Developer Khani

Harrington 102--More Bad Reviews

2012-02-24T09:02:00.012+11:00

Mebrab-Khani's accomodation facility (it's not a Hotel) has been collecting more bad reviews from Trip Advisor.

That's two bad reviews in a week, following bad ones in January and December 31st as well. It has also been ranked at 40/41 accommodation facilities in Hobart. However number #41, Marquis at Brisbane Street, has no reviews at all!

It would appear to me that Wotif should be notified about false advertising of the Harrington 102 relating to the word "luxury" when perhaps "frugal" would be more appropriate based on the photo's and reviews from Trip Advisor.

"Zen Minimalist
Minimalist says it all about this hotel. It has no service, no lift, no furniture in the room and no windows. The sole staff member acts as receptionist, cleaner and kitchenhand.

The free cereal and toast breakfast was the only positive. Treat as a last resort only."

"Not Luxury
Stayed here on a Wofif deal. Advertises as luxury but in no way is. Small room and the bathroom is nicer than the room. Very noisy. Can hear others showering loudly and clearly.

Apparently there is a breakfast. Did not ask. Figured may have to pay given the wotif mystery deal and may as well have it at the Qantas Club. Would not stay here again. Better off to pay a bit more and get a lot more."

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html#REVIEWS

HOBART COUNCIL WARNING RECORDED ON TITLES OF COTTAGES TO BE AUCTIONED

2012-02-08T10:21:00.013+11:00

For about a month the 2 wooden cottages owned by Soheil M Khani at 157 & 159 Bathurst St were listed for auction by Geo Self Real Estate on February 11th.

That business has announced that it is ceasing property sales this month. Each cottage was advertised as "must sell".

Now the auction date for No.157 has been delayed to Feb 25th & 159 has returned to being listed as for sale by offer. The Stratum Title for each was issued on 23.1.2012 & are No. 163295/6 & 163295/5 respectively.

On page 3 of Strata Plan 163295 the Hobart City Council has recorded this warning about these 2 properties-

WARNING

Our enquiries reveal that under the Building Act the Council General Manager can:- -under Section 166,declare a building to be a "fire hazard":

-under Section 166 (2) (b),state a program for work to overcome the fire hazard,&
-under Section 167, require an owner to show cause...why specified upgrading work should not be carried out.

Specific Council plans are not known. Prospective bidders should perhaps urgently check with the Council.
The only way to make the cottages compliant with the safety requirements of the Building Act may be construction of a fire wall between them which would likely involve partial deletion of the side of at least one of the cottages.

"Rude Staff" at Harrington 102. Latest Review

2012-02-06T09:48:00.001+11:00

Starting off the New Year with another review from Trip Advisor for Mehrab-Khani's Harrington 102. As mentioned before, he is trying to sell this property.

"Disappointed
My partner found the staff to be a bit rude and did not explain things such as the "trick" opening the door. Room was ok but bathroom was way yoo small. Balcony room was supposed to have harbour views but only saw rooftops and cranes. No car parking so metered parks were her only option."

The latest review has him as "rude", certainly no surprise to me since he tried to stick his thumb in my eye and threaten me for attempting to take photo's of his illegal development modifications.

This photo of his thumb is one of several used used in Court against him where he was convicted of breaching a Restraint Order I had against him.

Notice in the review that the Balcony Room was supposed to have views but didn't. In fact on the Wotif site, this room is stated to have "beautiful views overlooking city and mountains."

The Trip Advisor link is here:
http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html

Mehrab-Khani has a history of unsavoury business practice as documented on this site.

Khani Paid His Lawyers After Judgement But Before Enforcement Proceedings

2012-01-16T13:53:00.003+11:00

The legal firm of Gunson Williams sued Soheil.M.Khani in May 2011 for fees due them in respect of legal advice & legal representation.

He was their former client but they had made it clear that they would not further act for him. The largest item was over $9,400 being the balance owing for representation on a Criminal charge.

A previous payment believed to have been at least $5,000 had been paid. A further sum of in excess of $1,700 was for advice in respect of Hobart City Council prosecutions. The fees for advice on 2 civil matters totalled over $1,800 & there was $289.30 for advice re a Judgment by Mr T.Jacobs for the smashing of his windscreen.

That advice was on June 3rd 2010 & cost Mr Khani nearly three-quarters of the $405 damage. Mr Khani then paid the Bailiff the total sum due being $689.50, bringing his total outlay to $573.80 + the $405 that had been politely requested originally.

The point did not get through to Mr Khani who subsequently did not pay Gunson Williams.

On June 2nd 2011 he was served by a Process Server who attached to his Affidavit, 2 photographs of Mr Khani apparently scuffling with someone on a public street. No response having come from Mr Khani, a Judgment by Default was filed on June 24th which raised the costs by over $100 to above $600.

Gunson Williams then faced the problem that a Caveat over most of Mr Khani’s properties lodged by the Hobart City Council remained.

It seems that a communicated threat to him did the trick.

Mr Khani finally paid the Council. It withdrew it’s Caveat 3 days later on June 27th. Gunson Williams advised the Court on July 11th that they’d been paid.

Khani Attempting To Sell Harrington 102!

2012-01-16T12:49:00.006+11:00

It seems that the Harrington 102 is up for sale.

It has been listed in the Mercury Real state booklet of January 12th. On page 70 Colliers state: "contemporary magic - stunning design".

It has been listed as For Sale by expression of interest, closing Feb 3rd.

Khani's "Hotel" Harrington 102 Finishes 2011 Consistently - A Guest Outraged!

2012-01-16T12:18:00.014+11:00

Continuing on from my last post, "Hotel" Harrington 102 is now analysed by the claims Khani is making and the complaints of the guests. To say there are discrepancies is an understatement....

A South Australian tourist has advised Trip Adviser that a night at "Harringtons 102" was "The Worst Night My Partner And I Have Experienced".

Unfortunately that tourist had obviously not read the review by a Frankston woman of 25.11.11 titled:

"Disgraceful-Do Not Stay There"

There are also 3 earlier critical reviews in 2011 on the Trip Adviser site alone. November 2010 had one describing it as "Absolutely Disgusting..Do Not Go There"

Where does this 'Accomodation Facility" (wrongly called an "hotel") differ from it's advertised claims?

We look at 5 of it's advertised claims:-

1. The Claims
-"ideal accommodation"
-"suited to the business person"
-"we offer luxury for less"

Guest Criticisms
-"There was continuous noise from traffic outside"
-"we could hear everybody walking on the stairs"
-"the traffic lights reflected through the glass bricks in the wall"
-"there was a fluorescent light shining through the gap between the floor & the door.We had to place a towel in front of the gap"
-"it was very noisy"
-"I could hear the plumbing from other rooms"
-"we had a 'window' of glass bricks with a dirty,broken plastic roll-up blind to keep the light out"
-The reception is unmanned most of the time"
"it took 20 minutes after calling for someone to open the front door"
-"it is the worst room I've ever had"
-"it has cramped little dark rooms"
-"we booked a double standard room.It was the smallest room we have ever seen"
-"this venue is a complete disgrace"
-"Absolutely disgusting"
-"the worst excuse for accommodation that I have endured (In last decade)"
-"took over 45 minutes to prepare our room"
-"the stairs are dark & not lit up"
-"the exit sign is not lit up & is falling from the wall"
-"there is no lift"
-" it had a dirty,broken plastic Holland blind,

- "the room was like a prison"

2. The Claims
-"featuring modern comfortable standard rooms"
-"an ultra modern tourist accommodation facility"
-"indulge in our Persian marble en-suite bathrooms for that extra exquisite touch"
- "modern and immaculate facilities"

Guest Criticisms
-"it was a tiny room"
-"the room was like a prison"
-"a tiny container of curdled milk in the fridge"
-"the room was airless"
-"no window,no air-conditioning & the vent in the bathroom did not work properly"
-"the shower door did not work properly;the toilet did not flush properly"
-"anything broken was left unfixed"
-"the light was gone in the small bathroom"
-"the bathroom condition was very poor & small"
-"there were electrical wires coming out from the wall"
-"the floor was wet"
-"the mattress was old & uneven"
-"to say the bed was 'warn' is an understatement"
-"the carpet was stained & dirty & the toilet flush & shower screen were faulty"
-"It was a TINY room-the bed was squashed against the wall so my wife had to climb over me to get out"
-"no window (just glass bricks),no window coverings,no bedside table,no bedside lamp,no place for my case"
-"no bed side tables,no carpet"
-"the end of the bed was about 40cm from the bar fridge & jug"
-"the room is so small,one of you has to clamber over the other to get out of bed"
-"the towels were fraying at the ends & looked old and ratty...looks like you use them to wash the car"

3. The Claims
-"(each) room comfortably appointed with telephone,television & radio"

Guest Criticisms-"The tv was snowy"
-"the tv aerial was a screwed up ball giving a fuzzy picture,
-"were only 3 tv channels"
-"was no telephone"
- 'the tv had only 2 channels that worked & gave a snowy reception from the rabbit ears"

-"several of the tv channels didn't receive reception & the cord was sticky taped across the bench"

4. The Claims
-Under the heading "Restaurant"-This property serves a delicious Continental breakfast every morning for you to make your day a tremendous one."

Guest Criticisms
-"a tub of weetbix,a tub of rice bubbles,'International' brand instant coffee & milk"
-"very basic, we had toast & a cup of tea"
--"we turned on the breakfast lights at 8 a.m.The lady promptly turned them off again.Breakfast was very basic..toast & tea
-"Breakfast-very poor affair indeed..."
-"... woeful breakfast."

5. The Claims
-"an atmosphere that is unique,professional & stylish from the moment you arrive."

Guest Criticisms
-"really the hotel is poor value"
-"the woman in charge has no soul",
-"they tried to find every way to save a few cents to the discomfort of patrons"
-"you get no help from reception"
-"At 5.30 a.m.a demented woman shouted at me not to take pictures (of the hotel)"
-"it shouldn't be allowed to trade..the small rooms are definitely substandard"
-"they are very rude and unreasonable"
-"run by an unmedicated psychotic patient"

The quotes above are from about 20 reviews on several accommodation sites. The 6 recent reviews referred to from Trip Adviser are the one from my last post and the following:-

5-11-2010

“Deserves no stars”
Reviewed 5 November 2010
1 person found this review helpful
Absolutely disgusting!!! Don't be fooled when you read there are reception hours, no one is ever on the reception and you need to call the number and wait for them to open the door. This took 20mins. Took them forever to fill out the form so that we could stay, whilst this was happening the owners were rudely talking amongst themselves in a foreign language. The owners left and gave us our key to the room. The hallway up the stairs is dark and not lit up, the exit sign is not lit and is falling from the wall and there were electical wires coming out from the wall. We opened our room to find a small prison like room. There was a double bed, no bed side tables, no windows, no carpet, the light was gone in the small bathroom. It didnt even have room for a chair. It was very cold and very unwelcoming. We called them to say we were not staying in a place like this. We ended up paying for another room at wrestpoint that night. We went back to Harringtons in the morning and again no one was on reception and had to call a number. They did not come out and wouldn't even consider giving some of our money back. They are very rude and unreasonable. DO NOT GO HERE."

7-2-2011

“Warning! an abomination...do not stay here”
Reviewed 7 February 2011
1 person found this review helpful
This venue is a complete disgrace... I am a medical doctor and travel frequently for both business and pleasure. This is without a doubt the worst excuse for accommodation (and I use the term very loosely) that I have endured in the last decade. I pre booked two nights several days in advance before my stay, and was met by a dishevelled scatty looking woman, who scurried downstairs to open a locked door when I arrived. My girlfriend and I were cold and hungry after a long road trip, at this point. She firstly did not recognize that we had a booking, and in a surprised fashion she asked to see my printout from the internet (which had already been paid by visa card), and did not seem to know we were coming at all. After fluffing around on an ageing computer which she did not really seem to know how-to operate, she eventually told us that she "may have a room, because someone left...I just have to clean it up first...can you wait?" I was unhappy and concerned by what seemed to be an introduction infested by gross disorganization, and a fundamental lack of professionalism...however I was polite and obliging - perhaps she would only be 15 minutes or so. Ever the optimist, I endured an extensive 45 minute wait while she haphazardly ran up and down the stairs in the process of preparing our room. Eventually my girlfriend and I left and informed her that we were hungry and going to eat. No apology was received for her gross display of incompetence. When we returned the floor was wet in the closet sized room that contained no window. We spent some of the night watching some quiet TV. In the morning I noted that one of the tings we were promised was a free "intercontinental breakfast" - this sadly consisted of a tub of weetbix, along side an adjacent tub of rice bubbles, and international roast caterers blend instant coffee, with free milk (I assume it was carnation). Smouldering silently I sipped a bad cup of coffee as I had inner visions of soon making my way to Hudson's. I then proceeded to make my way over to the grossly incompetent woman who seemed to be in charge of this hell-hole. I asked calmly for a refund as I communicated that I did not wish to endure another night at- -this .....establishment. I asked for a refund for my 2nd night as I -thought she may have the decency to offer this however I was yelled at and accused of being "-too noisy" -I didn’t realise -this hotel was run by an unmedicated psychotic patient."

25-11-2011

“Disgraceful - do not stay here!”
Reviewed 25 November 2011
Unfortunately I was double-booked from my original accommodation and as Cold Chisel were in town, I had no choice but to stay there unless I wanted a night on the streets The reception is unmanned most of the time and there is no lift. The room was tiny - the bed was pushed against one wall, with no window (just glass bricks), no window coverings, no bedside table, no bedside lamp, no telephone, no place for my case but on the limited 'empty' floor space about 1 metre in depth. There was the tiniest container of curdled milk in the fridge which I asked to be replaced and 2 teabags. I spent as little time as possible in the room catching the late night picture show returning around 11.30pm. I was unable to sleep as the lights were shining through the glass biricks from outside and streaming underneath the large gap in the door. The room was also noisy - I could hear the plumbing from the other rooms - toilets, showers and taps and the constant drone of an over-worked fridge as it had been crammed into a space with no ventilation. The room was airless - the only option being to switch on an air-conditioner and have cold air blowing over me. As I could not sleep I got up at 5.30 am and went out to take some photos around Hobart and get some air. As soon as I crossed the road and turned round to take a picture a demented woman shouted after me to not take pictures.... Had she been watching me??? I had already decided to give their "free" breakfast a miss - it looked less than appealing. I had to collect my cases and face another torrent of abuse as I was leaving - the woman is not quite right. If you have any choice in the matter - give this place a big miss, it shouldn't be allowed to trade. They might have 1 or 2 decent rooms but the small rooms are definitely substandard and are most probably in breach of quite a few Accommodation Standards Laws."

27-3-2011

“Don't bother...”
Reviewed 27 March 2011
1 person found this review helpful
My friend and i needed last minute accommodation close to CBD Hobart on Friday & Saturday night. We shouldn't have bothered with Harringtons 102.

Arriving at 9pm to our 'luxury accommodation' and filling out a mountain of paperwork (being charged $3 to use my credit card), we were escorted up two flights of tiled stairs (no lift) by a lady who looked like she wanted to be anywhere else! She shuffled around and we entered a TINY room - glass bricks for a window with no curtain/blind. The bathroom was very basic - shower door didn't work properly and only 'half flush' on the toilet was operating. No lightbulb over vanity (it had been removed) and no exhaust fan. Only half roll of toilet paper on holder, so we had to ask for more first thing the next day. Before bed we tried to watch a bit of tv on the tiny screen (two channels) and snowy reception from the 'rabbit ears'. Our sleep was restless as we watched the traffic light colours changing on the wall through the glass bricks, the nightclubs in the area started to hit fullforce at 1am and the constant stream of people walking up the tiled stairs and closing doors didn't help. You could hear everything through the paper thin walls.

Breakfast was in the main foyer and when we arrived at 8:00am the first morning, no-one seemed to be about and it was dark and dingy, so i turned a few lights on. Not long after the same lady shuffled out of the back and immediately tured them off again. She started setting up breakfast (although it was meant to be 7:30am-9:30am, so i expected it to be already set up). She neglected to ask us how we slept, what we were doing for the day or if everything was satisfactory. The menu was very basic, but toast and cup of tea got us by. The next morning was the same routine.

This hotel is obviously run by a family and the lady in charge seemed to have no soul when going about her business. It came across to me as a venue which tried to find every way they could to save a few cents at the discomfort of their patrons. Missing lightbulbs, 'half flush' toilet option, one teabag/coffee sachet in the room for cuppa's, no window finishings, no 'set-top box' for tv reception, no iron/hairdryer in room, no lift, no help from reception at all!

