UNAUTHORISED DEMOLITION OF A LISTED BUILDING

[shadow]

As I stated earlier it is not what I think that is important it's what you can prove to the people that matter. When I viewed the plans you provided the barn looks three times bigger than the cottage itself and I couldn't understand and still can't understand how this could ever be described as a small addition. Whilst you may have a small barn, now converted to utility room and bathroom that is listed as a small extension the question remains, how are you going to prove that the 'large' barn demolished by your neighbour was also listed.

Thomas

[shc]

http://www.northlew.com/planning_applications.html

[tsp]

As I stated earlier it is not what I think that is important it's what you can prove to the people that matter. When I viewed the plans you provided the barn looks three times bigger than the cottage itself and I couldn't understand and still can't understand how this could ever be described as a small addition. Whilst you may have a small barn, now converted to utility room and bathroom that is listed as a small extension the question remains, how are you going to prove that the 'large' barn demolished by your neighbour was also listed.

The barn is larger than the cottage and as shown on the tithe map, the barn was built as one complete structure at the rear of the cottage. The tithe map shows my end (extension as you like to call it) and Glebe's end as one complete structure, which it is, built onto the cottage c18. The description was as viewed from the front of the cottage and you can't see from the front how far it extends at the rear. The chap who listed it obviously saw the barn from the left hand front view as you can clearly see the barn at the rear from the front left as photographed on the E/H website and he listed it for group value with the attached barn as built as one unit of the same historic fabric.

[shadow]

The chap who listed it obviously saw the barn from the left hand front view as you can clearly see the barn at the rear from the front left as photographed on the E/H website and he listed it for group value with the attached barn as built as one unit of the same historic fabric.

Unfortunately a judge or arbitrator will not be interested in what you think the chap who listed your cottage saw or at what angle you think he saw it from. He will refer to the listing and I am sure any judge or arbitrator would doubt anyone would list a barn three times larger than the cottage itself 'as a small addition'.

Cottage. Circa later C17 with C18 addition. Plastered cob walls. Gable ended thatch roof. Brick stack at left-hand end. Plan: originally 2-room plan, larger heated room to the left with gable end fireplace. Small addition made behind right-hand end probably in C18. Exterior: 2 storeys. Regular 2-window front of C20 2-light casements. C20 plank door to right of centre with gabled thatch door hood above. Interior: roughly chamfered closely-spaced ceiling beams. Open fire place with roughly chamfered wooden lintel. Oven in right-handside. Roof trusses probably C19 judging from insubstantial feet of straight principals visible on 1st floor.

I am not trying to be awkward here, all I am trying to do is point out that you need evidence to support your position not assumptions. Again the only conclusion I can reach based on the evidence I have seen so far is that when the listing was made all that was included was your cottage including your bit of the barn which is now incorporated into your cottage. If a listing is intended to provide a snapshot of the 'as is' position when listed it is difficult to accept the person responsible for listing the property would not, if they had wanted it listed, expressly included your neighbours part of the barn. In my opinion, without further evidence, you will have a difficult time persuading a judge or arbitrator differently.

Thomas

[tsp]

Thank you for your opinion, as you say the barn is larger than the cottage and he therefore can't fail to have seen it and he did list it for its group value with the cottage and it was photographed from the front left side presumably to include the other grouped structure. One cannot tell from the front left hand side of the cottage how far the addition extends to the rear, unless viewed from the air or from within the neighbour's garden. He could only describe what he saw from the front, which was that the addition at the rear of the cottage only extended past the cottage widthwise to a small extent. It is not possible to tell from the front, that the rear left hand end addition was actually the same barn structure. He could only describe what it was possible to see. The cottage is very close to Finglewood cottage next door with tiny gardens.

Again the only conclusion I can reach based on the evidence I have seen so far is that when the listing was made all that was included was your cottage including your bit of the barn which is now incorporated into your cottage. If a listing is intended to provide a snapshot of the 'as is' position when listed it is difficult to accept the person responsible for listing the property would not, if they had wanted it listed, expressly included your neighbours part of the barn. In my opinion, without further evidence, you will have a difficult time persuading a judge or arbitrator differently.

Our bit of the barn that had been incorporated into our cottage was specifically refered to and listed in the description in 1988 and to remove his floor and roof timbers and the historic fabric of the rest of the barn from our listed wall, should have required listed consent in my opinion. It was hardly an independent structure to my bit, look at the damage caused by the detachment, how could that not have required consent.

