Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fourteenth Report

Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

1.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Aldous

I would like to make a complaint about the behaviour of local MP, Dr Des Turner, in relation to an incident that occurred at my place of work which I would like to be investigated by your office as I consider it likely to demonstrate that there has been a breach of the appropriate code of conduct.

The facts of the case are set out in 'Document 1'.

As can be seen in 'Document 2' Dr Turner does not dispute that the incident took place or that he used the foul and abusive language against me. The facts of the matter are therefore not contended.

The basis of my complaint is that Dr Turner not only used outrageous and totally unacceptable language but that he was doing so in a manner designed to bully and intimidate me. I consider that he was attempting to use his position of authority to unjustly influence the outcome of a statutory decision on a homeless application that had been submitted to the Local Authority. I consider that this went way beyond what is accepted as being a reasonable attempt by a local representative to further his constituent's interests.

I also consider that Dr Turner attempted to intimidate and threaten me to not pursue my complaint against him further when he asked the Director of Housing and City Support to review the way that I had handled the particular case in question and also that I had been guilty of 'professional misconduct'. ( see 'Documents 2 and 3').

The incident was a profoundly disturbing and upsetting experience for me not only on a personal and 'human' level but also as it is shocking to think that an MP considers that he can get his own way by bullying a front-line member of staff carrying out his daily duties. It is bad enough when a member of the public is abusive but at least this is usually done in the context of a very stressful and traumatic time for the person concerned which to some extent makes it understandable. It is very much worse when an MP attempts to bully and intimidate in what I see as a calculated manner to influence the outcome of a decision on a statutory application to a Local Authority. This is particularly so in the specifics of the case concerned in which there is the context of the government of which he represents applying ever more pressure on Local Authorities not to 'Accept' statutory homeless applications and to encourage homeless and potentially homeless people to pursue alternative housing options. This contrasts with Dr Turner trying to unduly exert pressure on a member of staff to 'cut corners' in an attempt to gain social housing; a very precious and dwindling resource, for a person who he had become involved with.

On a personal basis I think it is relevant to state that I have been employed in my position as a Homeless Persons Officer for 15 years with an exemplary work record and having only ever taken four days off for sick- leave throughout this time. This job is generally considered to be one of the most demanding and stressful front-line jobs and has a high 'burn-out' of staff. It is outrageous that I have had to be subjected to such humiliating and demeaning personal abuse as well as the aforementioned intimidation to further the interests of a person at the expense of others.

It is also notable that I have received support in this matter throughout my management structure from my team leader (see 'Document 4') right through to the Director of the service and the Chief Officer (see 'Document 5'). Dr Turner at each stage has resolutely refused to apologise while at the same time not disputing the details of the matter.

This matter could have been resolved some time ago if Dr Turner had simply apologised for his behaviour and agreed not to conduct his business in such a manner again. I have very patiently pursued the matter through the proper channels and only now, having exhausted all other options, do I feel the necessity to request your assistance in furthering this case. I feel completely justified in doing so as I consider this to be an explicit and calculated abuse of power.

Contextually it is interesting to note that this government, and not least the Prime Minister, has been stressing the importance of all members of society acting with 'respect' for one another. Surely such a laudable concept should be disseminated from the government's representatives first and foremost as an example to others. Dr Turner has clearly demonstrated that he has not learned this lesson.

I would be grateful therefore if you would investigate this matter fully and I hope that it will lead to a satisfactory conclusion with Dr Turner being censured in the appropriate manner.

2.  Enclosure—Document 1 (Memo. by Mr Aldous, 12 May 2005)

I have been advised by my Unison Rep to write to yourselves regarding an incident that has taken place regarding a telephone conversation that I have just had with Des Turner MP.

Dr Turner had been in contact a couple of times over the past couple of days regarding a homeless application that I am dealing with from Mr X. Dr Turner rang again at 2.35 this afternoon wishing to discuss what progress had been made on the case. I explained that I was required to assess his homeless application, like any other, to determine what duties the council may have to Mr X. I further explained that Social Services consider that they have discharged their duty to Mr X as they had made several offers of accommodation to him which were considered to be reasonable for his needs.

Dr Turner, in an aggressive manner, stated to the effect that it was ridiculous that Mr X needs to assessed again as he had already been assessed many times. I tried to explain that, as a homeless officer I was required to carry out the necessary enquiries under the terms of the homeless legislation, and that these were not necessarily the same as a Social Services assessment.