We should have spent the extra $10-$20 and stayed at Mid City Hotel (where i've been a couple times before.) Do yourself a favour and give Harringtons 102 a miss...."

2-5-2011

“Maybe try elsewhere”
Reviewed 2 May 2011
1 person found this review helpful
Stayed there for one night because everywhere else was booked out. The room had no window, only glass bricks. Room v noisy, could easily hear all steps and noises from the tiled hall. Big gap between the room door and the floor, so that the fluorescent light from the hall showed through, reminding us of a hospital. Had to place a towel in front of the gap so as to be able to sleep.

To say the bed was worn is an understatement.

Too high a price for such experience."

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html

Latest Review Harrington 102 - "Unbelievably Bad"

2012-01-16T11:58:00.003+11:00

Trip Advisor has a new review of the Harrington 102 reproduced below:

"This is the worst night my partner and I have expereinced. The room was small, with no window, dusty and the matress old and uneven. Anything that had in the past broken was left unfixed. Several of the channels of the TV did not receive reception and the cord was sticky taped across the bench. We did not bother to sample the free continental breakfast."

Over 10 000 hits on DeveloperKhani.com

2011-12-06T08:39:00.005+11:00

Well over 10 000 hits on this blog documenting the exploits of one Soheil Mehrab-Khani, a Bahai who entered this country as a refugee, and who feels it's fine not to pay Tradesmen (or even his own lawyers) for work done, build whatever he wants to without or irrespective of building permits, inflict misery on neighbours and to issue threats including threats of murder and serious injury to anyone who stands in his way.

The latest visit on 5th December is by the Tasmanian Government, who spent 30 minutes going over the blog:

Let's hope a little more interest in Mehrab-Khani is shown by the Tasmanian Government, because Hobart City Council has shown itself to be lazy and incompetent and unable or unwilling to ensure compliance with Planning Tribunal Orders.

Neither does the Council seem prepared to act to deal with harm being caused to the city's tourist industry by the 'Harrington 102' Accommodation Facility (to call it an Hotel would be inaccurate).

The interesting thing about this visit is what was typed into Google by the Tasmanian Government-- "161 Bathurst St". It seems there is some interest in this property, which was the impetus for the blog being in existence in the first place.

Harrington 102 Latest Review: "Disgraceful - do not stay there!"

2011-11-28T13:57:00.012+11:00

We have reported several times on the Harrington 102 owned by Soheil Mehrab-Khani. There is a new review on Trip Advisor dated 25-11-11 which is a doozie:

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g255097-d300914-r121008598-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html

It was written by Rose from Frankston, Victoria and is reproduced in full below.

"Unfortunately I was double-booked from my original accommodation and as Cold Chisel were in town, I had no choice but to stay there unless I wanted a night on the streets.

The reception is unmanned most of the time and there is no lift. The room was tiny - the bed was pushed against one wall, with no window (just glass bricks), no window coverings, no bedside table, no bedside lamp, no telephone, no place for my case but on the limited 'empty' floor space about 1 metre in depth.

There was the tiniest container of curdled milk in the fridge which I asked to be replaced and 2 teabags. I spent as little time as possible in the room catching the late night picture show returning around 11.30pm.

I was unable to sleep as the lights were shining through the glass biricks from outside and streaming underneath the large gap in the door. The room was also noisy - I could hear the plumbing from the other rooms - toilets, showers and taps and the constant drone of an over-worked fridge as it had been crammed into a space with no ventilation.

The room was airless - the only option being to switch on an air-conditioner and have cold air blowing over me. As I could not sleep I got up at 5.30 am and went out to take some photos around Hobart and get some air. As soon as I crossed the road and turned round to take a picture a demented woman shouted after me to not take pictures.... Had she been watching me???

I had already decided to give their "free" breakfast a miss - it looked less than appealing. I had to collect my cases and face another torrent of abuse as I was leaving - the woman is not quite right. If you have any choice in the matter - give this place a big miss,

It shouldn't be allowed to trade. They might have 1 or 2 decent rooms but the small rooms are definitely substandard and are most probably in breach of quite a few Accommodation Standards Laws."

I love the bit about the demented woman shouting not to take photo's -- this was undoubtedly Jaklin Rahimi, Soheil Mehrab-Khani's partner and they have good reason to be 'gun shy' as far as being on the receiving end of a camera.

My photo's were used in several court cases against Mehrab-Khani. I was assaulted my both Jaklin Rahimi and Soheil Mehrab-Khani in 2010 at the corner of Goulburn and Harrington streets, and one of the photo's from my evidence of Breach Of Restraint Order is below, it is a 360 degree panorama of the area:

Here is a pic of Harrington 102 with Soheil Mehrab-Khani's Mercedes parked outside:

The Manager of Harrington 102 is Jaklin Rahimi, pictured below arguing with Mehrab-Khani outside the window to my house :

An earlier review of Harrington 102 from Trip Advisor described the woman running the Hotel as an "unmedicated psychotic patient."

Khani pays 2 Debts After Caveats Lodged on Some Of His Land

2011-10-19T19:27:00.003+11:00

Readers of this site will be aware of how very hard it has proved for many creditors,usually sole tradesmen, to get their money off Mr Khani.

Just tracking him down to serve him can be very difficult.

His own Solicitors Gunson Williams needed to sue him to get paid.
That sum included the cost of sending the letter shown earlier on this site threatening a Defamation action. (Presumably Gunson Williams now join Chris Boland Lawyers and Abetz Curtis as his ex-Solicitors)

The Tribunal decision in Ali Youssef v Khani reported that in trying to get money off Mr Youssef, Mr Khani:-

-flung himself on the ground,
-knelt on the floor,moving up and down in a begging motion,and
-shouted obscenities about Allah and Mohammed.

The Kingston family,owners of Hobart Bin Hire received their Court Judgment against Mr Khani for $2,841in the first half of 2010 but there was still no payment so their Solicitors registered the Judgement by Caveat over several of his properties on June 25th 2010.

Even that brought no solution with Khani finally paying up and the Caveat being withdrawn on April 15th this year. Court Fees on the Summons,Service and Judgement would have been over $150 as would legal costs, bringing the sum to over $3,150.

Then are the $106 fee on filing a Caveat, the legal costs of doing so, the $85 fee to Withdraw a Caveat and likely associated legal costs. There would also be interest on the Judgement. So it likely cost Mr Khani over $3,500 all up.

Many people who drove down Bathurst St in 2009-10 will have noticed the Bin sitting outside No.161 half full for month after month. At about $3,500 it might make a Guinness record as the mostly costly bin hire ever.

In May 2009 the Hobart City Council issued a Complaint against Mr Khani in respect of illegal Building at 178 Brisbane St. In July 2009 the HCC issued Complaints re illegal building work at 44 Bay Rd New Town and 161 Bathurst St.

Many Court appearances followed.

Mr Khani obtained adjournments for many and varied reasons - he needed time to obtain a lawyer,he was ill,etc. On at least one occasion he didn’t appear but sent a message that he was injured.

On one such “injured” day he was seen within the half hour with a bandaged thumb both conducting business at the Council office & driving a vehicle…fast.

On several occasions he screamed out at spectators in the Court, ranted on uncontrollably and ignored and frustrated attempts by Magistrates to control proceedings.

Eventually he pleaded Guilty on 15.7.10 and was fined (only) $400 on each Complaint. However the Council obtained Orders for their Legal Costs to be assessed.

Then the consequences to Mr Khani of his actions were brought home to him. On 10.11.10 the Council costs against Mr Khani were taxed (assessed) by the Court at $1,620,$895.87 and $1,216.06 respectively.

Surprise, surprise but Mr Khani did not pay any of this total of $3,731.93.
After other efforts failed the Council also entered a Caveat over most of his properties.

This was on 28.3.2011.There were then 2 caveats over these properties.
Eventually the Council was paid also and it’s Caveat withdrawn on 27.6.11. With Caveat fees, legal costs and interest that sum had swelled to well over $4,000.

It’s not currently known what are the claimed HCC Legal Costs for the 4 Complaints of Building Breaches to which he pleaded Guilty before Magistrate Rheinberger in late May,or whether they’ve yet been assessed. At one of those Hearings a Warrant for his Arrest was issued following his non appearance. Watch this space.

A copy of the HCC caveat and of the Title to 33 Marlborough St with Caveats registered appear below. You’ll see that it lists all his Mortgagees. For anybody interested (such as Bailiffs and debt collectors) the Title Certificate No.’s listed refer respectively to:-

44 Bay Rd,New Town
33 Marlborough St,Sandy Bay
159 Bathurst St
157 Bathurst St
161 Bathurst St
102 Harrington St, and
395-401 Elizabeth St [possibly soon to be on the market]

The absence from the list of 178 Brisbane St (C.T.26360/1) is because whilst the Council referred to him as “Mehrab- Khani (aka Mehrab Khani)” they apparently didn’t appreciate that he has bought other properties such as 178 Brisbane St using just the surname Khani.

178 Brisbane St is unlikely to be sold anytime soon as Mr Khani has both chopped off part of the front fence of 176 Brisbane St and built his fence pillar upon it and built the boundary fence 5cm into 176.

Any Real Estate Agent acting to sell 178 will be so advised and will face the need to comply with S.196 of the Property Agents and Land Transactions Act 2005, which reads:

Anybody seeking to enforce a debt by Registering a charge over any of the several vehicles that Mr Khani uses will find that he’s put the recent ones in his wife’s name [no prize for guessing why].

However you’ll find that Holden Rodeo FN5014 is in his name and can conveniently be levied against.

Cardiff City "Doing The Ayatollah"

2011-09-30T18:53:00.015+10:00

Something different today, sure to make Tony smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbjqBi_VwbA

The Ayatollah is a football celebration used by fans of Welsh football club Cardiff City.

Performing the action is always preceded by a chant of "do the Ayatollah". Performing the Ayatollah is done by having both hands flat pointing towards each other raised above your head and repeatedly moving them up and down in a patting motion.

The Ayatollah was the focus of two songs written in support of the club prior to them playing in the 2008 FA Cup Final. A group of supporters released a song named "Do The Ayatollah!" and a different song under the same title was written by one of the clubs players, Steve Thompson.

The link shows Cardiff City Fans "Doing The Ayatollah" on YouTube during a game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1MWwce3cTg

In 1989, when Ayatollah Khomeini died, his funeral was shown on British TV and a Cardiff City fan was rather taken with the mourners way of expressing their grief – they slapped their heads with both hands.

At the next Cardiff home game, he encouraged all his mates to copy these mourners and slap their heads whenever Cardiff scored a goal. The trend caught on.

Last year, the trend caught on even more when the Welsh rugby captain, Gareth Thomas, had a bet with a mate and started celebrating his tries for Wales and the Lions by doing the ayatollah.

And now, the ayatollah has caught on in a third sport, cricket, as Simon Jones, who is Welsh and plays his cricket in Cardiff, has got the England players doing it too!

Harrington 102 Features In Underage Sex Case

2011-09-06T18:56:00.009+10:00

The below story verified by Tony Jacobs who read the judgement and details presented in Court and confirms these details:

On August 12th 2011 Judge Helen Wood in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, convicted and sentenced Mr N.O.Bester aged 58 to 34 months imprisonment for Maintaining a Sexual relationship with a Young Person.

Mr Bester was a teacher of the 15 year old girl who suffered from anorexia.

On 10.11.2010 Mr Bester booked a room at what was called in Court “Hotel Harrington 102”, entered and left that “Hotel” with the girl and and there twice had vaginal sexual intercourse with her.

Police found it difficult to obtain records from the “Hotel”.

The “Hotel” is that which is featured in many harsh accommodation reviews, some reproduced on this site.

The owner is, of course, Mr Soheil Mehrab Khani (above) who in January 2011 claimed that the Tasmanian Office of the DPP had deliberately withheld the names of men who had had sex with a 12 y.o.girl in a nearby Hotel as organised by one Gary Devine and the girl’s mother.

P.S. If the Tax Department reads this article - maybe you should check for those records.

Harrington 102 -- What's In A Name?

2011-09-05T11:25:00.002+10:00

The Harrington 102 was bought as a Backpacker by Mehrab-Khani but the shared kitchen facility was removed, so it was no longer approved as such two years ago.

It is advertised on on his web site as a "small Bed and Breakfast" accommodation. The Council defines a B&B as "a house or flat used by it's permanent residents to provide accommodation for people away from their homes."

The area for use by visitor accommodation is not more than 25%, and it has to have one car space for the owner and one for each accommodation bed. And by Council definition it is not a Hotel because it does not have a liquor license.

The Harrington 102 is therefore wrongly claimed to be a Bed and Breakfast and is also not a Hotel by Council definition.

Mehrab-Khani's web site says it has "modern and immaculate facilities", and Wotif calls it "Ultra Modern" -- it is neither of these. Reading the latest Trip Advisor reviews will clear this up!

Remedial Action Soon At Melville Street

2011-08-26T10:14:00.002+10:00

The Insurer of the 4 Stratum Title Units backing onto Mr Khani’s land at 157-161 Bathurst St where his excavation has caused a land slip have decided to rectify the problem and then proceed to recovery from Mr Khani.

Again, action is believed to be imminent.

The representatives of those Insurers are very welcome readers of this site and we’ll offer any assistance we can.

Lord Mayor Promises Action At 33 Marlborough Street

2011-08-26T10:11:00.000+10:00

At the Hobart City Council Meeting on Monday August 22^nd, the Lord Mayor of Hobart, Rob Valentine said in reply to a Question on Notice from Kirsten Goyne that the Council had received permission from the Planning Tribunal on August 15^th 2010 to act in respect of the property.

He said that Tenders are to be called to remove the fill (placed there in 2007 by Mr Khani) and to re-vegetate the block as native bush land.

Whilst no specific date was given it is understood that action is imminent and that the cost to the ratepayers will be secured by lien or caveat over the property and recovered upon sale of the property.

The Lord Mayor went on to say that whilst remedying the very bad drainage problem to Kirsten’s home at No. 31 that has occurred only since Mr Khani had the fill placed there,was not a Council responsibility, execution of the remedial work could well rectify that drainage problem.

Ali Youssef vs Khani

2011-08-17T19:42:00.005+10:00

As promised, here is the anti-discrimination document from the case in 2006 where Khani said "F*** Allah" and "F*** Moslems" and "F*** your Prophet Mohammed" and made various other "inappropriate actions and comments" towards Ali Youssef.

Soheil Mehrab-Khani was fined for causing Ali Youssef "pain, suffering and humilation" as well as being ordered to make a written apology.

Read the full outcome of this case below:

Tony Jacobs Submissions To Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

2011-08-17T19:24:00.009+10:00

That a person who acts the way Mr Khani has acted including his attempts to lecture others,

Including his attempts to shout people down (termed in Youssef v Khani “speaking at him rather than talking to him”),

Including his quaint little habits of sending messages to a chosen few that he’ll organise someone to kill them,

Including his threat to Tony “I’ll get someone to cut you”,

Including his behaviour to many others such as screaming threats and abuse, often right into their faces,

Including his lies to the Tribunal and his oft illustrated complete contempt for the law and other people’s rights and

Including his behaviour at the Tribunal is termed in contemporary English “an Ayatollah”

Peace And Harmony

2011-08-17T19:16:00.003+10:00

Mr Khani claimed in a document filed in Court June 2009 that he wanted to “live in peace and harmony”. He proclaimed “I am a Baha’i.”

If you have experienced this “peace and harmony” you are invited to supply details which will be put on this site.

Those who have experienced something very different include-

The people who sold him a property in Alexander St and their Solicitor, Robert Young;

His neighbours in Bathurst St and those 4 people behind in Melville St who have suffered a land slide as a result of his illegal excavations;

The half dozen or so families who live close to 33 Marlborough St;

The gardeners of that part of Sandy Bay who’ve had seeds from weeds on his property blow onto their properties;

The young children near 178 Brisbane St who were terrified by his screaming and ranting;

The Jacobs family;

The lady who signed up to buy what she was led to believe was an authorised Hotel at 102 Harrington St,

The agents who acted for him for a time in trying to sell certain properties which they had assumed to be trouble– free;

A number of people who have stayed at his “hotel” at 102 Harrington St;

Four Magistrates who’ve had him shout and rant at them,

Commissioner Mckenzie from the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal who repeatedly received no respect,

The Controller of the Hobart Magistrate’s Court who was screamed down twice,

A string of small tradesmen and contractors, most recently Peter “Cabbage” McConnon, who having done work for him, have been refused payment.

