Uncaring Brent

Amid a culture of self-serving practice, Brent Council sink deeper into the swamp of its own creation

27th July 2008   « Corrupt Council
[Published originally in January 2008]

The aftermath

When I realised I was not going to die after my attempt at suicide, on the afternoon of Tuesday 13-1-2004 I returned home. The next day at about 3:00 p. m., someone came banging loudly on my door. I opened it to two police officers, accompanied by a locksmith and an ambulance crew waiting outside. They said they had been alerted by the Council about a possible suicide attempt and that 'someone from the Council' was coming along shortly. When I asked, they didn't know how the Council knew about what had happened or who was coming, and they all left after about 10 minutes, satisfied I was not in immediate danger.
      Within about an hour, the Council employee Olga H(abana?) from the Council's local 'housing office' in Kilburn arrived. She was known to me as a 'housing officer', but on arrival described herself as a 'tenancy officer'. She was aware of my suicide attempt, and when I asked how she knew about it, she said the Council had been alerted by one of my neighbours and that she (H(abana?)) had contacted the police.
      I told her about the nuisance behaviour of nfh,I told H(abana?) about the nuisance behaviour of nfh, the difficulties I had in getting the Council effectively to deal with it, and of the assault by the two thugs on 9-1-2004 the difficulties I had in getting the Council effectively to deal with it, and of the assault by the two thugs on the Friday morning of 9-1-2004. I showed her my diary of the use of laundry equipment by nfh. When she asked for the diary, I told her I was not 'letting it out of my sight', but that she could have a copy of it. H(abana?) said she would contact 'leasehold management' and the 'neighbour relations team' to deal with the nuisance behaviour of nfh. I told her I will not deal with the 'neighbour relations team' again. She insisted this is the only way to deal with the nuisance. I repeated my refusal to have any more contact with this abnormally useless bunch because they had been completely ineffective so far and that I saw no prospect for a positive change with their continued 'intervention'. I also showed her how I created the loud noise by hitting a brick wall with a hammer and she suggested I should stop because 'it could damage your case'. This seemed reasonable and I agreed to stop.
      In a telephone call several days later, H(abana?) suggested she would like me to meet a 'colleague' whom she knew in the Council's 'social services' and who may be of assistance in relation to the trauma I had suffered because of the assault and my subsequent suicide attempt. They were about half an hour late on the day of the appointment and telephoned me, presumably, from the car to confirm I still wanted to see this 'colleague'. During the meeting, I told them I no longer wished to live here and asked that the Council provide alternative accommodation. The 'colleague' said she will look into this and advised that the process may take as long as a year, which I accepted. I neglected to make a note of this person's name, to ask for proof of identity, or to note the date and time of the visit.

Supplying evidence to the Council

As promised, I took the section of my diary from 6-10-2003–20-1-2004 to the Council's local 'housing office' in Kilburn on 20-1-2004 to provide photocopies of it for H(abana?).
      In this 93-day period, there were

  • 14 days with operation of laundry equipment recorded at over 8 hours for each of these 14 days
  • 32 days with operation of laundry equipment recorded at over 6 hours for each of these 32 days (this excludes days for which over 8 hours of operation per day have been recorded)
  • 30 days with operation of laundry equipment recorded at over 4 hours for each of these 30 days (this excludes days for which both over 6 and over 8 hours of operation per day have been recorded)
  • 27 days with over 4 hours continuous operation of laundry equipment recorded for each of these 27 days
  • over 220 hours of laundry equipment operation recorded in the hours between 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m.
  • over 200 hours of laundry equipment operation recorded in the hours between 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m. when it could have been operated in the hours 8:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m., even though the flat of nfh had been occupied throughout that day
  • 2 days in which no laundry equipment operation was recorded

      Although H(abana?) had free access to all pages of this diary while in my home on 14-1-2004, this is the first time the Council have seen this laundry equipment diary. While the council's 'neighbour relations team' was aware I had been keeping this diary since October 2002, at no time did anyone ask to see it until 14-1-2004. Despite providing this detailed evidence to the Council's 'housing service', the inconsiderate, nuisance use of laundry equipment by nfh continued without change.
      In her report to the Ombudsman in 2006, the Council employee Evans withheld information

  • that H(abana?) had visited my address on 14-1-2004
  • that the Council had been told about the assault on 14-1-2004
  • that the Council had been in possession from 20-1-2004 of an almost 4-month section of my diary recording inconsiderate use of laundry equipment
  • that the Council's 'neighbour relations team' had been told of the existence of this diary
  • that the Council's 'neighbour relations team' failed to ask for a copy of this diary

In this report, Evans told the Ombudsman that the Council had no evidence of the nuisance of which I had complained.

