Evans is dishonest, Part 1

Brent Council's senior management lied deliberately to the Local Government Ombudsman in 2005

27th June 2009   « Corrupt Council
Revised: 2-5-10, Updated: 31-7-10

My second complaint to the Ombudsman

I was forced to make another complaint against Brent Council to the Ombudsman in 2005. On this occasion, again the Council lied to the Ombudsman.
      These complaints originated because of the Council's failure to curb the nuisance behaviour of a neighbour identified throughout Bent Council as nfh.

Lying through her teeth

The Council's replies to the Ombudsman's questions were presented by the Council employee Helen Evans in two documents dated 15-6-2006 and 23-6-2006. She provided an untrue and grossly distorted version of the facts related to the Council's failure to respond to my complaints to the Council about several forms of nuisance behaviour by this neighbour.
      Evans described herself as the 'managing director' of Brent Council's 'housing service', aka 'brent housing partnership'.

Evans’ lie No 1:

The Council responded to his complaints of nuisance [from the use of laundry equipment by nfh]

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council's 'noise patrol service' refused to respond to my telephone calls complaining of this nuisance
• the Council ignored my complaints that this noise nuisance continued throughout the night
• the Council failed to investigate this noise nuisance from within my home
• the Council ignored my suggestion in 2003 it monitor this nuisance
• the Council's 'neighbour relations team' failed to resolve this nuisance
• the Council failed to act on evidence in its possession of the continued existence of this nuisance

Dishonestly, Evans failed to mention any of these instances of negligence in the Council's response to my persistent complaints of nuisance caused by unreasonable use of laundry equipment.

Evans’ lie No 2:

[Noise from the use of laundry equipment was] 'ordinary domestic noise …'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council did not monitor this nuisance from within my home
• the Council failed to investigate my complaints of nuisance from the unreasonable use of this equipment
• the Council failed to attempt to gather evidence to determine whether this noise was nuisance, or merely normal domestic noise
• the Council did not know, therefore, whether this noise was nuisance or 'ordinary domestic noise'

The Council's failure to attempt to gather evidence of this nuisance, of which I had been complaining persistently to the Council since 2001, was not addressed. Regardless, Evans felt qualified to address facts which were not in the Council's possession.

Evans’ lie No 3:

[Regarding the unreasonable use of laundry equipment] '… Mr Leamy has been unable to provide us with evidence that the noise is from the flat above …'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council knew since 2002 of the existence of my diary recording the use of this equipment and the nuisance it presented
• the Council failed to seek to obtain a copy of this diary until 2004
• I had given a recent 3-month section of this diary to the Council in 2004
• this diary showed laundry equipment continued regularly to be used throughout the night
• the Council failed to respond to the evidence presented in this diary
• the Council failed to investigate the level of nuisance I experienced either throughout the day or throughout the night
• the noise nuisance continued unchanged after the Council had been given this diary

Evans lied deliberately to the Ombudsman, and also failed to draw the Ombudsman's attention to this 3-month section of my diary recording nuisance caused by unreasonable use of this laundry equipment in a 24-hour period. This evidence showed prolonged use throughout the day-time and which continued regularly throughout the night.

Evans’ lie No 4:

[Noise nuisance about which I had complained to the Council was] 'ordinary domestic noise and usage of their flat.'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council had documented evidence in its possession this laundry equipment continued regularly to be used throughout the night
• the Council's 'neighbour relations team' failed to attempt to investigate or to resolve nuisance caused by unreasonable use of laundry equipment by nfh
• in 2003, the Council's 'neighbour relations team' failed to resolve nuisance from loud music played by nfh
• the Council failed to investigate or to resolve nuisance caused by transmission of excessive noise through floors in the area above my bedroom from the mid-1990s
• Council employees failed to connect nfh's inadequate floor insulation with my complaints to the Council of transmission of excessive noise through floors

While failing competently to attempt to gather evidence of nuisance from noisy electrical equipment from within my home, Council employees failed also to act on a strong indicator of the source of my complaints of transmission of noise through floors. Dishonestly, Evans described this noise as 'ordinary domestic noise'.

Evans’ lie No 5:

[Regarding misuse of their balcony rainwater run-off] '… there was no evidence of any deliberate misuse by the resident above.'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council failed to respond to my complaints from the late 1990s of nuisance by the deliberate, repeated unreasonable release of water through their balcony rainwater run-off
• the Council were aware the water released usually fell onto my balcony railing, from where it splashed onto my living room window
• in 2006, the Council had seen the soiling to my living room window because of this nuisance, and had refused to deal with it
• the Council were aware the water released sometimes fell onto my balcony floor and collected there
• the Council failed to resolve nuisance from unreasonable and excessive amounts of water discharged from the balcony of nfh
• in 2002, the Council had seen deliberate misuse by nfh of their balcony rainwater run-off and had seen the rubbish allowed to accumulate near it before being flushed off (the Council resolved this issue)

Dishonestly, Evans failed to mention the Council's knowledge of the anti-social behaviour of nfh through misuse of their balcony rainwater run-off.

Evans’ lie No 6:

[Asked to comment on the deliberate soiling by nfh of my kitchen window] 'During 2005/6 we did not receive any complaints from Mr Leamy, concerning the deliberate soiling of his kitchen window by the residents below.'(!?)

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council had failed to respond to my complaints of this nuisance since 2001
• in 2002, a Council employee was shown the damage to this window because of deliberate soiling by nfh
• the Council still have taken no steps to address this form of nuisance

Up to late July 2009, the Council have failed to address this form of nuisance. While the evidence awaits still to be inspected by the Council, this window remains in its full soiled state.