We can add Ali Youssef to that and one suspects that some of his ex-Solicitors might be eligible as well if glares at them are a guide.

Some Police Assessments

2011-08-17T19:04:00.004+10:00

Mehrab-Khani has been known to complain to Police often and loudly and about a range of people. Usually his wife phones for him.

In a document filed with the Court in December 2010 she said “I’ve phoned Police at least 25 times in the past 2 years”

And, this in a State where there are now severe budgetary restraints.

Tony Jacobs has no monopoly on these complaints. Khani complained in January 2010 that 2 young Uniformed Officers had threatened him and used “threatening and abusive language” toward him.

There were several civilians present who confirmed that the Officers did no such thing.

Freedom of Information documents reveal these gems in Police internal reports:-

“Police continually attend jobs where Khani is building or renovating and he seems to be the issue and aggressor with neighbouring properties”.

Khani has displayed bizarre and irrational behaviour when Police were dealing with him”

“Khani quickly changed the subject and began to rant about Police inaction….”

“He became very emotional,ranting uncontrollably stating that the Police are corrupt…”

"Khani is extremely irrational..”

Other Complaints

In addition to Police Mr Khani has complained about Tony Jacobs to at least the following:-

Then Premier David Bartlett - in person.

Then PM-Kevin Rudd - by letter

The Integrity Commission, and

A Legislative Council Committee

"Ridiculous" Claim Gets Up

2011-08-17T18:53:00.003+10:00

Khani built the boundary fence between he and Tony Jacobs’ property. This was the entire lower side and half the rear of his property. But he built it 25cm above ground level at the street and 90cm above at the rear. The result was that a stream of the blue metal and gravel used to build it up his land poured into Tony’s place.

Khani ignored written requests to rectify and later to pay for the terracing built. Tony then sued him.A week later Khani commenced his Anti-Discrimination claims and began screaming at Tony repeatedly things like:-

“You are a Public Servant and should get down on your knees and serve me”

“I’ll get revenge if it takes me 20 years”

“Who do you think you are?”

I’ll make you cwy” [he can’t pronounce “r”]

‘You are a septic tank”

“You are a poofter”

“You don’t believe in God and you’ll go to Hell”

Also came the 13 attacks upon him in a motor vehicle, the kicking and punching of 6 holes in his side fence, the spitting at him and the partial pulling down of his pants accompanied by pointing at his posterior of which Tony has given evidence several times.

To the Tribunal Khani wrote of Tony’s action “How ridiculous is his claim? His claim is just unbelievable.”

Khani later screamed down the Court appointed mediator and proceeded to trial represented by Mr Chris Boland.

Tony was awarded all except a minor item that he was claiming - about $1,350. Mr Boland’s fees are thought to have been over $5,000, so all and all it was not a good assessment that the claim was “ridiculous”.

A Variety Of Excuses For Non Attendance

2011-08-17T18:44:00.006+10:00

At the conclusion of the Anti-Discrimination hearings in January the Tribunal Member,Ms C.McKenzie suggested the week of May 28^th for conclusion.

Tony Jacobs agreed.Soheil Khani claimed that he’d be overseas in Iran. In fact Khani never left Australia and was in Hobart on May 28^th and later that week.He never advised that fact.

In April, the week commencing August 15^th was set. A week before Khani sent an e-mail saying “I am not able to attend”. He went on to claim that he needed to sell a property to pay for a lawyer. No details of which property or of any plans were revealed.

Told by the Tribunal that it would not be adjourned he sent a message on the 15^th that he was ill. On the 16^th he sent a one line Doctors note. That Doctor in a telephone hook up said that neither she, nor her practice had seen him before and that she was relying on his complaints of lower back pain for which she’d prescribed a panadene type tablet.

Told by the Tribunal on the 16^th that he had to be there on the 17^th, he sent an e-mail claiming injury in a motor vehicle accident on the 14^th.

As the Tribunal member pointed out-if there’d been such injury in a car accident he’d surely have told the Doctor on the 15^th.

Khani has sought at least half a dozen adjournments in other recent cases for a variety of reasons including illness, absence from the State, too busy to get a lawyer,lawyers won’t take him on, etc.

On one occasion his Solicitor explained his absence to a Magistrate as due to injury.A quarter hour later he was seen at the Council conducting business with a band aid on a thumb, after which he drove off at his usual high speed.

None of this is new.

In the 2006 decision in the case of Youssef v Khani it was pointed out that delay had been caused by his not being in attendance on some occasions.

In his 2009 Planning Appeal case against the Hobart City Council over 33 Marlborough St Number 37/09P the Tribunal noted “Eventually,after a protracted and somewhat tortuous process, this appeal came on….No evidence, at all, or any material was filed by Mr Khani”.

Anti-Discrimination Case Resumes, But Khani Missing

2011-08-16T16:21:00.009+10:00

The 15th of August, 11.00am at Court Room 6. This was the time and place for the long awaited sequel to the Anti-Discrimination case bought by Soheil Mehrab - Khani against Principal Crown Prosecutor, Tony Jacobs.

However, Mehrab-Khani was nowhere to be seen. A letter by Mehrab-Khani was read in court wherein he applied to adjourn the case because he now wanted a lawyer but couldnt afford one, he needed to sell a property, he claimed.

This despite the fact that he claimed to be worth 7 Million dollars in another Court Case, and last year when he put his face inches away from mine in a confrontation saying to me, "You think I care about the Council fining me $500 or $5000? I'm rich!"

He was given till today, the 16th of August to turn up. The Press were waiting in force for him to appear, to no avail.

Another letter was read to the Court. He now had a bad back and a single line Doctors Certificate was submitted.

Mehrab-Khani has until tomorrow, the 17th of August to appear before the Tribunal, or the case could be dismissed. There is also a possibility of him being fined a not insubstantial amount of money.

The ABC have this up on their web site already:

Even if the case is dismissed, a certain document will be revealed by Tony Jacobs relating to Soheil Mehrab-Khani which will certainly cause a stir. I am privy to this document and am certain the Press will have a field day with it.

"Cabbage" Paid In Full By Khani When Shown Letter By Tony Jacobs

2011-08-16T16:07:00.008+10:00

Colourful northern suburbs identity and carpet layer Peter (“Cabbage”) McConnon has now been paid in full by Mehrab-Khani.

In a complete turnaround, Mehrab-Khani paid in full for the carpet that was laid in his property several weeks ago after Peter ("Cabbage") McConnon confronted him at his property and showed him a letter written by Tony Jacobs, where Tony offered to help "Cabbage" get the money owing to him.

The letter below is what did the trick:

Mehrab-Khani has a habit of not paying tradesmen, particularly the vulnerable single operators, as evidence by his multiple listings in the Tasmanian Debt Collection Gazette (several of which have been published on this blog).

His own lawyer just recently successfully sued for non-payment of over $13 000, see below listing from the Gazette:

This was the same lawyer that threatened me with a Defamation Case for writing a blog highlighting issues such as tradesmen not being paid. Lo and Behold, this very same lawyer is not paid either! This caused much merriment in Hobart legal circles, I am told.

Khani Attempts Another Road Confrontation With Tony Jacobs

2011-08-11T11:27:00.004+10:00

On Sunday August 7^th at 2.45 Tony Jacobs stopped behind a 4 wheel drive vehicle stationary at a red light in Warwick St at its intersection with Argyle St (facing east).

The light changed to green but the 4 w.d. did not move. With no vehicles approaching Tony then indicated and moved to the other side of the road to pass. The 4 w.d. then quickly moved right, across his path necessitating his braking to avoid a collision.

The driver of the 4 w.d.turned out to be Soheil Mehrab-Khani.

Mehrab-Khani in his 4 wheel drive, above.

After the light had turned orange Khani sped through it. On April 14^th this year Khani received a criminal conviction, was fined $600 and made the subject of a 3 year Restraint Order in respect of Tony for smashing his windscreen by bashing it about 6 times with his fist when Tony was parked at a red light near the New Town K Mart.

At that trial Tony detailed a total of 13 attacks on him by Khani when Tony has been in a motor vehicle.

Khani admitted 2 of those attacks. One was by blocking several other vehicles including Tony’s at a New Town Roundabout.In admitting that incident Khani said “I drove like a maniac” (to get to the roundabout).

The other was running in front of Tony’s car in North Hobart forcing emergency braking to avoid running him over after which Khani open the door,removed the keys and attempted to throw them away.

Other attacks detailed by Tony in Court included twice trying to pull him from a moving vehicle as he was driving off because Tony would not stop and listen to his rantings and twice violently swerving across the road and swerving at him in a “chicken” like fashion.

Tony described to the Magistrate that one of these incidents near St Mary’s school avoided a head on collision by an extremely small margin.

Tony described 3 incidents in Bathurst St on January 28^th 2010 when at red lights at the intersection of Bathurst St with both Murray and Elizabeth St’s during lunch time traffic Khani bashed on Tony’s car and sought to have him get out and engage with him and when he then forcibly tried to cut across in front of Tony’s vehicle in Bathurst St between Elizabeth & Argyle St.

Khani gave sworn evidence that none of this occurred. It just so happens that Police Report # 201006163 obtained under Freedom of Information (now called “Right to Know’) records Khani as telling Police on 28.1.10 that he saw Tony driving in Bathurst St, that he “pursued” him and “engaged in verbal altercation”.

Khani also kicked and punched 6 holes in the boundary fence when he lived at 178 Brisbane St. Khani’s wife has given sworn evidence that she witnessed Khani kick the first of these. And this is a solid ,new fence with metal posts.

Pictures of the holes in the fence at Brisbane street, above:

The last hole made was near the rear. It is 70 cm x 17cm and was done with Khani’s fist.His lower arm was in plaster for about the next month.

Tony tells me that Khani later used the hole several times to spit at him. It is amazing that someone in Australia thinks that he has a right to “pursue” another motorist or to “drive like a maniac” to get to a roundabout to block traffic.

Tony tells me that he’ll be referring in some detail at the Anti-Discrimination” hearing next week to the DSM4 Psychiatric Manual to detail the acute Personality Disorder that he suggests Khani suffers from and which he believes makes him a threat to many others.

Questions To Be Asked At HCC Meeting About Khani Property

2011-08-05T11:17:00.019+10:00

Soheil Mehrab-Khani illegally excavated, removed all vegetation and dumped landfill at 33 Marlborough Street, Sandy Bay about 4 years ago causing flooding to neighbouring properties and rock falls onto fences and attracting a lot of weeds that have since blown seeds over a large area.

This was on a large block where there was a condition that all except a small building envelope had to be left in native vegetation.

In July 2009 the Planning Tribunal upheld the Council claim that Khani was responsible and ordered him to re-vegetate and remove landfill.

Photo's from Hobart City Council Officer below.

This has still not been done. The Council claim to be talking to him. Khani given sworn evidence that there has not been any discussion with Council Officers.

With Council elections looming in October, Tony Jacobs has given notice that he intends to ask two questions at the Council meeting on 22 August at 5.00pm.

These questions relate to the lack of enforcement by Hobart City Council of the Tribunal order at Marborough Street as well as the condition of a Hotel owned by Mehrab-Khani called The Harrington 102, see picture below showing The Harrington 102 with Mehrab-Khani's red Mercedes outside.

Below is a copy of Tony's letter, the annexures he sent and the relevant Local Government Regulation allowing us to question Tasmanian Councils:

Cabbage Joins List Of Unpaid Tradesmen

2011-08-05T10:49:00.004+10:00

Colourful northern suburbs identity and carpet layer Peter (“Cabbage”) McConnon has joined that long list of tradesmen (normally one man businesses) that Khani has refused to pay for work he requested at one of his properties.

Mr McConnon laid carpet at Khani’s current residence - a block of flats at 44 Bay Rd, New Town. (Khani pleaded Guilty last year to a Building Act breach at that property).

Mr McConnon didn’t take the refusal to pay quietly and at one stage one of Khani’s regular employees threatened physical involvement only to back off after a promise about the permanent transfer of his teeth.

Mr McConnon has given Khani written notice to pay by next week failing which he intends debt recovery through the Court.

Mehrab-Khani Pays Up!

2011-07-19T11:03:00.007+10:00

Gunson vs Khani

Soheil Mehrab-Khani fronted the office at court last week in the case Gunson vs Khani. You'll recall that Mehrab-Khani's own lawyer, Mr. Gunson, was sueing him for non-payment.

Mehrab-Khani had filed a defence but ended up paying the full amount due to Mr. Gunston as well as Court costs.

The money paid was $13 261 and it is believed Court Filing Fee was $116.20, Service Fee $84 and Lawyer costs $530.40 making a grand total of just under $14 000.

Anti-Discrimination Tribunal resumes.

On August 15th the Anti-Discrimination complaint of Mehrab-Khani against Tony Jacobs resumes at Liverpool St Court, probably Court 6. It will run till the 16th at least, I am told.

Tony advises me he expects to carry on the cross examination of Mehrab-Khani for another 2 days, getting down to some real nitty gritty issues which is certain to to be well worth attending for anyone with spare time on those days.

The Court is open to the public and Tony and myself will be counting and timing Mehrab-Khani's outburts and tirades during the proceedings.

Tribunal Outcome

The Tribunal was a partial success for us, in that an illegal deck and windows overlooking our property are not allowed to be built, and the gaping hole has to be sealed up to a height of 1.7 metres, leaving only a small strip of windows at that height to maintain privacy.

This is a third world country type of scenario to have a balcony 900mm off the boundary with full views into our property. I lived in Africa for many years, and this is primitive building. Two Real Estate Agents have confirmed that this issue was the single most damning one, and that it would have wreaked the most havoc on the value of our property!

The Council lawyer Kirsten Turner calls it a "minor modification." This shows what the Council attitude is when they play with peoples lives with bad planning practices.

They can destroy the value of a property instantly, and call it a minor modification -- one that can only be remedied by "rightfully testing it at Tribunal", as HCC Neil Noye says, and spending thousands and thousands of dollars in the process.

Is it any wonder HCC allow the newly built building (below) to jut right into the historic 1879 Cascade Brewery building??

A brilliant bit of planning, can you get any closer to the sandstone?

Talking about being too close -- the breach of setback of Unit 1 was deemed to be fine, in effect ignoring the earlier Tribunals finding about this 5 years ago.

Hobart City Council Seek Costs from Mehrab-Khani.

Council lawyer Kirsten Turner has applied for costs against Mehrab-Khani in relation to Unit 1:

I am instructed to seek an order that the Respondent, Soheil Mehrab-Khani, pay the Council’s costs of and incidental to the application in accordance with order 3 of application A18/2010 dated 29 September 2010. If an order for costs is opposed, I would request a period of 14 days to file submissions in support of the application.

Mehrab-Khani Sued By His Own Lawyer!

2011-06-27T12:26:00.002+10:00

Yet again, Soheil Mehrab-Khani is being sued for non payment. The lawyer that defended him in court over the case of acquiring finance through deception and who also threatened me with defamation over this web site, Mr. Gunston, is sueing Mehrab-Khani for non payment of fees totalling $13261-00.

This is causing great amusement in Hobart legal circles, I am told. Presumably, Mehrab-Khani didn't screw up his face and put in inches away from Mr. Gunston and told him he wouldnt be paid as he did with painter Jason Lumley and a plasterer whose name I am with holding because he requested to not be named.

Interestingly, Mehrab-Khani engaged Town Planner Kate Loveday and the legal firm of Abetz Curtis to represent him at the Tribunal. Both parties worked for him for a period of several weeks before the Tribunal, then dropped out, no longer working for him! I would guess they have not been paid either, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mehrab-Khani is sued by them in the near future.

Immigration Department Visits Again

2011-06-06T16:02:00.002+10:00

The Department Of Immigration is looking up Mehrab Khani in Google today. The log files show that they typed in "Soheil Mehrab Khani" into the Google search engine and ended up this blog, looking around for 10 minutes.

The blog in now #1 on Google if you type in Mehrab Khani, this is what the #1 signifies on the log file below.

A thought occurs -- Mehrab-Khani mentioned in the Anti - Discrimination hearing (which I reported at the time and due to resume in August, I think) that he would offer to be deported to Sudan or Zimbabwe if it was found that he was a liar. The Mercury picked this up too:

It's possible that the Department of Immigration is trying to help him get his things together for the move.

Mehrab-Khani Convicted Over 4 Building Charges

2011-05-30T11:26:00.006+10:00

Mehrab-Khani was in court to be sentenced over 4 building charges brought against him by Hobart City Council. The HCC case was lackluster, but even so Mehrab-Khani was fined a total of $1240 plus costs.

