Incompetent Brent

On several occasions early in 2002, I noticed water on the outside of my kitchen window, even though it had not been raining

26th July 2008   « Corrupt Council
Revised: 27-1-09
[Published originally in February 2008]
Documents from Brent Council are quoted here either whole or in part to establish context.

Nuisance from the overflow pipe

Several weeks later when I actually saw water falling onto the window, I went outside on the balcony to see a short length of pipe sticking out horizontally from the wall at the flat of nfh with water trickling from it and falling onto my kitchen window. Although this was the first time I had seen this pipe, I believed it to be the source of the water seen on this window on previous occasions. I was very reluctant to approach nfh about this problem because they had ignored all other approaches in the past and, after their response in May 2001, when she told me to 'get lost', there was no possibility of approaching them again with confidence in resolving this issue.
      I intended to show this pipe to the Council employee Oladipo Koleoso, a 'housing officer' at the local 'housing office', but I failed to get him to visit. I showed it to the Council employee Helen McKenzie, who described herself as a 'housing officer from the Council's 'neighbour relations team', when she visited my home 23-9-2002 after the intervention of the Ombudsman in summer 2002. There was no discharge from this pipe at the time I showed it to her.
      Subsequently, in a letter dated 16-10-2002, she said 'I have reported your problem with the pipe extending from [the address of nfh] to the repairs team, who will look into this matter further.' This is the last contact I had from McKenzie. By early November 2002 the Council employee Catherine Taylor, describing herself as a 'housing officer' with the 'neighbour relations team', became involved. I have reported your problem with the pipe extending from [the address of nfh] to the repairs team, who will look into this matter further I sent her a letter dated 12-11-2002 saying '…let me know what progress has been made in getting the outlet pipe, directly above my kitchen window, removed or altered …'. In November 2002, I showed the overflow pipe to the Council employee 'Thomas', who represented himself as a 'surveyor'. During this visit, there was no discharge and, he said, because of this, he didn't regard it as either a hazard or a nuisance, adding he couldn't do anything about the pipe because of current financial constraints within the Council. He claimed also that the Council had no record of fitting this overflow pipe.
      Water continued to flow from this pipe intermittently, falling onto my kitchen window. Because the response so far appeared quite inadequate, I reported it to the council's 'housing office' in December 2002. A Council 'surveyor', whom I believe to be the Council employee Anthony Gushman, visited shortly before Christmas. It was my understanding the normal 'surveyor' for this area, the Council employee 'Thomas', was unavailable and this employee was covering for him. Again, there was no discharge from the pipe during this visit, but he assured me he would get the matter resolved without delay.
      By the time of Gushman's visit, I had become aware that nfh was now the leaseholder of that flat and no longer the tenant. Because the Council 'surveyor' Thomas claimed financial constraints on behalf of his organisation, I didn't want Gushman to make a similar claim as a means of ignoring the problem. I told him the residents of the flat were leaseholders and it was their responsibility to deal with the nuisance posed by the leaking water, and that all the Council had to do was to make sure they did it.

Resorting to proactive mode

The intermittent nature of the discharges from this pipe had meant that there was none when I was fortunate enough to be graced by a visit from one of the Council's employees. Unfortunately, this was likely to remain so on any further visits they deigned to make to inspect the nuisance. Consequently, the discharges could continue indefinitely.
      Reluctant to trust to luck and to hope a Council employee actually saw the discharge, I was unable to wait for the Council to deal with the nuisance on a time scale known only, if at all, to the Council itself. I delivered, therefore, a letter dated 4-2-2003 and addressed to nfh through their letterbox. and publish the body here unedited;

Dear Sir/Madam
You have fitted an overflow pipe above my kitchen window which, periodically, discharges a steady flow of water. I don't regard this as an acceptable place to site such a pipe.
      Please urgently consider an appropriate alternative siting for this overflow pipe.
Yours faithfully
William Leamy

      Nfh ignored this letter and the discharge from their overflow pipe continued. I sent an e-mail dated 10-2-2003 to Taylor outlining the nuisance caused by this pipe. I followed with a letter dated 16-2-2003 repeating that it be either removed or re-sited more appropriately…

I do not accept that the Council must wait because of its 'current financial situation', or that 'it does not raise any health and safety issues' before action is taken. It does pose a severe and unacceptable nuisance. As far as I am aware, this pipe was fitted by the residents at [the address of nfh], who are the leaseholders; therefore the removal of this pipe is solely their responsibility.

      I didn't receive a reply from Taylor to either my e-mail dated 10-2-2003 or to my letter dated 16-2-2003.