This is very similar to the Calderdale case, there has never been a case where a structure was chopped into two parts without requiring consent to my knowledge.

[shc]

Listed buildings raise unique issues.. tsp should forget about the GV.. and just concentrate on the fact that her property is grade II listed..

the best judicial authority on the issue is the calderdale case.. where a disused mill (listed 1971) was identified as conferring the benefits of its listing on 15 houses due to their connection by a wall and bridge.. the mill and houses were in different ownerships..

the listed building issues raise very real issues for land registry.. as the extent of the listing should be registered to the owner of the listed building at first registration (otherwise they experience demolitions often supported by Council's through discretionary decisions - that is a criminal offence the Council then decide not to prosecute)... in the instant case tsp experienced the demolition prior to registration.. and also had problems with registration in the 90s (local solicitors)... so tsp has experienced the crime.. and outraged has complained to the LGO..

The problem comes from the fact that the Council is given a mortgage (listing by the secretary of state).. that does not necessarily align with the deeds (colourable disposition by solicitors).. or ordnance plan.. the listing trumps everything.. and consequently developers do stupid things (often advised to do them by the Council).. to bring the listing into conformance with the Land Registry records.. (i.e. acts of demolition which they exercise discretion over).. The Council in this case has supported the crime through the boundaries it drew for the conservation area that bisects the barn.. the conservation area should have been included both the barn and tsp's property.. there is nothing stopping a listed building being in two ownerships (provided it remains linked).. hence acts of demolition..

tsp is also wrong the issues almost never get to court.. as what happens is that the victims get caught between land registry, council and solicitors.. (who play pass the parcel.. the liability constantly shifts between them) I am aware of several cases where listed buildings have experienced demolition.. (been cut in half).. and the result is normally disastrous for the victim.. In eastern england almost all planning problems (the serious ones) have at their root a listed building (this includes gypsy sites).. as they are quite often the listed building due to 'larger' properties being sub-divided without consent by solicitors.. the problem comes that the listing is the address (title) not the land.. occupied by the property..

the mortgage (listed building) is the Councils.. and it is the only state mortgage where the boundaries are identified as a local land charge.. the land registry are aware of the problems.. and they relate to there being two registers of land.. Land Registry and Council's..

The Council committed mortgage fraud when they made the conservation area not align with tsp's listing.. and then based on a flawed registration at land registry (based on the Council's identification of their conservation area) actively supported the fraud.. the reason is very straightforward.. if the Council acknowledged the charge that tsps listing represents they would have been required to pay compensation to the developer of the barn..

The only way that tsp could avoid the fraud that she has experienced is having all the barn registered to herself by the Land Registry..

[shadow]

Unfortunately I don't think you can rely on the Calderdale case: The requirement is that the object or structure – or, as in this case, building – must have been ancillary to the building in the list at the date of the listing. Whilst you will have no problem arguing that your part of the barn was ancillary to your cottage at the time of listing I think you will find it impossible to argue that your neighbours part of the barn was ancillary to your cottage at the time of listing.

Thomas

[shc]

which takes us to Shimizu (U.K.) Ltd. v. Westminster City Council

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... imiz01.htm

if the Council don't allow an "alteration" to a listed building (i.e. demolition of part).. as registered at Land Registry they have to pay the developer compensation.. the owner of the listed building is possibly left with no remedy ... because of the Council's defective mortgages (i.e. conservation area not being in conformance with listing).. it is difficult to dispute that the barn forms part of the same structure as the cottage.. it is clearly identified in the tythe maps that they are one and the same..

However.. at first registration.. the issue of the Council's mortgage fraud can be raised as a claim for rectification.. (compensation from land registry.. it also appears to be possible to appeal direct to the Secretary of State..

[shadow]

it is difficult to dispute that the barn forms part of the same structure as the cottage..

On the contrary, it has already been stated that the property is a c17 cottage, plastered cob walls, gable ended thatch roof, with addition made behind right-hand end probably in c18'. That actually makes it impossible to argue that the barn forms part of the same structure as the cottage. It was and always will be a later addition.

it is clearly identified in the tythe maps that they are one and the same..

Irrelevant, it's the time of listing that is the important date. Read the Calderdale case you quoted.