I was out of the country at the time of the sentencing, however it was covered by The Mercury newspaper. It seems that The Mercury is keenly following all court cases involving Mehrab-Khani, probably because of his behaviour in court, such as shouting over the magistrate or raving on in a nearly incomprehensible way and making outrageous comments and allegations.

I will post the outcome of the Tribunal as soon as it is known.

At Tribunal Against HCC and Mehrab-Khani

2011-05-23T13:05:00.006+10:00

The Tribunal took place over 2 days, the 19th and 20th of May. The day before HCC prosecuted Mehrab-Khani for building breaches of Unit 1, one of the issues being setback, the next day we were in Tribunal and they changed sides now wanting the setback approved.

This Tribunal is partly the result of another Tribunal in 2005 which ordered additional setback and which has subsequently been ignored. In a hearing 8 weeks ago, Mehrab-Khani's Engineer Chris Potter was asked by what measurement was the setback incorrect?

"I thought it was right," answered Mr. Potter!!

So from that we can assume he had no idea what the setback on the plans were supposed to signify.

I will NOT report on these proceedings until the report is finished by the Tribunal members, which will be 9th June at the latest.

However, I will mention one part of the Tribunal when I was in the witness chair. Mr. Potter decided to ask me some questions.

"Look at this picture, says Potter. It's Unit 2 correct?"
"Yes", I say.
"The windows in Unit 2 have been approved under the permit scheme, and they can overlook your property just as much as Unit 1, isn't that correct?"

"The windows have not been approved. They have just been put in illegally and I have notified Ross Willis of Council. You would have received an email about it last week!", I said not believing my ears.

Obviously Potter has no idea what has been approved or not.

He tries again.
"The windows have been approved under the permit scheme", he says again, as if repeating something makes it true.

"Absolute nonsense", I say. "They have not been approved, they are not on the plans, they are illegal. Check the plans"

Silence. Then the sounds of plans being flicked thru as Tribunal members look for the original approved plans.

Red faced, Potter finds the drawing which shows wooden slats half way up....and says, "OK so there are slats half way up...but you can still see out of them!"

He totally lost credibility by not even knowing what on his own plans.

Here is the letter I received a few weeks ago from Ross Willis of Council where Council agree with me that the windows are not approved.

I got stuck into Potter over his sun diagram too. He shows me a sun/shadow diagram done my his brother, the aptly named David Gavan Jack Potter going by the name DGJ Potter. The extension part of my house which is the subject of sunlight loss, was not even drawn on the diagram!

So Chris Potter is getting me to look at a sun diagram of my house where my house isn't in the diagram.

"These are shonky diagrams", I said. "I don't accept them, and they don't match the 5 other sun diagrams I have in my possession from the last 6 years."

Silence.

Potter tries a different tack.
But you knew Council always said you would lose sunlight."

"Absolute nonsense", I said. "Every Council representative 5 years ago said normal sunlight would ensue after 10.30am. Neil Noye from HCC said it too."

"Neil Noye said some unfortunate things", tries Potter.
"Well Council Planner Clare Hester said it too", I shouted (I was shouting by this point, not believing the absurdity of what I was hearing.)

At that point he wasn't going to ask me anymore questions, and that was that. So it appears Mr. Chris Potter does not know about setback, or what has been approved, yet he is responsible for making Unit 1 compliant.

Here is what Council said about sunlight 5-6 years ago. This seems to have been buried and Potter and Council obviously hoped it had all been forgotten.

Neil Noye said normal sunlight after 10.30, Planner Clare Hester said it would be normal after 10.00am, see below.

And Consultant Planner Kate Loveday said that the reduction would be minimal and within TASCORD guidelines. That's not true either.

More will follow when the Tribunal results are out. This interchange was just between me and Chris Potter. Tony came out firing and there was a wonderful cross examination of DGJ Potter.

HCC charges Mehrab-Khani Over Building Breaches

2011-05-23T10:30:00.007+10:00

Court Room 1 on the 18th of May 2011 -- Mehrab-Khani is back in Court to face 4 charges from Hobart City Council relating to various building breaches.

Two of the building breaches related to the collapsed retaining wall on the boundary of Melville street, specifically failure to notify the owner of protection work and failure to carry out protection work.

The end result was the collapse of the retaining wall, with a neighbours shed hanging precariously in space, being supported by a pole which could collapse at any time. The maximum penalties for these charges are $6500 and $13000 respectively.

The other 2 charges related to building breaches on Unit 1 next door to my property which is the subject of a Tribunal. One of the charges included the fact that the building was built too close to my boundary, the exact same issue that Council changed sides on the very next day at Tribunal .

On Wednesday at Court HCC prosecuted Khani for setback (amongst other things), on Thursday at the Tribunal HCC took sides with Khani and argued against me that setback should be approved!!

(No, I am not making this up and Yes, it is incomprehensible and No, I can't think of any other business that could get away with this type of misuse of power.)

Maximum penalties for the building breaches to Unit 1 were $65000 and $13000 (no, that isn't a typo, it's $65000!).

Mehrab-Khani changed his plea to Guilty on all four charges. He will be sentenced on Wed 25 of May at 2.00pm. It was noted he has prior convictions.

The Mercury newspaper will be there on the day reporting the sentence. Mehrab-Khani was entertaining as ever in Court, shouting abuse at Tony Jacobs (and I even got 2 mentions from him) and saying things like, "You should be sueing the ANZ Bank, not me."

Some other gems (I was writing as fast as I could) were "These sorts of things happen" and "I didn't commit Murder" to "I have an email from Tony Jacobs saying if you pay me $1000 a day I will leave you alone. Do you think that is fair?" and "This state is corrupt" to "ABC and 4 Corners has approached me to comment over these matters" to "This is all the fault of Tony Jacobs and his mate (looking at me) and his mate Magistrate Webster."

LJ Hooker Visits Bathurst Street.

2011-05-15T18:03:00.001+10:00

Last Thursday a visitor in a suit appeared on site. On Friday he came back with a female. I took a few photos and then using some brilliant software called Photozoom, I was able to blow the photo's up.

This allowed me to just make out the Nobody Does It Better slogan on the yellow folder. So it was LJ Hooker! Which is very interesting because Unit 1 is basically locked up pending a Tribunal which takes place this Thursday 19th May, and the back Units 2,3 and 4 are not habitable till the collapsed retaining wall at the rear is repaired.

Mehrab-Khani brought it down with his excavations but refuses to repair it, leaving the neighbours shed hanging precariously in space with a pole tentatively holding it up.

So the question is, is he attempting to sell the half developed site (surely an act of desperation), or is he hoping to perhaps pre-sell the units?

Time will tell. On Wed 18th May he is back in Court to face 4 charges of various building breaches. I will be there along with Tony Jacobs and will be reporting back.

The next day, Thursday 19th May is the long awaited Tribunal, with myself against Mehrab-Khani and Hobart City Council. Neil Noye from HCC stated that this should "rightfully be tested at Tribunal". A decision from that is expected by 9th June.

I will report the Tribunal results here as well. Stay posted. This is what it has all come down to.

The aforementioned Photozoom which I really like is here:
http://www.benvista.com/photozoompro

Not Paid -- Jason Lumley Painting

2011-04-20T09:33:00.008+10:00

Painter Jason Lumley left a message on my blog about non payment by Mehrab-Khani after completing work. It was left late last year but I only noticed it now as I went through the comments.

"Jason Lumley, 40 Benboyd Circle, Rokeby, Tas.
Painted and cleaned down two roofs Bathurst St. Just chucked account at me at me then put his face right into mine and at the completion of job, (said) he isnt paying.
I said thats Okay I will put you in collection. "Go ahead you wont get a cent out of me." In court now?????? Lumley's Painting. "

This is one the reasons this blog exists, to protect small business owners who have it tough enough trying to make a living without getting ripped of with non-payment.

I notice Mehrab-Khani did the same thing to Jason Lumley, putting his "face right into mine." This is standard intimidation procedure, he has done it twice to me even whilst on a Restraint Order, and once to my wife while I was interstate and which was witnessed by a neighbour. It was one of the reasons I was given a Restraint Order in the first place.

Department Of Immigration And Citizenship Visits Web Site

2011-04-18T16:50:00.002+10:00

Massive response to web site today. Nearly 500 hits - our all time largest viewing in a day. I notice the Department of Immigration and Citizenship just visited the web site! Now that is good news, come back any time fellas!

Big Update From Tony Jacobs

2011-04-18T11:59:00.026+10:00

A giant update from Tony Jacobs. No-one can put a letter together like Tony, entertaining and factual at the same time with all the details that I find so hard to keep track of, I really need to post the complete contents:

1. COURT PROCEEDINGS (completed)

On Wednesday and Thursday this week before Magistrates Webster and Pearce respectively he was found Guilty and convicted of:-

- Breach of Restraint Order re Tom Berger; fined $400 + costs.

- Damage to Property (my windscreen with his fist); fined $600 + costs.

In each case he applied for an adjournment [as he always does] which was refused [he’d had about 5 already in each case].

In each case apart from carrying on and trying to shout the Magistrate down, he claimed to have debts of $5-6 Million and to be unable to sell properties (more below) and to have great difficulty in paying any fines.

Last month he was acquitted of Dishonestly Acquiring a Financial Advantage (Land Tax) because he might not have been aware of what he was signing for such a small sum. He’d emphasised that a small amount (of about $800) meant little to him.

2. COURT PROCEEDINGS (pending)

On May 18^th before Magistrate Rheinberger he faces 4 Council charges re illegal building at 161 Bathurst Street and excavation near boundary (Melville St - his rear). That has been adjourned several times with a Warrant for his Arrest issued once.

Some reasons advanced for past adjournments of these matters have been - can’t get a lawyer, ill, injured and a trip to Iran booked for that time with no return date set. [no such trip to Iran took place; my information is that such was never planned and that in fact he’s too fearful to return to Iran].

The Court on 18th May is, of course, open to the public.

3. 33 MARLBOROUGH ST

You’ll see below this letter some correspondence between me, Alderman Damon Thomas and Mr Noye.

On 22.12.2010 Mr Noye told Alderman Thomas “…I’ve had recent discussions with K ..we are to meet on the site shortly to clarify what is required…We will continue to pursue to a successful conclusion and if that requires Court action then we will not hesitate..we are pursuing a more direct approach with K before triggering Court”.

In Jan 2011 I questioned K. about this in Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. He gave sworn evidence that there are no ongoing issues to be resolved; has been no contact between he and Council; he had to clear the vegetation at request of Fire Brigade; and is not now going to sell but to give to his son.

30.3.11 In a letter Mr Noye advises Kirsten Goyne that he has had had several meetings with K. to progress this matter [K has been pre-occupied with other matters - (these may include the bullshit trip to Iran)].

Noye goes on to say that K. has now filed an amended plan for a house…I’m seeking legal advice as to whether we can take enforcement action when we have this application before us.

In this regard it is worth looking at the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal decision of 1.7.’09 Khani v HCC

K. had applied for a Permit re 33 Marlborough; it was refused; K. appealed.

The Tribunal Judgment included:-

The development application sought approval for work already carried out. The Council had applied under Sect 64 of the Land Use Management Act.That was adjourned to allow the Permit application to proceed.

(Sect 64 deals with Enforcement Proceedings that can result in a Tribunal Order to demolish, remove, rectify, etc unauthorised work)

Part 3 of the Judgement says

“Eventually, after a protracted and somewhat tortuous process, this appeal came on for hearing [on June 30^th]. No evidence, at all, or any material was filed by or on behalf of Mr K…”

So he just bought time then.

Subsequently the Tribunal made the Order under S.64 requiring removal of the fill and re-vegetation by January 2010. Nothing has happened since.

If Council delays enforcement until a new building application is made, amended, appealed [with procrastination-fake trips to Iran, can’t get a lawyer, illness, etc, etc], we’ll be well into 2012.

And will we then get another building application? Seems to me Council had all they needed to act on in January 2010.

Property remains listed for sale by George Self Real Estate but they know of the issues. Two phases spring to mind:-

1--Déjà vu
and

2--A quaint old saying about shithouse rats

4. 157-161 BATHURST ST

The Council belatedly took proceedings under S.64 for illegal building work at Unit 1 (street frontage at No.161) seeking a demolition Order.

Tom and Kerrie Berger from No.163 joined in as parties.

Surprise, surprise K. retrospectively applied for a Permit for the ‘building as constructed’.

Council Officers acting on incorrect principles and without it going to the committee of Aldermen approved it as not too different than that he had approval for.

Their documents accepted that based on the correct principle -being looked at as a fresh application, not an amendment- it must be rejected.

Tom and Kerrie appealed and engaged a Town Planner and a Surveyor. It transpired (surprise, surprise) that what he’d applied for was not what he’d constructed and that the actual Unit was both higher and closer to boundary than claimed in the Permit granted by Council.

At the front the required gap to boundary was 950mm but it is built only 380mm from boundary. These developments have delayed things and that hearing is set for May 19^th and 20^th, 1st floor, 144 Macquarie St; open to public. [K’s before Mag’s Court on 18^th].

We are awaiting the Council attitude to the amended application now before the Tribunal.

We asked the Council to make available as a witness their Town Planner who originally recommended granting the Permit [but wrongly treating it as an amendment].The Council refused to do so but the Tribunal Chairman has now issued a Summons requiring her appearance.

5. UNITS 2-4 at BATHURST St

There is some reason to believe that like Unit 1 they are built too high (with loss of light and view to Melville St residents) and possibly they are too close to boundary. Council have promised a survey.

6. COLLAPSED RETAINING WALL BEHIND 138 MELVILLE ST

This was caused by K. when he excavated at Bathurst St, which excavation is the subject of 2 of the Charges on May 18^th. The Council has an Engineers report showing his responsibility to remedy it.

His Engineer at Planning Tribunal stated that 80 y.o walnut tree had to be cut down so it could be rectified (hinting that K. was responsible and would do).

On oath at the Anti-Discrim K. denied any responsibility for and said he was not going to rectify; claimed was solely the responsibility of the insurers of Melville St. Those Insurers have apparently denied any obligation [and would seek to recover from K anyway].

The situation of the owners is complicated because the land is owned by the Body Corporate for the 4 residences in Melville St.

1 unit has been sold since with part of the sale price held aside for this.

The fence is still down and Alistair and Jenny Home have lost a lot of soil and plants, have about a metre of their shed hanging in space and have a genuine fear of damage to their home.

Costs to rectify about $50,000. It’s not a Council responsibility but they can possibly prevent Stratum Titling of the Bathurst Units unless done.

I think only a Supreme Court Writ against K. will get rectification.

7. HARRINGTON’s 102 “HOTEL”

This property was advertised widely last year by Knight Frank.

Eventually a lady signed to buy for over $1 Million. Lo and behold (surprise, surprise) her checks found some of the work had been done without Council approval.

She was able to cancel but had costs of several thousand.

Knight Frank now refuse to act for this “dishonest” man.

As to this “Hotel” which bills itself as “modern” “with en suites”, etc please refer to Tom Berger’s great web site.

You’ll see therein full 3 recent reviews by guests from the Trip Adviser web site and the only 2 reviews on Google.

8. FINANCIAL

He claimed at both trials to be $5-6 Million in debt with poor finances because he can’t sell any properties and complained about a Tax Department investigation.

With due allowance for his lies and exaggeration he was in ANZ earlier this month seeking extra funds and has complained in Court and elsewhere of being forced into Bankruptcy.

He has Harrington’s Hotel which he can’t sell as above; 33 Marlborough which will be difficult to sell with the land issues; 178 Brisbane St which the Agents refused to market because his front gate and driveway pillar is almost entirely in my property where he cut off some of my front fence and Bathurst St has the issues there.

9. OTHER ISSUES

Following publicity of the Anti-Discrimination hearing in January I was contacted by several people with accounts of issues they’ve had with him of which I wasn’t aware.

These include:-

Signing to buy 3 Alexander St, Sandy Bay [since re-sold] and getting into an acrimonious fight with the sellers and Mr Robert Young of Wallace, Wilkinson, Solicitors.

10. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION HEARING

If you are amongst that 50% + of the S.Tasmanian population who are yearning for the next episode, I can report that it’s re-starting on Monday August 15^th.

The Commissioner from Melbourne who is a well intentioned lady is also blind which makes it difficult with the many documents and photos which I have tendered. She had wanted to resume on March 28^th. I was available, K. claimed his bullshit trip to Iran.

Her other commitments and mine have led to this August date.

