Bent Council: The ‘neighbour relations team’

By their involvement, this useless group of individuals have done more harm than good

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

The end of the tunnel?

Following my complaint to the Ombudsman in summer 2002, I received a letter from the Council dated 18-9-2002. This is an unedited extract;

Firstly, may I introduce myself, my name is Helen McKenzie and I am a Housing Officer (Neighbour Relations) dealing with anti social behaviour in Council and Leasehold properties. The Neighbour Relations Team is a specialist team set up to tackle all forms of nuisance.
The Brent South Housing Office has advised me that you made a complaint regarding your neighbour allegedly causing nuisance to you. In order to investigate the allegations made I would like to visit you at your home on Monday 23rd September 2002 at 11.30 a.m.
We will update you on the outcome of our investigation and appointment with your neighbour and the resulting action that may be considered to prevent any further nuisance of this kind.

When she arrived, I outlined my various complaints against nfh;

unreasonable use of a washing machine; I told McKenzie that, as an example, this machine had been in operation on the morning of her visit, 23-9-2002, from about 6:00 a.m. until about 11:00 a.m. without a break. I told her that, for the past several years, the operation of a washing machine sited almost directly above my bedroom has been evident for prolonged periods throughout the day from early morning to late into the night and causes me huge nuisance. To illustrate the unreasonable amount of usage of this equipment, I told her of my belief this might indicate the operation of a commercial laundry business at that address
rubbish falling from their balcony onto my balcony; I told her this practice had continued virtually since the arrival of nfh
throwing of food from their balcony; although the feeding of pigeons overtly had stopped, I told her food continued to fall on to my balcony from theirs
misuse of their balcony rainwater run-off; I told her nfh continued to dispose of unwanted water as though it provided access to the drainage system and which splashes onto my balcony
flushing of rubbish from their rainwater run-off; I showed her the accumulation of rubbish visible in their balcony rainwater run-off and which fell onto my balcony when ejected
shaking of items of clothing over their balcony; a practice which I told McKenzie I found particularly obnoxious
transmission of intrusive footfalls; especially the sound of children running and jumping
overflow pipe fitted above my kitchen window; I told her I first noticed this pipe in February or March 2002 and from which periodically a discharge of water fell onto my kitchen window
intentional soiling of my windows; I showed her the soiled condition of my kitchen window, including the photograph I took on 16-9-2001 of the attempt to soil my bedroom window

McKenzie said she planned to interview nfh immediately upon leaving my home and that she would contact me in due course to let me know of the outcome of her investigation.
I received a letter dated 23-9-2002 from McKenzie outlining the discussion she said she had with nfh immediately upon leaving my home on 23-9-2002;

shaking of items of clothing over their balcony; nfh agreed, apparently, not to do this anymore
the continued throwing of food from their balcony was admitted by nfh who blamed it on their two young children
my concerns that the prolonged use of a washing machine could be evidence of a commercial laundry business were discounted by McKenzie who said she found no evidence of this

The following issues were not mentioned in this letter;

soiling of my windows
transmission of intrusive footfalls

Because clothing still was shaken from their balcony, (see My fruitless complaints Litter and filth), I sent a letter dated 26-9-02 to McKenzie telling her so. I also told her that the washing machine still was used at unreasonable hours, and that it is reasonable that use of this equipment should cease by 9:30 p.m. and that I would now be keeping a diary of the operation of the washing machine by nfh. I reminded McKenzie that my complaint to the Ombudsman included the casual use of my balcony by this family without seeking my permission, apparently to gain entry to their flat when they didn't have a key, and that I wanted her to address this issue.
I received a reply dated 16-10-2002 from McKenzie saying there was nothing she could do about the use of the washing machine because of 'tenancy terms and conditions', and that she has asked nfh to use this equipment at reasonable hours. She claimed to have written to nfh reminding her of the agreement about shaking clothing over their balcony, throwing anything over their balcony, 'the use of the rainwater outlet', and that she had told nfh that they must ask my permission first if they want to use my balcony to gain access to their flat and 'only in dire emergency' could they make use of my balcony without my permission.
She said she had reported the nuisance caused by the overflow pipe sited above my kitchen window to the 'repairs team'. This is the last communication I received from McKenzie.
Of the complaints listed above, McKenzie resolved just one – the use by nfh of their balcony rainwater run-off to flush rubbish through it (see Other nuisance caused by nfh Misusing their balcony).