If you follow the thread of your argument the cottage should be listed as built which would lead to a ridiculous state of affairs. Additions are made to properties over the years and changes are made to properties over the years, the important date is the date the property is listed not some arbitrary date in the past that supports an individual's preference for what they would or wouldn't like included.

Thomas

[shadow]

Back to the original question.

Can the owner of the unlisted western end partly demolish and detach the unlisted end from the listed end at the formerly internal party gable wall, without warning, conservation or listed approval if the conservation area boundary perimeter was at the party wall position dividing the rectangular barn into the two separate ownership’s and not be prosecuted by the council? The barn was adjoined at the rear of the cottage at a right angle to it.

Yes. A party wall is by definition owned by the parties on either side of the wall but your neighbour should have informed you of their intention to carry out the work before doing so and you can claim for any damage to your property they inflicted whilst the work was being carried out. Neither party can remove a party wall because they don't own all of it and both owners have a right to use the party wall to support their property.

Thomas

[shc]

cottz.jpg (26.69 KiB) Viewed 171 times

I think that the listing finished at the external brick wall of the barn above.. (and that this is the actual party wall) and that the gap now in existence was covered by the listing.. I think as already identified that the roofline (and different building materials) indicates that the barn was of two different ages.. and I think that the bit attached to tsp's was built at the same time as her cottage.. the building line matches the tythe maps (and these are used in land registration)... and the roof line is the same.. and from the photos the building materials change after the kink in the roofline (where the barn now starts)

It is straightforward that the developer did not view the back walls of the cottage as being listed due to the unauthorised works (i.e. fitting of a dpc.. etc..)....

after eventually repairing the wall he cut into the rubble stone foundations of our now exterior cob wall and inserted a dpc and cemented and fixed kerb stones to our listed property again without warning PWA or listed approval. The LA has deemed it unauthorised works for which we as owners are held responsible, but not considered expedient to enforce.

that is certainly a trespass.. and breach of party wall act..

if there is no building occupying the land the listed building issues disappear after registration of tsp's property at Land registry.. (unless there are addressing issues) if the land was registered based on adverse possession by the developer as appears likely.. then tsp's claim to the listing (local land charge) would trump the developers claim (certainly to the demolished part of the barn).. until the land is registered at LR the barn is still physically attached to her house (as it was at the time of its listing by the Sec of State). she already has statements from the Council identifying that they viewed the barn as being listed (conservation officer.. who I think was right).. The developer would not have acted in the way that they have.. if it was straightforward.

my take on it.. is that if tsp was to apply to have the land on which the demolished bit of barn stood as part of her property.. that she would be successful.. as the adjudicator would take into account the demolition to 'hide' the extent of the listing.. and works to the cottage.. and/or at least be provided with rectification..

I have good knowledge of this particular issue.. as it is where our finding of probable maladministration came from in 1999.. in our case the Council had required establishment of a fire barrier (about five metres).. from the external wall in the 80s (to support establishment of a supermarket).. the house is very large... and just before we purchased the Council grant aided removal of the external wall.. cutting of the timber frame (C15) and works to fireplace... and modified consents awarded to a company with Cllrs relatives in to move the boundary.. in secret..

The Land Registry identify it as being a problem that only affects listed buildings and is due to the existence of two land registers (one by the Council's and one by themselves).. and listed buildings is where they interface.. it only causes problems if another property is attached..

[shadow]

my take on it.. is that if tsp was to apply to have the land on which the demolished bit of barn stood as part of her property.. that she would be successful

Not a chance in a million years. Worse case conditions for the neighbour is that they only have claim to the land by way of adverse possession but because they have done so for longer than the necessary statutory cut off period there is nothing tsp can legally do about it. If tsp thought the land was part of the cottage land they should have taken action within 12 years of it being adversely possessed by her neighbour. Tsp urgently needs to seek the advice of a solicitor who specialises in land issues without delay.

Thomas

[shc]

Tsp urgently needs to seek the advice of a solicitor who specialises in land issues without delay.

Agree with you on that.. the issues are very complicated.. and it is a problem as indicated with the two different registers..

