Monthly Archives: February 2013

Unwelcome Guests

Copy of complaint made against Brent Mind, and addressed to the head of the supporting people unit/department of the council:

Dear Faye Austin

I am calling to make a further complaint about the failures of Brent Mind, however, rather than engage in another impotent investigation, I would like to have some advise on how I can go about bringing a legal case against Brent Mind. This is because I feel I have sufficent grounds to make a claim against them for negligence, especially in the case of providing a safe and secure environment for their residents. This directly violates and undermines the tenancy agreement I signed in September, and moreoever, affects all the residents in my house.. For instance, Brent Mind, in spite of having a CCTV camera on the property, has allowed people to enter/tresspass, almost daily, without taking proper meausres to prevent these encroachments.

As I write to you, there is someone else in the house they arrived at 23:42 (after another person came at 23:31). I have, in fact, been keeping a diary to record all the instances of tresspass, and yet, I have been deeply troubled by the fact that I have had to take initiative in doing this, as opposed to being prompted to do this by the Brent Mind team. This is one failing.

Brent Mind has had a visitor ban in place since November 11th, 2012, and yet, I have not seen an end to the unwelcome guests on the premises. I am deeply troubled by this as it highlights a major inconsistency in Brent Minds approach to honouring its tenancy agreement. In November, for insance, when the window was smashed, a housing manager from Brent Mind claimed that there was evidence showing who had smashed the window, which seems to indicate that these cameras are checked, and yet, on a separate occassion, Brent Mind has claimed that it is difficult to take note of people who enter the premises as they find ways to evade the camera. This is flawed are largely evidence of a blatant disregard on the part of Brent Mind in as much asit highlights a rhetorical double-standard. It makes no sense to suggest that they caught someone on CCTV smashing the window, and then to later claim that people who enter the premises daily, through the FRONT DOOR, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA, are evading the camera. In seems to indicate that Brent Mind really do not care about the safety of the residents – as was claimed when the window was smashed, thereby, apparently, endangering the residents in as much as it granted outsiders easy access to the property. It seems that Brent Mind’s primary concern is “safeguarding” property, without much aforethought for the safety of the residents and security of the residents.

THere are vulnerable people in this house and so, morally, I am deeply troubled by this massive failure on the part of Brent Mind.
I will add another troubling issue which reflects the general neglect and deception practiced by Brent Mind. Kerrie Green, for instance – in the presence of Tim Green – claimed that ther was a procedure for dealing with intruders on the premises. She claimed that if spotted, someone should report it to the police, and yet, when I did this (on at least three occassions), I was eventually threatened with forced hospitalisation and the loss of liberty and rights, as I was seen as a hoax caller. This suggested that this procedure that Kerrie Green spoke of was not in place but purely rhetorical. It was not consequential as, evidence DEMONSTRATED, it did not exist. Naturally, this insult was particualry distressing, and this distress was compounded by the fact that it could have been avoided if I was provided with honest, true and accurate information, as opposed to being exposed to inaccurate information. I feel this needs to be investigated as it indicates that Brent Mind are not working to deal with this menacing problem.

Finally, I am also very alarmed by Brent Mind, who seem to be doing very little of consequence to address this issue, seem to want me to do more than they are doing, to solve this problem. The reality is that these issues arose as soon as a new resident moved in some time in mid 2012, and so, in as much as Brent Mind might have failed to conduct a proper risk assessment, they have created this problem. This being so, it is deeply problematic for Brent Mind to suggest that I should be exhausting myself to solve this issue, even if it primarily effects me, as they are the people with the resources. This brings up two more major concerns.

In the first instance, by asking me to work with the police to solve this problem, Brent Mind are being reckless as this could have damaging repercussions on how I am seen and even treated by eitehr the other residents of tehse random intruders – or “unwelcome guets – that enter the premises, meaning that Brent Mind can acutally, be encouraging me to put myself at risk. This is very dangerous and another piece of evidence to suggest that there have been major failings in how Brent Mind has handled this issue. I even sense that Brent Mind might be trying to get me into trouble here by playing off my issues against the residents and perhaps trying to spark a feud to render this issue personal as opposed to institutional. If this is so, I am even more worried by this, and thereby reluctant to participate in this “entrapment.”

Lastly, in a less discerning phase, as explained earlier, I recorded the times when people were entering the premises – a practice I have decided to stop in February. I am alrady dealing with major distressing and can not manage this burden, any longer, on my own. I have done my part to counter-act this problem, but Brent Mind have failed. I have provided them with exact dates and times of when people have entered the property, meaning that they have all the evidence they need to act.

I will remind you, and update you that these times were listed in previous correspondence, however, I will add these final bits of informaiton but I attempt to seek a definitive resolve. All of the times recorded do not merely list when people have been on the premsies but when they have entered, and can be seen, entering and exiting the property. :

21/01/13, 23:40, I am harassed by a “intruder” before they leave.
22/01/13 at 12:00 there is a bike in the hall way when I arrive. There are also people in and out the property at 16:00, 16:30, 16:52, 18:30, 18:45, 19:36,
23/01/13 at 00:05, 08:30, 08:50, 0922, 09:28, 10:00; 1:34, 13:12
24/01/13 — n/a
25/01/13 at 08:40, 10:02, 10:50, 11:05, 13:50, 14:42-14:58.
26/01/13 at 12:45, 14:57
27/01/13 at 13:47
28/01/13 at 23:55
29/01/13 at 00:15, 07:15, 10:10-11:05 (various people in between)
30/01/13 at 1:28, (note: between 22:13 and 2:10, there were four people on the steps, causing a nuisance throughout the night)
31/01/13 at 00:32, 00:35 (note: there has been a bike in hte hallway since 11:50…)

again, this list is not definitive but enough to provide Brent Mind with an accurate time frame to use when reviewing this CCTV footage, assuming they care enough to do so. In the past they have also argued that they need specific times and so, unless practicing a rhetorical ethic, and intent on simply sabotaging my tenancy, I am sure that Brent Mind have enough information to act. I have given them all I know.

I thank you for taking the time to listen to and give time to this delicate and yet deeply distressing matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

kind regards

yours faithfully

Mr Malone

P.S. I apprecaite that you may be quite busy in dealing with other caseloads and so, if you could signpost me to appropriate legal avenues, theat would be greatly appreciated as I am quite sure that this issue will only be taken serious once a legal case is brought against Brent Mind. Thank you .