Thursday, 28 March 2013

No I Don't Think So . . . Crazydave

Hello Mr. Cameron

Is this satisfactory NHS practice? I have somethings that I would like to share with you today. I doubt very much if you will consider them though, based on your refusal to do anything on my behalf. While you were the leader of the opposition.

So lets begin:

On the 4th October 2012 I left the following letter with a GP at my practise.

Hello Dr Adams

Attached is your 4th Oct 2011 letter to me, also attached is Dr Thomas 19th Nov 2010 letter to Mr Murphy, I trust that you noted the word STRESS mentioned in it.

If you go to this web address you will find one hell of a lot of blogs with video inserts placed on youtube at this channel iamcrazydave just type that in and you will see over 500 videos the one where I am screaming at South Wales police probably entertain the likes of Sarah McGill, copy of her email 31/5/2012 and my reply 1/6/2012 reply are also attached. I have received no further contact from her? Or Mr. House CEO CCC since my reply.

That I have been requesting the council to provide a back gate and fencing since 2002, and that it has been consistently ignored is symptomatic of the Corporate Discrimination shown towards me by CCC. 

Mr. House would like to make my current MP one Jonathan Evans believe that I only asked to be re-housed in 2008. I have supplied Mr. Evans with a copy of a letter from one Gem Morris a Bro Taff Housing Tenant Support Worker engaged by CCC in Feb 2002 after I had been threatened with violence by Mr. Watkins the above tenant, and I was lead to believe that this support worker was there to re-house me. Conned again I believe the phase is that suites. Interesting that Mr Evans refuses to query Mr. House on his assertion by asking him a simple question over Mr. Morris's letter or the reasons behind his engagement? Me I am as used to it by now, as I got used to it when Julie Morgan was my MP.

But Years add points to the system the council use, in allocating tenancies. And they damn well know how long I’ve been asking to, Neigh on begging to be re-housed so I might have some privacy in my home life.

You will also see the first video I ever put up on youtube is one of the obnoxious neighbour who had just before I started shooting it, threatened to burn my screen down between my property and his. Being at poverty level income with an uncaring landlord forced me to utilise what materials I had available, in order to protect certain plants I had growing there at that time. 

You will see from the blogs that me and this particular individual do not get on one tiny little bit, neither do I with the tenant above me. It would I suspect be better for all concerned if I was moved. To accommodation better suited to my mental health needs and free all from the tension that continues to exist between all concerned while I remain.

I trust that this will be sufficient for you to reconsider your previous reply to me.

You might wonder why it is that my records showed no registration between 2002 and 2011. If the Heath hospital not refused to treat me over the issue with my Achilles tendon I doubt very much that I would be signed up at your surgery now. But while I am I would appreciate some care for my health n well being, as unfortunately Council Officials take more note of your word than they do mine in doing the right thing by this man.

Yours David Gabriel

Well Mr Cameron another 4 months went by and there was no reply to this letter. Should you wish to have copies of the other information supplied Dr. Adams I suggest you ask him.

So on the 4th March 2013 I handed in a document marked for the practice managers attention one Ms L. Zerouali. Which reads:

A copy of my DWP assessment form is for your records.

On page 20 you will see a note to 2 attachments with the comment regarding a letter for Dr. Adams handed in on the 4th Oct 2012 at the Gabalfa surgery. so far not responded to.

This then is also an official complaint and the question is this usual practice?

I am now in my 14th week of a hacking cough, but whats the point in my making an appointment.

Yours David Gabriel
see letter for address
PS: I would also like to make a complaint on behalf of the 79 suicides of corporate manslaughter by the DWP and Atos.

You see also attached to the DWP's form was this picture Mr. Cameron 

I know that no one will take action on the claim of Corporate Manslaughter of those who have taken their own lives because of the actions of your government towards their welfare benefit claims. But if there were any social justice that is exactly what would be happening. 

Following the handing in of this letter I received this dated the 11th March 29013 from Dr. Adams.

Dear Mr. Gabriel

Thank you for your letter dated the 4th March 2013. I can confirm that I also received your letter dated 3rd October 2012.

Based the content of both these letters, I remain unsure as to how I can support your concerns regarding your housing circumstances and the DWP assessment from my position as a medical practitioner.

I would however, strongly urge you to attend surgery to discuss your persistent cough, especially considering your smoking history.

Yours sincerely

Dr. BS Adams

It's now the 28th of March 2013 and as yet I have yet to hear from the practice manager, and I am about to send her the following letter with an attachment. (Oh and by the way I think you will find the DWP form something of a educational insight, various questions on the role of one Edwina Hart AM during her tenure as Health Minister at the Welsh Assembly and a letter from me to her she never responded to, that has directly impacted on my physical health)

Here then is the first draft copy of the letter and the attachment maybe I ought to work on the spelling, but as ever this was knocked out in a rush of angst.

To the practice manager:
Date 27th March 2013


On the 4th March 2013 I delivered a letter of complaint to the Gabalfa clinic marked for your attention. So far I have not received a reply from you. I have received one from Dr. Adams however, and needless to say I am not amused on a variety of accounts. One being I like to receive replies from those who my mail is addressed to, makes me wonder if the package was ever forwarded for your attention.

The other is that I am wholly unsatisfied with Dr. Adams reply. He seems blissfully unaware of the impact that having a GP's assistance with councils can bear. I wonder sometimes is it just because its me. So for his education and yours I am supplying a copy of a court decision in the case of Fadi El-Dinnaoui versus Westminster city Council 20th March 2013. You and Dr. Adams will note the interest the court takes in the Doctors reports with regards to Mrs El-Dinnaoui's condition.