Much nuisance continued as before

Nothing changed which would indicate an acceptance of my right to live in my own home without interference from outsiders;

  • laundry equipment continued to be used for many hours throughout the day and late into the night
  • intrusive sounds of hard objects dropped on hard flooring still were transmitted through my ceilings
  • intrusive sounds of objects, such as furniture dragged on hard flooring, still were transmitted through my ceilings
  • intrusive footfalls of adults walking on hard flooring still were transmitted through my ceilings
  • intrusive sounds of children running and jumping still were transmitted through my ceilings
  • household furnishings and clothing still were shaken over the balcony of nfh
  • my balcony still was used as access to their property without seeking my permission

Peace descends at long last

On the morning of Monday 26-7-2004 from about 6:15 a.m., there was an unusually high level of nuisance transmitted through my ceilings from the flat of nfh , with heavy footfalls, shuffling, and dragging and dropping of objects on floors.There now was no laundry equipment used between 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m. It was very loud and incredibly intrusive and, although I had to leave home at about 8:00 a.m, I am told this intrusive noise continued until about mid-day.
      When I got home that afternoon, all relatively was quiet and peaceful; the running and jumping of the two young children of nfh and the transmission of most of the other intrusive sounds through my ceilings stopped completely, and there was no laundry equipment used between 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m. The frequency of incidents of the heavy footfalls of adults decreased considerably over the course of the following few weeks, and by mid-September 2004 remained in the background and were not intrusive. This more acceptable situation was to remain until about February 2005.

My rent strike

From early in 2003, I had decided to withhold further payment of rent and, because of my normal practice of paying rent for more than one month in advance, it was many months before my rent account began to slip into arrears sufficiently to awaken the Council employees who administered it.
      I was my intention to maintain this rent strike until my complaints were addressed satisfactorily by Brent Council. Because of the difficulties suffered by me due to the protracted nature of this increasingly bitter dispute, this also now included requiring the Council to provide me with an adequate explanation for its failure to stop the nuisance behaviour of nfh dating back to May 2001, and that it explain the questionable behaviour of certain of its employees, none of which were dealt with satisfactorily by the Ombudsman in late 2002.
      The refusal of the Council employee Oladipo Koleoso to meet me in late 2001, and the Council's attempt subsequently to disguise this refusal surfaced in the Ombudsman's investigation late in 2002. I didn't pursue this with the Ombudsman at the time because I had hoped to have the continuing nuisance presented by nfh resolved and was prepared to overlook this evidence of corruption, provided it neither harmed nor inconvenienced me further. A new issue included now the assault on me by the two thugs in January 2004.
      As expected, I received a letter dated 23-8-2004 from the council's 'housing office' informing me of rent arrears. My reply dated 7-9-2004 listed the unresolved issues relating to the nuisance posed by nfh and the Council's failure adequately to deal with this nuisance.
      Specifically, I wanted the Council to address—

  • the assault on me on 9-1-2004
  • the negative effect this assault has had on me
  • the unreasonable use of a washing machine since May 2001
  • the removal of the overflow pipe
  • to clean the area of my home soiled by the water from this overflow pipe
  • the Council compensate me for loss of normal full use of both my kitchen and bedroom windows over a (then) 2.5 year period
  • the Council explain adequately the failure to deal with my complaint of September 2001

      I told the Council that no rent will be paid until these issues have been addressed to my satisfaction.