[shc]

also under schedule one of the land registration act 2002 both..

the adverse possession issue and local land charge (listing) are over-riding rights.. and registerable as such..

if tsp says that the barn is not her property at first registration of her property it is not.. and is excluded from the listing.. if tsp says the barn is part of her property (as identified by the listing) then the issues are not at all clear cut.. as she benefits from a mistake in the register.. the land of her neighbor appears to have been registered in 2005 and that is when the clock starts.. the issues are absolutely horrendous.. there is nothing stopping the barn and cottage being a single listed building in different occupation.. in these cases it is incumbent on both parties to ensure that any works have listed building consent..

[shadow]

Nothing to do with when the land was registered and everything to do with how long it has been adversely possessed it. If the neighbours have adversely possessed the land for 12 years or more it is theirs and they are free to register it when and if they want. From the evidence available you can't even conclude it was adversely possessed you can only conclude they bought the land and barn years ago and have good title which makes the adverse possession issue irrelevant. That's why I said worse case conditions for the neighbour.

there is nothing stopping the barn and cottage being a single listed building in different occupation

I agree but their is NO evidence that that is the case. All the evidence points to only the cottage and a small part of the barn being listed.

Thomas

[shc]

The way it works is that you can adversely possess land (i.e. occupy).. when a listing is issued.. it also acts as adverse possession (the building occupies the land.. and it does not matter who occupies).. as it runs with the listed building.. these issues get clarified only at first registration.. In their neighbors case on 02.12.04.. in the case of tsp (pending)..

the neighbors registered their bit of land (barn) on the understanding that it was not part of the listing (conservation area plan.. council mortgage.. 1995).. whilst tsp benefits from the listing (council mortgage.. 1988).. the Council has changed its mind about the extent of the listing (mortgage) based on registration of neighbors land at Land Registry.. since 2002 you get registration to title to the Land by Land Registry.. prior to that (1925 Act) it was registration of title.. It is quite a substantial difference as when her neighbours registered the extent of the listing of the cottage was identified (this is defective.. and is why tsp is pursuing the garden issues..).. As such because the LR have issued certificates there is no maladministration by the Council.. (wrt listed buildings) as it incumbant of the listed building to challenge the registration at Land Registry.. if both properties were unregistered at Land Registry.. tsp should have had a finding of maladministration because the Council's registers are at variance..

the limitation runs from the date of registration..(public register) not the alleged occupation v listing.. you are free to register after 12 years adverse possession.. (88 - 2000).. but the registration is challengeable.. and if you have different council mortgages .. the losing party is entitled to rectification (compensation in this case).. as I don't see tsp getting the barn...

[shadow]

my take on it.. is that if tsp was to apply to have the land on which the demolished bit of barn stood as part of her property.. that she would be successful..

No chance for the reasons stated below.

Adverse possession has nothing to do with listed buildings and nothing to do with registration of land. All registrations are open to legal challenge. Neither has registration of an interest in land by the 'possessor/owner' anything to do with any registration to do with 'listing. I can possess and register both a listed and none listed buildings, the fact that it is listed just tells me I have responsibilities.

The limitation on a remedy after adverse possession does NOT run from the date of registration it runs from when the land was possessed. That is why it is called adverse possession and not adverse registration. I honestly don't think you are helping tsp by giving them false hope, they need to base their claims on facts and the law and they can only do so with the help of a solicitor.

Proving the barn was or wasn't listed does not help tsp's claim to the land or the barn.
Proving that the land was only registered recently does not help tsp's claim to the land or barn.
Proving the council is guilty of maladministration does not help tsp's claim to the land or barn.
Proving that the land was or wasn't inside a conservation area does not help tsp's claim to the land and barn.

Tsp would need to prove the land was theirs and has never been out of their possession for more than 12 years, which in the circumstance and with tsp's acceptance that the land/barn was their neighbour's property, is going to be impossible.

Thomas

[shc]

I am not seeking to give tsp false hope.. as in relation to the listed building issues.. the issues are not at all clear.. the adjudicator looks at registration issues.. and registration issues (although they can be based on claims of adverse possession) is different to other law.. the adjudicator looks at registration.. of both title and mortgages and as far as they are concerned.. the Council's charges are no different to any other mortgage registered at Land Registry..

I would not anticipate that tsp could defeat the 'equitable' claims of her neighbours.. but I would question if she could not defeat the Council's mortgages...

for a Council charge to be realised.. it has to be registered at Land Registry.. (s55 of LRA - this is normally through an Local Official Certificate of Search.. and in the case of a listed building its address (which is the statutory base pf the mortgage).. tsp's neighbours will have registered the Council's mortgages in Form AP1 (local official certificate of search in 2004).. and have acted accordingly.. (i.e. not in conservation area.. not part of listed building)..