Dr Turner was clearly quite exasperated at this and I heard him angrily, what sounded like, throw the phone receiver onto the desk (or something similar). He picked it up and angrily stated that Mr X was a very vulnerable man and that I should 'just f***ing house him'. I tried to explain that I was simply doing my job and I asked that he speak to me in a more polite manner. I offered to ask a manager to call him as it was apparent that he did not accept what I was saying. He asked the names of my managers and when I responded he angrily stated that he had 'never heard of them'. I then asked what he would like me to do and he responded by shouting down the phone that I 'was just a little f***ing useless pen-pusher'. At this I said that I was not prepared to tolerate such abuse and that I was going to put the phone down, which I did.

I would like to have on record that, despite the abuse and intimidation, I remained polite and offered what help I could throughout the conversation. I am not easily offended, but I was actually more shocked and offended by this call than I have been over the 14 years that I have been dealing with some of the most vulnerable and 'challenging' people in our society.

I would be grateful if you would take this matter further on my behalf.

3.  Enclosure—Document 2 (Letter to the Branch Secretary from the Unison Regional Manager, 9 September 2006)

Thank you for the Case Form regarding the above member. I met with Mr Turner today (8 Sept) to clarify his position on this matter. Mr Turner confirmed that he had said what Mr Aldous claimed and he also confirmed that he would not apologise.

His reasons for not apologising were that Mr Aldous had jeopardised Mr X's position. He began to discuss Mr X's case but I stated that it must be confidential and that I did not wish to discuss it. I also pointed out that the Director had said that this was immaterial in how Mr Turner spoke to Mr Aldous, and that I agreed.

Mr Turner stated that Mr Aldous is guilty of professional misconduct. I said that that was a serious allegation and, as such, Mr Turner should raise it with the Council. Mr Turner said that if Mr Aldous continues with his complaint against him then he will make an official complaint against him to the Council I am not sure that there is any legal redress in this matter, however, I am prepared to refer it to Thompson's Solicitors for advice.

Please confirm with Mr Aldous that he wishes us to proceed with this.

4.  Enclosure—Document 3&5 (Letter to Mr Aldous from Director of Housing and City Support, 1 August 2005)

Thank you for meeting with me on Friday of last week, it was good to see you again.

As I said to you then both the Chief Executive, Alan McCarthy, and myself have now spoken with Des Turner, Member of Parliament. We have both made it clear to Des that we feel that the language that he used when he spoke with you in regard to Mr X's Housing Application, was totally inappropriate. We have both also asked Des to apologise for the way that he treated you.

However, as you know, Des is not prepared to apologise, and in fact asked me to review the way Mr X's application was handled by yourself. However, I explained to Des that I would not be doing this, as even if there were concerns, that could not possibly warrant the tone and language that Des used towards yourself.

I regret that I have not been able to achieve your desired outcome, which was an apology from the Member of Parliament, but can assure you that we have taken this matter seriously. Having discussed the matter with [the] Director of Strategy and Governance, I am clear that there is no further action that we can take within the City Council. As I said to you on Friday, this should not be construed as a lack of support for you. You can, of course, take this matter up privately which I gather from our conversation you are likely to do, and there may well be parliamentary procedures that can help you.

Anyway, I am sorry that we have had to have contact in such circumstances, but of course I wish you well for the future, and thank you for all the hard work that you undertake on the Council's behalf.

I hope you have had a good and relaxing holiday.

5.  Enclosure—Document 4 (Memo. By Mr Aldous's Line Manager, 12 May 2005)

Just had a bit of a shocking experience with Des Turner who has phoned on behalf of a client by the name of Mr X.

Dr Turner has phoned on two occasions today, the first occasion this morning when he was inquiring about Mr X and was quite abrasive in nature when Jerry (the HPO for Mr X) tried to answer his inquiries surrounding the client.

Following this inquiry Mr X presented to CDC and Jerry immediately went to see him (dropping literally everything) to prioritise Mr X's appointment that had not been scheduled (Mr X had missed three previous appointments). Off the back of this I understand that Dr Turner then telephoned Jerry to follow up the appointment and the short conversation ended in Dr Turner literally shouting abuse down the telephone to Jerry.

