,
I have been forwarded copy of this communication sent to my IT contractor which has resulted in our campaign website being removed, for which I demand an immediate explanation prior to handing the matter to our solicitors to take appropriate action
"Your VPS has been suspended due to contact we have received from Westminster Council. The content on the website ‘notobikeparkingtax.com
’ violates our Terms of Service and our Acceptable Usage Policy; as we have received a complaint and a letter of intent to take yourself and members of the website to court, naming HWS Hosting in the case and leaving us liable for expenses and damages, we have been left with no option but to suspend the VPS hosting this website."
Contrary to the allegation therein, I have received absolutely no letter of intent whatsoever from Westminster City Council suggesting an action being brought against me or other members of my website.
Can you categorically explain how this company has been clearly led to believe the same, and, if it should transpire that WCC are not taking the action described, issue an immediate apology to the campaign and a fully particularised letter of explanation to HWS Hosting (the proprietor's email address is xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx)
I have to inform you that HWS Hosting also suspended a series of other sites maintained by our IT contractor causing severe damage to their credibility with their other customers.
Should it transpire that the action in question is related to that proposed by your employee, Mr Peter Large, who has formally acknowledged that the same would be a private action "at his own expense", the use of his WCC email address as a deliberate attempt to mislead others into thinking that WCC were planning the same must constitute a flagrant abuse of his position and I would demand an explanation as to why he is not immediately suspended, should that prove to be your decision following your investigations.
Due to seriousness of this matter, nothing more than an immediate reply would be deemed adequate."
...and his incredulous response...
"Dear Mr Djanogly
Thank you for your email.
The City Council has not taken this action and my enquiries of Mr Large since, and my examination of his email, have informed me, first, that the communication is explicitly stated to be on a personal, not an organisational behalf; and second, that his use of WCC email facilities is quite within our “reasonable private use” policies. I should also point out that the City Council could decide to take action in defence of our employees."
... to which the following just had to be asked, and is as yet unanswered:-
"Mr More,
Thank you for prompt response.
To help me & all copied herein fully understand, could you please, as a matter of urgency, forward copy of WCC's "reasonable private use" policies, together with an indication where it would appear in the WCC Employee Handbook or contract of employment.
As you know, we have numerous WCC employees supporting our campaign, as well as many from other local authorities, none of which appear to have any knowledge of these policies."
Suffice to say, a Press release had to prepared and despatched, and I think it sums up the whole episode rather well:-
Council Boss condones illicit use of council resources then threatens campaigners with legal action for highlighting it
Campaigners who complained about having their website suspended as a direct result of a rogue Westminster Council employee using his council email address when airing his own personal grievances that fooled a hosting company into believing that WCC, the richest Council in Europe would be suing them, not only had their complaint dismissed by council Chief Executive Mike More, but found themselves being threatened with legal action for making it.
The web company was duped when WCC Head of Legal, Peter Large wrote using his council web address naming them in a planned legal action.
The company suspended the hosting service for the campaign's website stating:- "Your VPS has been suspended due to contact we have received from Westminster Council.”, and that “we have received a complaint and a letter of intent to take yourself and members of the website to court, naming HWS Hosting in the case”, before later adding weight to the campaigners' complaint by writing to WCC confirming they had been fooled: “To clarify, the letter was indeed from Mr Peter Large, and was indeed from his ‘official’ email address with WCC.”
In an unprecedented attack, Mike More not only condoned his employee’s actions, shocking other council employees by claiming it to be “within our “reasonable private use” policies”, before adding “I should also point out that the City Council could decide to take action in defence of our employees.”
Gerard Livett, a firm supporter of the campaign was quick to inform:- "I work for a local authority (not Westminster) and if I were to use my work email address for a private lawsuit I would almost certainly fall foul of our "acceptable" use policy".
This was later supported by an HWS Hosting chief who noted: "I work closely with Hull City Council, and from personal experience their employees usually use either a personal email address or personal social media account when talking about any matter outside of the council"
"DESPERATE ACT OF A DESPERATE MAN"
Assessing Mr Large's action as "a desperate act of a desperate man", Campaign Chairman Warren Djanogly observed: "With it reasonable to assume that the exorbitant cost of a defamation claim against one person would normally render it outside the financial ability of a salaried local authority officer, the knowledge of being the sixth that Mr Large was planning personally to sue would have undoubtedly led our hosting company to agree with us as to the hollowness of the threat. Their actions can only be seen as being consistent with being duped into thinking that Westminster Council was to be the claimant."
Commenting further on the motive, Djanogly explained: "We have had numerous occasions to question the suitability of Mr Large to hold a position of public trust, especially on discovering that WCC had expended £300 of taxpayers money for legal advice on basic contract novation that the £120,000 per year Mr Large was clearly unqualified to give.”
There then followed a catalogue of blunders by Mr Large’s department that recently caused a bungled parking enforcement contract award having to be re-tendered at an estimated cost to the residents of £1m
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23833927-revealed-fiasco-of-westminsters-parking-contract.do)
,
and also saw the EU Commissioners threatening the UK authorities with legal action as a direct result of procurement law infringements by WCC over its Pay-by-Phone contract award to Verrus UK Ltd
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- england-london-11833904)
However, it was Mr Large's assertion to a Board of Partnering councils known as Partnerships-In-Parking (PIP) that the EU Commissioners' assessment of a procurement law infringement was "spin" and that, since they closed the case (albeit following assurances from the UK authorities that WCC would cease the infringements), it could now never be said that WCC had in fact infringed any EU law that proved the final straw for campaigners.
Djanogly added "The fact that Mr Large issued these threats so soon after we announced our consulting with lawyers with the view to taking a private prosecution against him for Misconduct in Public Office for bringing his office into such disrepute can be no coincidence. Similarly, the timing of it just weeks before our Court of Appeal against WCC after permission was granted by Lord Justice Jackson on a staggering six out of seven challenges of the original High Court ruling comes as no surprise. What was a genuine surprise was the disgraceful, and utterly irresponsible reply from council boss Mike More. To condone the illicit use of taxpayer-funded council resources is bad enough. To then threaten legal action against those bringing it to your attention is totally unacceptable and surely now must have rendered his position as equally untenable as Mr Large's."
A Freedom of Information request for copy of WCC's "reasonable private use" policies, as referred to by Mike More, together with an indication where it would appear in the WCC Employee Handbook or Contract of Employment is awaiting reply.
PROTECTING THE WCC INNER SANCTUM
Campaigners claim that Mike More is no stranger to controversy when it comes to protecting the WCC hierarchy. They point to allegations of Benefit Fraud made against Council Leader, and self-proclaimed multi-millionaire, Colin Barrow with whom More had worked at Suffolk County Council.
The allegations followed the smuggling out, by a WCC Whistleblower, of a letter from Benefits Manager June Simson to multi-millionaire Councillor Barrow suggesting that the latter’s existing claim was already £16,000 over the maximum allowed of £35,000 and that Barrow was now claiming a further 10%
(see attached).
And the reaction by Chief Executive Mike More? Ignore the allegation against his mate Barrow, and to instigate an immediate witch-hunt to unmask the whistleblower!
And the reaction of the Monitoring Officer who is tasked to report such Councillor abuse to the Standards Board of England? To ignore the allegations.
And the name of that Monitoring Officer? A certain…Peter Large!
NO TO BIKE PARKING TAX
|