We had complained that Mr Haggan`s and Ms McGown`s attitude had been unfriendly and unhelpful. Ms McGown had also failed to respond to a very pleasantly and politely written email we sent her. Stephen Haggan became increasingly inappropriate and, we believe, unprofessional in his attitude towards us. He seemed intent on "closing-down" cases prematurely and to neither listen to us adequately nor to link incidents and patterns of anti-social behaviour together as would have been appropriate. We additionally believe he attempted to fob us off with information that was statutorily incorrect. We were not alone as well-behaved members of the public whose lives were being made a misery by the anti-social behaviour of some tenants of a nearby HMO. We were not alone in being treated very unsympathetically - if not contemptuously - by Mr Haggan and his colleagues, and being made to feel that we were the problem rather than the victims.
Yet, despite all this, nothing ever came of any such complaints against the conduct of Mr Haggan. The then head of Environmental Health, Tony Beeson, merely stated when pressed that Mr Haggan refuted what we had claimed and it was his word against ours. Consequently, we decided that on the next occasion we spoke with Mr Haggan, we would surreptitiously record what was said in the hope of providing the evidence to support our contentions. This opportunity came unexpectedly within a few weeks when the doorbell rang.
Below are excerpts from the transcript of this visit. It should be emphasised that by this juncture we had for several months been exerting huge pressure on the Council (so severe was the ASB) and tenaciously refusing to allow the attempts of Mr Haggan and colleagues to fob us off:
AUDIO RECORDING OF MEETING INVOLVING S HAGGAN (C McGown, M and G B)
The recording was made on 30/01/`09 at no. 8 Hanover Road, Weymouth. Present were Mr M B, Mrs G B, and also Mr Stephen Haggan and Ms Coralie McGown. The latter two (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council Environmental Health staff) were unaware that the conversation was being recorded. Mr and Mrs B had not been pre-notified about this visit by Mr Haggan and Ms McGown. They arrived unexpectedly having just spent some time at no.XX XXXXXX Road, an HMO owned by Mr D N and Mrs N.
(Unclear) denotes dialogue of a single word or more that hasn`t been inserted because accurate recognition was not deemed possible.
TRANSCRIPT
Following a brief period of all organizing seating positions and calming the dog, the conversation continues as follows after SH has inquired whether there was still a noise problem:
MB: (describing Mr J V`s music disturbance).....up until Tuesday it was bad. And on Tuesday, very, very strangely, it just stopped. Nothing on Tuesday. Nothing yesterday, that`s nothing on Wednesday. Nothing yesterday. And this is, um....
GB: Friday.
MB: And nothing so far nothing today.
GB: No.
MB: Although normally it sort of starts anything from 10:30 to 11:00 (am). It does start, occasionally it doesn`t start until the evening. Or late afternoon.
SH: From Tuesday there`s been nothing at all?
MB: Nothing at all. Well it`s very strange because this is not, this is totally, we haven`t, the only other period we had like this was for a few days after Christmas when he...
GB: Thought we had the meter (recording equipment) in.
SH: Yes.
MB: When he was accusing me that, you know, blah, blah, blah you`ve got the meter in, and he obviously thought it was in. Then he went beserk again.
SH: Well that`s, that`s good. Er, hopefully (brief interruption because our dog needs to be told to lie down back in original position) Right. Well that ties in quite well with what I`ve been doing so far. (Unclear)
MB: You`re obviously aware of the noise that was recorded, then. It was quite bad.
SH: We`re, we`re still working through the noise. As I said to you, when we took the noise, and, well I spoke, took it out because we were off to put it somewhere else, so we couldn`t look at every case, that`s why, because it`s going into properties as soon as it comes out. So we do take a couple of days every so often to download all the stuff from all the properties. Hence, it does take a long time to download. You know, when we spoke the other day, we can`t get back in (unclear). That`s the nature of it.
