Revolting Brent

Today, finally I receive a response from the organisation formerly known as 'the epitome of decency'

10th July 2008   « Corrupt Council
Updated: 28-7-08, Revised: 27-1-09
Documents from Brent Council are quoted here either whole or in part to establish context.

Pathetic and woefully inadequate

Following Brent Council's demand for the removal from Bent Council of information critical of both the Council itself and certain of its employees, my private response dated 12-6-2008 met with the following reply:

Town Hall Annexe
Forty Lane
Wembley
Middlesex
HA9 9DH

Legal and Democratic Services

Your Ref: BC/cfh9/bB1
Our Ref: PPW/718/37/ADV

8 July 2008

Dear Sir

Re: Your letter of 12 June to the Chief Executive
I have been asked to reply to your letter of 12 June 2008 addressed to the Chief Executive.
      It is clear from your letter of 12 June 2008 that your complaints relate to historical matters which have been investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman in 2003 and 2006. As the Local Government Ombudsman has already investigated and addressed your complaints, the Council will not re-investigate your historical complaints or reply to the content of your letter of 12 June 2008.

Yours faithfully

Arnold Meagher
Principal Lawyer
(Housing and Litigation Team)

Hammering on the Hovel of Hades

Clearly, this response is unacceptable and demonstrates yet again the contempt which this organisation holds for the residents of the London Borough of Brent. Consequently, I now publish below my letter dated 12 June 2008 addressed to its 'chief executive', edited to protect the innocent and to hide the address of nfh.

Thursday, 12th June 2008

My Ref: BC/cfh9/bB1
Your Ref: PPW/718/37/ADV

Chief Executive
Brent Town Hall
Forty Lane
Wembley
Middlesex

Re: Brent Council’s demand for the censorship of information on the web-site Bent Council
I am in receipt of Brent Council’s letter dated 30th May 2008 demanding the censorship of information on my web-site, Bent Council, which is critical of the actions of both Brent Council and certain of its employees. This information describes in detail the Council’s continued ineffectiveness in its handling of my complaints to the Council’s ‘housing service’ in the period October 1996 up to and including the recent past regarding the nuisance behaviour of the family of one of my neighbours on this estate.
      The Council’s objection to this information appears to be based on claims of defamation. To establish the veracity of these claims, elaborate on how information relating to the behaviour of the Council and certain of its employees in the period October 1996 up to and including the recent past is defamatory.
      In my initial response to this letter published on my web-site, Bent Council, on 4th June 2008 [see Battling Brent] I must receive confirmation within one week from the Council of its intention to respond to these questions and which the Council have seen on 5th June 2008, I stated my intention to ask the Council to provide a response to the many issues outstanding and which gave rise to my complaints to the Ombudsman of 2002/3 and again in 2005/6. It is the abject inadequacy of both these investigations which now have lead to the creation of the web-site, Bent Council. In this initial response, I established two criteria which I expect the Council to observe when addressing these issues and it is appropriate here to repeat one of these criteria; I will expect the Council to supply evidence in support of any claims the Council make in its response to the questions set out below.
      I must receive confirmation within one week from the Council of its intention to respond to these questions. This confirmation should be either by letter or by e-mail, preferably both so that there is no misunderstanding, and must be received by Saturday 21st June 2008. Thereafter, the Council will have four weeks to present its response which I must receive no later than Saturday 19th July 2008.

My complaint of 2002/3 to the Ombudsman

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman was presented by the Council employee Catherine (Kate) Dack, describing herself as a ‘complaints officer’.

Q1/CLA2/b0X On 2-10-1996, I complained to the ‘housing office’ of nuisance from water falling onto my balcony through misuse of the balcony rainwater run-off at [the address of nfh], the flat directly above mine. The Council responded on 23-10-1996 saying this complaint had been passed to a ‘repairs surveyor’, the Council employee Tom Dove.
      Disclose the Council’s response to this complaint regarding the misuse of the balcony rainwater run-off at [the address of nfh] in the period October 1996 up to and including the recent past.

Q2CLA2/b0X On 2-6-1999, I wrote to Dove personally about this continuing problem and asked him to clarify the purpose of these rainwater run-offs. I also told him about nuisance caused by a leak from possibly a faulty appliance at both [the address of nfh and at the flat directly above it].
      Disclose the Council’s response to this letter.