In terms of gauging the level of abuse that Dr Turner aimed towards Jerry during this short telephone call phrases included, "you're just a useless f***ing pen pusher", before this Jerry had offered to pass the inquiry to one of his line managers (myself immediately, or Rachel) on this Dr Turner asked who these were and on Jerry mentioning the relevant names Dr Turner retorted that he had never heard of them. Rather bewilderingly Dr Turner was also heard banging his telephone on his desk during the development of the conversation regarding Mr X.

The conversation broke down to the extent that following Dr Turner's increasing abuse Jerry had no other option other than to terminate the call.

In terms of the accuracy of what has been reported although I was not in the office at the time of the call being received I have no doubt that Jerry would have dealt with the inquiry with the utmost of professionalism. He is one of the team's most experienced and professional officers. Equally, from gauging the look of sheer shock on Jerry's face immediately after the call, together with the reaction of fellow officers nearby to the call, I am also convinced that events developed as described and that Dr Turner did exhibit the unacceptable, inappropriate and deplorable behaviour that was described.

As you will appreciate I am very concerned and perplexed as to what on earth is going on here. We have a supposed respected and recently re-elected member of parliament exhibiting similar behaviour patterns to that of some of our most vulnerable clients who exist in often the most dire circumstances and attempting to bully through a solution for Mr X.

My team are under enough stress working with the challenging client groups that faces it every working day (and evening when on call) I would not expect this from one of our MPs. Had Dr Turner been a client of the service he - believe it or not - would most likely have been entered onto the departmental (and council wide) Clients of Concern database for reference by other officers of the authority.

I understand that Jerry has reported this to the UNISON branch office to report his concerns and he will soon be forwarding me a report about the incident as advised by UNISON.

Can anything be done in terms of complaining about this? Is there a code of conduct that MPs should adhere to (bearing in mind the responsibilities, duties and expectations of the individual that are consummate with their elected office)?

6.  Letter to Mr Aldous from the Commissioner, 24 January 2006

Thank you for your letter of 19 January and enclosures, in which you indicate that you wish to complain about what you allege was abusive and intimidating behaviour by Dr Turner during a telephone conversation with you on 12 May 2005. You also allege that Dr Turner attempted to intimidate you into not pursuing a complaint about his behaviour.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedures I follow when investigating a complaint against a Member. This also contains other important information for complainants. I draw your attention to paragraphs 16 and 26 in particular.

You will see from paragraph 18 of the note that I cannot consider, as part of your complaint, how Dr Turner decided to handle Mr X's housing problem. However, the two aspects of Dr Turner's conduct to which you have drawn my attention—and which I summarise above—are matters on which I believe it appropriate to make preliminary inquiries of Dr Turner. In the light of his response it may also be necessary for me to make other inquiries about the matter.

I will let you know when my inquiries have reached a conclusion. If in the meantime you have any questions about the process, please do not hesitate to get in touch on the number above.

7.  Letter to Dr Turner from the Commissioner, 25 January 2006

I enclose a letter of complaint and enclosures I have received from a Mr Jerry Aldous. Also enclosed is a copy of my reply.

You will see that Mr Aldous, an officer in the Homeless Persons Unit of Brighton and Hove City Council, complains that you behaved in an abusive and intimidating manner towards him during a telephone conversation you had with him on 12 May 2005 about one of your constituents, a Mr X. Mr Aldous also alleges that you later attempted to intimidate him into not pursuing a complaint about your behaviour, and that you did this by threatening to make an official complaint against him to the Council (document 2 of the enclosures), and subsequently by asking the Director of Housing and City Support to review the way he had handled Mr X's application for housing (document 3).

I enclose a copy of a procedure note which I routinely send Members who are the subject of a complaint. You will note from paragraph 7 of this that I am not able to consider complaints about a Member's decision on how to handle a constituent's case. I have accordingly told Mr Aldous that I cannot consider, as part of his complaint, how you decided to handle Mr X's housing problem.

However, the two matters I have mentioned above—your alleged abusive and intimidating manner during a telephone conversation and your alleged attempt to intimidate Mr Aldous into not pursing a complaint—appear to fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct. Specifically, paragraph 15 of the Code approved by the House on 13 July 2005 provides:

"Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally into disrepute."

In accordance with the procedures approved by the House, I should therefore be grateful if you will let me have your observations on Mr Aldous's complaint. What is asked is that you let me have a full and truthful account of the matters which have given rise to the complaint. It would be helpful if this included your response to the following.