Had I a Doctor who took seriously my claim that the tenancy provided for me by Cardiff County Council is wholly unfit for me given my relationship with the majority of people, and the sub-standard nature of the floor to ceiling sound insulation not withstanding the neighbours harassment and abuse since 2002, when I was first threatened with violence by the above tenant or the extent to which I have attempted to highlight my case something ought to have been done years ago to extradite me from an intolerable situation.

I trust that you will reply to me asap regarding these matters as I feel that 3.5 weeks has been more than sufficient time for you to reply to the complaint regarding Dr. Adams none reply to the original letter in the latter half of 2012. I would also like to know if you have forwarded the complaint of Corporate Manslaughter to the BMA on behalf of those who have committed suicide due to the governments complete and utter disregard for those with mental health issues and the Atos interviews, many I understand not done by those qualified to judge these things.

Yours David Gabriel

I wonder if the roles were reversed Mr. Cameron and you had written the letter of complaint to the practice manager whether you like I am wondering if it was ever passed on to her? Is 3.5 weeks to impatient of me to expect a reply? Would she ever admit that indeed she never did receive the letter of complaint if that were indeed the case or would she cover others backsides?

Here then is the Judgement in the Fadi El-Dinnaoui versus Westminster city Council. I trust you will also note the emphasis the court plays on the doctors letters regarding Mrs El-Dinnaoui's illness.Why I wonder am I the one who has to educate this GP on their responsibilities to their patients housing needs?

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 231

Case No: B5/2011/1703

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

20 March 2013

B e f o r e :


Fadi El-Dinnaoui Appellant

- and -

Westminster City Council Respondent
Mr Paul Skinner (instructed by Anthony Gold Solicitors) for the appellant
Mr Ian Peacock (instructed by Westminster City Council Litigation Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 3rd December 2012


Crown Copyright ©

    Sir Alan Ward:
  1. This is an appeal from the order made by His Honour Judge Bailey sitting in the Central London County Court on 19th May 2011 when he dismissed Mr Fadi El-Dinnaoui's appeal against the decision dated 24th February 2011 made by the Review Officer of the City of Westminster Housing Authority. That decision upheld the earlier decision of the housing officer that, as the appellant had refused an offer of accommodation which the Authority was satisfied was suitable for him, the Authority ceased to be subject to a duty under s. 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by the appellant.

  2. The background
  3. The appellant and his wife (whom I hope, without wishing to be rude, I may refer to simply as "Mrs El-D"), came to the United Kingdom from Lebanon in 1997 and successfully claimed asylum. They were granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in 2006 and have since been granted British citizenship.

  4. The City of Westminster has been responsible for their housing since their arrival in the United Kingdom. Originally they were accommodated in hotels or hostels but on 14th January 2002 they were provided with a two-bedroomed flat for themselves and their two children at 52 Blackstone House, Churchill Garden, London SW1. This was a flat on the ninth floor of a tower block. A feature of the accommodation was that it was not obvious when looking out of the windows of that flat just how high it was: there was no direct view of the street below.

  5. On 29th July 2002 the appellant completed a Medical Assessment Form which was required if he felt that his housing affected his disability or ill health or that of a member of his family. Mrs El-D was the household member claiming medical assessment. She gave this description of her "illness/disability/medical problem", "depression, fear of heights and dizziness". In answer to the request to describe how her illness affected her ability to live in her present housing and how her housing affected her illness she replied:

  6. "This affects my depression because I live very far from friends and family and also the flat is very high up which affects my fear of heights and dizziness."
    She stated she was taking tablets for her migraines and Zopiclone which is a treatment for insomnia. She named her doctor as Dr Hege Mostad. The papers before us do not reveal the result of the assessment, or even if any assessment was in fact carried out. Nonetheless the salient feature to note is that she did complain of a fear of heights and dizziness.
  7. On 17th December 2002 the appellant applied for a transfer, indicating that his housing preference would be for a flat on the ground or first floor. This time there was no direct reference to his wife's fear of heights, but he did say:

  8. "… We have recently been broken in our home, whilst my wife and children was inside. This has been a very traumatic experience for all of us, has left us all scared, anxious and suffering from panic attacks. We all feel very isolated and depressed and suffering from anxiety attacks, and being very nervous and scared living here on the estate."
    Once again we do not know what happened to that application.
  9. It seems that after a third child was born to the appellant and his wife it was accepted by the housing authority on 29th January 2009 that the family was overcrowded and they were therefore put on the transfer list, their requirements being noted to be for a three-bedroomed house and as to floor level "up to the second floor without the service of a lift". In March 2009 a three-bedroom property situated on the ground floor was offered to them but as the appellant was at that time suffering some disability which restricted his movement, that property was rejected and the rejection was eventually upheld after a review by the housing authority.

  10. As a result by letter dated 2nd June 2010, the respondent offered the appellant accommodation at Flat 94 Parsons House, Hall Place, London W2 informing the appellant of the consequences of refusal.

  11. This property is on the 16th floor of that block. The appellant and his wife viewed it on 4th June 2010. The windowsills of this property are three feet above floor level and consequently the view out of the window shows the street below. By the time Mrs El-D was leaving the flat she was in distress and she collapsed at the lift and an ambulance had to be called for her. She was taken to the Accident and Emergency Department of St Mary's Hospital, her presenting complaint being "headache" and the working diagnosis being "anxiety state". The hospital's report to the doctor stated that the arrangements for further care were:

  12. "Following treatment your patient was discharged. We have not made arrangements to see your patient again. We have advised them to attend your surgery and would be grateful if you could continue care.
    Comments for the GP
    Had a panic attack while on 16th floor. Has had lifelong fear of high buildings. Reassured home."
  13. As a result of this incident, the appellant refused to accept that the accommodation was suitable. On 8th June 2010 the respondent wrote to the appellant stating that it believed the property was suitable for him, that as he had refused the offer, its duty to him under s. 193 of the Housing Act 1996 had ended.