I suspect it will go about 3 more days. I’m going to try to speed it up and get to more of the nitty gritty issues but 1 question can lead to a 10 minute rant by him.The Commissioner is having great trouble controlling him as time goes.

It took all 1 afternoon (2 hours) to tender 18 photos of him from and an 8 second DVD because I had to describe them for her (being blind) and he disputed the simplest things such as a car passing by being a car.

Suffice to say that I have enjoyed my 11 hours of cross examining him so far and expect at least 2 or 3 more.

Regards,

Tony Jacobs

Above is a picture of a 180 degree view of the collapsed retaining wall that Tony is talking about above. This is from the rear of Units 2-4. The extreme left shows the shed that is hanging over, supported with a pole. This is even worse now after the rains last week, Tony tells me there is less soil under it and the shed is skewed. It appears a matter of time before it collapses over the edge.

Convicted Once, Convicted Twice....

2011-04-18T11:30:00.001+10:00

Conviction Number 1

Court Room 4, 13th April 2011 at the Hobart's Magistrate Court was the venue last week where I was up against Soheil Mehrab -Khani. He was charged with breaching a restraint order I had against him.

I was taking photographs of concrete floor slab being poured for Unit 1 on the development next door to me when Mehrab-Khani walked up to me, threatened and tried to intimidate me despite the fact that I had a Restraint Order against him and he was not allowed to approach me.

He stuck his thumb a few inches from my eye and made a comment I took to be a death threat, as did the police. Mehrab-Khani cross-examined me and raved on with wild accusations, even claiming the Magistrate was a friend of Tony Jacobs, but in the end he was convicted with a criminal record and fined $400 plus court costs.

These time stamped photo's were used by the police prosecutor and disproved Mehrab-Khani's version of the events.

The floor slab was critical because we knew it was in the wrong position, it was too close to the boundary, which has been confirmed in the Tribunal.

Mehrab-Khani came over and attempted to block my view, then bent over as if pulling his pants down in front of the camera and finally threatened and attempted to put thumb in my eye, moving it past the camera when it was photographed.

Conviction Number 2

The next day, April 14th it was Court Room 6 with Mehrab-Khani charged with smashing Tony Jacobs windscreen in the street after a car chase. This was a bizarre case, with Mehrab-Khani admitting to chasing Tony Jacobs in his car.

"He was driving so fast", said Mehrab-Khani. "And you were going fast too, weren't you?", asked the police prosecutor. "Oh yes", said Mehrab-Khani. "I was going faster because I had to overtake him and cut in front of him!", he said.

"I was driving like a maniac", Mehrab-Khani admitted. Criminal conviction number 2 in as many days with a $600 fine and Court Costs.

Some highlights were his claims that he is going to leave Tasmania, that Tony Jacobs is bringing him to his knees financially, and that the Tax Office and ASIO were investigating him.

Another Harrington 102 Review -- "Below Western Standards..."

2011-04-11T13:00:00.002+10:00

A couple more reviews of Mehrab-Khani's Hotel, The Harrington 102 have been fowarded to be by Tony Jacobs.

I would be remiss in my duties maintaining a public awareness web site on the activities of one Soheil Mehrab-Khani by not posting these. Here they are:

Jacek - 29 March 2011

"No Help From Staff. Ignored after 7.00pm. Avoid at all cost."

rosscoinoz - 1 Feb 2008

"Stop Warning. Stop Warning before you even consider booking accommodsation to stay in Harringtons 102.

Make sure you have called every possible chance of accommodation on offer in Hobart also not excluding hotels, and the Hobart Police Station on the off chance they may have an overnight holding cell free for the night.

How the Harrington has been able to maintain their listing with Qantas holidays is a mystery to me, I had booked for 2 nights but only stayed one night that's all I could stand, and never again. The rooms are 2.2 metres square. You can barely open the mini refrigerator without hitting the lumpy beds footer.

There are no windows, just 30 1960 glass brick tiles, with a 4x4 inch television and the aerial is a crunched up ball of foil, and depending on where you locate yourself in the cell depends on the television reception.

The bathroom-serviced supplies are below Western standards, even for an outback truckers petrol station rest point.

So make sure you bring all required toiletries ie soap etc: Remember I have warned you to look elsewhere and if you cannot find other accommodation in Hobart consider visiting another city within Australia or look Overseas, anything
would be better than Harringtons 102, Hobart."

Here is a photo of the Harrington 102 with Soheil Mehrab-Khani's red Mercedes parked outside.

Harrington 102 -- "Give it a miss..." -- New Review At Trip Advisor

2011-04-04T15:11:00.002+10:00

Mehrab-Khani's Hotel, The Harrington 102 has another review, and it is a goodie:

“Don't bother...”

Date of review: Mar 27, 2011

"My friend and i needed last minute accommodation close to CBD Hobart on Friday & Saturday night. We shouldn't have bothered with Harringtons 102.

Arriving at 9pm to our 'luxury accommodation' and filling out a mountain of paperwork (being charged $3 to use my credit card), we were escorted up two flights of tiled stairs (no lift) by a lady who looked like she wanted to be anywhere else! She shuffled around and we entered a TINY room - glass bricks for a window with no curtain/blind. The bathroom was very basic - shower door didn't work properly and only 'half flush' on the toilet was operating. No lightbulb over vanity (it had been removed) and no exhaust fan. Only half roll of toilet paper on holder, so we had to ask for more first thing the next day. Before bed we tried to watch a bit of tv on the tiny screen (two channels) and snowy reception from the 'rabbit ears'. Our sleep was restless as we watched the traffic light colours changing on the wall through the glass bricks, the nightclubs in the area started to hit fullforce at 1am and the constant stream of people walking up the tiled stairs and closing doors didn't help. You could hear everything through the paper thin walls.

Breakfast was in the main foyer and when we arrived at 8:00am the first morning, no-one seemed to be about and it was dark and dingy, so i turned a few lights on. Not long after the same lady shuffled out of the back and immediately tured them off again. She started setting up breakfast (although it was meant to be 7:30am-9:30am, so i expected it to be already set up). She neglected to ask us how we slept, what we were doing for the day or if everything was satisfactory. The menu was very basic, but toast and cup of tea got us by. The next morning was the same routine.

This hotel is obviously run by a family and the lady in charge seemed to have no soul when going about her business. It came across to me as a venue which tried to find every way they could to save a few cents at the discomfort of their patrons. Missing lightbulbs, 'half flush' toilet option, one teabag/coffee sachet in the room for cuppa's, no window finishings, no 'set-top box' for tv reception, no iron/hairdryer in room, no lift, no help from reception at all!

We should have spent the extra $10-$20 and stayed at Mid City Hotel (where i've been a couple times before.) Do yourself a favour and give Harringtons 102 a miss...."

Here is the link: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html

Argument Outside Our Window

2011-03-17T16:57:00.000+11:00

Five minutes ago, after reading the reviews of the Harrington 102 and reading the description of the wife....there she was, in all her glory having an argument outside my window with Mehrab-Khani.

This gave me a chance to observe the accuracy of the description given to her by the disgruntled reviewer in my last post!

Notice he had no problem parking his trailer behind our car again.

Harrington 102 -- Must Read Reviews From Trip Advisor

2011-03-17T16:48:00.001+11:00

Mehrab-Khani and his wife own the Harrington 102 Hotel. The latest reviews of this hotel on Trip Advisor are hysterical and shocking at the same time--

Most Recent Review:

“Warning! an abomination...do not stay here”
1 of 5 stars
Date of review: Feb 7, 2011

This venue is a complete disgrace...
I am a medical doctor and travel frequently for both
business and pleasure.

This is without a doubt the worst excuse for accommodation (and I use the term very loosely) that I have endured in the last decade. I pre booked two nights several days in advance before my stay, and was met by a dishevelled scatty looking woman, who scurried downstairs to open a locked door when I arrived.

My girlfriend and I were cold and hungry after a long road trip, at this point. She firstly did not recognize that we had a booking, and in a surprised fashion she asked to see my printout from the internet (which had already been paid by visa card), and did not seem to know we were coming at all. After fluffing around on an ageing computer which she did not really seem to know how-to operate, she eventually told us that she "may have a room, because someone left...I just have to clean it up first...can you wait?"

I was unhappy and concerned by what seemed to be an introduction infested by gross disorganization, and a fundamental lack of professionalism...however I was polite and obliging - perhaps she would only be 15 minutes or so. Ever the optimist, I endured an extensive 45 minute wait while she haphazardly ran up and down the stairs in the process of preparing our room.

Eventually my girlfriend and I left and informed her that we were hungry and going to eat. No apology was received for her gross display of incompetence. When we returned the floor was wet in the closet sized room that contained no window. We spent some of the night watching some quiet TV. In the morning I noted that one of the tings we were promised was a free "intercontinental breakfast" - this sadly consisted of a tub of weetbix, along side an adjacent tub of rice bubbles, and international roast caterers blend instant coffee, with free milk (I assume it was carnation).

Smouldering silently I sipped a bad cup of coffee as I had inner visions of soon making my way to Hudson's. I then proceeded to make my way over to the grossly incompetent woman who seemed to be in charge of this hell-hole.

I asked calmly for a refund as I communicated that I did not wish to endure another night at- -this .....establishment. I asked for a refund for my 2nd night as I -thought she may have the decency to offer this however I was yelled at and accused of being "-too noisy" -I didn’t realise -this hotel was run by an unmedicated psychotic patient.

Second Most Recent Review:

“Deserves no stars”

Date of review: Nov 5, 2010

Absolutely disgusting!!! Don't be fooled when you read there are reception hours, no one is ever on the reception and you need to call the number and wait for them to open the door.

This took 20mins. Took them forever to fill out the form so that we could stay, whilst this was happening the owners were rudely talking amongst themselves in a foreign language.

The owners left and gave us our key to the room. The hallway up the stairs is dark and not lit up, the exit sign is not lit and is falling from the wall and there were electical wires coming out from the wall.

We opened our room to find a small prison like room. There was a double bed, no bed side tables, no windows, no carpet, the light was gone in the small bathroom. It didnt even have room for a chair.

It was very cold and very unwelcoming. We called them to say we were not staying in a place like this. We ended up paying for another room at wrestpoint that night. We went back to Harringtons in the morning and again no one was on reception and had to call a number.

They did not come out and wouldn't even consider giving some of our money back. They are very rude and unreasonable. DO NOT GO HERE.

Link to reviews on Trip Advisor:

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g255097-d300914-Reviews-Harrington_s_102-Hobart_Tasmania.html

Confirmation Bias

2011-03-17T13:00:00.004+11:00

This is how planning appeal seems to work: Council hire an independent planner to take a position (pass or fail a building), then evidence is looked at to confirm this position, ignoring other evidence.

This is called the confirmation bias and you can see it in the reports done by Planners where some evidence is ignored, and other points are cited which make their case.

This is a variation of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, where bullets are fired at a barn door, then bull eyes are drawn, the shooter now claiming to be a sharpshooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

By it's nature, this is a biased approach, I can't think of any other industry grounded in more fallacies.

Tribunal Adjourned, Then Adjourned Again - Date Unknown

2011-03-17T12:47:00.008+11:00

Hobart City Council has decided to bring in a planner to fight me and take sides with a serial offender Soheil Mehrab-Khani.

This is after Council issued a partial demolish order on Unit 1, at which point the developer applied for a new permit for what he had built using plans from DGJ Potter and the Council BUT it wasn't for he all built --Council did not pick up the errors in the surveys. I was told on at least 3 occasions the surveys were correct.

Fisheye photo above taken at 12.00pm shows the tiny gap the sunlight has to get thru.

Above are some Council Sun Diagrams. On the right are Tecton Diagrams from 5 years ago. These are for 9.00am and 12.00pm. These diagrams were responsible for the planner of the day, Claire Hester saying there would be normal sunlight after 10.00am and Council Director Neil Noye saying that it would be normal after 10.30am.

The diagrams on the left hand side are a set of incorrect diagrams done for Council by DGJ Potter. He has left out the back of my house from these plans so no accurate sun assessment can be done! And yet Planners for Council and Mehrab-Khani have used this drawing to make claims that sunlight to the back of my house is acceptable, saying I will get 2-3 hours winter sunlight on the basis of these drawings!

Planner Liz Wilson claims in her report that the Tecton diagrams and the DGJ Potter diagrams are similar!! You can clearly see this is not the case, the shadows are in different locations and have different shapes.

I had to pay for my own survey and sun diagrams. These were shown at Tribunal and caused a commotion because of the discrepancies. Tribunal ordered all surveyors together (I am not making this up!) and so 3 surveyors eventually agree that the height and levels on my survey are correct.

In another issue, DGJ Potter is claiming the fence is in the wrong place, contrary to the latest title listing as well as the oldest survey in existence of my property, which I have in my possession.

This is the oldest survey in existence --I know because I paid to get a search done 5 years ago. And it is drawn to scale.

But wait --there's more!

Besides the wonderful Freudian slip by DGJ Potter of costructed, he claims that the minimum required setback is 400mm and that they have actually built 460mm setback --both claims are wrong.

A child can measure 380mm from wall to inside boundary, yet I have to employ a surveyor to confirm this.

Building in the new millennium -- it takes 3 surveyors to get together at Tribunal to confirm the height of a less than 5 metre building!

Plans seem to mean very little because Ross Willis himself told us that the developer can build anything, because it would be subject to a Section 56 assessment by Council. And Council only seem to investigate if it is reported (and even then it must be reported often). At that point the developer applies retrospectively.

In Court Again -- Adjourned Till 18th May

2011-03-17T11:38:00.000+11:00

Soheil Mehrab-Khani appeared back in court to plead Not Guilty to 4 Council charges. The matter was adjourned till 18th May.

Meanwhile Mehrab-Khani cut down the 100 year old walnut tree he killed. Everyone in the inner city area loved this tree, Mehrab-Khani started hacking it with a chainsaw 3 years ago, the same weekend he took possession of 157-161 Bathurst St. As documented on this web site, he damaged the roots and refused to put a protection boundary of 3 metres up until the last few months. Hobart City Council ignored letters from myself and neighbour Jenny Wilson nearly 3 years ago.

Head of Compliance at Hobart City Council, Ross Willis ignored at least 6 letters or emails from myself and the Wilson's. Yet Council lawyer Kirsten Turner writes to me telling me Council enforced a protection as soon as they were informed about this. This is an absolute lie, and I have evidence spanning 3 years on this issue. No fines or court action have ever been imposed for this.

In October Ross Willis in the presence of the General Manager and fellow neighbour Alistair Home siad they would not allow Mehrab-Khani to cut the tree down "on principle." Just 2 weeks latter Council approves application to cut down tree. As Mehrab-Khani told neighbour Jenny Wilson, "I know how to kill this tree."

Thank you Hobart City Council for "good governance" .

Mehrab-Khani Doesnt Show Up In Court -- Warrant Issued.

2011-02-16T12:29:00.002+11:00

Well, well. Mehrab-Khani was supposed to appear in Court Room 9 today (the Childrens Court!). He wasn't there, neither was his lawyer. But lawyer for Council Kirsten Turner was there. Ms Turner requested the "shortest adjournment possible" and was offered the date of 4th March at 10.00am by the Magistate.

Ms. Turner didn't realise she is supposed to be at Tribunal on the 4th, along with Mehrab-Khani. An Arrest Warrant was issued against Mehrab-Khani for not appearing in court.

Things are getting interesting.

Mehrab-Khani in Court again in 2 hours time --16 Feb 2011

2011-02-16T08:05:00.000+11:00

I will be there reporting the outcome. Tony tells me its dates for future hearings. I will post the info as soon I it comes to hand.

Hobart City Council Visits My Website

2011-02-08T19:59:00.003+11:00

Are Hobart City Council thinking of booking my services? I fear not, however I am getting multiple visits to my web site. A bit of background checking, perhaps?

Hmmm.

Tribunal for Unit 1 on March 4th--ALL INVITED

2011-02-08T19:13:00.024+11:00

Come on down, the best show in town. Tony and myself are going to take on Mehrab-Khani, Hobart City Council, Engineer Chris Potter, and Surveyor Peter Ray from Pitt and Sherry. Lets see the level of bias that has been going on. The smart money is on "Big Tony".

Council want to partially demolish the building, then decide to approve it (you wonder if bank accounts should be checked), from a building that has many illegal breaches from Mehrab Khani. Of course the Engineer Chris Potter didn't know the set back was wrong, neither did Peter Ray, he emailed me several times to tell me the building was exactly in the right place! Chris Potter said "I thought it was right" at the Directions Hearing for the Tribunal. They are only Engineers and Surveyors after all.