1.  Do you accept the account of your telephone conversation with Mr Aldous contained in his contemporaneous note at document 1 and apparently confirmed in paragraph 1 of the note by [the Unison Regional Manager] at document 2, and in the note by [the line manager] at document 4?

2.  Do you accept that the effect of your words and behaviour was such as to bully or intimidate Mr Aldous, and thus inappropriately to influence him in carrying out a statutory responsibility of the Council?

3.  By threatening to pursue an official complaint against Mr Aldous (document 2) and asking the Director to review the way in which Mr Aldous had handled Mr X's housing application (document 3), were you seeking to dissuade him from pursuing a complaint against you?

4.  Do you regard your conduct in this matter as being fully in keeping with that expected of a Member?

5.  Do you feel that any form of apology is due to Mr Aldous? If not, could you explain why?

I look forward to receiving your observations as soon as possible. If you would like a word at any point, please do not hesitate to give me a call on the number above.

8.   Letter to the Commissioner from Dr Turner, 20 February 2006

Thank you for your letter dated 25 January 2006 informing me of a complaint from a Mr Jerry Aldous. I did indeed swear at Mr Aldous. And, I did indeed say that if he continued to complain at having been sworn at I would make the official complaint against him for gross professional misconduct that I should have done in the first place, except that I really have better things to do. I have now formally complained to Brighton and Hove City Council about his conduct.

You must decide for yourself what you wish to do with this complaint. I can only tell you that Mr Aldous is the only local governmental officer or any equivalent person that I have ever sworn at in my long career in public service, and he was also the most deliberately obstructive jobsworth that I have ever encountered.

The reason for my anger with him was that he completely disobeyed instructions that he had been given by senior managers in Brighton and Hove Council in dealing with a particularly vulnerable constituent of mine. Mr Aldous acted in such a way that it nearly undid years of patient work and could have led to very severe consequences, the least of which being my constituent wandering the streets of the county of Sussex because of his particular amnesic problems.

Should you wish to pursue this complaint further I will be very happy to give full details of the situation involved but clearly it would not be brief. I leave the handling of this complaint to your discretion.

9.  Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Housing and City Support, 27 March 2006

Thank you for your letter dated 28 February 2006 regarding a complaint that you have received from Mr Jerry Aldous against Dr Turner. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

This relates to a complicated case that has taken many years to reach a resolution. In response to your specific enquiry, Brighton & Hove City Council did not find Jerry Aldous guilty of misconduct in his dealings with Mr X and Dr Turner. Jerry Aldous did not disobey instructions that he had been given by senior managers in Brighton & Hove Council, but acted in good faith on the information that he had been given. He acted appropriately as a homeless officer in making statutory enquiries under the homeless legislation.

However, there does appear to have been some lack of clarity around whether a previously agreed funding package was still available to Dr Turner's constituent. Dr Turner was angry with Mr Aldous because he understood that the funding package was still in place and was concerned that previous arrangements were being undone. Conversely, Mr Aldous had been informed by Senior Managers in Social Services that they had ended their duty towards Mr X, ceasing all previous funding arrangements and that they would no longer fund Mr X's housing.

It was this lack of clarity that led to the Dr Turner's anger and frustration and the telephone call in which he admits he lost his temper with Mr Aldous. Whilst I can understand Dr Turner's frustration, I do not feel that he was justified in speaking to Mr Aldous as he did. The file notes that immediately after the phone call, Mr Aldous reported to his line manager that Dr Turner had said that he should "just f***ing house him" and that Mr Aldous was "just a f***ing useless pen pusher". I would also point out that Mr Aldous acknowledged Dr Turner's frustration and offered to refer him to his manager in an attempt to defuse and resolve the situation.

I am therefore satisfied that Jerry Aldous handled Dr Turner's approach appropriately. However, I have acknowledged that Mr X experienced difficulty in getting the current funding package agreed and that this required Dr Turner's intervention.

I hope that you find this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss the matter further.

10.  Note of meeting with Dr Turner, 3 May 2006

PM showed DT a letter to PM dated 27 March from the Director of Housing and City Support, Brighton and Hove Council.

DT commented that the local authority had not made a good job of dealing with his complaint against Mr Aldous (JA).

DT said that the case concerned a constituent of his (Mr X), a man who, as a result of brain injury, had no sense of place and needed to be housed, with council help, in a specific, and very expensive, location. Without this help he would, and did, wander off into the Sussex countryside until he was found and brought back. He did, however, appear superficially normal, and it was hard for people to be convinced that he had a problem.