  14. The following day the general practitioner, Dr Mostad, wrote as follows:

  15. "This is to certify that the above mentioned [Mrs El-D] suffers from severe vertigo and fear of heights. She has recently been offered a transfer to a flat on the 19th floor where she is very exposed to this. She went to look at the flat and suffered an anxiety attack with a subsequent faint which needed an attendance to the A&E department at St Mary's Hospital. Since the event she has been feeling shaky, panicky and fearful. I have treated her with diazepam. Due to the severity of her symptoms I would advise that she be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety."
  16. The appellant requested the Authority to review its decision. On 13th July Dr Mostad wrote a further letter stating that the appellant and his wife had been his patients since 2002. She wrote:

  17. "[Mrs El-D] has a long-standing fear of heights. She also suffers from migraines and has recently been diagnosed with sciatica. Stress has been a major trigger for her migraines. [Mrs El-D] first presented with stress and migraines in 2003 but there is no specific mention in her records what the stressors were.
    The recent viewing of the proposed 16th floor flat caused an acute attack of migraine, dizziness and associated panic attack which necessitated a visit to the local A&E department. At present the family lives on the 8th floor (sic) but in her present accommodation she is less exposed to heights than in the proposed 16th floor flat.
    [The appellant and his wife] are not receiving any treatment for mental health problems at present and as far as I can see from their records there is no history of having been prescribed medication for such in the past. The only drug received by [Mrs El-D] was diazepam in connection with the acute anxiety she suffered after visiting the 16th floor flat.
    I would recommend that alternative accommodation should be offered to the family as I that fear the move would exacerbate [Mrs El-D's] medical condition and also have an unfavourable effect on [the appellant's] back condition."
  18. On 20th September 2010 the Authority's review support officer wrote to Dr Mostad seeking clarification and asking a series of questions. In Dr Mostad's absence another doctor in the practice responded "with the benefit of her computerised notes". He gave these answers to the enquiries.

  19. "(1) The only record relating to fear of heights is when she saw my partner Dr Hege Mostad on 8th June 2010, the consultation note stating "Due to be rehoused in 3 bedroom flat. Went to see it yesterday, it is on 16th floor. Felt shaky and faint, went to A&E department. Fear of heights."
    (2) There are no particular tests that can be carried out to confirm a fear of heights.
    (3) I am afraid I am unable to answer this question on the information available to me, [the question being: "Are there any restrictions to what floor she can live on e.g. no higher than 2nd floor"].
    (4) Her past medical history dating from the beginning of her records in 2004 reveal hay fever, treated with anti-histamine, travel vaccinations … a referral to CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) in 2006 for a year long history of anxiety and panic attacks, with some symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorder. She was noted not to be depressed. Pregnancy in 2007 …
    (5) There has not really been any treatment for her condition.
    (6) She has only attended our surgery on one occasion, on 8/6/10 for her fear of heights and she has not seen us before or since, treatment being diazepam.
    (7) Please find enclosed the discharge summary from St Mary's Hospital."
  20. There was, for wholly understandable personal reasons, some delay in processing the review but eventually on 25th November 2010 the Review Officer wrote suggesting that the answers to the questions seemed to be at variance with previous information that the Authority had received from her doctors. The Review Officer emailed Dr Mostad on 25th November 2010 noting that she had in her letter of 13th July stated that Mrs El-D had a long-standing fear of heights, whereas the reply to the questionnaire refers only to the visit to the surgery on 9th June. Dr Mostad was asked if she could clarify if there were any other references to fear of heights from her medical notes or in the alternative confirm how long she had been treating her for that condition. Her response was:

  21. "The reason for this discrepancy is that I have personally been looking after [Mrs El-D] and her family since they registered with me in 2002. When I saw her in June 2010 she mentioned that she had suffered similar episodes of panic and anxiety when she moved to her current accommodation which is on the 8th floor [sic]. I have always known her as a trustworthy person. I had no reason to doubt this information. I therefore diagnosed her with acute anxiety attacks triggered by exposure to heights. If you have any further queries do not hesitate to contact me."
  22. On 4th January 2011 the Authority wrote explaining why they were minded to uphold the decision that the offer of flat 94 was suitable. The Review Officer indicated that although Mrs El-D would definitely have preferred a property on a much lower floor, she was not satisfied that she would have been unable to or was prevented from living on the 16th floor. In response the appellant's solicitors referred to a CT scan taken in August 2003 when the diagnosis was migraine but the report also recorded "she is also quite depressed". The solicitors said this was due to her anxiety from her fear of heights. They attached a note from the GP file dated 7th December 2006 recording that she had been suffering a year of anxiety and panic attacks and again the instructions were that this was due to her fear of heights. The solicitors stated:

  23. "… Our client's wife can see out of all the windows and balconies down to the ground. Therefore the panic attacks and anxiety will be much more in the new property than before."
  24. The decision letter which is the subject of this appeal was sent on 24th February 2012. The Review Officer set herself this test:

