Arrogant Brent

This excellent organisation summon the Fat Controller to ensure the smooth running of its cherished routines

28th January 2009   « Corrupt Council
Revised: 29-6-09, 5-3-11
Documents from Brent Council are quoted here either whole or in part to establish context.

Rattling their cage

I received this letter on Monday, 26-1-2009, from Brent Council and publish three extracts here, unedited except to include the omitted section of my e-mail (near the bottom of this letter);

Town Hall Annexe
Forty Lane
Wembley
Middlesex
HA9 9HD

DX145100 Wembley Central 2

Our Ref:718/37/CR
23rd January 2009

Dear Mr Leamy

Re: Defamatory Material, Material published infringing copyright, harassment and housing related anti-social behaviour
We write further to our letter of 30 May 2008 and your response dated 12 June 2008 and in relation to your website bentcouncil.blogspot.com.
      Whilst we recognise your right to express dissatisfaction with the manner in which Brent Council dealt with you complaints about nuisance neighbours you have included statements on your website which are clearly defamatory and go far beyond any expression of your opinion or of facts relating to your dealings with the council.
      On numerous occasions you accuse council officers of being deliberately corrupt and/or dishonest, of lying to ombudsman enquiries and of deliberately concealing information from those enquiries. Whilst you may disagree with some of the information put before the ombudsman, and whilst you may consider that information that should have been included in any report was missing and that you find this unacceptable, you have no basis whatsoever for stating that any of the council officers themselves deliberately and consciously withheld such information or lied about their personal knowledge of this information. You have no basis for stating that any of the council officers identified are corrupt.
[…]
The council officers identified by you vigourously deny that they have ever set out to deliberately withhold or conceal information from the ombudsman, deny that they have ever deliberately lied to the ombudsman enquiries and deny that they are in any way corrupt or dishonest as you allege or at all. Such statements have damaged and if not removed or if repeated will continue to damage the reputation of the council officers whom you have identified and the council. We consider that you have no justification whatsoever to make such statements and if the statements are not removed from your website we will have no option but to pursue remedies against you in court.
      Furthermore, you do not own the copyright in the photographs of Helen Evans and Gareth Daniel and have no permission to reproduce the said photographs on your site. If you do not remove the said photographs immediately we will be forced to pursue an application for an injunction to have this infringement prevented.
      Finally you have been emailing Helen Evans deliberately provocative and rude emails drawing her attention to your website. In particular in one email you stated as follows:
'Evans,
The dishonest behaviour of parasites like yourself has been exposed. [The decent thing to do would be to apologise]'.
[…]
If we do not hear from you within 7 days we will be making the necessary application to the courts without further reference to you.
      Please be advised that the Council retains the copyright in the content of this letter and you have no licence or authority to reproduce the same on your website.

Yours faithfully

Clive Romain
Senior Lawyer
(Housing and Litigation Team)

My response

Revised: 29-6-09, 5-3-11
Firstly, Council employee Romain, your letter refers to 'neighbours'. Please understand there is just one neighbour, as in NEIGHBOUR, singular, discussed in Bent Council.
      I should not have sent that e-mail to Evans and I apologise, but this does not escape the fact that Evans operates within a dysfunctional environment of which she describes herself its 'managing director'. Comments accusing some identified Council employees of deliberate corruption or dishonesty have been removed. I have removed the two photographs of Evans and Daniel until the copyright owner has been traced and permission granted. These two photographs of Helen Evans and Gareth Daniel have now been republished on Bent Council.
      Regarding documents and letters written by an employee in the course of his employment, the employer retains copyright in that material (subject to any agreement to the contrary).
      UK copyright is not infringed where part of a work is used without permission and the use falls within the scope of one of the copyright exceptions. These exceptions allow, in certain circumstances, some works to be used if that use is considered to be 'fair dealing'. 'Fair dealing' is permitted for copyright work such as written material (except a photograph) and allows this material to be used when reporting news or current events as long as it is with a sufficient acknowledgment.
      There is no strict definition of 'fair dealing' but it has been interpreted by the courts by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as 'fair dealing'.
      Because the issues discussed in Bent Council are of inherent public interest, Brent Council cannot demand removal of facts published here. It is immaterial whether these facts are contained in documents in which Brent Council hold copyright, or whether these facts are contained in documents in which I or a third party hold copyright.
      The extracts I have published throughout Bent Council have been used because both the subject and the content of these documents demand their publication. These extracts are concise although in some cases the complete document has been used to enable contextual understanding.