Evans’ lie No 7:

'Our first knowledge of the assault on Mr Leamy was when he wrote to us on the 7 September 2004 …'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• a Council employee, who had described herself as a 'tenancy officer', had visited me at my home on 14-1-2004
• I had given a full account of the assault to this Council employee on this date
• this visit had been prompted by a neighbour who had alerted the Council on 14-1-2004 about my suicide attempt
• this Council employee had been given further details of this suicide attempt when she visited me at my home on 14-1-2004
• the Council were aware of these two incidents from 14-1-2004

Dishonestly, Evans denied the Council were informed in January 2004 of the assault on me. Evans failed also to indicate whether the Council would consider the need to discourage residents from seeking to resolve issues in this violent manner.

Evans’ lie No 8:

[Regarding the overflow pipe] 'Following our investigation into Mr Leamy's complaint a response was sent to Mr Leamy's on the 7 December 2005 …'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• an alteration to this pipe by the Council in 2003 was inadequate
• this alteration was criticised as such in 2003 by a Council Technical Manager
• this alteration allowed the nuisance to continue as before
• a Council employee had lied to me about his failure to keep an appointment in 2004 for an inspection of this nuisance
• an important technical inspection in 2004 was cancelled without informing me
• the Council had refused to give me an explanation for cancelling this inspection
• between 2002 and 2004, several Council employees had witnessed both the discharge from this overflow pipe and the damage it was causing to my home
• the Council had difficulty in getting nfh to co-operate with the removal of this nuisance
• the Council contacted me by a letter dated 3-11-2005, directly as a result of my complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2005
• the Council had paid me £775 in compensation for its incompetence

Evans induced the Ombudsman to believe the Council's response in late 2005 to this nuisance was because of a recent complaint to the Council from myself. By early 2005, I had already abandoned hopes of getting the Council to resolve this issue; the Council responded only because of my complaint to the Ombudsman.
      Further examples of Evans' dishonesty and manipulation of the Ombudsman will be covered in Evans is dishonest, Part 2.

Evans’ lie No 9:

'… his attitude to his neighbour is hostile to the point of contempt.'

Evans failed to tell the Ombudsman that:

• the Council were aware that, since 2001, nfh refused to use their laundry equipment at reasonable times
• the Council were aware that nfh often used this equipment at night when it hadn't been used during day-time, although their flat had been occupied during that day
• the Council were aware that the use of this equipment continued regularly for many hours throughout the night
• the Council were aware that nfh had been given first-hand evidence of nuisance caused by their use of this laundry equipment at night in 2002
• the Council were aware of the failure of nfh adequately to isolate noise transmission from this equipment
• the Council were aware that nfh used their child's disability as an excuse deliberately to harass and cause nuisance to me
• the Council were aware that nfh ignored my concerns expressed repeatedly from the mid-1990s that litter falling from their balcony fell onto my balcony
• the Council were aware that nfh ignored my concerns expressed repeatedly from the mid-1990s that rubbish flushed from their balcony rainwater run-off fell onto my balcony
• the Council were aware that nfh ignored my concerns expressed repeatedly from the 1990s that water flowing from their balcony rainwater run-off usually fell onto my balcony
• the Council were aware of the refusal of nfh to stop the playing of music regularly at a loud, nuisance level
• the Council were aware of the failure of nfh to prevent the transmission of intrusive sounds through their floors since the 1990s
• the Council were aware of the failure of nfh to provide adequate floor insulation to reduce transmission of intrusive sound since the 1990s
• the Council were aware of the refusal of nfh to prevent water falling from their overflow pipe from 2002 and which, eventually, damaged my home
• the Council were aware that nfh used this overflow pipe deliberately to harass and cause nuisance to me
• the Council were aware that nfh encouraged vermin by feeding pigeons immediately outside my home
• the Council were aware of the refusal of nfh to stop the habitual shaking of clothing and household items over their balcony from the 1990s, and that nfh were aware debris from these shaken items falls onto my balcony
• the Council were aware that, from the late 1980s, nfh persisted in climbing onto my balcony without at any time seeking my permission
• the Council were aware that, in 2004, nfh threatened me with violence when I told them to get off my balcony
• the Council were aware that nfh interfered with my television reception by disconnecting my aerial cable on at least two occasions
• the Council were aware that nfh continued the practice deliberately of soiling my kitchen window
• the Council were aware that nfh attempted deliberately to soil my bedroom window on at least one occasion
• the Council were aware that nfh refused the offer of mediation in 2003 through the Brent Mediation Service by failing to attend
• the Council were aware that I did not make a formal complaint about the nuisance presented by nfh until March 1996, and that this reluctance officially to complain cannot be described as precipitous, hostile or contemptuous

Evans failed to supply information supporting her claim I mistreated nfh or behaved towards them in ways which denied their right to live peacefully in their home.
      Evans chose not to make the Ombudsman aware of the central issue which gave rise to my repeated complaints to the Council since the mid-1990s; the outright refusal of nfh to live in their home without intruding on mine. That the Council had seen evidence supporting some of these complaints, and had accepted these complaints as justified, is further evidence of Evans' dishonesty and of her manipulation of the Ombudsman regardless of the inherently unfair implications.

To be continued in Evans is dishonest, Part 2.

Update—31-7-10

Evans is dishonest, Part 2 will be published at a future date.

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   Arrogant Brent   Why did Dack lie?   Capitulating Brent?   Bent Brent

BC copyright © 2009 WPL · More lies listed · Bent Council