  25. "Over the years I have dealt with numerous cases where clients have complained about their fear of heights. Some medical professionals believe that such a fear of heights is natural as it provides a defence mechanism in the body to ensure that people exercise greater caution when in potentially dangerous situations, for instance when climbing ladders or steep stairs. Nevertheless in dealing with these sorts of cases we are required to distinguish between a general dislike of heights and an irrational fear which would make any property above a certain floor level impractical. To help us determine this issue we have to consider any medical information but also look closely at the facts of the case to enable us to reach an informed decision."
    She concluded:
    "In summary although I appreciate that Mrs El-Dinnaoui would definitely have preferred a property on a much lower floor (and did not like heights) I am not satisfied that she would have been unable to or was prevented from living on the 16th floor because of this. This is because the evidence on her file has led me to believe she was able to live on a high floor in spite of her condition. I acknowledge that like many people who are not keen on heights Mrs El-Dinnaoui may have found the property unsettling at first but based on the information available to me it is reasonable to conclude that she would have settled in the property with time. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account that although Mrs El-Dinnaoui was not keen to live on the 9th floor (when she moved into her current property) she was able to settle in the property and has occupied it for close to 9 years. Furthermore it is not uncommon for people, who live in high rise buildings (whether or not they dislike heights) to use thick nets and curtains or blinds to camouflage the view from the window. I do not feel that this would have been an impractical solution for Mrs El-Dinnaoui. In some of the cases that I have dealt with there is usually a restriction on the floor level that can be offered to a person suffering from a phobia of heights, however we have received no such information in this case. To me this is an indication that Mrs El-Dinnaoui's case was not sufficiently severe to warrant this."
    As a result, as already set out, the Council have concluded that they are no longer under any duty to provide accommodation for this family.
  26. The appellant duly exercised his right under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 to appeal to the County Court.

  27. The judgment
  28. Two points were taken on the appellant's behalf in the court below: first it was submitted that the Review Officer failed to give any or any adequate consideration to the risk of a recurrence of the panic attack suffered when Mrs El-D visited the property and secondly that the Review Officer should have made further enquiries into whether Mrs El-D did in fact suffer a phobia of heights. As to the former, Judge Bailey found that while the Review Officer did not use the word 'recurrence' or pose the question, 'what is the risk of further panic attack?', she clearly did look to the future for Mrs El-D in the 16th floor flat and in doing so covered the risk of recurrence. As to the latter point he concluded that on the basis of the medical material before her, he could not properly say that she should have undertaken further enquiries. She had investigated the matter carefully with the general practitioners and, having properly taken into account the general practitioners' view of the fact that there had been a panic attack, set that against the fact that there had been no previous attendances at the GP's surgery for similar attacks or generally any record in the GP records about there being a fear of heights. So he dismissed the appeal.

  29. The issue on the appeal before us
  30. Mr Paul Skinner who now appears for the appellant put his case in this way:

  31. "By way of summary, the appellant submits that the judge was wrong to hold that the decision was lawful. It was unlawful for the following overlapping reasons:
    a. In the light of the medical evidence before her, the Review Officer made insufficient inquiries as to whether Mrs El-Dinnaoui had suffered from an irrational fear or general dislike of heights to enable her properly to answer that question.
    b. Further or alternatively, the Review Officer failed to answer that question.
    c. The Review Officer's conclusion that Mrs El-Dinnaoui suffered a general dislike of heights (if that is the conclusion that was reached) was in the circumstances irrational."
  32. Mr Ian Peacock, who now appears for the Council, submits that it is clear from the decision letter that the Review Officer concluded that Mrs El-D was a person with a general dislike of heights rather than an irrational fear which would make any property above a certain floor level impracticable and that was a finding she was entitled to make. Further, it is for an Authority to decide what enquiries to make and the court should not intervene unless the decision of the Authority not to make further enquiries was one no reasonable Authority could have made.

  33. Discussion
  34. As to the sufficiency of the enquiries made by the Review Officer, I prefer the Authority's argument. The test has become established and after a careful review of the authorities Brooke LJ was able to state it in Cramp v Hastings BC [2005] HLR 48 at [8] as follows:

  35. "it was for the council to judge what inquiries were necessary, and it was susceptible to a successful challenge on a point of law if and only if a judge in the county court considered that no reasonable council could have failed to regard as necessary the further inquiries suggested by the appellants' advisers."
  36. In that case, as in this, those acting for the applicant made no specific request of the Review Officer to undertake any further enquiry. Here the appellant's solicitor responded to the "minded-to" letter simply by reiterating the history. Bearing in mind that the review officer in November sought clarification from Dr Mostad it cannot be said that no reasonable Council could have failed to regard as necessary seeking an independent further medical report.

  37. As to the general challenge that the decision was irrational, the law has now recently been authoritatively stated in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7, [2009] 1 WLR 413 where Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury said at [50]:

  38. "Accordingly, a benevolent approach should be adopted to the interpretation of review decisions. The court should not take too technical view of the language used, or search for inconsistencies, or adopt a nit-picking approach, when confronted with an appeal against a review decision. That is not to say that the court should approve incomprehensible or misguided reasoning, but it should be realistic and practical in its approach to the interpretation of review decisions."
  39. The Review Officer's central conclusion was that it was reasonable for her to conclude that Mrs El-D would have settled in the property "with time". That conclusion fails to give proper weight to the medical evidence. One starts with the fact, for it cannot reasonably be disputed that this did happen, that Mrs El-D collapsed during her visit to the flat and was taken to hospital. The reason for that given in the comment to the GP was that she had had a panic attack while on the 16th floor and then the discharging doctor adds, "Had lifelong fear on high buildings." I have added the emphasis. She had a panic attack which caused her to collapse. It needed medical treatment. See Dr Mostad's report of 9th June 2010. "She went to look at the flat and suffered an anxiety attack with a subsequent faint … Since the event she has been feeling shaky, panicky and fearful. I have treated her with diazepam." The important words follow:

  40. "Due to the severity of her symptoms I would advise that she be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety." (I have added the emphasis).
    This is a medical opinion, repeated by Dr Mostad, and there is no countervailing evidence from a medical expert to refute it. The Review Officer is simply not entitled to disregard it. Dr Mostad repeats these matters in her report of 13th July. She refers to "a longstanding fear of heights". He describes the result of the viewing as causing "an acute attack of migraine, dizziness and associated panic attack." She repeats:
    "I would recommend that alternative accommodation should be offered to the family as I fear the move would exacerbate Mrs El-Dinnaoui's medical condition."
    Finally, if more is needed, Dr Mostad confirmed on 26th November that she had "diagnosed her with acute anxiety attacks triggered by expose to heights." How, in the teeth of that medical evidence, could one rationally conclude that Mrs El-D simply had "a general dislike of heights" as opposed to "an irrational fear which would make any property above a certain floor level impractical"?
  41. The general thesis of the decision is that having got used to living on the 9th floor, she would learn to cope with the 16th floor. The Review Officer ignores the central point that the view from the current flat does not show the road below as it clearly does from the 16th floor, so starkly in fact that the Review Officer observed when she visited the property herself not only that the windows were about 3 feet above floor level but that, as she acknowledged herself, "I noted that the current occupant had used nets and curtains which cover the windows and I think prevented one from having a full view outside the window." In her decision letter she refers to the use of "thick nets and curtains or blinds to camouflage the view from the window." Is it practical to live behind drawn curtains?

  42. The history of this family invites only one conclusion. Within 6 months of moving into the flat on the 9th floor Mrs El-D was seeking a medical assessment for "depression, fear of heights and dizziness" because "the flat was very high up which affects my fear of heights and dizziness". Dr Mostad confirmed that in 2002 she had complained of the effect living at that height had upon her. When the family applied for a transfer they indicated that the type of property they would consider was a ground or first floor flat. Throughout her time at the current flat Mrs El-D has suffered migraines. The medical evidence was that a stressor for that condition was the anxiety caused by living at that height. Her collapse when viewing the 16th floor flat was all but inevitable.

  43. I am driven, therefore, to the conclusion that the finding that this 16th floor flat was suitable for this family was outwith the band of decisions available to the Review Officer and was thus, in the legal sense, perverse. If the Review Officer doubted the reliability or veracity of Mrs El-D she needed to arrange for a further medical opinion to be obtained. I would therefore allow the appeal and quash the decision.

  44. Mr Justice David Richards:
  45. I agree.

  46. Lord Justice Hughes:
  47. I also agree. 

I have other correspondence over the last year that you might find 'totally amazing' given the combined information available in my blogs Mr. Cameron notwithstanding that one of your party MP's Mr. Jonathan Evans has refused to demand answers from Cardiff County Council on my behalf, seeing as they are attempting to claim that I have only been asking to be rehoused since 2008. a laughable joke under the circumstances highlighting as far as I am concerned their Corporate Discrimination towards myself, that if I could find a lawyer worth their salt would be suing them for.

But that reminds me I must hunt through the piles of correspondence that I have accumulated these last 14 years to fish out the 2004 or was it 2005 Leanne Wood AM letter to Cardiff County Council about their re-housing me in order to finally disemburse one Sarah McGill of her assertion to this as fact when uncle tom cobbly n all know it to be a lie or why else was I camped out at the Welsh Assembly during 2004 - 2006 with an ever growing array of banners.

Prejudice I am only to well used to Mr. Cameron I would like it to end. Why it is that your government do not slash Council and Housing Association  rents by 50% to reduce the Housing Benefit Budget by £11 Billion baffles me especially as £10 million is hived off by the Welsh Assembly Government per anum from Cardiff County Council rent revenue account simply amazes me. Extraordinary Times call for Extraordinary Measures Mr. Cameron and given that Cardiff County Council cannot put a fence or a back garden gate so that I would feel free of the worry of being attacked 11 years in the asking makes me wonder what the hell they are getting any rent monies for!

On that account I have placed the following comments on the Daily Mail and Guardian Websites:

This on the Daily Mails:

I want to know how come Cardiff County Council can raise its rents by 3.85% this year? I wonder if anyone at the Daily Mail is willing to put in a FOIR 'What is the total increase in Council and Housing Association rents to the housing benefit budget 2013 - 2014'.

Given that there is unlikely to be a drastic reduction in tenants claiming this benefit. I like to call these annual % rent increases Compound Expenditure for the Treasury. Personally I cannot see why Council's and HA's cannot reduce their rents by 50% in order to cut the deficit. But maybe that is a bridge to far. Given the condition of the council property where I live they are getting way over the odds as it is and the rent grows exponentially with each yearly increase.

Do away with yearly % increases and ease the Treasury. Its only because successive governments have been criminally negligent in housing provision in the UK that things like the bedroom tax are even discussed.

and then there is UKIP telling people where they can spend their benefit monies this reply was left on the Guardian website:

I'd like to come at this from another angle. I realise there is a lot of prejudice and hatred bread into the UK population regarding the long term unemployed, but I don't hear anyone telling the private landlord where they can spend their Housing Benefit money? In 2006 the highest paid private landlord in Cardiff was getting £432,321.28 I dread to think what it is by now.

The top 20 private landlords were getting £2 million between them. I doubt that Ukip will be telling them they cannot take their 4 holidays abroad, with their Social Security payments do you?

Funny how Maggie shut down the mines because coal was cheaper elsewhere, but they refuse to orchestrate the financial affairs of this country so that the abomination above is ended.

But then County Council are screwing the system themselves. This year Cardiff County Council is raising its rents by 3.85% for what I have no earthly idea. If government is serious about cutting the deficit why oh why don't they tell councils to cut rents by 50% and do away with % rent increases altogether. As all they are doing is exponentially raising the Housing Benefit Budget year in year out.

I like to term that Compound Expenditure, the reverse of compound interest, and we are all aware of what that means over time. Exponential rent rises. Whoever dreamt up % rent increases ought to have been stopped in their tracks.