Getting somewhere—slowly

In March 2003, the overflow pipe was altered by removing the external opening from its site centrally above my kitchen window, having it re-emerge from their wall about a third of the distance between both their kitchen and bedroom windows. To the newly-emerged end, an 'elbow' was fitted so that it was now directed along the wall at a right angle for about 15 centimetres. This ensured it was sited almost centrally between these windows. To this end, another 'elbow' was fitted to cause the pipe end to project downwards by about 10-15 centimetres, clearing the windowsill of nfh. Now, the open end was no farther away from the wall of the building than was the previous configuration.
      I was unhappy with this new configuration because it meant that water still will fall onto my windowsill and splash against my wall. Because the flow of water is now directed between both my kitchen and bedroom windows, even with a slight breeze, the water will be driven onto either window. I sent another e-mail dated 28-3-2003 to Taylor explaining this to her and that I was not satisfied with the alteration, re-stating my insistence that this pipe be re-sited. I received a letter dated 4-4-2003, the body of which I publish here unedited

Re: Overflow pipe
In your reply to your email dated the 28/03/2003, in which you advised that the overflow pipe had been adjusted and not extended. You were also concerned that this meant that water would still drip onto your kitchen and bedroom windows.
      I have spoken to Mr Gillam, Technical Manager, Housing Management Services, in regards to your concerns. Mr Gillam has advised that he will arrange for a surveyor to inspect the work to see whether this is a suitable solution.
      I will inform you of their findings in due course.

      This is the last communication I received from Taylor and I do not know what action, if any, the Council employee 'Mr Gillam' took. The overflow pipe remained unchanged in its 'new' configuration, water continued to flow from it and no other Council employee contacted me about this pipe. I sent a letter dated 10-7-2003 to Taylor enclosing a list of 16 issues setting out what I wanted her to do relating to the nuisance posed by nfh. Amongst these issues, was my demand that the overflow pipe be re-sited more appropriately such that it did not interfere with my home.

A portal to the Black Hole of Brent

I wrote another letter dated 7-1-2004 to these nincompoops saying, once again, this overflow pipe caused nuisance and outlining what I wanted done to resolve it. I received a letter dated 21-1-2004 from a Michael Morley, Technical Manager (South Area). In the four unedited (except to hide the address of nfh) extracts here, he says—

Thank you for your letter dated 7th January 2004 received in repairs office on 21st January. Your enquiry has been passed to me as Technical Manager for the South Area for a response
[…]
      An inspection is being arranged for our repairs surveyor, Patrick Femi, to visit you, check that the overflow warning pipe is still running and reconfirm that this is the overflow warning pipe from flat [the address of nfh]
[…]
      [The address of nfh] is owned by a leaseholder. Under the terms of such residential leases, the leaseholder is responsible for keeping their home and its services in repair including the water cisterns. If the overflow warning pipe is still running when the repairs surveyor visits you, then we will formally write to ask the leaseholder to make repairs. The leaseholder is then required to make the repair within 3-months of such written notice. On many occasions leaseholders take prompt action when they receive a written notice; and, so hopefully your inconvenience would end sooner. In the situation where a leaseholder has not made repairs by the end of the notice period then the lease gives authority for Brent, the landlord, to repair on their behalf. Achieving that is of course subject to our contractor being able to obtain access to their home
[…]
      The purpose of the overflow warning pipe is to alert the resident, whose service is overflowing, of the need for a repair to their services and so minimise the loss of mains water. For that reason it is preferable that the overflow warning pipe is nearby and visible to them rather than remote
[…]

      A day or so before this letter arrived, I had a telephone call from the local 'housing office' seeking to arrange an appointment on behalf of a 'surveyor' who wanted to have a look at the overflow pipe and we agreed on 23-1-2004 a.m. The Council's 'surveyor' failed to keep the appointment, but the Council employee Femi arrived unannounced on Tuesday of the following week. I asked him why he hadn't kept the appointment and he told me he had called as arranged but there was no answer. I knew this to be untrue because I had been waiting for him and neither the external security buzzer nor my doorbell were used to alert me to his presence, and nobody knocked on my door.
      I showed him the overflow pipe which, on this visit, was discharging water. He told me that the configuration of the overflow pipe as altered in March 2003 was wrong and suggested a more appropriate configuration would be to extend the pipe horizontally outwards for about one metre. I felt this appeared to be a reasonable solution. Femi returned unannounced about a month later to see if the pipe had been altered. He saw that it had not been altered and that it still was discharging water on this visit.
      I discovered early in 2006 that this pipe alteration which Femi had said was incorrect had actually been carried out by a 'brent housing partnership' plumber! See The Council's inability to deal with nfh below. What a bunch of bloody cowboys!

Yet another Council cul-de-sac

In a letter dated 7-9-2004, I told the council of my rent strike and received, consequently, a letter dated 14-9-2004 from the Council employee Jacqueline Ebanks, headed Tenancy Issues. She described herself as a 'housing officer' and offered to address the issues I had outlined to the Council when informed of my rent strike. One of these issues related to theEbanks offered to address the issues I had outlined to the Council nuisance posed by the overflow pipe, including the requirement that the Council clean the area of my home soiled by this pipe.
      She visited my home on 12-10-2004 and I showed her the pipe, the damage to the kitchen and bedroom windows and the section of wall between these two windows soiled by the overflow from this pipe. Leaning out of the bedroom window to see it, she touched the soiled area of the wall, and afterwards asked me for 'something to clean my hand' and I handed her a paper kitchen towel.
      Between January 2005 and May 2005, I e-mailed Ebanks seven times for a progress report on the issues I outlined to her in October 2004. I had no further contact from Ebanks until her only email on 17-2-2005 and it did not address the nuisance posed by the overflow pipe. The discharges from this pipe continued.

