Resident, Prevented from Addressing GBC Meeting, Takes to the Internet To Make Accusations

Published on: 10 Apr, 2026
Updated on: 11 Apr, 2026

Jane Hill attempting to ask questions at the GBC meeting

A woman who was prevented from addressing councillors at Guildford Borough Council’s full meeting on Tuesday has taken to the internet to plead her case.

The Pirbright resident, Jane Hill, believes that her husband Richard, recently diagnosed with cancer, was exposed to asbestos when work arranged by GBC was carried out.

The Hills have been locked in an ongoing dispute with the council following months of turmoil involving the installation of new windows in their leasehold flat. They wanted to express their grievances and ask questions – but Jane Hill was told she was not permitted to speak.

For the Hills, the ordeal began in early 2023 when contractors hired by the council turned up to carry out the work at the flat in Rapleys Field.

The disruption caused and the damage done to their flat placed a serious burden on their health. The couple claim the problems were down to the installers’ “poor workmanship”, citing a long list of errors and damage.

In December last year, GBC offered the Hills £1,500 compensation, but they said this was nowhere near enough.

Asked why Mrs Hill was prevented from speaking, GBC has told The Guildford Dragon: “The Council has a procedure for speaking at council and committee meetings, which is on our website. This explains that written notice of a wish to speak or ask a question must be given at least four working days in advance of the meeting.

“We have today written to the resident explaining the correct procedure so that they can register to speak at a future Council meeting if they want to.

“If any member of the public would like to speak or ask a question at a future Council meeting, we encourage them to get in touch with Committee Services by email.”

After the meeting, Jane Hill said angrily that she had hoped to bring to the full council a story of “deceit, lies and complete maladministration,” all resulting from the work done at the flat and its aftermath.

She acknowledged that the rules stated that any questions or statements had to be submitted to the council four days before the date of the meeting, but added that there were good reasons why she should have been allowed to speak – stating that due to family issues she missed the deadline for submission.

Richard and Jane Hill

Jane Hill has revealed that her husband Richard was recently diagnosed with cancer and she believes there is a possibility that he was exposed to asbestos during the period April 2023 to February 2025 – when the work on the flat was done. This was a key point that she had hoped to raise with the council. Because of this, she believes, the council’s offer of compensation was “derogatory.”

Further questions she had been planning to raise involved allegations that:

There were contractual discrepancies relating to the work
There was a lack of asbestos testing before the work at the flat took place
HSE protocols were ignored
Attempts were made by council officials to mislead the Hills during the course of the dispute
Windows installed were not those as stated in the Schedule of Works.

The exchange at this week’s council meeting took just 40 seconds.

Mrs Hill stood up in the public gallery and requested to ask a question

The Mayor, Cllr Howard Smith, chairing the meeting, advised her that that was not within the rules because notice has to be given by any member of the public wishing to ask a question.

Jane Hill continued: “So you are banning me from raising my points?”

Mayor: “No, it’s just not within the rules.”

Jane Hill left the chamber voluntarily, saying she would use the Internet to put her cause into the public domain. Two security men positioned outside the chamber were not summoned.

GBC has admitted there were failings during the installation of windows. In June last year, a letter to the Hills from the council’s CEO, Pedro Wrobel, said: “We fully accept that there were significant failings in the delivery of the works, our management of the project, and our communication with you throughout.

“We recognise that these failings have caused you considerable stress, and we are truly sorry for the prolonged impact this situation has had on you.”

But GBC has consistently denied any contractual wrongdoings, insisting that contracts were procured “in full compliance with relevant legislation and the council’s internal procedure rules”.

The Hills have taken their case to the Housing Ombudsman. A decision has not yet been released.