Here is a link to my blog the figures come from an FOIR I sent to my council and believe me they did their level best not to let me have those figures. I don't know if leaving a link breaks any rules I haven't had time to check so here we are I hope this changes some minds about who the real winners are out of the Social Security System to the detriment of the whole of our society!
I hope that someone somewhere will sit back and seriously consider the above someone somewhere who has political clout and do the maths! what the hell are we getting for that 3.85% rise? More negligence and neglect Mr. Cameron . . . if Ms Sarah McGill has her way!

Oh and just in case you forgot this will be listed on

Well Mr. Cameron is this 'satisfactory NHS practice' personally I do not think so. Does is suprise me 'Not anymore' Should patients be educating GP's on their Duty of Care, again I don't think so. Does the Doctor need retraining 'Makes me wonder' Are you Likely to do anything 'Thats a laugh' Will anyone in the media raise a fuss 'For you Crazydave doubt it very much'

Will Cardiff County Council finally get their just desserts 'What deemed an unfit Social landlord' again unlikley eh Mr. Prime Minister!

Right time to share . . . 

Later on: My tweets were not showing up on #tag timelines again. I think this blog worth of reading so I left messages on #lawyers with @dickc Mr. Costolo the CEO of twitters account contact name. It happened earlier this week and I was not amused.

As in 2012 they blocked my account then, as far as I could see at the time and now . . . for no good reason. So I shut down went and did something else for a while and logged in again, all to see a suspension notice which read like this:

Your account has been suspended

This account, @david_o_gabriel, was suspended for sending multiple unsolicited mentions to other users.
The mention and @reply features are intended to make communication between people on Twitter easier, and posting messages to several users in an unsolicited or egregious manner is considered an abuse of its use. Plus, it bothers other users! For more information about these features and proper use, please visit our @Replies and Mentions help page.
You will need to change your behavior to continue using Twitter. Repeat violations of the Twitter Rules may result in the permanent suspension of your account.
To continue using this account, please confirm below:

Complete the captcha below:

So I copied and pasted to my email and tweeted the following: 

Well my acc was suspended you will read why on this blog I would like to know the individuals who complained

Because I would like to know the names of the individuals who complained to twitter, in order to see if they had a vested interest in doing so. Was it indeed Mr. Costolo himself pissed off that I had made direct contact with him over the first event of my tweets not showing on hashtag timelines. And there are only a few other direct contacts made prior to that, all of them working in the political sphere in one capacity or other.

Because I would like to know why they aren't creating a hue and cry about people commiting suicide over the new governments war on the poor. That indeed they are culpable of Corporate Manslaughter in each and ever one of those deaths. 

Were I to have the millions that Sir Robert McAlpine had at his disposal I would right now be on the phone to my Barrister and demanding he issue a subpoena of those names, from twitter. For aiding n abetting the continued criminal negligence of yours truely one david gabriel esp.

But I don't at this moment in time have that luxury, and based on past experience solicitors don't wanna touch me with a barge pole. But I will persevere and maybe just maybe . . . I will find that one special person who will see all of these blogs . . . recognise the self evident truth of the above claim and work for me pro bono.

So please feel free to Copy paste this tweet:     I want to know the names of the people who complained about  tweet    

For all who do many thanks. It is time for wholesale change . . . and always remember 'You are the one you have been waiting for!' 

Friday the 29th March 2013 

I've been thinking more about twitter, and the suspension Mr. Costolo and it seems to me that I only started @dickc and others when my twitter account was not functioning as it should. I had up till then only use @ as a means of letting certain people in the public domain know of my tweets.

Seems also to me that other users are allowed to reply to tweets using @ without being followers of a person. That is what I thought mistakenly it would appear, that twitter was all about . . . conversations? 

During all the above I have received this suggested letter from a subscriber to my youtube channel and a supporter of my campaigns. It begs me to ask the question 'Why in 2004 my MP Julie morgan or my Assembly Member Jonathan Morgan could not have written something similar?' Prejudice and wilful neglect are the reasons why, isn't that right Mr. Cameron! 

All I can say that I will be adding it to the practice manager's bundle with that self same question hand written on it. To the individual who wrote it on my behalf I have the utmost regard and deep heart felt thanks, they are the kind of person we need in government. Not multi-millionaires who burn money infront of thee homeless.

Dear Dr. Adams

Thank you for your letter dated 11th March 2013 in which you say you are unsure as how to assist me with my housing issues.

I would hope that this letter makes clearer how I seek your assistance to help improve my mental health and general well-being that my current housing situation is aggravating.

I would be grateful if you could consider writing a letter to Cardiff City Council Housing Department supporting that my current home is aggravating my pre-existing and long standing mental health issues that are known to you.

For many years I have been troubled by nuisance neighbours who seek to make my life as unpleasant as possible thus making it impossible for me to enjoy peace and quiet in my own home, which is a very basic human requirement to assist with good mental health.

Peace and solitude is something that I find very beneficial in easing the symptoms of stress that I suffer but my current living arrangements do not afford me a lot of either peace or solitude.

In addition I am plagued by everyday noises that are amplified due to my ceiling not being of a suitable nature to comply with floor to ceiling noise transmission.

A letter of support from you to the council to confirm that I have need for a property that is detached from others would mean that the council would have to look again at my request for re-housing in an alternative suitable area and take my needs seriously.

I was previously offered an alternative flat but this would not have assisted me in meeting my requirements so the council have rather conveniently deemed me to have rejected their offer of suitable accommodation, which under law relinquishes their duty to offer me anything further, allowing them to close my case.

Just recently a court case against Westminster Council brought by a tenant who had severe vertigo and associated issues but was offered a flat on the 16th floor, demonstrated just how important the views of GP's should be in such cases.

The council in that case had also claimed the lady had rejected an offer of suitable accommodation and they were therefore under no legal obligation to offer her anything else - the judge disagreed most strongly with their argument and found the council's action were 'perverse' and that the council had ignored the strong medical evidence that showed their actions were not lawful and that the property was not suitable for her.