At last, the sleepyheads awake

I submitted my second complaint against the London Borough of Brent to the Ombudsman in September 2005. Directly as a result of this approach to the Ombudsman, I received a letter dated 3-11-2005 from the Council employee Catherine (Kate) Dack, now describing herself as 'repair complaints and disrepair manager'. I publish the body here unedited;

Further to your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, to enable Brent Housing Partnership to respond to the repairing issues that you have raised within your complaint, I have been asked to visit you at your home.
      I would like to undertake this visit on Tuesday 15 November 2005 at 10.30am along with Senior Surveyor Anthony Gushman. Please let me know if this appointment is not convenient.

      I was very apprehensive at allowing this individual into my home, and my anger with her personally was difficult to contain. But I knew I must deal with this individual, irrespective of how unpleasant the experience may be. It was the quickest way of getting the damage caused by the overflow pipe repaired as soon as possible. Both Dack and Gushman were shown the overflow pipe, the damage it caused to the two windows and to the area between these windows.

Now, I discover more skulduggery

I received a letter dated 7-12-2005 from the Council employee Martin Beasley, describing himself as a 'customer service manager'. He listed 17 issues relating to my complaint against Brent Council's failure to deal with my complaints of nuisance from nfh.
      One of these issues relates to the nuisance from the overflow pipe;

  • the Council accept that the overflow from this pipe has caused visible damage to the external area of my home
  • the Council accept that this overflow pipe is too short
  • the Council will undertake to clean the areas soiled by this pipe

      Another of these issues relates to the failure of the Council 'surveyor' Femi to keep the appointment on 23-1-2004 to inspect this overflow pipe, and the offer of compensation for this failure. The comments of this 'customer service manager' are published here unedited:

  • I have inspected our records and note that there is a record that an inspection was booked for the 23-1-04 to check which flats [sic] overflow was running. This inspection was cancelled but there are no records as to the reasons for this cancellation. And due to the passing of time am not able to investigate further.
  • With regard to your request for compensation, I would award you £25 for not informing you of the cancellation

      Within a couple of weeks, I received the Council's cheque for the sum of £25. I contacted the Council to say I rejected this amount as compensation and regarded it as an insult.

A persistent nuisance is removed

The damage to the windows was rectified on 11-1-2006, together with the damage to the area surrounding them. I received the Council's cheque in payment of its revised compensation of £750 in early March 2006. Added to the sum of £25 awarded earlier, I feel this is fair compensation for the nuisance caused by the loss of full normal use of these two windows for almost a four-year period.
      The overflow pipe finally was altered on 5-4-2006, with the pipe extended outwards horizontally about 80-90 cm from the wall of the building and I am satisfied with this new configuration.

The Council’s inability to deal with nfh

Following the Council's internal investigation triggered by my complaint to the Ombudsman in 2005, I received a letter dated 1-2-2006 from the Council employee Gareth Daniel, describing himself as 'chief executive'. I publish an unedited extract of the section relating to the Council's failure to deal with the nuisance of the overflow pipe—

During the last three years, Brent Housing Partnership has tried to resolve the issue of the leaking overflow pipe, from the neighbour's gas central heating system. The Neighbour Relations team asked the repair service to look into the possibility of carrying out the work to stop the water leaking and in doing so resolve Mr Leamy's complaint. A Brent Housing Partnership plumber carried out work in March 2003; however Mr Leamy said that by changing the angle of the pipe, the problem would still continue. This was also the opinion of the Acting Technical Manager. The Neighbour Relations team and Leasehold Management team had also raised this repair directly with the leaseholder.

      Neither Daniel nor his minion Beasley explained why the 'surveyor' Femi didn't provide a truthful explanation for his failure to keep an appointment in January 2004, and did not explain the Council's failure decisively to deal with the nuisance of the overflow pipe. In its report to the Ombudsman in June 2006, the Council did not provide information showing that

  • a Council employee, the 'surveyor' Femi, failed to keep an appointment
  • Femi's explanation for his failure to keep this appointment was dishonest
  • Ebanks failed to resolve the nuisance of the overflow pipe
  • the Council failed to resolve this nuisance for over three years

This thread is continued in A neighbour from hell.

Related posts

Battling Brent   Bloody Brent   Revolting Brent   The 'neighbour relations team'   Uncaring Brent   An open letter to Brent Council   … while Nero fiddled   Unaccountable Brent   Coote and Longdon   Rogue's Gallery   Hell twice over   Arrogant Brent   Why did Dack lie?   Evans is dishonest, Part 1   Capitulating Brent?   Bent Brent


BC copyright © 2008 WPL · Discharges · Bent Council