For years, Mr X had been supported by the Council in unsatisfactory circumstances, rejecting every offer of accommodation the Council made to him; the Council in turn rejected his reasons for rejection. The Council officials eventually became exasperated with the trouble and expense. When they despaired, they offered Mr X the opportunity to find accommodation for himself; whenever his efforts failed he would come back as homeless. DT wanted this cycle broken.

Mr X's specific requirements made him particularly difficult to house, as his preferred area, the Brighton sea-front, had very little appropriate accommodation and very few landlords would accept tenants on housing benefit.

DT had eventually negotiated with the council officers a package for Mr X, supported by funds from the housing and disability departments of the council, which amounted to sufficient to meet his needs. Meanwhile, stimulated by the Council's attitude, Mr X had found himself premises in an area he knew well. It would, however, be necessary for the council to provide a guarantee of the package and to assure the landlord that the rent would be forthcoming. During the election campaign, DT had approached the council's disabilities manager to inquire if the package was still available and had been told that it was, but that it needed confirmation. This confirmation was subsequently forthcoming from the adult services department and legal services.

The circumstances had taken place during the general election campaign of 2005; he had no paper trail because the discussions had been conducted on his mobile telephone while he was canvassing.

DT then told Mr X that the package was available, and Mr X and his father went to the Housing Advice centre so that Mr X could receive and sign the necessary housing benefit form which DT understood had been pre-processed. JA, however, insisted on treating Mr X as a new applicant, being adamant that the council had discharged its obligations to Mr X and thereby threatening to void Mr X's prospective housing solution. Mr X, who was fairly volatile, had then left the centre.

DT rang JA just to check that all had gone well and was appalled to hear what JA had done. He told him the support package was in place, but JA refused to accept this. DT suggested JA contact the Benefits Officer or the Disability Manager but he refused to do either. DT found it the last straw that a council official should refuse to take notice of such a simple and straightforward request from an MP. In the end DT had used the words of which JA complained; it was the first time in thirty years of public service he had sworn in this way, but, he said, he had never met such an obstructive official, one whose actions would, unchecked, have put a most vulnerable man back on the streets.

Subsequently DT had done what JA had refused to do. He had called the Benefits Officer and the Disabilities Manager and had confirmed that the package was indeed available. The matter was resolved.

PM said that the information contained in the council's letter of 27 March was not at odds with DT's account. DT said that the important bit that was missing was it did not record DT's request that JA should contact the Benefits Officer and the Disability Manager, and his refusal to do so. PM said that it appeared from the Council's letter that JA's reason was that he had no information to believe the matter was otherwise than as he thought, having not been made aware of the special funding package.

PM said that it was not infrequent to meet obstructive people but that that was no excuse for losing one's temper, particularly with junior staff; JA had suggested to DT that if he did not believe him he should speak to his line manager. DT said that there would have been no point in speaking to the line manager, as he was out of the loop. PM asked if it was the case that if JA was unable or unwilling to help there was no-one in the section in a position to deal with the matter? DT said that that was so, which was why he had circumvented him. DT said that JA's attitude was the last straw and added that if he had not used the words complained of, JA would have had no basis for his complaint.

PM said that JA had remarked that whilst he was used to being abused by distressed clients, he was not used to being sworn at by elected representatives: DT commented that he must in that case have led a sheltered life.

DT said that JA had not been properly briefed. PM said that this appeared to be so. JA had apparently acted on the information he had from his local authority. DT said that that was doubtful because the only reason Mr X had been told to see him was so that he could receive the signed benefit form.

PM accepted that there had been an agreed package available which had been reconstituted following DT's intervention. It appeared, however, that JA had not known of its availability at the time of his interview with Mr X. PM accepted that DT had acted in what he believed to be the best interest of his vulnerable constituent. However, in abusing JA, in his view DT had behaved in a way not expected of an elected representative, especially to a junior official.

PM explained that he and AB[9] would prepare a note of the conversation, on which DT would have an opportunity to comment. PM would speak to JA and the local authority to see if there was anything more he could learn from them. Thereafter he would need to decide whether to proceed to a report to the Committee. Meanwhile PM and DT could reflect on the situation.