This case demonstrated the strength that a supporting medical opinion should have in swaying the decision in the correct direction. As such I would be very grateful if you could support an application for re-housing on mental health grounds in accommodation that suits my medical needs.

Hopefully this will progress matters for me as currently me and the housing department are at stalemate and I feel very unsupported.

The details of to send any letter for support to at the housing department are as follows: INSERT DETAILS HERE.

I look forward to your reply.

In case you wish to read the full judgment for the case I have mentioned above I have cut and pasted it on the page over and this is where it was sourced from:
Yours sincerely

I only wish I could write so eloquently, but then I have alot of bats in my bellfree if you know what I mean. Give that person a medal your majesty, is what I say!  

Update done lets see if twitter is working for me today eh Mr C.

20 mins later and no my tweets are not showing on #tag timelines again so I've messaged Mr. Costolo

Mr Costolo once again my tweets are not showing I completed the tick boxes 13hrs ago see here

tell me Mr.C don't you like feedback or are you trying to force me to @ people to raise awareness of this fact

ie To break these imposed rules so they have grounds to suspend my account. You have to wonder why they are doing this and quite frankly at whose bequest. It reminds me of the joke 'just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya!'

Maybe I ought to email Mr. McAlpine and see if he's willing to lend me his lawyers. 

Update 3rd April 2013 

Well I went to deliver my letters to the Practice Manager on Tues 2nd of April, and was told by the receptionist that She was on holiday and wouldn't be back until the 9th April.

Obviously after last time I was not inclined to leave them there, and dodged the questions about who I was and why with my own about date n time likely to be there. No suggestion of being able to make an appointment with her though?

I also placed this tweet on and if someone hasn't mentioned it to the Health Minister down there, I'd be very suprised! : Is the Health minister at the going to look at my Is This Satisfactory NHS Practice Mr. Cameron blog Eh (linknotallowed) 

You would think with all the messages that I've left Dick costolo over the last few days you'd think my links would show up on hashtag timelines by now, oh humm! The life n times of a political blogger/actavist eh Crazydave.

I also left this for Derek Brockway today: Hi Derek remember this

You see employees who toe the hierachy line are really complicit in criminal negligence. Much like the police officer who knows that his collegues have killed a suspect and shuts up about it, because of his/hers career is equally to blame.

The above video link was shot on the same day as these two officers gave me this lecture:

 You will notice that while the Officers kept me busy, the scoundrels in the BBC and ITV did their best to shoot what ever it is they needed to without me as an overlay in the background. That Chief Constable is reprehensible . . . but not unusual police tatics down the bay. We scratch their backs and they scratch ours init Crazydave. Unfortunately yes!


Well today I did manage to place the next bunch of documents into Ms Zerouali's hand. But it had been the Devil's own job to do so. It got to such a level of prevaricartion that I was forced to say.

'I will not be leaving this building before I have either an appointment set to see her. Or someone points her out to me as she's leaving the building so i can place a document into her hand'

One should not have to say such things. I did not bother to ask her if it was the first time she had heard my name. Odd that I can leave tweets on the #senedd where various AM's tweet asking if thee Health Minister had read this blog. Do I expect change maybe but highly unlikely. All I can do is keep on keeping on. Why all the delaying tactics Crazydave . . . Well you will just have to ask them eh Judge! 

UPDATE 14TH MAY 2013   

Hi everyone,

The story so far! On friday the 10th of May I recieved a letter from the practice manager it reads thus:

Dear Mr Gabriel   

Re: Complaint

Please find enclosed a letter from Dr Adams regarding your request for support in an application to the Cardiff County Council

I would like to clarify, as per my letter of 15th April, 2013 that when your first letter arrived I passed it to Dr Adams who answered it personally. Consequently, I was not aware that you were also awaiting a communication from me.

My normal working days are from Monday to Wednesday, although this is sometimes subject to change. Consequesntly, the attached letter from Dr Adams was not despatched on friday 3rd and only came to my notice this morning. It is being posted out by first class post.

yours sincerely (blah de blah)

Well said Dr Adams letter was not attached as mentioned and neither was a stamp on the envelope? You get used to this sort of thing occuring when your a whistle blower don'tcha Crazydave. Unfortunatley you do, sad but true Mr Cameron! Not 1 glaring error but 2 hardly seems possible given the contents of the following letter.

So on Monday the 13th of May 2013 I duly went to the surgery and requested said letter. The envelope was marked with this is unsigned as Dr Adams is currently onleave. Bugger me if I didn't tear that bit of evidence up guess the contents got the better of me there. Having read it I duly went back to the surgery. You should have read it there eh Crazydave! Sure should have.

Told the receptionist 'I am holy dissatisfied with the contents of Dr Adams letter do you have a senior GP who I can make an appointment with?' Well yes they do and the appointment got made and bugger me if their name is Dr Watson! Elementary my dear fellow that Dr Adams is a bounder! Why? well read for yourselves.

3rd May 2013

Dear Mr Gabriel

I refer to your letter dated 27th march 2013.

You have been registered with our practice since November 2010. I have never personally seen you as a patient. You have been seen by two medical colleagues within the practice on four seperate occasions since your registration. The clinical notes from these consultations make no reference in any way to the mental health difficulties you outline in your letters.

Your dissatisfaction with your tenancy is not a medical matter and hence I am not prepared to enter into any further discussion regarding this issue. Likewise, I have no intention of viewing your online postings.