MB: Can I just stress one thing. With Mr N it`s been utterly impossible. He always seems to make out that he is doing us a massive favour by even talking to me, for example, and yet he is incredibly smug, incredibly arrogant, and very, very cocksure. And he, it`s as if he can`t be touched, and he has stressed time and time again in moments of sincerity, XXXXXXXXXXXX, that he doesn`t intend doing anything that will cause him to lose revenue or to pay out any money – to amend anything. That`s what he`s insisting time and time again.
SH: Can I just, can I just stop you there. What I will say is this. Let`s take Mr N out of the picture. The noise issue, an individual in the property, that we identify a certain area where that noise is. That`s what we want, we will work on, right? This is an HMO. Yes it has a landlord, and that landlord is doing what, as a licensed operation, you know, he will continue to do. The licence doesn`t stop. Right, with the noise issue, I will deal with you, and with the occupier that is causing the noise.
GB: Okay.
MB: He is a highly aggressive individual, is J (V). And I have witnesses to that...
SH: (interjecting) I will disregard all that information. I don`t need to know that information, the noise is one set area. Okay? So, when, you know, each time you bring Mr N into, you know, the equation each time, I will remove Mr N from that equation.
MB: Does he not have a duty of responsibility to the neighbours of his HMOs?
SH: With the neighbours? That`s it. You are making a complaint against an individual that`s causing the noise.
MB: I`m also making a complaint against Mr N.
SH: No, Mr N isn`t causing the noise.
MB: No, but he has...
SH: (interjecting) Bear with me just now, okay? What I`m saying to you is we`re dealing with a noise complaint. The rest of the whole (unclear). With the noise complaint (unclear) here is the individual making the noise. I will deal with that individual. We are dealing with that individual. Yep. There are two ways this can go, is he continues to make the noise, we track the evidence, and serve a notice. Okay? Serve that notice, he breaches that notice, I will then take him to court. Okay? Simple. Let the magistrates decide what, what will happen from that point. Okay? The other route is he adheres to what I`ve said to him, the noise stays down, he`s not a nuisance, and we close the case down. That`s simple. That is how easy, that`s, that is how basic (unclear)..
MB: In theory.
SH: So that`s it all covered.
GB: And what if he, say, in a couple of month`s time he starts again.
SH: If it kicks off again, you know, we will, you know, reopen the case.
GB: But what if he doesn`t.... (interjected before being able to add “start up in say six months time?”
SH: Yes, and I will, I will refer back to each incident. But, you know, if it gets to the stage that, you know, we, we, basically have a different nuisance bearing in mind that that nuisance is no longer, then I will close the case down. Okay? Now each time you want to discuss other issues with the landlord and all the rest, each issue we`ll deal with, again, if it`s a nuisance, we`ll deal with it. And, if it`s removed then we`ll close the case down. Okay? Areas that, you know, you`re bringing up, you know, with the letters you sent to him and you`ve spoke to Mr Beeson, and, we know it continues like this, we do, you know, take a look at each of those areas, hence the work today, which I will lead on to the next bit and what we were doing, and we were having a look with regard to the drainage system, okay, to see if the sink comes out into the back. I can tell you now the sink doesn`t go out the back. Okay, so it`s (the urine) not coming out of the sink.
MB: Extraordinary. I wonder where it`s coming from, then.
SH: Okay? And that`s, that`s one of the reasons what, well one of the main reason why we had a really good, at that point, to come in to look at that and to see what was going on. Okay? So each individual case....
MB: (interjecting) Have you determined where it has been coming from, then?
SH: No. And, to be quite honest, because it`s not coming through the drainage system. Okay? So it`s something that we will not or we cannot option with, because there`s no, if it were the sink, now listen, if it`s the sink we could help you with that one, then we had something there.
MB: There was...
SH: Hence, what we did today (Unclear – “like yesterday”?)
MB: There was somebody who was chucking, who has since left, who was in, not in this side at the top the but the next one, the other one, next to the rear at the very top, who was chucking out liquids of some description from a cup, and (to GB) we were both hit, weren`t we, on the head. I don`t know, I don`t think he aimed at us, but he was regularly doing this. What they contained, we`ve no idea, but obviously.... (interjected when about to explain that it might have been urine, and also tipped into guttering)
SH: (interjecting) Stop. It`s not blocked.