Deeper into the Black Hole of Brent

I received a letter dated 14-9-2004 headed Tenancy Issues from the Council employee Jacqueline Ebanks describing herself as a 'housing officer'. She said my letter dated 7-9-2004 had been passed to her in order to address my concerns, and that she had referred part of my concerns to the Council's 'leasehold management section'. She also asked for details of the assault on me of over six months earlier!
      I e-mailed a reply dated 16-9-2004, stating that since 26-7-2004 the intrusive sounds transmitted through my ceilings and the nuisance use of laundry equipment appeared to have been abandoned but that I was uncertain if this was permanent. Because I had already given details of the assault to H(abana?) earlier in January 2004, I told her she must contact the police for further details and that I will furnish her at a later date with the information I had already provided. In this e-mail, I told Ebanks that the casual use of my balcony continued and that, when I saw one of the 'man-friends' of nfh standing on my balcony railing without seeking my permission on 28-6-2004 and told him to get off, he used threatening behaviour and told me he would 'get me for this'.
      I received an e-mail dated 11-10-2004 from Ebanks offering a visit to my home on 12-10-2004 in the morning to get more information regarding the assault and 'to look at the access to the balcony.' I e-mailed her immediately accepting this as convenient. On arrival, I gave Ebanks said my letter had been passed to her in order to address my concerns. her details of the assault in January 2004 and the behaviour of the 'man-friend' on my balcony a few weeks earlier. I showed her the soiling caused to the outside of my windows by the overflow pipe; she touched the soiled area with a finger, afterwards asked for 'something to clean my hand', and was given a paper kitchen towel.
      Because of frustration with the council's failure since 2001 adequately to deal with the nuisance posed by nfh and the stress placed on me consequently, my sense of outrage at this injustice had grown in the past year and I was very angry with Brent Council. On several occasions during this meeting, my anger was difficult to contain. I was not abusive towards Ebanks and I make it clear to her this anger was not directed at her personally, but she left without saying 'good-bye' and just walked out of my home as though it were empty.
      To give Ebanks a reasonable amount of time to act on the issues outlined to her, I waited until 28-1-2005 to contact her for a report on her progress. Receiving no reply, I e-mailed her again on 17-2-2005. In her reply dated 17-2-2005, she said she was still waiting to hear from the police. I sent her an e-mail dated 4-4-2005 asking for an up-to-date report on her progress with my complaints since February 2005. When no response was received, I sent another e-mail dated 7-4-2005 asking if she needed to wait for a response from the police to enable the following actions—

  • 1   to remove the overflow pipe from above my windows
  • 2   to compensate me for loss of full normal use of two windows since 02/2002
  • 3   to clean the soiled external area of these windows
  • 4   compensate me for the failure of Koleoso to meet me in September 2001, with the reminder not to repeat the lies told to the Ombudsman in 2002
  • 5   explain the failure of your surveyor to keep an appointment in January 2004
  • 6   to compensate me for this failure
  • 7   explain why the Council failed to deal with my complaint of nuisance from laundry equipment at [the address of nfh] in May 2001
  • 8   compensate me for this failure from May 2001
  • 9   acknowledge the Council's incompetence in dealing with my complaints against nfh has had a detrimental affect on my health and compensate me accordingly
  • 10   to explain to the residents at [the address of nfh]… that my balcony may not be used without my permission
  • 11   to restore my good name on this estate, and to explain to those residents directly affected that the nuisance I created from July 2003 was due to the Council's failure adequately to deal with my complaints of nuisance
  • 12   to explain to the residents at [the address of nfh] that their balcony rainwater runoff is not to be used as a means for routine disposal of waste water
  • 13   to inform the residents at [the address of nfh] that the shaking of clothing from their balcony must stop
  • 14   to inform the residents at [the address of nfh] that objects and smaller items must not be allowed to fall onto my home
  • 15   to inform the residents at [the address of nfh] that the transmission of intrusive sounds through my ceilings must stop
  • 16   to inform both nfh and [the other neighbour] that the playing of music loudly is not acceptable
  • 17   to inform both nfh and [the other neighbour] that aggressive behaviour towards other residents is not acceptable

      When I received no response, I sent en e-mail dated 18-4-2005 to Ebanks letting her know that, as a minimal response, I still awaited an acknowledgement of the e-mails sent to her on 4-4-2005 and 7-4-2005. I also informed her that the sound of unreasonable use of laundry equipment can once again be heard at the flat of nfh, as can the nuisance of loud music and the sound of heavy footfalls. I also told her I was keeping a diary of this renewed nuisance.
      I received no reply, and sent one, final e-mail dated 16-5-2005 reporting the continued nuisance transmission of unwanted sound through my ceilings. I really didn't expect to receive a reply, the last response I received from Ebanks having been on 17-2-2005.

Déjà bloody vu—again?

