My Corrupt Council - Neath Port Talbot Council Corruption

Corruption is not always easy to identify. A corrupt official will be aware that their actions are corrupt and so they will usually go to great lengths to hide their corrupt activities. It can be that you have a feeling that something is not right or you have been on the receiving end of corruption and want to find out who is accountable for your problems. Finding the right questions to ask can sometimes be a process of hit and miss, and when you are asking questions, you are normally asking professional civil servants and politicians, both sets of officials will be guarded with their answers and will be practi. However, when you find a question that is not answered correctly, ignored or blocked, you've almost certainly found corruption and should if able start the process of asking a 'relevant question'. The reason for this is that the truth to a 'relevant question' will usually identify corruption or accountability for corruption.

Chasing the relevant question is a necessity for corrupt councils such as Neath Port Talbot. However, you run the gauntlet of additional corrupt activities of council officials such as being channelled down the complaints process early or being labelled as a vexatious complainant. Here we provide examples of relevant questions and the responses provided by the council.

RELEVANT QUESTION: Are you allowed to put planning notices on private property without first requesting the permission of the owner of the property? RESULT OF QUESTION: Question ignored.		It took me a couple of emails to get this question right. This is the condition of the planning notice placed without my permission on a telegraph pole on my property after a couple of days. My main concern here was that the same people who are making decisions on a major development bordering my property were capable of such shoddy work and so I asked questions until I narrowed it down to the relevant question. The fact that the planning department refused to accept accountability for an action that was clearly breaking their protocols was a clear sign that they were not to be trusted. - CLICK HERE
RELEVANT QUESTION

The Council Leader asked 5 relevant questions to the Head of Planning who refused to answer them.

At this point, he should have taken these questions to the relevant scrutiny committee of which he was chairman, he did not.

5 FIVE QUESTIONS FROM THE SCRUTINY CHAIR FOR CONTAMINATED LAND TO THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION

Councillor Hunt was stonewalled by the Planning Department for almost 3 months and a reply was eventually received from him on 31 January 2022. The reply from the Head of Planning and Public Protection, Ceri Morris used a method of deception to avoid Question 1 and ignored the remaining 4 questions by moving the time relevance from historic actions to current and future process information.

CLICK HERE FOR THIS COMMUNICATION

The final communication in this series contained a request for a HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT to be supplied by the planning department. To date (3 September 2022) nothing has been received from Stephen K Hunt, now the council leader.

CLICK HERE FOR THE COMPLETE CHAIN OF COMMUNICATION