Unacceptable standards

A major element in my complaints to the Council regarding the behaviour of nfh concerned nuisance caused by the inconsiderate use of laundry equipment in the property directly above mine.

  • the Council were aware of these complaints and that these complaints continued repeatedly for a number of years
  • the Council were aware of this fact and have refused to address nuisance caused by wilful abuse of the terms of this leasehold agreement
  • the Council were aware of these facts in its presentation of evidence to the Ombudsman in 2005/6
  • this situation could arise once again if nfh return as residents to their leasehold property
  • as its tenant, the Council have sold the rights which I enjoyed when I took the tenancy in 1981

      Since the late 1990s, the Council have treated my complaints with contempt and the Council's employees identified in Bent Council have shown absolutely no concern for my well-being. These Council employees, whose behaviour is documented throughout Bent Council, have caused me considerable inconvenience and injury by;

  • denial of normal use of two windows for over 3 years through their incompetence
  • denial of the pleasure of my balcony through failure to ensure adequate drainage of water from the balcony of nfh
  • denial of the pleasure of my balcony through their refusal to deal with the dropping of rubbish by nfh
  • reducing my sense of self-esteem because of their refusal to deal with nfh's hard flooring or poorly insulated flooring
  • reducing my sense of self-esteem because of the continued soiling of my kitchen window by nfh
  • reducing my sense of self-esteem because of the sense of invasion of my home by nfh
  • deprivation of sleep through their refusal to deal with the nuisance operation of laundry equipment close to my bedroom
  • considerable stress and hardship because of the Council's contempt for my complaints
  • extreme frustration because of failure in service delivery for over 10 years
  • leaving me open to assault from the family of nfh
  • feelings of humiliation because of this assault
  • damaging my reputation on this estate because of action I was forced to take in 2003/4 against nfh
  • causing an unacceptable toll on my health leading to a suicide attempt

      In the Ombudsman's investigation of 2002/3, the Council employee Catherine (Kate) Dack lied to the Ombudsman about the contents of a letter sent to me by the Council employee Koleoso. Was this lie unintentional, or was this part of a separate agenda followed by the Council?
      In the Ombudsman's investigation of 2005/6, the Council employee Helen Evans presented misleading and highly selective information to the Ombudsman. Was this unintentional, or was this part of a separate agenda followed by the Council?
      This arrogant organisation has shown contempt for residents of the London Borough of Brent by riding rough-shod over my rights and my concerns, and by attempting to disguise these unacceptable standards of practice from the Ombudsman.

A simple way forward

It may be entirely possible this mess arose simply because of unintentional mistakes by the individual Council employees identified throughout Bent Council, or through sheer incompetence by the Council corporate. If this is so, fine. Explain the reasons for these mistakes, and redress the injury these mistakes have caused.
      Allow the relationship between Brent Council and myself to return to its former cordial state. Then we can move forward, and resume the rest of our lives such that the Council can get back to pushing its pen, rather than throwing it; and I can get back to sitting in my rocker, rather than falling off it.

This thread is continued in Capitulating 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   Coote and Longdon   Rogue's Gallery   Hell twice over   Why did Dack lie?   Evans is dishonest, Part 1   Capitulating Brent?   Bent Brent


BC copyright © 2009 WPL · Rattled · Bent Council