Extract from letter to tsp from Council dated 20 Sept 2005..

I have been passed your letter to English Heritage dated 11th August 2005 for my observations and comment..

The barn is not listed, but the approved conversion proposals have assessed as if it were. All of the original wall and roof structure has been retained with minimal alterations to the external appearance. I am content that the approved scheme both protects the character and improves the building...

The developer has not applied for, and would not be granted permission to demolish and rebuild the barn. Infact if he were to demolish it he would lose his permission and face prosecution.

If the developer, in the course of carrying out lawfully permitted works should damage your property then this would be a civil action of the respective owners..

This is where the disagreement comes in.. EH view the barn as being listed (confirmed telco) due to the provisions of s5.1 (PLBCA)... the planning authority don't.. due to the conservation area.. and have identified through a discretionary decision that tsp is guilty of breaching listed building legislation (i.e. allowing her neighbour to do works to her listed wall)..

There appears to be absolutely nothing wrong with the neighbours of tsp's title.. there does appear to be something wrong with the mortgages (Council charges) and it is the mortgages that am referring to.. the adjudicator looks at both..

s108 LRA provides

(2) the adjudicator may, on application, make any order which the High Court could make for the rectification or setting aside of a document which-
(a) effects a qualifying disposition of a registered estate or charge,
(b) is a contract to make such a disposition, or
(c) effects a transfer of an interest which is the subject of a notice in the register.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), a qualifying disposition is-
(a) a registrable disposition, or
(b) a disposition which creates an interest which may be the subject of a notice in the register

and I certainly think the issues should be looked at by a lawyer.. but am also aware that when Council mortgages get raised as an issue.. they all seem to be not qualified to look at the issues..

[shadow]

None of what you say will give tsp any advantage, all they will do is cause a few minor problems for their neighbour. If that's their objective then go for it as long as they realise it's a two way street and things could bounce back on them badly.

The risk V rewards don't look good to me, more like a lose lose scenario for tsp. On top of that you have the council stating the neighbours barn is not listed, the LGO saying it's not listed, tsp's own cottage listing not including the neighbours part of the barn.... so other than opinion where is the evidence that the neighbours part of the barn is listed??? If it is not listed there will be no registered charge re listing on the barn so no registered charge to rectify.

Thomas

[shc]

It is possibly a win win..

I would not expect tsp to get the land covered by the notices.. however.. tsp is able to make an application to the adjudicator for rectification (compensation).. there is no need for the neighbour of tsp to be involved.. as the problem is just down to defective mortgages issued by the Council that have caused the problems.. the barn will cease to be listed if tsp registers her land without raising the issue.. the adjudicator is able to require the land registry to provide compensation for flawed registration of neighbouring properties.. (as identified the issues normally only get raised in relation to listed buildings.. and are fiercely opposed by Land Registry (when you raise them with them direct).. as they can see no reason why they should be responsible for what a Council gets up to.... the adjudicator is looking at the 'garden' issues.. so there would be no great issue with raising the listed building issues..

[shc]

I also am aware that some of the issues have been looked at by the Adjudicator in January 2010.. in that case the Council admitted that it had issued notices fraudulently, realised the notices etc.. and also that they had submitted different documents to the LGO (i.e. same document different date.. etc).. and were unable to identify how they had been able to serve one document.. as the lady that they served it on was in police protective custody.. and not contactable by anyone.. this notice was fortunately registered at high court.. but for tragic reasons never went any further.. than registration..

.. and guess what the Council's main claim for allowing them to act in the way described was that the LGO had not issued an MI report against the Council.. However, Secretary of State identified that any notice issued by a Council not according to its constitution did not exist.. consequently.. there can't be maladministration by a Council on a notice that does not exist until someone seeks to realise the notice.. and when the complaint had been made to the LGO the Council was not seeking to realise anything.. it shifted over to Land Registry when they did..

the legal point in question was if the Council and third parties (based on certificates supplied by the Council) could realise mortgages that were a nullity through registration.. there is a requirement in s55 LRA 2002 that Council mortgages have to be registered at Land Registry..prior to their realisation.. and that the registered title owner then has an opportunity to object (land registry have to inform the owner).. in the above case the Council 'forgot' to register its charges.. and the charges were challenged on the ground that they were a fraud.. s55 LRA causes LR a lot of problems as it integrates the two registers of land.. (was s59(2) in the LRA 2005.. and the clock for LR starts at the moment of registration..