The only one who knew what the setback error was was Council Lawyer Kirsten Turner (she seems to know everything), a pity she couldn't find the measurement she had "written down" somewhere.

The height?? It was right, Council surveyor said so. Pity they never mentioned Council Surveyor also said when asked that the levels on my house were wrong--they had added a metre in height to my house making the Development look smaller by comparison. Council has been hiding this fact for months!

Just when you think it cant get any worse, Council decides that a COMPLETE loss of sunlight into my lounge room is acceptable. The plans said I would have full sun on the shortest day of the year--I have zero sun on the longest day.

Never mind, Director of Council Neil Noye must have made a mistake. Maybe light can't travel around corners after all. Liz Wilson, HCC Planner notes that there was a vacant lot next to me originally, hence I would have received maximum sun at that point! I have NONE now...your point is... Liz??

"This should be rightfully tested in a tribunal", Neil writes. And it will be. Thanks Neil.

Reassuring that the average pleb is able to spend thousands hiring a planner and lawyer and go to Tribunal to tell Council that they are unethical and incompetent! And possibly corrupt.

How else to you explain it? A Planner visits my home to establish that illegal windows are only slightly above the boundary fence by taking a photo with the camera at a distance BELOW the fence line. This Planner, Liz Wilson also takes a photo of the "streetscape" from the angle that makes the Development look smaller, taken from the other end it looks bigger.

Liz also looks at the same sun diagrams that Neil Noye looked at and reaches an opposite conclusion! Same diagram, 2 different results! One with sun, one without. Look at 12.00 noon for example. Sun diagrams must be rocket science, right? Closer to Voodoo, none of the 2 sets of diagrams plus Potters match--what does this say about sun diagrams, let alone Council analysis?

Liz has 15 years experience as a Planner she tells us at the Tree Tribunal, but she gets a basic point of Planning Law wrong by comparing what was built to what he could have built, when this is irrelevant--the fact that the building exists is irrelevant from a point of Planning Law. Liz says that the building would never be approved!! hallelujah. But then she stuffs up basic Planning Law saying in effect, well, its built, how bad is it? Read that again, Liz. The fact that the building has been built is irrelevant!

Of course it's not just Liz. Five years ago Planner from Hobart City Council, Claire Hester decided she knew what my home looked like and had sun diagrams done. She stuffed up the doors with the windows, didn't know where the lounge was, didn't know where the front of the house was (got it wrong in 3 different descriptions), yet decided that she knew enough to make a judgment about sun light in my house when she didn't even know the layout of the house!

Did I complain? Of course. Claire was NOT interested in visiting my home, but I note she did share a few jokes and chuckles with the Developer at a preliminary hearing at the time! I submitted photos with flags up on flagpoles showing that shadow lines, and protesting that no sunlight would enter my lounge.

Director of Council Neil Noye had something to say about this? Yes he did. He said that the neighbour (that's ME!) had "Doctored" the photo's, it was nonsense he said, I would receive unlimited sun after 10.30am in winter.

Net Result? My "doctored" photo's showing NO light at any day of the year turn out to be more accurate than Council Sun Diagrams.

Note: To doctor is to falsify or change!! Not one to mince words is Neil. Well, five years later the building is built, and Neil turns out to be wrong, not me. You can only tell how wrong sun diagrams are AFTER the building has been built. It's built, and Director Of Council, Neil Noye is the one that is wrong.

Liz Wilson obviously has enough experience to pass a building with multiple illegal building breaches, but it seems she is not experienced enough to defend her decision at a tribunal. For that they are calling Ian Stanley, head of Planning. He couldn't figure out setback either. Lets see how he does on the rest.

Lets stop Hobart City Council from walking over people, taking kickbacks or whatever they take to pass illegal buildings. Turn up at the Tribunal 144 Macquarie Street, Level 1 on 4th March.

Tasmanian Government Search Google For--"Hobart planning appeal sunlight"

2011-01-31T18:59:00.002+11:00

Interesting that the Tasmanian Government searched Google for this term--"Hobart planning appeal sunlight." They ended up at my website, had a look around, entered the search term again and ended up back on my web site.

Is someone else appealing against HCC for light deprivation too? Join up and be heard.

Hobart Council Top Planner Ian Stanley Doesn't Know What The Set Back Should Be, Neither Does Engineer, But Lawyer Has It Written Somewhere!

2011-01-31T18:21:00.016+11:00

The Registrar asked Engineer Chris Potter what the set back error was. "I don't know," he said. "I thought it was right". Kirsten Turner, lawyer for HCC said..."I have it written down. I have it some where. It's at the office."

Ian Stanley, the top man for Council Planning turns up and furiously flicks thru pages. He doesn't know. A runner arrives with documentation for Kirsten Turner, lawyer representing Council.

Furious flicking going on. No-one is able to tell what the set back is and what it should be!! No-one asks me -- I am a layman and I know what the discrepancy is! What is going on? Council is attempting to cover up bad decisions. If they can't tell set back error, they are in the wrong business. Maybe they should stick to running Salamanca markets.

An extra metre in height has been added to the height of my home on the building plans too, making the Development look smaller, and now the surveyor that did the Council work confirms that the levels on my home are wrong. This is something Council tried to to hide months ago. We haven't even got to that bit yet.

It's not good enough, Hobart City Council. It's time to accept responsibility.

Broken Leg Claimed By Khani Lawyer--Case Adjourned to 16 Feb. Also Mediation Today At 2.15pm For Unit 1.

2011-01-31T12:22:00.001+11:00

Mehrab-Khani has a broken leg (or was it an ankle...difficult to hear) said his lawyer, a doctor's certificate would be forthcoming we were informed. The cases have been adjourned to the 16th of February.

Meanwhile at 2.15pm today I am in mediation with either Hobart City Council or Mehrab-Khani's Engineer Chris Potter with regard to Unit 1. We do not hold out much hope of gaining any concessions, considering 5 years ago we did the same thing and we were given 400mm extra set back by the Tribunal then. This still hasn't been done, the Tribunal order has been ignored, and yet we are going into mediation again!

No matter how you look at it, Planning in Tasmania is a disaster. State Government has taken Planning powers away from Hobart City Council at the waterfront. What more is there to say?

Mehrab-Khani Back in Court Jan 31To Set Date For More Trials.

2011-01-27T11:25:00.001+11:00

Mehrab-Khani is back in court on Monday 31st January to set a trial date for 4 Hobart City Council prosecutions. Hopefully The Mercury will be there to cover this.

The coverage from The Mercury has been fantastic, so many people have seen the articles and are waiting for more, particularly in my street!

Land Tax Fraud Hearing Wraps Up -- Decision on 10 Feb

2011-01-22T17:10:00.001+11:00

Street Provocation

2011-01-21T16:31:00.010+11:00

I am reposting a video I shot last year because it has been submitted in evidence last week, and clearly shows Soheil Mehrab-Khani attempting to intimidate or attack Tony Jacobs.

Briefly, the circumstances of the video are that Tony visited me one Sunday. As he left my home and walked across the street to his car, I heard this loud shriek and saw Mehrab-Khani and wife running across the road from the Development towards Tony as he was getting into his car. I ran into my office, grabbed the video camera and ran upstairs to my balcony. I started filming as Mehrab-Khani and wife were standing in front of Tony's car.

I had 17 photo's printed from video screen shots of the video which were also submitted as evidence at Tribunal last week. Mehrab-Khani was asked why he ran across the road towards Tony, why he stood in front of his car, did he intend to attack Tony and so on.

He denied being near Tonys car, said that his wife was "probably cuddling" him, not holding him back, he couldn't remember that The Mercure Hotel was across the road from his development even though he has driven there probably a hundred times or more...and so on.

Then the video of the incident was played where you could clearly see he was intimidating Tony while in the car and was even holding up traffic. Notice what happens when the wife spots me filming. She shouts loudly, knowing they have been caught.

Needless to say, he didn't have much to say about the video when it was played.

Attempt To Cut Down Walnut Tree with New Permit.

2011-01-20T19:04:00.004+11:00

Mehrab-Khani has killed an 80-100 year old walnut tree in the inner city which all residents loved and which a Tribunal ordered him to protect during construction. Hobart City Council never enforced a protection zone for 2 years, despite multiple letters from another neighbour and myself, and never fined him for his behaviour.

He has now applied for a new permit to get the tree cut down. Tony and myself won't be defending it anymore because my focus is now in getting Unit 1 next to my property dealt with at a Tribunal.

Having said that, I was gobsmacked last week when Tony Jacobs was cross examining Mehrab-Khani during the Anti Discrimination Tribunal. Tony asked him why there was no 3 metre barrier protection around the tree as ordered by Tribunal and showed him the topmost photo, when Mehrab-Khani answered that is was only supposed to be there during excavation stage! In fact it wasn't there during excavation stage either except during the last few months....but the point was that Mehrab-Khani had no idea what his building approval said or he lied in a court of law.

The building approval clearly said the barrier needed to be up during construction phase, not just excavation.

Shame on Mehrab-Khani for killing this tree, and shame on Hobart City Council for doing absolutely nothing to protect it.

News Flash: I have been told just 5 minutes ago by a neighbour that Mehrab-Khani had verbally told this neighbour some months ago that he "knew how to kill this tree."

Back In Court --Another 3 Hearings For Soheil Mehrab-Khani

2011-01-20T17:55:00.016+11:00

Soheil Mehrab-Khani was back in court today for 3 more hearings. Court room 6 was the venue. The first case was the Land Tax Fraud, the second case was the thumb-in-eye Breach Of Restraint Order against myself mentioned in an earlier post, and the final hearing is for smashing the windscreen of the car of Tony Jacobs in a public street, also mentioned earlier.

I was in court in case I was needed for the second hearing, but it seems that the Land Tax Fraud case will go till tomorrow and the other cases will be rescheduled.

I went into court to watch an hour and a half of the first hearing. The Mercury was there again, covering the case. Mehrab-Khani had a lawyer, Mr Gunston to represent him for the first case. I watched Mr Gunston cross examine Tony Jacobs while Mehrab-Khani turned around 3 times to stare at me with a sneer. He glared at me for 5 or 6 seconds each time. The last time his lawyer grabbed him by the shoulders and turned him facing front. His lawyer is obviously trying to keep Mehrab-Khani under control to prevent the fiasco from last week happening again.

An amazing moment for me in court was Mehrab-Khani's lawyer Mr Gunston, asking Tony Jacobs if there was a mounted video camera that could rotate under my balcony!! Hilarious. The conspiracy theories from Mehrab-Khani are always entertaining if not bizarre.

Mr Gunston also tried very hard to stop Tony Jacobs talking about the actions of Mehrab-Khani against him such as the spitting and screaming, and saying, "I will make you cwy", and concentrated on the retaliatory gesture of a "2 finger salute" and the "See a psychiatrist"and "Get F..ed" from Tony.

Photo's showing side fence with holes punched and kicked by Mehrab-Khani

He asked Tony if he had ever given Mehrab-Khani him a "2 finger salute". Tony admitted doing this when "severely provoked" as The Mercury reporter put it.

The "severe provocation" against Tony Jacobs included:

Thirteen attacks on Tony when driving a motor vehicle.

Yelling and screaming which included, "You are a Public Servant, you should get down on your knees and serve me."

Six occasions of kicking and punching holes in the side fence. (see photos)

On one occasion Tony was making a sandwich in his kitchen when Mehrab-Khani spat on his window, Tony gave him the 2 finger salute, where upon Mehrab-Khani called the Police. Tony pointed out the still dribbling spit down his window to the Police!

Mehrab-Khani mentioned last week at the Anti Discrimination Tribunal that "in his culture" they get married for life. Someone should tell Mehrab-Khani that in "this culture", spitting is not on. It is disgusting and a health hazard.

He is back in court tomorrow. News Flash: Just been informed by the Police Prosecutor that the evidence has all been heard and the Magistrate will make a decision on this case on 10th Feb. My case of Breach of Restraint Order will be heard on 13th April and Tony Jacobs case of his car windscreen being smashed will be the day after, on the 14th April.

Website Visitor Traffic Goes Thru The Roof During Tribunal

2011-01-15T22:04:00.006+11:00

The hits to the website is increasing dramatically since the Tribunal. There have been hits from all around the country, even the Bahai (which Mehrab-Khani belongs to) and the Tasmanian Government (which he doesn't, it only appears so!).

I have decided to open up another blog dedicated to Hobart City Council. Instead of going into intricate detail about Hobart City Council and issues of incompetence, I will only mention general issues and link it to the site when it is up and running.

I would like to invite ANY people that have been wronged by Hobart City Council to email me with details in due course. I will upload all cases to a new site. In this day and age, to have people who can't read plans properly, who are unable to tell the height and set back of a building is wrong and ignore all emails and letters about this and then to try cover it up, or who privately say one thing at Council then say something completely different when on record, is wrong and is a travesty.

If you have had your sunlight taken by Hobart City Council, let me know. If you have had planning rules twisted, bent and ignored, let me know.

Hobart City Council has taken ALL my sunlight from my principle living area, the lounge. Not some, not 50%...ALL. Yet the Director of Hobart City Council, Neil Noye writes a report that there will be unlimited sunshine coming into my lounge from 10.30am on the 21st June onwards once the development is built. Planner Liz Wilson puts a different spin on the Sun Diagrams, her 12.00 noon and 3.00pm analysis contradicts the Tecton Diagrams she refers to, and she doesn't even get the date right.

Hobart City Council know they cannot amend the building permit because I was in Tribunal 5 years ago, and Tribunal ordered 400mm setback be taken off the driveway and added to the building set back. This was never done! Despite Peter Ray from Pitt and Sherry denying the set back was wrong, despite Engineer Chris Potter denying this and even Council over a 4 month month period, they now admit it was not done!

Council is enforcing this now, right? You have got to be joking. Hobart City Council is now attempting (which I am fighting) to pass a NEW permit to bypass the Tribunal Order from 5 years ago, and make me go away.

I spoke to a person a few days ago who also had sunlight taken away from his home, thanks to Hobart City Council. His five and a half year battle yielded nothing, mine is going into the sixth year.

It's time to use some people power.

Blogs go right to the top of Google search, so any searches of Hobart City Council will soon have a less than desired effect from Councils point of view.

4 Day Anti-Discrimination Tribunal--The Best Show In Town

2011-01-15T21:27:00.007+11:00

The long awaited anti-discrimination tribunal finally took place on Tuesday 11th Jan. Mehrab-Khani is accusing Tony Jacobs of racial discrimination. I was there for the last 3 days and can tell you it was amazing. Mehrab-Khani had his say and raved on for an hour on the first day, and for the next 3 days he was in the witness box being cross examined by Tony Jacobs.

The trial featured lengthy tirades from Mehrab-Khani, and he was continually told to answer the question, or to wait till the question was asked before he said "No. He rambled on, changed subjects, screamed abuse, shouted over the Tribunal Member and even accused Tony Jacobs friend Barry who was in the public gallery, of being a corrupt Mercury reporter!

Tony was in great form and the 3 days I was there went so quickly, it felt as if I was in some kind of surreal theatre. Amazingly, after 4 days at the Tribunal, Tony had not finished cross examining Mehrab-Khani. There are a few juicy bits of material left (the best is yet to come in my opinion!), so that's something to look forward to. However the case had to be adjourned because the Tribunal Member had to go back to Victoria, so the case will continue a little further into the year.

The Mercury was there to cover the Tribunal as can be seen by nearly full page coverage on the first day. I suspect that Mehrab-Khani will now have the Mercury following him to every trial or tribunal. His next court appointment is next Thursday 20th Jan in the Fraud and Deception case, and Tony tells me the Mercury will be there too!

A few highlights for me were the absolute crap he made up when he brought me into his rantings, how he offered to be deported to Zimbabwe or Sudan if he is proved to be a liar, and having security come into court when he had a meltdown, screaming and ranting about Tony being a child rapist!

Hobart City Council -- Assumptions, Biases + Contradictions

2011-01-04T12:45:00.004+11:00

I would like to surgically dissect the Planning Report from Council Planner Liz Wilson over the next few days. Sometimes measurements are tendered, mostly they are not. When no measurement is given, it is sometimes described as "a bit", "nowhere as near " , "no discernible", "not significant" etc. Instead of evidence, the latest report/approval/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.... gives a subjective viewpoint which contradicts the Planner from 2005 and even Director of Council, Neil Noye. What this means in simple language is that the Council is looking at the same Sun Diagrams (this will be my first example) as from 5 years ago, and yet come to an entirely different conclusion!