MB: (audible sigh of frustration)
GB: It`s not blocked?
SH: The sink isn`t blocked now.
GB: It`s not blocked now?
SH: Because we`ve just dye-tested it. So,...
MB: At the top?
SH: Yeah
MB: Yeah. Because we were told by more than one person, even by N who said this to me, that the sinks were blocked at the top.
SH: It seems to have become a much bigger obstacle (Unclear) what we`re going to do. And hence that`s why I was going to....
MB: Yeah
SH: ... come downstairs, Coralie was, so, what we`ve, what we`ve in effectively got, with our check, according to the wire I was given, nobody could do anything between, so that`s the only reason that we, you know (Unclear) why we`re tracing, er, blockages and that, tracing to find out who, it`s actually connected against the (Unclear).
MB: Just to be very clear, um, are you, erm, querying, um, our claim that there`s been urine coming down (Unclear, interjected)?
SH: No, no. Not, no.
MB: You`ve got no idea how it`s been doing that?
SH: What, what I`m saying to you is, your complaint that, your initial complaint was made out specifically that it was being poured down the sink and was coming out in your...
MB: (interjecting): Yes. And Mr N said, when I `phoned him first, he knew who it was, he`d give him, the person who`d done it before, he`d give him six weeks notice, and he`d get our drain cleaned, and our downpipe, and of course, he didn`t.
SH: Yuh.
MB: Okay? That`s another lie. Yuh.
SH: Yuh. Okay. What, what we`ve got. You know, what I`m saying to you, we must confirm, that`s an (Unclear) check the sink and we know it`s not, in, er, their back (Unclear), see what happens, under the property, doesn`t go out the back, because if, my next, my next bit was, we haven`t got the dye down through (Unclear) to go out the back, and, we the, do the experiment again, and watch what comes out through the workings. So, that`s what we do. We, er, that`s our investigation (Unclear), but, you know, the drainage system is out of sight, so the other way we can do it (Unclear) all possible exits and find out where it comes, and then we know what`s blocked where, and then we can do that. We`ve got that in our mind there, now we know that it doesn`t go to the rear of the property, because that`s, that`s the situation.
MB: So that`s it?
SH: (Unclear)
MB: (unclear)
SH: (Unclear)
MB: (after a sigh) But that`s, that`s still a mystery which doesn`t help us. If it occurs, obviously.
SH: Yeah. Like I say, it`s not the drainage system, it`s not something, we can`t deal with, you know, we haven`t got a legislation there to, to you know, you know, from...
MB: From anywhere?
SH: Again...
MB: Anywhere in that property.
SH: Can`t say that. You know.
MB: Okay. Well, we know that it`s not coming from our property.
MB & SH: (Unclear)
SH: We, we follow all our leads in what we`re doing, so the investigation continues. It hasn`t finished. Let`s say that`s another avenue that`s been now cut off. Now we know it`s not coming from the sinks.
MB: Okay
SH: So, it`s not out of the way. It`s something else that can be played with. The noise issues, if the noise before, or the lack of noise, because it`s much calmer, there`s no noise coming through, so the nuisance, it`s abating itself as we speak.
GB: When did you speak to him (J V)?
SH: I spoke, I`ve spoken to him a couple of times, yes.
GB: In the last week?
SH: Yes.
GB: In the last seven days?
SH: Yes. The last couple of weeks we`ve been in touch and this week we`ve had, er, long chats.
MB: Did you tell him that the equipment had been in? The Monitoring equipment?
SH: We don`t discuss that with, er, outsiders. That`s between you and me.
MB: That was after it had been in, then?
SH: Yeah.
MB: You told....
SH: We told...
MB: No?
SH: (interjecting) We don`t discuss that the, all I, all I would say, is evidence had been collected now in the answer in your letter, we (Unclear) simple ways. First monitoring equipment, officer attendance, and the police can attend and give us a statement. So that, that means that evidence can be gathered, now, and then as I said to you...