Q3/CLA2/b1 The Council employee Eulyn Bennett, described as a ‘customer services officer’, visited my home late in 2000 to observe evidence of nuisance from rubbish falling on to my balcony from the balcony at [the address of nfh]. She told me the amount of rubbish was small and that I should ignore it. I told her, also, that I felt victimised by the nuisance behaviour of this family.
      Provide answers to the following three points;
a – Explain why Bennett told me to ignore the rubbish.
b – Explain why the Council ignored the adverse cumulative psychological affect the invasive behaviour of the residents at [the address of nfh] could have on me.
c – Disclose action taken by the Council to deal with this complaint in the period September 2000-July 2003.

Q4/CLA2/b1 I wrote to Bennett in May 2001 complaining of the soiling of my kitchen window by the residents at [the address of nfh] from their balcony.
      Disclose action taken by the Council to deal with my complaint of the soiling of my kitchen window from the balcony at [the address of nfh] in the period May 2001 up to and including the recent past.

Q5CLA2/b2 On 22-5-2001, I sent an e-mail to the Council employee Barbara Rowe, described as a ‘housing officer’, complaining of nuisance caused by the use of a washing machine late at night at [the address of nfh]. I told her also that this resident recently had said to me ‘get lost’ when approached about rubbish falling from her balcony onto my balcony.
      Disclose the Council’s response to this e-mail.

Q6/CLA2/b1X My letter dated 18-9-2001 to the ‘housing office’ complaining of nuisance from the residents at [the address of nfh] received a response dated 21-9-2001 from the Council employee Oladipo Koleoso, describing himself as a 'housing officer', inviting contact to arrange a meeting to discuss the complaint. Koleoso failed to attend two appointments, on Friday 5-10-2001 and again on Friday 12-10-2001. I arranged, subsequently, to meet him at the local ‘housing office’ on 30-11-2001, giving him 4 weeks notice. He failed also to attend this appointment.
      Explain why Koleoso failed to keep these three appointments.

Q7/CLA2/b1X Despite telling Koleoso I could meet him only on Friday afternoons because of work commitments, he claims to have visited my address on days other than on Fridays. Of the other Friday of which he told me he was visiting, 2-11-2001, he gave notice in a letter posted on 1-11-2001.
      Respond to the suggestion this notice is inadequate when trusting to the normal postal service.

Q8/CLA2/b2X The consistently inadequate response of the Council’s ‘housing service’ over a number of years relating to my complaints of nuisance by the residents at [the address of nfh], is typified by the failure of Koleoso to meet me in late 2001 to discuss these complaints. This raised suspicions of collusion and prompted this complaint to the Ombudsman.
      The Ombudsman asked the Council; Please respond to Mr Leamy’s allegation of possible collusion by officers in the Housing Officer [sic] in terms of the way in which they have dealt with the resident at [the address of nfh].
      Dack replied: I cannot find any evidence that Housing Officers have colluded in any way in the handling of complaints in relation to flat [the address of nfh]…
      Disclose action taken by the Council to investigate my claim of collusion.

Q9/CLA2/b2X Dack told the Ombudsman that on; 1-11-2001, a letter is sent to Mr Leamy from Mr Koleoso… in connection with Anti Social Behaviour of Mr Leamy’s neighbour. It states that further to a telephone call this afternoon he will call to see Mr Leamy tomorrow. But if Mr Leamy is not in he will visit again on the 7-11-2001 after 3pm [sic].
      This letter does not refer to a telephone call. Explain the discrepancy.

Q10/CLA2/b2X Dack told the Ombudsman that Koleoso made a number of visits to my address between October and December 2001 but failed to meet me.
      Disclose evidence of visits by Koleoso to my address, including dates.

Q11/CLA2/b2X Following a telephone conversation with a ‘surveyor’ (the Council employee b0) on 17-1-2000, the resident at [the address of nfh] approached me angrily the next morning about a particular element of this conversation.
      The Ombudsman asked the Council; Please comment on the suggestion that the Council told the residents of [the address of nfh] about Mr Leamy’s complaints on 17 January 2000, which he says led to an incident involving one of the residents the following day.
      Dack replied: I have checked the repair IT systems for [my address, that of nfh, and the address of the flat directly above it]. A copy of each repair is attached. I cannot find a repair raised for that date. I have also not been able to trace any record of this complaint. However I can confirm that the Council’s procedures for nuisance in 2000 do clearly state that the identity of the complainant should not be disclosed.
      Explain how this response addresses the question asked by the Ombudsman.