Enter the antipodean

I received this letter from the council dated 5-11-2002 and publish the body unedited except to hide the address of nfh;

Firstly, may I introduce myself, my name is Catherine Taylor and I am a Housing Officer (Neighbour Relations) dealing with anti-social behaviour in Council and Leasehold properties. The Neighbour Relations Team is a specialist team set up to tackle all forms of nuisance.
I write concerning the complaint you made in regards to throwing food over the balcony, shaking clothes over the balcony, maintenance of the outpipe and the use of the washing machine at [the address nfh].
Your complaint was investigated and the alleged resident has been written to and visited. It was agreed during my visit that restraint would be exercised and incidents such as you have complained about will not reoccur.
If no further complaints are received from you over the next four weeks then this case will be closed. I am now writing to inform you that it is my intention to close your case on the 5th December 2002.
May I reassure you that the London Borough of Brent is determined to eradicate all forms of nuisance, anti social behaviour and racial harassment across the borough. I hope that you have been satisfied with the service that you have received from the Neighbour Relations Team in relation to this matter.

My reply dated 12-11-2002 presented the bare facts;

The washing machine is still used regularly between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and I am keeping a diary of operation between these times. Clothing still is hung from the outside of the balcony, is shaken and objects still are dropped onto my home.

I asked her to let me know what progress has been made in getting the overflow pipe removed and/or altered from above my kitchen window. I told her there appeared to be little progress in relation to my complaints.
Taylor arrived at my address unannounced about a week before Christmas 2002. She sat in my home for an hour or more telling me of the progress she had in combatting anti-social behaviour in Stonebridge and of the problems she has with DVT on flights to and from Australia. The problems I was experiencing with the anti-social behaviour of nfh seemed of little consequence to her.
Within days of this visit by Taylor, nfh came to me angrily asking why I complained to the Council about her use of a washing machine (see Complaint to the Ombudsman Washing machine noise).

I continue complaining

I made a telephone call to Taylor on Monday, the 13th of January 2003 to tell her of the huge pile of rubbish dumped just outside my balcony by nfh during the night of Sunday, the 5th of January, and which still lay there. When she asked about the use of the washing machine, I told her that, for the past few days, it hadn't been used at night but that it was too soon to say if this indicated an end to its use at unreasonable hours.
During this telephone conversation, Taylor told me that nfh had told her that she (nfh) had been sympathetic towards my complaint when I invited her into my bedroom just before Christmas (see Complaint to the Ombudsman Washing machine noise), and that I was 'curt' towards her. Because of this, Taylor said, nfh didn't now feel disposed to consider my request that their noisy laundry equipment not be used at unreasonable hours.
Next, I received a letter dated 30-1-2003 from Taylor which reads in part (unedited);

I write concerning the complaint you made in regards to complaints of neighbour nuisance and noise disturbance.
Your complaint was investigated and the alleged residents has been written to and visited. It was agreed during my visit that restraint would be exercised and incidents such as you have complained about will not reoccur. I have recently discussed this with you and you have advised me there has been an improvement in your neighbours behaviour. Because of this it was agreed that I would write to your neighbour commending her on this improvement…
If no further complaints are received from you over the next two weeks proceeding this letter then this case will be closed. I am now writing to inform you that it is my intention to close your case on the 14th of February 2003.
May I reassure you that the London Borough of Brent is determined to eradicate all forms of nuisance, anti social behaviour and racial harassment across the borough. I hope that you have been satisfied with the service that you have received from the Neighbour Relations Team in relation to this matter.