PM asked DT if he would confirm that he still saw no reason to modify or withdraw his language. DT said that in comparison with JA's absolute obstructiveness his swearing had been trivial. JA had been about to do tremendous damage to DT's vulnerable constituent.

11.  Letter to Mr Aldous from the Commissioner, 16 May 2006

Further to my letter of 21 April I have now been able to see Dr Turner about your complaint. A few points of some possible importance have emerged from this on which I feel it right to seek your comments before I reach a conclusion on the complaint.

Dr Turner has told me that his conversation with you concerned an appointment one of his constituents (Mr X) had with you, at which it was Dr Turner's understanding that Mr X was to sign a housing benefit form which was part of a special funding package Dr Turner had negotiated with Brighton and Hove Council to meet his constituent's rather particular housing needs. His anger with you arose when you insisted on treating Mr X as a new applicant, thereby threatening to abort Mr X's prospective housing solution and the arrangements Dr Turner had, with the help of other council officials, laboriously constructed for his vulnerable constituent.

In this context Dr Turner alleges that:

• you refused to accept that the special funding package was in place. I believe that this may have been because you were unaware of the package. Dr Turner has suggested that you are likely to have known of the package because the only reason Mr X had come to see you was in order to received the signed housing benefit form which was part of it. Could you please confirm which account is correct?
• you refused to accept Dr Turner's suggestion that you contact the Benefits Officer or Disability Manager to confirm the existence of the special package. May I ask whether this was so, and if it was, why you declined to adopt Dr Turner's suggestion? Dr Turner says that he found your refusal to take notice of such a simple and straightforward request from an elected Member the last straw. When you declined his suggestion, he himself did what he had proposed and the situation was thereby swiftly resolved.

I emphasise that I ask these questions purely to clarify in my own mind the precise circumstances of your conversation with Dr Turner. Once I am clear about the facts, I hope rapidly to resolve your complaint. If you would like a word about either point I have raised, or more generally please do not hesitate to give me a ring.

12.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Aldous, 26 May 2006

Thank you for your letter of 16 May in which you ask for my comments on statements that Dr Turner has made to you.

1.  I was not aware of any 'benefits package' and my file notes record that when Dr Turner rang me prior to Mr X coming to the office mentioning such a thing I advised him of this fact. If, as he has stated to you that he had sorted this 'benefits package' out with Brighton & Hove Council then surely he should have directed his enquiry to whoever this had been arranged with.

2.  Dr Turner is absolutely incorrect to state that the only reason Mr X had come in to see me was to sign a housing benefit form. In fact the only reason Mr X came to the office was because the temporary accommodation that had been provided for Mr X had been cancelled due to his repeated failure to provide requested ID and income proof (which is necessary so that housing benefit can be obtained for the temporary accommodation). Furthermore, he had failed two previously arranged appointments with me which had been set up to discuss his housing options. The interview that was conducted and is the subject of this enquiry was unarranged and I had to drop other things that I was involved with at the time to see Mr X.

3.  File notes record that the bulk of the interview that I had with Mr X (and his father who accompanied him) was concerned with what they considered to be the inappropriate accommodation that Mr X had been offered by Social Services over the previous few years. It is true that they then asked about the funding for a flat that they had identified as being suitable. My response was that I could refer them to one of the council's 'Housing Options Officers' who could discuss with Mr X the possibility of funding any rent in advance and deposit that may be required. I also directed them to the Housing Benefit Office as the appropriate agency to deal with their enquiry about how much of the rent would be covered by housing benefit I advised them that my role was quite separate to this and that I was required to assess any statutory duties owed to Mr X under the terms of the homeless legislation. Mr X had been provided with temporary accommodation under this legislation and therefore the duty was to assess any ongoing duties to him.

4.  It is pointedly interesting that neither Mr X or his father made any reference to Dr Turner having secured a 'benefits package' or made any suggestion that I should contact him about this.

5.  I would absolutely refute that Dr Turner suggested that I contact the 'Benefits Officer' or 'Disability Manager' in order to confirm the existence of a 'special package' I can assure you that Dr Turner made no such constructive suggestions and that from the outset he was aggressive and combative. In fact it was impossible to have a constructive discussion of the situation, as it was very apparent that he was determined to take out his frustrations on the next council officer that he encountered who did not instantly respond in the way that he wanted. This was apparent from the start, as we had barely began to discuss the situation before he exhorted me to 'just f***ing house him'. This then led on to the disgusting abuse as previously stated.

