Coote and Longdon

Early in November 2005, Brent Council scramble frantically to avoid censure from the Ombudsman by weaving a web of obfuscation and deception, presenting a helpful, responsible Local Authority

21st September 2008   « Corrupt Council
Revised: 10-7-09
Documents from Brent Council are quoted here either whole or in part to establish context.

The Council employee Janet Coote

Deception No 1:
Shortly after I submitted my complaint to the Ombudsman against Brent Council in September 2005 (see Now, there is another way Uncaring Brent), I received unsolicited contact from the Council via a telephone call from the Council employee Janet Coote. Coote said she wanted to visit me within the coming week to discuss reports of nuisance. She claimed no knowledge of the history of my complaints to the Council of nuisance behaviour from nfh, or of my complaints regarding the behaviour of the Council itself in relation the Council's failure to resolve these complaints. I was furious that the Council should contact me at this late stage and expect me to start explaining all over again the substance of these complaints.
      In frustration, I shouted at Coote (but did not use 'offensive language' and did not tell her what I thought of her personally or of her employer). An appointment was made for a visit on 9-11-2005 at 11: a.m. Within days, I received a letter dated 4-11-2005 from Coote confirming this appointment. In this letter, she described herself as a 'housing officer' with the Council's 'anti-social behaviour team'. I publish the body here unedited;

Reported of Alleged Noise Nuisance/Anti-Social Behaviour
The above complaint has been passed on to the Neighbour Relations Team for investigation and taking appropriate remedial action.
      Your housing officer Ms Jacqueline Banks has advised me that you made a complaint regarding your allegations of noise nuisance. In order to investigate the allegations made, I would like to visit you at your home on Wednesday 9th November @ 11.a.m.
      If the date and time indicated are not convenient, please ring me on 020 8937 XXXX so that a mutually convenient appointment can be made.

The 'housing officer' Ms Jacqueline Banks is the Council employee Jacqueline Ebanks who resolved none of the 17 issues which had lead to my rent strike in 2004 and who had refused to respond to my attempts at contact after her visit to my home in October 2004 (see Deeper into the Black Hole of Brent Uncaring Brent)! Between then and now, I had no contact from the Council whatsoever.
      Now, over one year later, with none of the 17 issues I had put to Ebanks addressed, much less resolved, suspicion was aroused immediately and, combined with my recent submission to the Ombudsman of a complaint against Brent Council, I expected nothing more than another attempt by the Council to disguise its failure to resolve these issues.
      It is obvious Coote made this telephone call because of this second complaint to the Ombudsman, with no intention of addressing the outstanding issues and was purely an exercise in misleading the Ombudsman. To combat this obfuscation, I decided to create an indisputable record of the meeting with Coote on 9-11-2005 and the only way I could do this was to make an audio recording. When she arrived, I told her I was making a recording of the interview and asked if she objected. She said she was not prepared to allow this, but that I was free to make my own notes on paper. Consequently, I could not continue with this meeting.
      Expecting this response, I had prepared a document outlining the issues I had hoped to discuss with Coote and handed it to her, saying, 'Take this and read it. Now leave my home'. A paragraph in this document expressed my frustration and disgust with individuals within the Council's 'brent housing partnership' with the phrase 'You must deal with all of these issues NOW because I never want to see you, Coot [sic] or your type, here again.'
      Naturally, if the meeting had proceeded with an indisputable record available as planned, this document would not have been presented to Coote.
Deception No 2:
Shortly before the Ombudsman concluded the investigation of my complaint of 2005/6, Coote put her name to a 'survey' the Council claim to have conducted of residents in the building in which I live. Of the 24 addresses in this building, the Council claim to have contacted about eight residents, but I was not contacted for this survey. The survey form is dated 10-5-2006 and 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?’
      The noise of which I had complained longest and most frequently was nuisance caused by the transmission of intrusive sounds through my ceilings and inconsiderate and unreasonable use of laundry equipment.Coote wastes taxpayers money by attempting to cover up the deceit of her colleagues and by ‘conducting’ a bogus survey These forms of noise nuisance are experienced only by those in the flat below (or above?) the perpetrators, and residents in other flats will be unaware of this nuisance. If Coote wanted to sample incidents of noise nuisance experienced by residents in that building, why didn't she use a more representative sample in this 'survey'. One has to wonder why did the Council not conduct a more practical survey several years earlier which specifically addressed the forms of nuisance I had been reporting, why did the Council wait until it became aware of a complaint against it to the Ombudsman. It is difficult, therefore, to see a legitimate propose for Coote's 'survey', and it is highly likely, indeed, this 'survey' served no purpose other than to help in the Council's deliberate deception of the Ombudsman.
      The Council claim three residents responded to this 'survey'. Just one of these 'completed' survey forms was amongst the documents sent to me by the Ombudsman: it is not signed and there is no indication of the respondent's address or identity. Not surprisingly, the answers supplied on this 'survey' form are those which support the misinformation supplied by the Council to the Ombudsman. Because of the dishonesty shown by Coote in November 2005, it is entirely possible this document was completed by someone other than a resident at this building. It is evident this 'survey' was conducted simply to allow the Council to tell the Ombudsman there was no evidence of the noise issues of which I had been complaining to the Council.
      Coote has shown a willingness to engage in deception and willingly to co-operate in Brent Council's deliberate obstruction of the Ombudsman's investigation of a complaint against the Council.

The Council employee Christian Longdon

I heard no more about the 'meeting' on 9-11-2005 with Coote until I received a letter dated 20-12-2005 from the Council employee Christian Longdon. In this letter, Longdon described himself as 'area housing manager'. It did not address the issues made known to Coote, and addressed only the reason for Coote's leaving my home on 9-11-2005. This letter stated that I '…proceeded to throw her out of your home, stating that you didn't want "you or your type" in your home again'. That I actually said this to Coote is a lie. The truth is that I just told her to leave my home; I did not 'throw her out'. Coote would not have been aware of the contents of the document I handed to her until she had left my home and, in all probability, this document would have been ignored if they hadn't seen a way to use it to their own ends.
      In the light of the circumstances described earlier on this page:

  • the difficulty I had in getting the Council to deal effectively with the nuisance caused by nfh
  • the failure of Ebanks to resolve any of the issues I had put to her one year previously
  • the refusal of Ebanks to respond to my e-mails after her visit in 2004
  • Coote's claim to have no knowledge of the history of this nuisance
  • Coote's claim recently to have been informed of nuisance issues by Ebanks
  • Coote's refusal to allow the meeting of 9-11-2005 under circumstances which created an incontrovertible record of this meeting.

These circumstances combine to show that Coote entered my home on 9-11-2005 under false pretences and I was, therefore, entitled to ask her to leave my home in the manner in which I did.
      That the 'manager' Longdon failed to consider these circumstances and, instead, express support for a Council employee who had both refused to allow a meeting in my home under circumstances which would have left no doubt as to what had been said, and who has exaggerated what was said in my home on 9-11-2005 is inexcusable. This indicates Longdon has been promoted far beyond his abilities.
      The Council employees Coote and Longdon have shown a readiness to engage in the deliberate deception of the Local Government Ombudsman in England, an official appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. This points to blatant dishonesty and renders these individuals a danger to residents of the London Borough of Brent.

Related posts

Battling Brent   Bloody Brent   Revolting Brent   Incompetent Brent   The 'neighbour relations team'   Uncaring Brent   An open letter to Brent Council   … while Nero fiddled   Unaccountable Brent   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 · Chilling · Bent Council