MB: (interjecting): Have you told him this week that evidence had been gathered?
SH: He knows that evidence has been gathered. But, he doesn`t know how.
MB: He knew that earlier this week?
SH: Earlier this week, and I got an undertaking from him not to play his music.
MB: Right. Okay.
SH: Right. So I can`t (Unclear) that at the moment it`s happening. Okay? So, I will I will close the case down and I, he, he is clear in his own mind what will happen if he continues.
GB: But is there a cut-off point between, um, his music, you and us? Er, if he hasn`t played it for say three or four months and we`re open for business and it starts getting loud again...
MB: (interjecting) Yes, and our guests just want to walk out.
SH: If he, if he starts playing his music, you can come back, you can come back to me, and, and, you know, we will, I will speak to him. Now, again, evidence has to be gathered. I cannot take into account your business, and, you know, you dealing with your business outside our (Unclear)...
MB: (interjecting) That`s where litigation (Unclear), and we`d be quite happy to do that, obviously. If we had to, obviously.
SH: Right. Okay. You know, with the noise issues we look at the abatement notice orders, or the abatement of the nuisance. Okay? Right by whatever means, that we will do that. And let`s say I`ve spoken to him, he`s under no uncertain terms that if he (Unclear) the full journey of our, of our serving a notice, and gathering evidence for a breach, go to court, and me asking for a warrant to seize the equipment back, I`ve got no problems with that. I can do that. (Unclear). Settled. There, there`s just no two ways about it. That`s how it goes. And on the other hand, if he sticks to playing it low, and there`s no nuisance I will close the case down. Right? The nuisance has been abated, the case is closed.
MB: Yeah.
SH: That, that`s, that`s it. You know, that`s it in its simplest form.
MB: You know, we just want to get on with our lives with peace and quiet. I mean, when I called Coralie (McGown) out previously, I`m sure she will confirm, there were two genuine reasons. One was a sewage leak there (outside no 6 Hanover Road) which hadn`t been dealt with, and the other was rats at the back. Erm, you know, it`s not gratuitous. Once we had discovered, because we were misled by the vendors, there`s potential legal action there, erm, that it was an HMO, yeah, obviously we were pretty concerned. But, to begin with, there weren`t many problems, (to Mrs B) were there?
GB: No.
MB: There was the occasional problem. I would go in, speak to the person, apology, dealt with, no problem at all. Yeah? And we thought, phew, you know? And then things started turning, first with the urine, and then with the realization that, disregard it if you will, Mr N was not going to be very helpful. He comes out with this wonderful, convincing patter - very, very reassuring. But there`s no substance to it. So we thought, oh dear we`re going to have problems with him. And then, of course, a few months after that, and other things like damage to our roof, litter coming over, syringe wrappers, et cetera, which is a bit concerning because when you know there`s a junkie up there, you think, well are contaminated needles going to come over as well? Er, we also then also get the noise problem up there, and a very, you know, aggressive, belligerent individual, erm, who seems just determined to blame me for everything, including calling the police out, and shouting up from there (indicating outside the front window of no 10 Hanover Road). Neither. Erm, and er, once he`s now got something in his life to do, as opposed to nothing, annoy me next door, er, it`s just got worse and worse and worse.
SH: (interjecting) I mean, where, where...
MB: And Mr N`s just got more and more and more smugly defiant.
SH: To be quite honest, where, where, where we`re heading with this particular one, and we, we will look at, I will, I will throw it into the pot, and what we`re looking at is a neighbour dispute because your not happy with him, and he`s not happy with you. You`ve both got off on the wrong foot, and that is a hard thing to do.
MB: Are we talking about J or Mr N?
SH: J.
MB: J.
GB: He`s not happy because we`ve complained about his noise.
MB: Exactly. He`s not happy....
SH: (interjecting) Exactly.
MB: That tells us an awful lot. That is not (lots of attempted interjection by Mr Haggan for a few seconds), that is not what any reasonable person would regard as being a valid...
SH: (interrupting) No. I`m not saying, I`m not saying that...