[shadow]

Stuart your whole case is a house of cards which stands or falls on whether the neighbours barn was listed or not. Wouldn't it be better to find some evidence to support your premise, 'that the neighbour's barn was listed' before developing a case built on what could turn out to be a false premise? Especially since all the available evidence suggests it is a false premise.

the barn will cease to be listed if tsp registers her land without raising the issue

How can the neighbour's barn cease to be listed if it wasn't listed in the first place?

the adjudicator is able to require the land registry to provide compensation for flawed registration of neighbouring properties..

What flawed registration? If there is no evidence the neighbours barn is listed how can the listing be registered let alone a be flawed?

so there would be no great issue with raising the listed building issues

What listed building issue? There is no evidence the neighbours barn is listed or registered so there may be no issue.

tsp is able to make an application to the adjudicator for rectification (compensation).

What compensation? Even if you manage to persuade an adjudicator the neighbour's barn should be listed, compensation may not be available or awarded to tsp.

tsp needs to be aware of the risks and rewards of any action they intend taking together with the odds of winning. Only a solicitor could give them that information and it is imperative they seek legal advice without delay. I would hate to see the rug pulled from underneath tsp should an adjudicator find that the neighbour's barn was not listed because no evidence had been presented to prove it was.

Thomas

[shc]

Thomas

That is very much what the issue is about.. if the barn is listed or not..

as far as I'm aware the barn issue has not been raised with the adjudicator .. it was taken to the LGO..

the access and garden issue is going to adjudicator (understand).. and there have been lawyers involved.. my take is.. and that is as far as it goes.. is that the listed building issue should also have been taken to the adjudicator..

it happens that the LR make mistakes.. sometimes they can correct them.. and sometimes they can't.. when the LR make a mistake compensation is normally paid to the injured party.. the injury is normally caused by the holders of the 'deeds'.. solicitors and council..

[tsp]

How can the neighbour's barn cease to be listed if it wasn't listed in the first place?

Does the National grid reference of the listed building that is recorded in the listing matter? Or is this dismissed as is Group Value and specific reference to the additional building in the description?

The NGR recorded for the listed building is NGR: SX5032999130, which is actually the far end of the barn, the cottage is now detached from this NGR reference which is a 10 number reference which is within 1 metre precision apparently. Is the cottage that was listed for its group value with the attached barn, now no longer listed if it is actually detached from the NGR recorded? Or is the entire unit that has been partially detached still actually a listed building?

Sharon

[shc]

Until both properties are registered at Land Registry the listing is ambiguous (open to dispute). Stop worrying about the GV.. the cottage was listed GII in its own right..

[tsp]

Can anyone advise what to do if the LGO don't answer emails or answer phone messages regarding a comeback review?

Jane Martin closed the file on 9th March 2010 unless I raised significant new evidence. Stephen Purser said on 18th May that the file remained closed, despite significant new evidence being supplied and is not acknowledging more evidence sent since.

I sent him an EH Listed Building Location Map identifying the barn as the location of the structure on 9th June and advised him that the EH were now assessing its listed status. I sent him the EH Initial Report dated 2nd July and the EH Phasing Plan on the 9th July identifying that the barn(2nd phase and outshut lean-to 3rd phase) were added to the cottage in c18 and eight references to the barn in the report and saying the first bay of the barn was converted to domestic use.

The list description specifically refers to the barn as the addition behind the right hand end (EH have now confirmed this is the barn) and it was listed for its group value and the NGR of the description is the barn and not the cottage.

As the legislation says "If a building is designated for its group value, protection applies to the whole of the property." the EH assessment is significant new evidence.

What can I do if they won't answer?

[ke]

You won't get them to open it if they don't want to, this is their 'cover up' modus operandi. The political climate is no longer in their favour, and they know it. Publish, either with the media, or if they won't listen to you, on the internet. I currently have the media following intently, a complaint, I have made linked to a former one. The days of public sector corruption, openly supported by the last government,leading us into the mess we are now in, are well and truly over.