6.  I would repeat that, if he considered that it was simply a matter of Mr X finalising a pre-arranged deal set up between Dr Turner and other council officers then he should have ensured that he contacted those involved in this deal and not with myself who had not been advised of it and had no knowledge of it.

7.  Contrary to the claim that I had knowledge of particular 'deals' or 'packages' I had in fact been clearly advised that Social Services had withdrawn all previously agreed funding arrangements with Mr X because of his repeated refusal to accept accommodation that had been arranged for him.

8.  In order to try and defuse the very difficult conversation with Dr Turner and to assist him I offered to ask a manager to talk to him. He dismissed this suggestion with barely a moments consideration. This again leads me to think that he was determined to take out his frustration on me and leads me to wonder if he was actually interested at all in seeking my assistance in sorting the problem out.

I hope that this is useful and answers your queries about some points that you consider may be of some possible importance. However I am somewhat perplexed as to the relevance of such detailed questions about the actual nuts and bolts of the case. I believe you will be aware that I have had the support from my immediate line manager through to the Director of Housing and City Support (who also assured me that I have the support of the Chief Executive). I believe I have been totally exonerated of any mishandling of the case. And surely, even if the case had been dealt with wrongly that this would still not justify such foul mouthed and personally directed abuse to a front line public sector worker working in a highly pressured and demanding job. That is the essence of my complaint. Furthermore, I would personally like to ask Dr Turner, in respect to the government that he serves and the constituents that he represents, how he believes his behaviour fits in with the government's much lauded 'Respect' agenda.

Thank you for your continuing interest and involvement with this matter.

13.  Letter to Mr Aldous from the Commissioner, 12 June 2006

I am sorry not to have replied earlier to your letter of 26 May in response to mine of 16 May about this complaint. Your letter arrived during the recent Parliamentary recess when I was away from the office.

I am grateful for the full response you have given to my questions about your conversation with Dr Turner. I am sorry if my questions have perplexed you in any way: it is simply that I want to understand fully the circumstances of your conversation with Dr Turner. These are relevant not only to assessing your complaint itself but to the question how it should be handled should I find Dr Turner in breach of the Code of Conduct for Members.

I am sharing your response with Dr Turner and will write again as soon as I can to let you know what will then happen.

14.  Letter to the Commissioner from Dr Desmond Turner, 20 June 2006

Thank you for your letter and for the extensive reply from Mr Aldous. He is quite simply wrong. I had been informed by the disability manager that it had been agreed that Mr Aldous should receive Mr X to complete a housing benefit application and it is as simple as that. If Mr Aldous was not properly informed of the situation that may well be true but that was the very clear understanding that I had from the disability manager. He is completely wrong in alleging that I never asked him to contact the benefits manager or the disability manager to confirm what I said to him. It is as simple as that.

15.  Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Housing and City Support, 6 July 2006

Thank you for your letter dated 28 June 2006 regarding the completion of your enquiries. In particular you asked me to clarify two points in relation to;

9.  Was there in fact a special funding package in place at the time of the interview, as Dr Turner claims or was this simply his impression, an impression which only later became a reality?

There was an agreed special funding package put in place by Social Services under the National Assistance Act in February 2005 to enable Mr X to find private sector accommodation which totalled £695.23 per calendar month. This included local housing allowance, contributions from discretionary housing benefit and the Social Care Physical Disability Team. Any additional rent would be the responsibility of Mr X.

When we discharged our duty under the National Assistance Act following Mr X unreasonable refusal to accept 5 suitable homes, we then advised him that we had discharged our duty. However we still wanted to enable Mr X to move into suitable housing. Working with colleagues within Housing we agreed that the funding package as set out above would still be available if required to secure a home in the City.

10.  Was there as your reference to a "lack of clarity" implies, a failure of communication within the Council about the availability to Mr X of a special funding arrangement?

Adult Social Care worked closely with several colleagues in the Housing Options and Housing Benefits Teams during this time. It is difficult for staff in Adult Social Care to recollect now which other housing colleagues were aware of the availability of the special financial package, but it is possible that Mr Aldous was not aware of this information.

Finally, yes the best place for Mr X to have visited to sign a housing benefit form would have been the Housing Benefits Office, which is closely located to the office he did in fact visit.

I trust this additional information is helpful.

---

9   The Registrar of Members' Interests Back

---

Prepared 26 July 2006