Still the nuisance continues

My reply dated 16-2-2003, informs Taylor that the washing machine still is used regularly at night after 9:00 p.m., outside the hours suggested by the council's leaflet on tips on being a considerate neighbour, and I also made her aware of my frustration with the lack of progress in reducing the nuisance behaviour of nfh. I told her that I now believed nfh had no intention of honouring any undertakings given to her (Taylor) with regard to restricting use of this equipment to reasonable hours. I reminded her that I was now keeping a diary of the use of this equipment by nfh.
I informed her that the overflow pipe still had not been altered and that it continued to pose a nuisance. I reminded her that the heavy walking of adults continued to cause a nuisance on a daily basis, that this has been causing me concern for the past few years, with a severe increase in nuisance of the running and jumping of childern between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. almost every night.
Nfh resumed the playing of music at a loud, nuisance level shortly before Christmas 2002. I telephoned Taylor early in March 2003 about this nuisance but she failed to resolve the issue (see A temporary lull Loud music nuisance).

Enter the volunteers

During a telephone conversation in March 2003, Taylor suggested a way forward might be mediation and I confirmed my willingness to try this method. Consequently, I received a letter from Brent Mediation Service dated 3-4-2003, offering to visit me on 11-4-2003 'so that you can talk about how you see the situation and what you feel about it'. Two volunteers from the organisation arrived promptly, we discussed the nuisance posed by nfh and I let them know I was willing to meet nfh for discussions in the protected environment they claimed to offer.
Duly, I received a letter from Brent Mediation Service dated 5-6-2003 offering an appointment with them at the local church hall to discuss these issues with nfh on 10-6-2003 at 7:00 p.m. A day or so before the meeting, I had a telephone call from Brent Mediation Service reminding me that the meeting was to take place on the 10th and to confirm I will be attending. By the agreed start time, the two mediators and myself were present and we waited for nfh to arrive. I had been extremely anxious of having to face her, but they reassured me that no unacceptable behaviour from either side will be tolerated.
When she hadn't arrived by about 7:15 p.m., they tried to phone her but discovered they didn't have her number. They asked me if I were prepared to wait for a little longer and I agreed to wait for as long as necessary. Because it was now obvious nfh was not going to turn up, the meeting was abandoned at about 7:40 p.m., the mediators saying they will issue a report to the Council on the outcome.

Befuddled, bewildered Brent

On 16-10-2003, I contacted Councillor Janice Long about the difficulties I experienced in getting this collection of nincompoops to respond coherently. From the Council, I received a photocopy of the Council's reply dated 7-11-2003 to Cllr Long, attached to a blank compliments slip. This letter is signed by the Council employee Pat Gooden. It describes Gooden as a 'housing officer' with the 'neighbour relations team' and says 'This case was referred to the Neighbour Relations team by the Local Housing Office on the 12th September 2002… Mr Leamy complained of the following: Water dripping on to his balcony from the overflow pipe of the above property;…' Despite claiming to have seen the siting of this overflow pipe, Gooden showed it failed to understand the nature of the nuisance it posed.
Although Gooden claimed to have received a copy of the 16 issues I wanted nfh to address, the letter lists just five of these issues, and presents them as though they have been resolved. This letter also mentions a complaint which was resolved in 2000, the feeding overtly of pigeons. Gooden claims to have visited nfh on 31-7-2003 and says it 'enquired as to why she had not gone for mediation' [arranged by Brent Mediation Service in June 2003]. Nfh is alleged to have replied,

She was prepared to go for mediation but was not going to allow Mr Leamy to shout at or intimidate her during the session.

Gooden's absence of competence is illustrated by acceptance of this excuse for refusal to attend mediation from an individual who, alone and unaccompanied, had shown no hesitation in approaching me in the recent past—in 2000 (see I tell another Council employee… Misusing their balcony) and again in 2002 (see Complaint to the Ombudsman Washing machine noise). Gooden allowed nfh to ignore the safeguards Brent Mediation Service have in place to prevent this behaviour.
Gooden disguised from Cllr Long the extent of the Council's failure to resolve my complaints of nuisance against nfh. Gooden failed also to distinguish between those complaints which had been resolved, and showed a confused understanding of basic details of some of my complaints against nfh. Was this because of

complete absence of integrity?
absence of basic technical knowledge?
absence of even average intelligence?
complete lack of competence?
absence of interest, and couldn't care less?
an unfortunate combination of all five?