MB: (interjecting) What we`re dealing with is somebody who`s totally unreasonable.
SH: We`re talking a lot about general terms. In general terms, what we are coming close to, well what I`m coming close to, is a neighbourhood dispute. It`s, it`s an opinion that, er, differs on both sides. So, you are, and, well I`ve (Unclear) because, you know, yes he does play his music loud, and you will, er, go to him and ask to turn it down, he will come back and will not turn that music down, so there`s instant acrimony. You know...
MB: Okay, okay.
SH: So, on both sides, um, every, every time we`ve spoken you tell me of, of his nature, and then he will do something very similar. So, you`re both, you`re both, have a right...
MB: (interjecting) Well, if you want. I can bring witnesses out who have seen me converse with this guy who will vouch that I was very calm and trying to be extremely reasonable and that he was the opposite.
SH: Yeah.
MB: Okay? So...
SH: (interjecting) I`m not, I`m not....
MB: (interjecting) I`m not judging who`s right or wrong. I`m just saying there`s a problem...
SH: (interjecting) It`s my observation...
MB: (interjecting) I`m not interested in what he has to say, okay, because he`s just been an aggressive nuisance. He`s been aggressive in his manner towards us - or towards me - he`s been aggressive with his music, okay? Neither are acceptable. End of story. (some unclear interjections of Mr Haggan).
SH: That again...
MB: That`s an excuse. That`s it.
SH: You`ve just proven my (Unclear)
MB: You know?
SH: Yeah. Yeah.
MB: That`s it.
SH: That`s what I`m saying, you know, my observations are exactly what you just said there.
MB: Yeah?
SH: You, you pointed out, coming from both sides, coming to us, um, we`re dealing, we have to deal with that. So, that`s what we`re saying, you know.
MB: Yep.
SH: What you, you said there, er...
MB: (interjecting, following a pause) One fact of life: we are straight. Whether people like it or not, we are straight. Okay? I think we do find dealing with people who aren`t straight, and who have very strange issues, or, you know, we are basically straight people, and, er, I mean, we wouldn`t make a politician or anything like that because, you know – we wouldn`t make good sales people, either. You know, we just wouldn`t. Anyway, we try our best to be considerate and not to annoy other people, and we, we`d just appreciate it to be reciprocated.
SH: Yeah.
MB: Yeah?
SH: Sure. Yeah.
MB: (laughing a bit) We, we (laughing a bit) – since we`ve been here it`s been getting worse and worse. (some “What” and “What we” interjections from SH throughout)
SH: What we`ve got, I`m sorry, what we`ve (Unclear) in the regulations. Now, it`s been nice and quiet for a few days, yuh? Long may that continue. And, if that continues, we`ve achieved our aim. But, what we`re looking at...
MB: (interjecting) If that continues, fantastic.
SH: Yeah. Exactly. And, you know, if you`ve got no cause to come to me and say it`s loud, brilliant.
MB: We would love that.
SH: That`s, that`s what we`re getting, that`s what we`re getting, so back to work, huh? Okay? And, but, like I said, if he does turn the music up, do give me a call. You know that`s, that`s easy. You know, that will be dealt with. But, what I`ll say is, you know, and I`ll say it to both sides, don`t sit there looking for it. You know, don`t sit there saying go on, play the music, or, is he going to play it, and he, he`s saying, he`s saying to himself I can`t play the music because you`ll, you know. That`s what I would say – get on with your life.
MB: That`s what we want to do. That`s all we want to do, but we have been unable to do it under the circumstances.
SH: So hopefully, you know, now, now I`ve heard (Unclear) we`re on the, we`re on the track, we are moving. It is, it is slow, it will all take time, but hopefully it will continue.