The long and short of it is that this is a real life example of Council writing a Planning Report looking at the same data in 2 different ways, writing 2 opposing viewpoints on the exact same information.

Here are a set of Sun Diagrams commissioned by Council 5 years ago by Tecton. There was an initial first set which I have in my possession and which I vigorously disputed, and so Council submitted the second set which were supposed to be more accurate and expensive (I was told by an independent planner in Kingston).

Firstly, the 2 sets of sun diagrams (1st set not shown) from Council do not match. They are not exactly the same. The sun's orbit was worked out hundreds of years ago, yet sun diagrams are not consistent. This alone should be a problem, but when it is compared to a real world example where I rig up poles and flags to see the actual shadow, this doesn't match the diagrams either. I will post my flags and poles later. For now I would like to show that Council has no problem contradicting themselves, writing a report/approval to reflect both opposing views! It depends whether you want the building approved or not as to how the spin is written.

Here is what Neil Noye, Director of Hobart City Council said about these exact same Sun Diagrams 5 years ago:

"The Shadow Diagrams produced by Tecton confirm that the north east elevation of the rear skillion section of 163 Bathurst St including the door into the lounge room will have unrestricted solar access from approximately 10.30am in the worst case scenario ie 21 June."

I will get back to a few more things Neil said, but we will start with this one. Here is Neil' Noye's report:

The current Planner, Liz Wilson interprets these very same sun diagrams in the totally opposite way and appears to say in effect that I am getting no sun at all, now and it's bad luck but tearing down unit 1 and rebuilding it to it's approved plans would make no difference.

I will start with this comment from Liz: "The building will cause significant overshadowing of the glass door in the 9.00am and 12.00 noon sun diagrams drawn for June 22."

To Be Continued.

Council Approves Unit 1, Attempts To Withdraw Demoliton Order On Un-Permitted Work

2010-12-21T10:14:00.016+11:00

At the Tribunal hearing on 20th December, Council lawyer attempted to withdraw Council Application 18/2010 for an order, in part, to demolish un-permitted work on Unit 1, on the basis that is was now approved.

Tony Jacobs objected and pointed out that I am now a full party to the action, and thus it cannot be dismissed by agreement of the Parties unless I also agree. He also said that an Appeal against Council decision would be lodged, as indeed it was on December 22nd. And so 18/2010 was adjourned sine die (indefinitely) until the determination of my appeal. This means work on Unit 1 is frozen.

In an amazing turn around, Council passed the new Planning Application on Unit 1. Its a new Permit but is treated as an Amendment! Planner Liz Wilson in her Discussion and Conclusion says that if solely based on a Unit 1 application it would be refused, but in comparison with what he had a right to build, the changes aren’t significantly different. This is Council logic at it's best.

Three letters were received as representation, meaning this should have gone to the Aldermen. Nope, it didn't happen--it was signed off by Neil Noye of Hobart City Council. It turns out Mehrab-Khani was asked if he could wait till 24th January to see the Aldermen! And he refused to "grant" the extra time! Now there's a surprise. Would you like to see the Aldermen ? Umm, thanks but no thanks! Sort of defeats the whiole purpose of having Aldermen if Applicant is asked!

The Planning Report by Planner Liz Wilson mentions the setback that was given to us by Tribunal in 2006 and then says, "Unit 1, as constructed does not comply with this condition, or with the approved floor plans and elevations".

Read that again. Council now agrees the setback is wrong and that the building does not match the plans or elevations! After 6 months of me saying the same thing! One of the biggest Surveying companies in this country, Pitt and Sherry who had Peter Ray on the job along with Mehrab-Khani's Structural Engineer Chris Potter have denied this for 6 months.

Chris Potter either couldn't understand or didn't want to understand the difference between what Tribunal gave us (an ADDITIONAL setback of 400mm) compared to what he gave us (400mm setback at the closest point) thought this was the same thing. I am a layman and I can tell the difference. Peter Ray in an email to me "double checked" the setback (presumably this means he did it twice) and maintained it was BETTER than the plans, then he said the wall was "where it should be." In another email to us he said we would be worse off if he followed the approved plans. (the building would be 400mm closer, he said.)

What is going on here? I emailed Council, Peter Ray and Chris Potter and was either ignored or told everything was going according to plans. It turns this is nonsense. So did they lie or did they make a mistake? This is incompetence no matter how you look at it.

Planner Liz Wilson in conclusion says that basically the building would have been rejected if accessed alone, but compared to what he had the right to build and what he built, it's not too bad. Its still a 2 story building. Closer, higher, with illegal deck and windows nearly on the boundary.....what's the problem?

Hobart City Council misses the point--we went to Tribunal in 2006 and gained hard fought for concessions on a building that breached 10 planning guidelines back then and which was failed by the Aldermen and which was only passed on a technicality when the lawyers came in on appeal because of a Council error (yes, another one) in conditions. The point of fact is that the building is nearly 1 metre too high (850mm ) and that it was failed at that height by Council in 2005! And they refuse to confirm this because of potential legal ramifications.

Now they feel they can overturn what Tribunal gave us and take no responsibility for passing flawed plans which don't match what has been built. Council is aware that the architect Maria Gigney created a major stuff up in the plans because Head of Compliance at HCC Ross Willis said to me in October in the presence of witnesses that the height is right but the numbers don't add up." Get that? Council did not know what the problem was with height in October, but they knew something was wrong. And here's why the numbers don't add up, something Council has not been able to figure out for months:

Depending how you look at it, architect Maria Gigney either did not update her figures when she reduced the height of Unit 1(it was knocked back by Council and resubmitted with a reduced height by 1 metre), OR had a bad day at the office and miscalculated the height of our building by 1 metre, the height of the boundary wall by 1 metre, AND the existing brick wall used as a reference in the plans by 1 metre. In other words, my house has been artificially increased in height by 1 metre on the plans to make the development look smaller than it is!

They knew they had a problem with the building not matching the drawings on the plans because the first point on the original planning application said:

"The use and development shall be substantially in accordance with documents and drawings that comprise the planning application..."

Every survey they commissioned measured Unit 1 and compared it to the numbers on the plan. But they didn't measure my home which was 1 metre higher on the plans making the development look smaller in comparison, nor did they measure the boundary fence which was 1 metre higher in the plans, nor did they measure the brick wall used as a reference which was also 1 metre higher than real life. In other words, the plans artificially increased the height of my house and boundary fence, making it impossible to build as per the drawings. These flawed plans were passed by Council.

In fact after writing to Ross Willis of HCC that the brickwall used as a reference in all the presentations to get this development passed was 1600mm NOT 2600mm as on the plans, Ross said in effect it didn't matter because the wall was not approved under the plan!

Hellooooooo...what about my home? It's also 1 metre taller and wasn't passed on the planning scheme, but it was used as a reference on the drawings and in the documents of this planning scheme to make a judgement on visual impact! And having everything 1 metre taller around the development makes it look smaller!

How hard is that to understand? Council has never responded to this argument in numerous letters and emails over a period of 3 months. They just do another survey which confirms the height to the overblown measurements on the plan and then wonder why the building doesn't match the drawing. It is unbelievable in this day and age that so called professionals (and I use that term lightly) are unable to read plans and build to plans.

Looking at the drawings and looking at the actual building, it is easy to see they are different.

The above montage is what has actually been built. This montage height was failed by Council 5 years ago yet this what has been built. The montage was hastily prepared for the Aldermen 5 years ago -- note it says to ignore the height because it had been amended by a reduction of 1 metre. Just look at the colour, it says....which by the way was also ignored by Mehrab-Khani. Every single letter I have written to Council on this issue has also been ignored.

The plans above is what should have been built. The measurement at on my balcony is 5300mm when in actual fact it 4300mm, 1 metre difference from plans to reality. This artificially increases the height of my property.

In a conversation with Council Planner Liz Wilson before the approval, she agreed the building did not match the drawing plans and she didn't know why because the survey had come back and was deemed to be correct! She told me it was now built and she was not concerned with what had happened in the past, she was only concerned how it affected me now! Subtext--forget about what was approved or knocked back in the past, forget about what concessions Tribunal gave you 5 years ago....that's all history!

ACTUAL measurement marked off with tape on my balcony, showing the 4300mm point. In fact 5300mm is close to my gutter.

The balcony floor should be level with the existing brick wall says architect Maria Gigney. It's 850mm too high. Inconsistant? Never mind, ignore it. And that is what has happened. Every single letter and email to Council has ignored the inconsistencies and ignored the differences in the drawings to the actual build.

Planner Liz Wilson says the building does not match elevation but then thinks my 1 metre height difference is wrong because her survey tells her so! When she was told that that the figures on my house were inflated to make the unit look smaller in comparison and that is why the actual building looked higher than the drawings, I was met with a "I don't know". Well, this is not good enough from Council. We are in the 21st Century, not building pyramids.

The architect says in the plans that the balcony floor is 1.1 metres lower than our balcony floor. Actual measurement? Yep, its 850mm out!

The architect says in the plans that the first floor of Unit 1 should be level with the existing boundary fence. Actual measurement? 850mm too high!

That's why the bedroom window can look at our bedroom door and visa versa. And that is why the kitchen and glass ceiling were deleted in these plans-- Peter Ray and Chris Potter realised the plans were flawed and that the building would have gross inconsistencies because the kitchen would become a "parapet" in the words of Potter, when the architect clearly says that the kitchen ceiling will be the same height as the existing boundary fence.

Inconsistency after inconsistency has been ignored, with only the numbers from a demonstrably flawed plan being used.

The final insult being that the supposed 403mm that Peter Ray measured "twice" and which was NOT what Tribunal gave us, actually measures at 380mm. They couldn't even do this right.

And now, going into the sixth year since the plans were submitted, the building is confirmed to be too close, has the wrong elevation and does not match the drawings!

What a surprise! Actually, what is surprising is that I, being a complete layman can read plans and see problems and inconsistencies 6 months before "professional" Surveyors and Engineers and Council Compliance Officers can't see.

So it's off to Tribunal (again) for Tony and I. What is the point of a Tribunal if they can override it and take away things you were given? This is so wrong it needs to be defended vigorously, and it will be. I am backing myself and Tony at short odds on this one.

Notice Of Planning Amendments Not Put Up

2010-12-20T13:24:00.001+11:00

So Mehrab-Khani applies for Planning Amendments and needs to re-advertise and display a notice on his property so people can make representation and object.

Except that the notice is NOT put up. It's on the ground behind some building materials. On day 3 I went to Council and notified them.They assured me that someone would go on site that very day. Indeed, within the hour a silver car stops and a young lady gets out. She doesn't talk to anyone or look for Mehrab-Khani--she just tapes the notice to the window and drives off.

Twenty minutes later I am outside my property when the Mehrab-Khani comes out and notices the sign stuck to the window of Unit 1. He assumes I did it and starts telling his workers I trespassed on his property! Back on the phone to Council, I tell them this is not on, someone should have spoken to Mehrab-Khani that they has taped the notice up and that they had better phone him now ASAP because I would not be happy if he tries to slap a Trespass Summons on me!

The Senior Planner at Hobart City Council phones me back and assures me he would phone Mehrab-Khani this very moment telling him a Council Officer taped up the notice!

Unbelievable but true.

Appeal Against Cutting Down Walnut Tree -- Tribunal Decision Is Out

2010-12-20T12:52:00.004+11:00

Last week the decision was handed down by Tribunal. But first a recap--

We appealed a Council decision to cut down a walnut tree that had heritage significance. No reason was given why the tree was to be cut down. On appeal we learn that an aborist from the Botanical Gardens, Jerry Romanski said the tree was dying and should be cut down. The tree was dying because the roots had been cut and no 3 metre boundary had been put around the tree during construction as directed by a Tribunal.

We appealed on the basis that Mr. Romanski said to Tony Jacobs in a private conversation that he could really only be positive the tree had no hope when examined in January with the stress of the summer dry (he examined it in June). So that was our appeal--lets examine the tree again in January and if it has no hope, we will withdraw our appeal.

This wasn't good enough for Mehrab-Khani or Hobart City Council. They wanted no adjournment, they wanted decision from Tribunal there and then.

Notice NO barrier around tree. It had been hacked with a chainsaw and had it's roots cut and driven over by a bobcat and even Mehrab-Khani's black BMW as seen above. Council ignored any letters or emails over a 2 year period and only enforced a perimeter during a Council blitz right at the end. Even then there was no 3 metre protection all around the tree, only at the sides.

The decision from the Tribunal came out last week. We won! Unbelievably, we won with a long shot. The tribunal basically said that the object of the clause was to protect the tree and Council had no power to change a Tribunal decision! Ironically, if Mehrab-Khani and the Council agreed to adjourn the proceedings until the tree could be examined in January, it is likely we would have withdrawn our appeal!! Now the tree stays. Tony Jacobs played this beautifully, while maintaining a realistic exit strategy. The gung-ho tactics of Council worked against them.

This ruling is good news for us for the next Tribunal against Unit 1 because there were breaches of the last Tribunal 5 years ago. The "take away" from all this as far as I am concerned is that Council had no power to change a Tribunal decision!

Tribunal number 2 for Unit 1 will happen some time next year, meanwhile there is an indefinite freeze on building at Unit 1 until this is resolved!

Development Before Tribunal 20th Dec 2010--Court To Follow

2010-12-14T12:46:00.003+11:00

Mehrab-Khani continues to build illegally, and the Tribunal and Court cases mount up. I am in Tribunal against him along with HCC on the 20th December (although this appear to be a directions hearing only, meaning the actual Tribunal will probably be some time in Jan 2011).

I am alleging Unit 1 was built too close to the boundary, it was built too high, lack of privacy issues as well as sunlight deprivation. It seems that Hobart City Council may be getting a bit more serious and are taking Mehrab-Khani to Court. There are potentially large fines involved, and Mehrab-Khani has been convicted of 3 building offenses already.

The charges brought against Mehrab-Khani By Hobart City Council relate to Unit 1 on my boundary (better late then never --I have been complaining about it for 6 months!) and the collapsed retaining wall on the boundary of Melville Street.

Thanks to Tony Jacobs for uncovering these charges as well as supplying Tasmanian Legislation indicating the potential severity of the fines.

Glenorchy Council Judgement Against Mehrab-Khani

2010-12-14T12:28:00.004+11:00

I posted some details of Glenorchy Council vs Mehrab-Khani, but here is the full judgement. I love the bit about the Dry Cleaning sign, the mind boggles!

Mehrab-Khani Lies To Magistrate

2010-12-14T12:04:00.000+11:00

After listing Mehrab-Khani's very full Court diary, this will seem even more ludicrous:

Tony Jacob's mentions that when Mehrab-Khani appeared before Magistrate Olivia McTaggart on November 30 in respect to Damage Of Property and Breach Of Restraint Order, she specifically asked if he had any other matters and he answered, "No, only Anti Descrimination."

This is the second time he has denied having any other matters before the Courts.

Mehrab-Khani Court Diary for New Year

2010-12-14T11:04:00.001+11:00

Thanks to Tony Jacobs for his superb work in keeping up with all the doings and undoings of Mehrab-Khani. Tony has supplied the latest court updates:

Following several requests here is the complete (as far as I’m aware)

KHANI JANUARY COURT DIARY.

Tues Jan 11^th -Court 6,Magistrates Court (upstairs,hard left [city end] & the only Court facing Liverpool St. Quite a few seats available-The Anti-Discrimination case against me by Mr K has been long relished.

Wed Jan 12^th -Anti Discrim case
Thur Jan 13^th -Anti-Discrim listed to continue.

-he is listed in another Court room for trial date allocation on charges of:-

a) Damage Property,&
b) Breach of Restraint Order

Fri Jan 14^th -also listed for Anti-Discrim hearing

Thur Jan 20^th -his trial on charge of Dishonestly Acquiring a Financial Advantage,also in Magistrate Court.

Fri Jan 21^st -his Dishonestly Acquiring case listed to conclude

Mon Jan 31^st -he listed to Plead & likely trial date allocation on 4 HCC Complaints:-

a) Breach of S.85 (1) Building Act [re Unit 1,161 Bathurst St],

b) Breach of S.63 (2) (c) the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act [unit 1],

c) Breach of S.121 Building Act [carried out building work (effecting the residents of 138 Melville without notifying them),and
d) Breach of S.127 Building Act (carried out work effecting neighbours without their agreement)

In ADDITION on Mon Dec 20^th he is appearing before the Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal at a Directions type hearing that may set a date for the hearing of an HCC application (now joined by Tom & Kerrie Berger) for an Order that (inter alia) all work at Unit 1,161 Bathurst St that has been carried out contrary to the planning permit be demolished.