If your mental or indeed physical health continues to cause concern I would be more than happy to see you in the surgery to discuss this further.

yours sincerely,

Dr B Adams

Odd that in my medical notes he didn't see the 19th November 2010 letter from Dr Thomas alas nolonger at the surgery who wrote such a letter on my behalf to Mr Michael Murphy head of Adult Services at cardiff county council 'his present housing situation is causing him stress'

Now, what Dr Adams are the detrimental health effects of suffering Stress in the work place on the mental emotional and physical health of an individual . . . Hmmmm? What then do you think they would be when experienced in such a persons home life? Shall we call it equally as bad, even worse, or not so bad. I suggest to you sir that it is worse than! What do you think they would be, given an extended period of time, when nobody, but nobody, has given a flying frig that this is occurring?

Abit like the effects of bullying in the workplace and nobody taking any notice!

Not that he is likely to read this eh Crazydave. Well he appears totally disinterested and if you think I would place myself in his hands over my mental health issues, given the above then you gotta be kidding me!

Given the information provided him in my last, and the letter written by a youtube supporter you would think he would take all that into account. Is there any point in my complaining to Cardiff Community Health Council well no point at all cos they side with Docters no matter what they might claim at least they did previously, in the Dr Jawad case. 

You'd just wasting your precious time Crazydave. Bit like this, 'cos neither the new health minister at the assembly or Carwyn Jones 1st minister can be bothered to reply to direct message tweets regarding this blog, at least so far eh Mr Cameron! Guess i will just have to print it out or write them a letter guiding them to it and save myself a few bob!

Meanwhile here is todays tweet: Don't hear anything about the death of Stephanie Bottrill on or

On the tweet I still have to break up the link in order for it to post on hash tag timelines 'cos Mr Costolo cannot be bothered to sort it out on my behalf, so that I might enjoy the same freedom of expression on that social media site as others enjoy! Oh to win the lottery and be able to afford a barrister eh Sir McAlpine!

 Just posted this on

Why the government don't just cut rents of councils and Housing Association's by 50% would cut £11 Billion a year off the Housing Benefit Budget, frankly amazes me. If and its a big IF they are really interested in cutting the deficit.

As Cardiff County Council are currently paying over £10 million a year out of their rent revenue account, they obviously don't need such high rents, maybe with les money to the Assembly AM can take a pay cut, as mine have never acted on my behalf. Money for nothing and your chicks for free come to mind about those two individuals.

They could also do away with percentage rent increases as all that does is compound the cost to the treasury. Maybe they could go to a blanket 50 pence a week increase.

As for Housing Associations bellyaching over their how they are supposed to meet their mortgage commitments to the banks. Well as the government own most of them, perhpas they can do some creative restructuring of the loans?

Today I have posted the following tweet it deals with the suicide of Stephanie Bottrill due to the Bedroom Tax. You do not hear the mainstream media covering this story. One wonders why your majesty? Will Cameron and his coalition government ever be charged with Corporate manslaughter?

If there was anything resembling Social Justice they perhaps they would. But while that just remains a quaint phrase its highly unlikely. Any probono lawyer out there willing to sue on her son's behalf?

£11 Billion a year knocked off the Benefits bill Mr Cameron or is it just like everyone believes this is underclass hatred policies that your government promulgate?

Unfortunately I forgot to copy paste the tweet you saw above, in the rush to get everything done today. I will have a video to post on here soon that raises the same issues for those who don't do reading blogs but like watching youtube videos.

All the Best!  
30th June 2013

About time I did this update. On the 23rd May 2013 I had an appointment with the senior pracitce GP Dr Watson. I showed the letters pertaining to my visit. The Doc asked me various questions, one being did I expect Dr Adams to view the blogs online or the videos. My reply was yes, he didn't ask my why, so here is the reason. 'Because nobody else has ever given him such a thing to do!'

Did I expect him to do it out of hours? Well yes I do, why because he is renumerated sufficently enough to do such things, given that such request are very rare.

Dr Watson lead me to believe that I would have a reply within a week, and provided me with the necessary docket to get a chest X-ray, given the extended period of coughing that I suffered from Nov 2012 - April 2013. 

While he appeared unaware of the blogs, on leaving he meantioned that they were quite long. I didn't take the bait there was a time when I would have, but not anlonger. So the week went by no letter, another week went by still no letter, so I made another appointment as Dr. Watson has been on holiday the last two weeks. Its for this thursday the 4th July kinda ironic it being 'Independence day' I wonder if I will get mine.

Plus I am curious if this set of X-rays are going to go missing like the last lot 13 years ago, as it sure would be nice to compare them. If anyone was interested in studies in the long term usage of cannabis? Eh BMA dudes?

Given that I divulged to the docter that I had asked for political asylum in an EU country where cannabis is not criminalised so that I could ingest it in its green form via eating and drinking. That I had offered myself as a 'crash test dummy' for medical research all to no avail. Isn't that right Edwina Hart the then Health Minister at the Welsh Assembly Government, who refused to reply to the letter asking for assistance with moving to such a country.

I even challenged her about this where she glibly lied that 'I always reply to correspondence' I created a t-shirt about this that the Police at the assembly would not let me wear inside the Assembly Building. Perhaps I ought to take a pic of it and place it here.

That's enough for today lets see what the week brings. maybe they will want to discharge me from their list, or I will want to do it for myself. 

Again I ask. Why should another 'who said of the greatest magnitude' ie a GP's word carry more weight with the council than a tenants own?

The 4th July 2013

Here are a few of the lines of Dr. Watson's letter on my behalf, picked up today from the surgery. Why not all the letter, because funnily enough I like my privacy, infact these blogs are about me gaining that very same thing. Privacy, in my home life.

I am writing in support of this patients application for re-housing which I think would be justified on medical grounds.

His request for a more secluded property would be entirely reasonable as his current predicament is almost certainly to remain unresolved if he stays at his current address.

Now its hand deliver that to the council office (photocopy I keep the original) and get a receipt for delivery, always get receipts people, always give them photocopies. Thank you Dr. Watson.