MB: We just want to open this place up (for business as a B&B) and I just want to get on with my work which is writing, you know, and (to GB) that`s all we want to do, isn`t it? That`s all we want to do, just get on with our lives and enjoy it, because if it wasn`t for this property (ie. next door HMO) and the problems we`ve had, with only a minority because most people there are very nice and well-behaved. It`s just been a minority of individuals, and a landlord with whom we find it impossible to, er, liaise, or have any sort or form of responsibility for. Um, that excepted it`s lovely. It`s been very nice here. Other neighbours here are very, very pleasant. Er, (to GB) we love it here, don`t we G (Mrs B)? It`s just...
SH: Hopefully, hopefully now you can focus your attention in here.
MB: We`d love to.
SH: That`s what we want to see. That (Unclear). Let them get on, do their own thing. Whatever they want. They`ve got their rights to live their life. Okay? If it isn`t interfering with yours, that`s (Unclear).
MB: Exactly.
SH and MB: (Unclear)
MB: I do not want to see, straight up, that place closed down. What I do want, because there are plenty of nice people there, if they`re happy living there, if they`re well-behaved, that`s fine. Yep? I wouldn`t want them to be re-homed or whatever. (Unclear) What I don`t like, however, is Mr N`s management of the property, you know, where it`s certainly adversely affected us, and obviously, um, we didn`t ask, however, for problems from certain individuals who have been making life absolute hell for us. Yeah? That`s where we draw the line. And, you know, what we have always wanted is that Mr N has some pressure on him – especially, you deal with your rogue tenants, yeah? The minority, and if they continue to misbehave you deal with them appropriately. So far he has failed to do this. Okay? So that`s what we would like.
SH: Right.
MB: Now that`s why I`ve obviously been ringing you....
SH: Yeah.
MB: And Coralie..
SH: Yeah
MB: Because obviously without that Mr N would have done absolutely nothing, and, from the comments that`ve been made, and I`ll make this statement, and you can repeat it if you like, from comments that have been made by J himself to me, and by other people there, er, we have very good reason to believe that XXXXXXXXXXXXX.
SH: (Unclear) I`ll say that`s...
MB: (interjecting) That`s the...
SH: (interjecting) That`s, that`s your right to..
MB: (interjecting) Yes, you know, that`s what we`ve been dealing with. You see, that`s why we`ve been banging our heads against a brick wall. I mean, Christ, why do we have to put up with this? Why is this man, this wretched man so unreasonable? Why is the landlord so utterly unreasonable? You know...
SH: (interjecting) Well what, what I would say about this is (Unclear), okay? Let`s step back from it, both sides. Let`s leave that man and let`s, you get on with your life on this side. Okay. When do you, when do you plan to open?
MB: Well, very , very – we`ve got a few things to do which`ll take a bit of money. We`ve held back because we are getting very short of money and we thought, well, do we actually want to spend these last few bits and bobs if we then still can`t open? Because we have to feed ourselves in the meanwhile. It`s come to that. You know, otherwise we probably would have opened about a month ago I would have thought, at least, you know. I know it`s not the height of the summer, but at least Weymouth does have a year round appeal.
SH: Let`s say, you`ve, you`ve got this to get on with and look at, and let them get on with their lives. Okay, so basically (MB laughs), yup, focus, focus your attention into your side at the moment, and get on with your....
MB: (interjecting) It`s what we`ve been trying to do (SH tries to interject) until thump, thump, thump (referring to J V`s thudding, loud music disturbance) starts up, and then it`s impossible.
SH: As I said, a line in the sand`s drawn.
MB: Yep.
SH: Okay? So let`s move forward, and let`s not (Unclear) back....
MB: (interjecting) We would love to.
SH: Right so, what I`m saying is now, let`s move forward, you get on with your life in here, if it stays quiet there (the HMO), brilliant.
MB: If not, get back to you.
SH: If not, get back to me.
MB: Okay. Yup. That`s just what we want to do, get on with our lives. That`s all we want to do.
SH: That`s where, that`s where we want to be. That you get on with your life, they can get on with theirs, and if, if neither of the two meet again, brilliant. You know, but, if they you do, and there, there are clashes again, actually you give me a call.
MB: If it`s just a minority problem, as you`re aware....
SH: (interjecting) Well obviously. That`s important. We`re on a forward motion now so let`s, let`s stick with it. Okay?