The thread above is continued on Why did Dack lie?

The Council’s ‘neighbour relations team’

Following my complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council employee Helen McKenzie, described as a ‘housing officer’ with the Council’s ‘neighbour relations team’, arranged to visit my home on 23-9-2002.

Q1/nrt2/b3 During this visit, McKenzie was told about the nuisance caused by the use of laundry equipment late at night and for long periods during the day. She refused to take action to address this nuisance, citing ‘tenancy terms and conditions’ as a barrier.
      Explain why these ‘tenancy terms and conditions’ allowed this nuisance to continue until mid-2006.

Q2/nrt2/b3 During this visit, McKenzie was told about nuisance caused by the shaking of clothing and household furnishings regularly over the balcony at [the address of nfh], and that debris shaken from these items fell onto my balcony.
      Disclose action taken by the Council to address this complaint in the period September 2002 up to and including July 2003.

Q3/nrt2/b3 McKenzie was told about nuisance caused by the transmission through my ceilings of intrusive sounds from the flat at [the address of nfh].
      Disclose action taken by the Council to address this complaint in the period October 2002 up to and including July 2003.

Q4/nrt2/b4X In March 2003, the Council employee Catherine Taylor, described as a ‘housing officer’ with the Council’s ‘neighbour relations team’, was told about nuisance caused by the playing of music loudly at [the address of nfh]. (This nuisance had been resumed in December 2002 after a period of quiet since March 1996.)
      Disclose action taken by the Council to address this complaint in the period March-July 2003.

Q5/nrt2/b4X Taylor appeared to arrange mediation in 2003 through Brent Mediation Service. On the BMS referral form, Taylor entered my relevant details correctly but omitted a telephone contact number for the resident at [the address of nfh], leaving that field empty. In 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 the resident at [the address of nfh] contains my telephone number.
      Explain the absence of care and accuracy in the completion of these two mediation referral forms.

Q6/nrt2/4X Both McKenzie and Taylor were aware of the existence of a diary recording nuisance caused by the operation of laundry equipment at [the address of nfh].
      Explain why both these Council employees failed to ask for a copy of this diary in the period October 2002 to July 2003.

The thread above is continued on The 'neighbour relations team'

My rent strike of 2004

On 7-9-2004, I informed the Council of my rent strike, setting out also my reasons for this rent strike.

Q1/rs4/b7 I received a letter dated 14-9-2004 from the Council employee Jacqueline Ebanks, describing herself as a 'housing officer', offering to address these issues.
      Disclose action taken by Council to resolve the issues I had outlined both to the Council in my notice of my rent strike and to Ebanks herself between September 2004 and April 2005.

The thread above is continued on Uncaring Brent see My rent strike

My complaint of 2005/6 to the Ombudsman

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman was presented by the Council employee Helen Evans, describing herself as the 'managing director' of the Council’s ‘housing service’, aka ‘brent housing partnership’.

Q1/CLA5/b5X In September 2003, I delivered by hand to ‘reception’ at Mahatma Gandhi House a letter addressed to Evans.
      Evans told the Ombudsman; We do not appear to have this letter on file.
      Explain the failure to retain a document handed to the Council’s ‘reception’ employees at MGH.

Q2/CLA5/b5X On 16-10-2003, I handed a copy of this same letter to Cllr Long.
      Evans told the Ombudsman; On 18th October 2003 an enquiry is received from Cllr Long, following a letter from Mr Leamy…
      Present the letter from Cllr Long dated 18-10-2003, including enclosures, to which Evans refers.

Q3/CLA5/b5X The Council employee Olga H(abana)?, who identified herself as a ‘tenancy officer’, visited me at my home on 14-1-2004. This visit is not mentioned by Evans in the Council’s response.
      Explain this omission by Evans in the Council’s response to the Ombudsman.

