Dear Mrs Chappell, this is a complaint against Patricia Coopey's handling of my complaint against Don Pratt of the North Devon District Council.
Referring to statements by Mrs Coopey in her letter of 13th October 2009.
1. " The matters on which you said the Council has lied are those on which your previous complaint was based".  This is not true as the previous complaint was about a planning decision whilst this complaint is about lies told by council employees and councillors that have been covered up.  Note that this is continuing to the present day and is being reported on my website at .
2. "I do not believe you have raised anything new which was not already considered by the ombudsman".  This is not true - none of the claims of lies being told and covered up were part of the previous complaint and have therefore not been considered by the ombudsman.
3. "I have not seen evidence of lies in the information included on the CD".  These files on the CD contain evidence from the council's own documentation: misinfo.htm -  harr.htm - cowl.htm - 35910.htm - overlooking.htm - sketch.htm - rootspread.htm - 40770.htm - retirement.htm - moorlandrise.htm - appeal.htm - appr37263.htm - watkins.htm - tuckmemo.htm - easton.htm - prowsemail.htm - response.htm - harrison.htm - manuel.htm - plancomplaint.htm - pratt.htm - sbsubcommittee.htm - sunderland.htm . 
Referring to statements by Mrs Coopey in her letter of 4th November 2009.
1. "I have not seen evidence of lies by the council to warrant further investigation."  See point 3 above.
2. "In your previous complaint the ombudsman, Mr White, dealt with the issues on which you now allege the council has lied".  Not true as the issues within the present complaint were not part of the previous complaint.  That is no allegations of lies and covering up of lies were made in the previous complaint which was about a planning decision.
3. "You also contend that the letter of 9 January 2006 from Mrs Webb is lying in saying......".  Not true, I have never accused Mrs Webb of lying in fact quite the opposite. Ref: the file harr.htm on the CD.
4. "You have not raised new issues warranting fresh investigation simply because you have now categorised them as lies".  Not true as none of the issues raised in the present complaint, including the evidence on the CD, were part of the previous complaint.
Please note Mrs Chappell that I expect you to answer each of the above allegations separately and, if you are not in agreement with my claims, you must provide documentary evidence to support your own views.  Your opinion without supporting evidence will not be accepted and your decision will then be considered invalid
Yours, sincerely, Gordon Bray..