The transmission of intrusive sounds through my ceilings returned after about February 2005, but there was no running and jumping of young children as before. But I was exposed once again to the heavy footfalls of adults and was disheartened to feel I could be returned to the nuisance which existed before 26-7-2004. Soon, music was played at a loud, intrusive level and, although the nuisance was not at the extreme levels experienced previously, it created sufficient nuisance and intrusion that I started to record instances in a diary from 6-4-2005.
      Initially, the operation of laundry equipmentBy April 2005 the operation of laundry equipment was again heard between 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m was heard only during daylight hours and for relatively short periods. By early April 2005, however, the operation of this equipment was heard also between the hours of 9:00 p.m.–8:00 a.m., just as before it had ceased on 26-7-2004.
      Because I had absolutely no assurance from the nincompoops at Brent Council that there would not be a return to the chaos and harassment I had experienced before 26-7-2004, I had to assume the worst so that I could deal with it promptly. I did this by informing Ebanks in an e-mail dated 18-4-2005 of the resumption of these forms of nuisance. True to form, Ebanks failed to respond.
      Some good news—on 15-6-2005, I was told by a neighbour that nfh had left that address. She didn't remember exactly when, but that they left 'early in the morning, ages ago, last year' and come back occasionally. This certainly was news to me; I told this neighbour that there was an increased level of 'activity' there one morning late in July 2004 and this could have been their preparations for leaving, but she was surprised to hear their flat had been occupied throughout without any apparent absence.

A complete breakdown in service

Clearly, Brent Council have done nothing concrete to address my complaints against the nuisance behaviour of nfh since I reported the deliberate soiling of my bedroom window in September 2001, persisting with complaints thereafter about the other elements of their anti-social behaviour. The Council's contemptuous response replicates that of other complaints related to similar behaviour of nfh in the several years prior to 2001.
      Originally, addressing these complaints about the nuisance behaviour of nfh involved nothing more than showing a degree of respect for both the complainant and for the alleged perpetrator, issuing simple guidelines to the perpetrator and backed by a willingness to enforce them. Instead, Brent Council persistently have either ignored and/or used a charade of 'investigation' to evade the issues involved.Clearly, Brent Council have done nothing practical to address my complaints of nuisance
      The outcome of my futile rent strike was characterised by the 'vanishing' of Ebanks without providing answers to any of the questions I had asked of her, repeating the behaviour of Taylor of the so-called 'neighbour relations team' almost 2 years earlier.
      Faithful to my vow to pursue these issues until I am satisfied the nuisance posed by nfh finally will end, and until I have been treated fairly by Brent Council's 'housing service', by October 2005 I had decided on a rather unusual way of bringing this parasitic organisation to account. Before putting my plan into effect, however, I needed to be absolutely certain I had exhausted all avenues open to me so that there can be no accusations of unfairness levelled against me. When this process had finished, I would then be in a position to force these individuals out into daylight where the self-serving culture of this parasitic organisation is revealed for all to see.
      Since about mid-2004, I have no longer had trust in Brent Council. By summer 2005 I had lost all respect for Brent Council and for many of its employees in its 'housing service'. This lumpen organisation soon will realise this situation of their own creation will take a monumental effort to resolve because I am absolutely furious with it and have never felt such a depth of anger before.

Now, there is another way

This 'other way' entailed yet another journey to the Ombudsman and, duly, I submitted my complaint against the London Borough of Brent in September 2005.
      This second investigation ended in August 2006 and revealed several further instances of irregularities in the Council's handling of my complaints of nuisance behaviour against nfh. Vividly, it illustrates the Council's frantic efforts to avoid having to account for its failure adequately to deal with these complaints. Council documents sent to me by the Ombudsman prove the depth of the council's duplicity. Its responses to questions from the Ombudsman reek of hostility towards me and illustrate the ferocity of the contempt with which I have been treated throughout this sorry saga.

And of the Ombudsman—2005/6?

The only issue resolved in this investigation is the removal both of the nuisance of the overflow pipe and the possibility it could be used as a form of harassment by nfh in the future. The soiling in the areas affected by the overflow of this pipe also has been removed, and I have also been Further evidence of the unacceptable behaviour of some of Brent Council’s employeescompensated fairly for both the loss of the full normal use of these two windows and for the nuisance caused by this pipe.
      No other outstanding issue has been resolved and the Council appear to believe it can no longer fear sanction for its duplicity and the unacceptable behaviour of its employees. I am disappointed that the Council failed to accept the opportunity presented by this second investigation to redress the wrongs done to me. The Council have chosen, instead, to hide behind the limitations of the investigative powers of the Ombudsman.
      Now that I had even more evidence of the unacceptable behaviour of these Council employees, and of the self-serving culture which fostered this behaviour, I intended to publish the complete story as widely as is possible, illustrating the failure of this local government body to act impartially. To do this, I established this blog, Bent Council, named intentionally as closely as possible to Brent Council, the original Bent Council.

This thread is continued in Battling Brent.

Related posts

Battling Brent   Bloody Brent   Revolting Brent   Incompetent Brent   The 'neighbour relations team'   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 · Bastards · Bent Council