His HISTORY with Building,etc matters in the last 4 years includes:-

1.Glenorchy Council v him TASRMPAT 219 (Oct ’06)

He was ordered to apply for a planning permit for a block wall he had erected on Main Rd & Regina St within 7 days;if not done or if a permit not granted he Ordered to demolish the wall.

He Ordered to construct a solid panel to interrupt the “original planter which has been removed from the front window”

He Ordered to re-install a Dry Cleaning sign on the Main Rd facade & box around it.

2.Him v HCC TASRMPAT 1/7/09

He did work at 33 Marlborough St without a permit.

The Council acted.

He then applied for a permit.

This was an Appeal by him against the permit conditions then granted.

The decision includes these words-

-“the development application…sought approval for work already carried out”,

-“eventually after a protracted & somewhat tortuous process,this appeal came on”,

-“no evidence,at all,or any material was filed on behalf of [K]”

(with one small exception the Appeal was dismissed)

3.HCC v him TASRMPAT 169 26/8/09

This gave him 6 months (expiring in Jan 2010) in respect of 33 Marlborough St to:-

-remove the fill dumped there,

-reinstate any excavation works.

-submit a vegetation management plan for revegetation of the property,&

-within 21 days of approval of a vegetation plan-carry out that work

{the property has a condition prohibiting vegetation or ground disturbance except in a small building envelope}

{it would seem that this has been ignored & repeated attempts made to sell it}

{no enforcement action appears to have been taken as yet by the HCC}

4.About October 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of s.170 Building Act re 178 Brisbane St. He eventually pleaded Guilty about June 2010 & was fined.

5.About November 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of S.170 Building Act re 44 Bay Rd,Newtown.

He eventually pleaded Guilty mid 2010 & was fined.

6.About November 2009 HCC prosecuted him for breach of S.170 Building Act re 157-161 Bathurst St.

He eventually pleaded Guilty mid 2009 & was fined.

Happy Christmas & a Great New Year,

Tony

Mehrab-Khani Court Appearance Gets Mercury Newspaper Mention

2010-12-14T10:46:00.003+11:00

Mehrab-Khani has been mentioned in the Mercury in connection with Court appearance on 30th November for smashing Tony Jacob's windscreen and for breaching a Restraint Order against myself. Notwithstanding that the Mercury got the spelling on my name wrong, it is fantastic to see that Mehrab-Khani is picking up media interest. He is a very worthy participant in any media interest!

He will be in Court on 13th Jan with a possible hearing on 20th Jan. I have been contacted by the Police as a witness.

Mehrab-Khani has a very full Court and Tribunal diary for the New Year. Details to follow.

Tale Of Two Tribunals

2010-11-16T10:59:00.000+11:00

On 29 September, after 5 months of complaints about illegal work on Unit 1 next door to me,
I wrote a 28 page letter with dozens of photo's and delivered a copy to Neil Noye Of Hobart City Council, as well as the Managing Director Mr. Pitt of Pitt and Sherry as well as Government Minister David O'Byrne as well as the Greens (the 100 year old Walnut Tree is apparently dying -- 3 years of driving over roots with cars bobcats and graders might have something to do with it).

The next day a Tribunal on Unit 1 was launched but no-one was informed because it was done in a "hurry." I was informed at 3.00pm the day before because I happened to be at Council with Tony Jacobs trying to get a meeting with Neil Noye. I made myself part of the proceedings along with Tony Jacobs who will be my advisor, adding another 7 points to the 5 points that Council are following.

Council has listed 5 points for a "demolish" order, but to my despair have left out what I consider the most important points, the Height and Setback discrepancies. A second Tribunal has been launched regarding the close to 100 year old Walnut Tree. It is apparently dying and Council have now given permission to cut it down. I am in an appeal, along with neighbours Alistair and Jenny Home.

What has me gobsmacked is that after 3 years of complaining about the tree being hacked with a chainsaw, driven over roots with all manner of mechanical devices, all of which I photographed and reported to Council but never heard a thing from, let alone a 3 metre barrier never being put up as required by Heritage to protect the tree which was deemed to have significant heritage value (a tape barrier was thrown around the tree just before a Council blitz towards the end).....now the tree is reported to be in poor shape!

I have made myself part of that proceeding too, alleging Unit 2 is built closer to the tree than planning permitted and also being built too high.

At this point Council is doing an "Audit" on Units 2, 3 4. A survey was done on Unit 1 and it was deemed to be "correct in height". This is a point on which I differ.

Mirroring

2010-11-15T18:30:00.003+11:00

Spotted neighbours Alistair and Jenny talking to Mehrab-Khani today. And they were mirroring each others body language!

Persuant

2010-11-15T18:24:00.002+11:00

I love it that Council are using 14th Century English to start off their sentences to the Plebs... Persuant to Act 8 (1) etc etc. I received a letter today from Council starting off with Persuant basically telling me I have 2 weeks to object about the latest modifications to the development, never mind that it was never built legally in the first place.

It's been advertised today and now we have 2 weeks to object to these changes in the development. This is like Yes Minister, they build a property that is out of specifications, then add even more illegal bits that even the architect never dreamed about. And Council say.."forget about what happened 5 years ago...how does this affect you NOW? (yes, they said that to me!)

Council have a fabulous techniques for ignoring the past, but it doesn't work for me. They build too high, take my daylight and privacy and then say...don't worry about it...what do you think of these latest additions? We have a balcony right outside your kitchen window, taking all your daylight wasn't that bad etc etc.

So we have 2 weeks to respond to to the latest raft of illegal additions before the other illegal additions have even been dealt with in Tribunal!

Tree Adjournment Fails--Full Hearing Dec 8

2010-11-11T15:54:00.002+11:00

The attempted adjournment was turned down by Tribunal today, so there will be a full hearing to try to save the walnut tree on 8th Dec.

Parking Ticket Sets Him Off

2010-11-11T15:52:00.003+11:00

I am sitting in my office and look out my window. A parking inspector is writing a ticket on and sticking it on Mehrab-Khani's black BMW. As I watch, Mehrab-Khani comes running, he tears the ticket off his windscreen and tries to hand it back to the inspector. The inspector doesn't want to know about it.

Then Mehrab-Khani launches into a tirade, calling us F..ing Pigs as he points to our house staring at the top window (he doesn't know I am on the bottom floor because our windows are tinted) and carries on shouting expletives, thinking we called the Parking Inspector (we didn't). The inspector has a look at what Mehrab-Khani is freaking out about then walks off, none the wiser. The tirade continues as he continually looks up to our balcony, thinking we must be upstairs for some reason. He moves his car and carries on giving our property filthy looks.

It's moments like this why I always have a camera charged and ready to go!

Walnut Tree Greening Up

2010-11-10T17:48:00.000+11:00

The walnut tree that Mehrab-Khani wants to cut down is getting greener by the day. The Tribunal to consider the case for adjournment till January whereby the tree can be re-examined by an expert as to it's condition and health, is on tomorrow.

I have lodged a letter for the adjournment, as has neighbour Alistair via lawyer Craig Mackie and Council have said they will not oppose adjournment, leaving Mehrab-Khani to oppose it on his own. I will post the outcome tomorrow. Here is a pic of the tree today, 10th November 2010.

Amateur Hour

2010-11-10T17:27:00.004+11:00

Two shipping containers have been boxed in. Mehrab-Khani phoned for a truck to pick them up today. Truck number 1 appears, the containers are on the right of the picture:

No luck, truck can't turn into driveway. Mehrab-Khani hits the phone:

Truck number 2 appears:

It can't get in either, but undaunted, Mehrab-Khani tells the driver to try again. Come out wider, he says:

Another conversation ensues.

"There is no hope," I hear Mehrab-Khani say. Truck number 2 drives off.

The next day he finds a shorter truck. Truck number 3 arrives and with some fiddling, manages to get the two shipping containers out and off site. Wouldn't it be a coincidence if two shipping containers arrive at Sandy Bay at 33 Marlborough Rd?

Walnut Tree Tribunal--Case For Ajournment Now Thur 11 Nov

2010-11-08T18:40:00.008+11:00

Received an email today from the Tribunal. They are having a hearing on Thursday morning the 11th Nov to determine whether the case will be adjourned till January as requested by myself and Alistair + Jenny Home so that an expert can testify as to the condition of the tree in the summer dry season.

They have brought this forward from Dec 8. There is now a very real chance to save the tree because Craig Mackie representing the Homes is seeking an adjournment till January, as am I, and Council have said they will not oppose such an adjournment. Leaving only you-know-who to oppose it. And in my opinion (being a layman, of course!) the tree appears to be fine. Time will tell.

The outrageous demands made of your time along with the lodging of $68 at a Tribunal (which are useless unless enforced!), all in the name of getting Council to do a job properly means that I have resolved to write a book on how to defend your property against Developers, building breaches and Council apathy. It might be called something like Lies, Damned Lies and Developments.

A pic of the tree from a minute ago:

And from a few weeks ago when Tony and myself went to the Homes residence:

Walnut Tree -- Council Agrees to Cut it Down

2010-11-08T11:47:00.013+11:00

In 2007 Mehrab-Khani took possession of 157-161 Bathurst St. On the same weekend he took possession, he started cutting the Walnut Tree, which has heritage significance, with a chainsaw and did not stop until I started taking photo's.

I sent them to Council and never heard from them again. In April 2008 along with my neighbour at 153 Bathurst St, we mailed a letter to Council complaining about Mehrab-Khani driving over the roots of the tree with a Bobcat and a car. I supplied photo's and have a copy of this letter. Nothing was heard from Council.

My wife and myself made two more phone calls as well as sending another 2 letters by email, one in April 2010, another on 10th May 2010. A generic response from Ross Willis of Hobart City Council saying that they received our letters about the lack of barrier that was supposed to be put around the tree, and that they would get back to me. He didn't. We also complained about the bobcats and grader and caterpillar driving around the base of the tree. Again I supplied photo's. The letter on 10th May was an 11 page letter detailing various breaches of building code and it was this letter that prompted a Council Blitz and inspection.

Mehrab-Khani was obviously tipped off about this because the day before the inspection in May 2010 he threw up a plastic tape barrier.

Notice even then was it a 3 metre boundary as required by Council. Meanwhile all types of excavation machinery around the tree carried on unabated.

On top of that I am also claiming that Unit 2 is built too close to the tree and too high, resulting in the branches being intertwined in the roof.

Now comes the interesting bit-- Mehrab Khani claims the tree is dying and wants to cut it down. (shock horror!) He supplies a letter from a tree expert from the Botanical Gardens that says it should be cut down. Council agree. We dispute this and Tribunal sets a hearing for 8th Dec 10. Now this would appear to be a cut and dried case of expert opinion prevailing, however Tony Jacobs does some brilliant detective work and seeks out the expert that was used in this assessment!

It turns out that the expert didn't really want the tree to be cut down at this point, but would have preferred to have waited until summer (it was assessed in June 10) to see how it handled the dry season, because there is a chance it can survive if it is fine at that point. We are now seeking to adjourn the Tribunal till Jan where we can get expert opinion on the condition of the tree in the dry summer season.

Thanks to some superb sleuthing from Tony, this issue is now alive again (pardon the pun). There is also engineering opinion that leaving the tree in the ground will stabilise the embankment that has already collapsed -- thanks to Craig Mackie for that. Craig is the lawyer representing Alistair and Jenny Home on the Melville side of the Development.

Last week I received a letter from Council lawyers, seemingly oblivious to the fact that I have complained about the treatment of the tree for over 2 and a half years, to tell me that when Council became aware of the fact that there was no boundary, they enforced it!! Yeah, right.

This is pure fiction, I have letters and photo's with complaints going back to 2007 and nothing was ever done until an 11 page letter on 10th May 2010 initiated a Council inspection, and even then the "barrier" was not at 3 metres! All I can say to that letter is....where is the evidence? Where is the evidence Council acted to save the tree? There isn't any. There has been zero enforcement from Council to erect a barrier around the tree for well over 2 years.

Natural Ground Level Built Up

2010-11-08T09:58:00.004+11:00

What do you do when you build up ground level a little too high and your boundary wall is so low a car could flip over whilst maneuvering up the driveway? You add a bit more height to the wall, of course!

My reading of the architect plans show that the difference in height from the front of the house at street level to the back wall should be 700mm. It is far more than that, but I am a layman, what do I know -- the levels are correct I have been told by Council and Pitt + Sherry for the last 6 months.

What I find amazing is that they were building pyramids 3000 years more accurately than these Units at Bathurst Street.

Tribunal for Unit 1 Set For 20 Dec 10

2010-11-08T09:33:00.002+11:00

The Tribunal for Unit 1 last Friday was put forward to 20th Dec 10. This will be crunch time. I am putting my neck on the block here by being 100% sure and stating it ahead of time that the height and setback has been wrong and that Council have been confused and/or apathetic for 6 months, not being able to work this out, whilst the Developer, Building Surveyor and Engineer have been fully aware of the height discrepancy and have actively sought to hide this fact.

We were told at the Tribunal on Friday that new applications are in and that the building surveyor Peter "I consider this OK" Ray was getting Sun Diagrams done! This to me indicates that they will be admitting incorrect height and are now in damage control, trying to minimise the harm the extra 12% height combined with incorrect top floor setback has on our property.

Tony Jacobs who has been assisting me has asked for all relevant documents to be sent to us before the 20 Dec. I will be able to see the new applications then. I have quite a few sun diagrams from 5 years ago when they were modeled on a lower building. The diagrams were done for the Tribunal 5 years ago which turned out to be a waste of time because of non-enforcement by Council, and now I am in another Tribunal with the same issues 5 years later.

The Sun Diagrams were damning then, and they will be damning now. The interesting thing is that I have 2 Sun Diagrams from 2 different companies and they don't match!! I am well ready for any Sun Diagram argument.

Court Diary for Mehrab-Khani 16 Nov 10 - 21 Jan 11

2010-11-08T08:08:00.000+11:00

Thanks to Tony Jacobs for this:

Tues Nov 16^th,11.30,Magistrate’s Court,Liverpool St

Anti –Discrimination Tribunal Directions Conference (about the fifth,but the first this year).

Tues Nov 30^th,10.00 Magistrate’s

He to plead to a) breach of restraint Order re Tom Berger + b) to smashing my windscreen with his fist. He’s got 2 previous adjournments & said last time he’d not had time [in about 6 months] to get legal advice as he’d been working 7 days a week. Pleas of Not Guilty & adjournment to 2 trials dates are likely,but a PG to one or both is possible.

Wed Dec 8^th,(9.15) Resource Management & Planning Appeal Tribunal ,144 Macquarie St.

Mention of Appeals against Council decision to allow him to cut down 80+ y.o.walnut tree.

Adjournment to mid Jan will be sought as arborist says summer dry will tell if tree can survive or not.

Mon Dec 20^th 9.30 RMPAT,144 Macquarie-mention of HCC Application re breaches of construction permit at Unit 1 at 161 Bathurst St & re Tom & Kerrie Berger’s Application re Units 2-4.

Thurs & Fri Jan 20^th-21^st.Magistrate’s Court 10.00.

His multi- adjourned prosecution for Dishonestly Acquiring a Financial Advantage,contrary to S.252A Criminal Code. A date has been selected to avoid any clash with Supreme Court sittings.

Survey Number 2 Under Way

2010-10-27T11:54:00.004+11:00

I received this letter in part from Neil Noye of Hobart City Council on 14th October 10:

So the survey that was instigated from my letter on 29 Sept to HCC found the height was correct! Peter "I consider this OK" Ray from Pitt and Sherry considers the height correct as does Engineer Chris Potter. So I have had at least half a dozen emails or verbal assurances that the height and setback is correct from Hobart Council, their surveyor, the contracted building surveyor Pitt and Sherry and master of deceptive diagrams, Engineer Chris Potter.

As a layman you would think I would be out of my tree questioning this. However, they are all wrong. It is an extremely simple matter to measure a one story building!

I wrote a letter back to Council, saying that the height was right if they used the wrong numbers on the architects plans ie the 5300mm instead of the required 4300mm height.

I dropped it of to Ross Willis and Neal Noye from Hobart City Council on Monday, insisting that the height for Unit 1 is wrong and providing details as per my last post. This letter obviously created more doubt and added even more confusion with Council, if that is at all possible -- now another survey is underway! This survey is a lot more precise than the last one which was over in 20 minutes.

It appears they are surveying the complete Development. And they appear to be checking Unit 1 with respect to my property, which I didn't see done before. It's crunch time!