After my complaint to the Ombudsman in summer 2005, I learned the extent of the abilities of the Council employee Taylor. She appeared to arrange the mediation meeting with nfh but, on the Brent Mediation Service referral form, Taylor entered my relevant details correctly and omitted a telephone contact number for nfh, leaving that field empty. On a separate, in-house, computer-generated referral form, the relevant details for me are entered correctly, but the field for a telephone contact number for nfh contains my telephone number.
Apart from stopping the practice of ejecting rubbish their balcony rainwater run-off, the involvement of the Council's 'neighbour relations team' resolved nothing and it is apparent from the angry approach of nfh to me just before Christmas 2002 that McKenzie failed to raise the issue of nuisance from the inconsiderate use of laundry equipment. The involvement of Taylor achieved nothing but this angry approach of nfh shortly after Taylor's visit. Incomprehensibly, Taylor told me she could do nothing about the nuisance of this laundry equipment apart from simply relying on 'their good nature' to use it more considerately.
This 'neighbour relations team' had been far too eager to close my complaints case even though I continued to report–

no appreciable alteration in the nuisance of intrusive noise transmitted through my ceilings
the playing of music at a loud, nuisance level (resumed by nfh in December 2002)
the continued unreasonable and nuisance use of laundry equipment

The refusal of Taylor to respond after April 2003, and again in July 2003 when I had informed her of the heightened tension as a result of the continuing nuisance posed by nfh and of the trouble brewing, demonstrated graphically the need urgently to rid taxpayers of this cancerous drain on precious resources.
If this 'neighbour relations team' actually wanted to help, what it should have done is be guided by information published by Brent Council early in 2003 and which sets out precisely what constitutes good neighbour behaviour and

offer guidelines and counselling to the perpetrators for the adoption of a set of behaviour patterns acceptable to both parties and which do not give rise to persistent complaints
on seeing that these guidelines are reported as breached persistently, institute a regime of monitoring these breaches
use the courts to ensure compliance

It is reasonable to expect this process to take two-three months to settle in and produce results which determine the next step and which are fair on both parties. Instead, what these incompetents have done is to

make faint-hearted suggestions to the perpetrators
depend on 'their good nature' to adopt reasonable patterns of behaviour
allow an inadequate period for compliance to be monitored
base decisions on the victim's report of the recent behaviour of just 2-4 days
close the case even though the victim has said it is yet too soon to say if this recent behaviour will continue
close the case even though the victim has continued to report continued nuisance behaviour
allow their status as lease-holders to determine both what constitutes nuisance and which remedies are pursued
allow the perpetrators to refuse the offer of mediation by Brent Mediation Service

All this, despite repeatedly receiving reports over the span of almost a year of exactly the same nuisance behaviour, without a break of even one bloody week, and ignoring a history of similar complaints dating back several years before 2002!
Discounting the prevention of the practice of nfh of flushing rubbish through their balcony rainwater run-off, the only result of the intervention of the council's 'neighbour relations team' was the destruction of any prospect of a restoration of normal neighbour relations between nfh and myself and the creation of tension on the estate with several other neighbours affected by the unusual measures which I had been forced to adopt because of the failure of this bunch of incompetent employees.
Clearly, something has gone very wrong within Brent Council's 'housing service' and the results of this intervention is hardly a strong enough return on the many hundreds of thousands of pounds spent annually to fund the existence of the 'neighbour relations team'. Taxpayers in the borough should be relieved of this burden without delay.

This thread is continued in A neighbour from hell.

Battling Brent Bloody Brent Revolting Brent Incompetent Brent 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