Q4/CLA5/b5X During this visit on 14-1-2004, H(abana)? was told about the assault on me which occurred on 9-1-2004 by a resident at both [the address of nfh and bi-0].
      Evans told the Ombudsman; Our first knowledge of the assault on Mr Leamy was when he wrote to us on the 7 September 2004… There was no mention of the assault when we interviewed Mr Leamy on 20 and 22 January 2004.
      Explain the failure of Evans to inform the Ombudsman of the Council’s knowledge of this assault since 14-1-2004.

Q5/CLA5/b5X During this visit to my home on 14-1-2004, H(abana)? was shown my diary recording nuisance caused by the operation of laundry equipment at unreasonable hours at [the address of nfh]. When she asked to have this diary, I refused but gave her a photocopy instead.
      Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that a large part of this diary, the section dated 6-10-2003 to 20-1-2004, had been in the Council’s possession since 20-1-2004.
      Explain the failure of Evans to inform the Ombudsman of the Council’s possession from 20-1-2004 of an almost 4-month section of this diary.

Q6/CLA5/b5X On 20-1-2004, I took the section dated 6-10-2003 to 20-1-2004 of this diary to the local ‘housing office’ to get a photocopy of it for the council employee b7X. I did not have an appointment, and saw nobody apart from the Council employee who did the photocopying for me and who accepted these copies to pass on to H(abana)?. I had not sought an interview and, as far as I was aware, there was no interview.
      Evans told the Ombudsman; Mr Leamy was interviewed on the 20th January 2004…
      Disclose the purpose of this interview, and present the notes and/or documents created.

The thread above is continued on Evans is dishonest , Part 1

Miscellaneous other issues to be addressed

Q1Misc8 In March 2003 at around 10:00 p.m., I telephoned the Council’s ‘noise patrol’ reporting the use of a washing machine, and that it also was used at times later during the night at the address [the address of nfh].
      I was told by the employee who answered there was nothing she could do about this form of noise.
      Explain this response.

Q2Misc8 I have suggested to the Council that it set up a monitoring procedure to determine the extent of the use of laundry equipment during the night by the residents at [the address of nfh].
      Disclose the Council’s response to this suggestion.

Q3Misc8 I first reported to the Council in September 2002 the nuisance caused to me by the overflow pipe fitted directly above my kitchen window by the resident at [the address of nfh].
      Apart from disclosing that an important technical inspection in January 2004 had been cancelled without informing me, the Council have failed to explain the reason for its failure to resolve this nuisance between October 2002 and April 2006.
      The following points are raised by the Council’s letters dated 7-12-2005 (a) and 1-2-2006 (b & c);
a – Explain the cancellation of the inspection arranged for 23-1-2004.
b – Explain the delay in acting on the opinion of a Technical Manager in 2003 that the alteration carried out in March 2003 was inadequate.
c – Explain the Council’s failure decisively to deal with this overflow pipe between October 2002 and April 2006.

Q4Misc8 Before the Ombudsman concluded the investigation of my complaint of 2005/6, the Council employee Janet Coote, described as ‘anti-social behaviour officer’ with the Council’s ‘anti-social behaviour team’, claims to have conducted a ‘survey’ of selected residents, but excluding myself, at [the building in which I live].
      The survey form, dated 10-5-2006, is headed ‘Alleged Noise Nuisance’, and explains; ‘We have received in our office, [sic] reports of noise coming from your block’. The two questions asked are; ‘Have you ever suffered from any form(s) of noise nuisance?’ and ‘Do you know the person(s) causing the noise nuisance?’
      Explain how this survey can inform the Council of noise nuisance suffered by residents of [the building in which I live] caused by;
a – The use of laundry equipment late at night by the resident at [the address of nfh], the flat directly above mine.
b – The transmission of intrusive sounds through my ceilings of footfalls on hard and/or inadequately insulated floors at [the address of nfh], the flat directly above mine.
c – The transmission of intrusive sounds through my ceilings of the dragging and dropping of objects on hard and/or inadequately insulated floors at [the address of nfh], the flat directly above mine.

The thread above is continued on
Coote and Longdon

William Leamy

This thread is continued in Unaccountable Brent.

Related posts

Battling Brent   Bloody Brent   Incompetent 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 · Inadequate · Bent Council