MB: (laughing) That`s what we want.
(Initiated by SH the conversation continues for a while about Kitchen inspection and fire safety re B&B with input from CMcG)
SH: (Unclear)
MB: It has been, yeah...
SH: (interjecting) Touch wood, if, if it stays like this now (Unclear)
MB: Oh absolutely. That`s all we want, that`s all we want. Just peace and quiet. No littering, no urine coming down. But the worst thing, of course, there was a bit of littering, I mean, you know, and, there was some vandalism as well. Okay, that tenant`s gone a while ago. But you know, the cigarette butts, the litter – that seems to have stopped. The urine? I think we noticed it last about three weeks ago, four weeks ago. It hasn`t stopped completely but it`s not like it was at the height of the summer. Erm, again, that`s on our bit, and that`s not seriously going to impinge on the guests. Yeah? Obviously thud, thud, thud....
SH: (interjecting) (Unclear)
MB: (Unclear)
SH: (Unclear)
MB: It`s not just that. (SH tries to interject) It`s, it`s, if I can just say there have been, you know, at times, every single room, even right down there at the back, all you can hear is thud, thud, thud. You can`t relax or anything. It`s impossible.
SH: You know, let`s, lets move forward on that now. Er, it`s quiet. (movement, and unclear whispers) Hopefully we don`t, you know, if, if it does, does get loud, give me a call. Okay? Cheers. Thanks very much.
MB: (As SH and CMcG are departing) thank you (Unclear). Thank you. Goodbye.
3) Complaints against Stephen Haggan.
In December 2008, having asked to speak to Mr Beeson over the `phone, I was put through to Mr Haggan without initially realising it was not Mr Beeson. I was suffering from severe stress (perhaps Mr Haggan and other Council staff need to have the effects of stress on people explained), as was my wife, due to the continued problems relating to the HMO of which Mr V`s thudding music almost every day for long periods was the biggest. Further, I was frustrated at Mr Beeson`s apparent lack of urgency to address our problems caused by tenants of the HMO and its landlord. As a consequence I was, without being necessarily rude (and certainly not using any foul or abusive language whatsoever) initially demanding with respect to what was being done by the council. Mr Haggan took great exception to this, abruptly and angrily responding that he wasn`t prepared to continue listening to this. At this juncture I realised that I wasn`t speaking to Mr Beeson after all. I thus immediately apologised, explained my error, and also explained precisely why I was suffering from so much stress. Mr Haggan, however, was not easily placated. Quite possibly (though this is conjecture) he was outraged by the fact that we had complained about his colleague Ms McGown. Quite probably, as seems to have become clearly evident, he too was of the view that the council were uninterested in our complaints against both some of the tenants of the HMO and its landlord.
In subsequent `phone conversations with Mr Haggan his conduct was mostly unacceptable because he was often officious, demonstrated a total lack of empathy, and demonstrated a lack of interest in our plight. Further he always ended conversations with me with the words “it`s been nice talking to you, Mr B, as always” which at the very least was insincere, and most probably was of cutting sarcasm. Considering the effects the anti-social behaviour from the HMO was having on us (lack of sleep, high blood pressure, chest pains, weight loss, financial strain etc), Mr Haggan`s attitude and manner were some way short of appropriate. His unwillingness to effectively tackle the problems stemming next door was unacceptable.
When I eventually managed to persuade Mr Haggan that the urine problem needed to be addressed, he agreed to make a visit later that day on 17/12/`08. However by mid afternoon I had developed an excruciating headache (little surprise considering the long-term noise, lack of sleep, and stress). Mrs B and I decided that I should retire to bed and cancel Mr Haggan`s visit. Mrs B accordingly `phoned the environmental health department (she cannot remember who she spoke to but this person was female) to do so, clearly explaining the reason why. During the `phone conversation she was asked if the urine problem and noise problems were still affecting us, and she replied that they had subsided a bit for the moment, although temporary abatement did occur from time to time (this is obvious: in the case of the urine it wasn`t being continuously delivered through our drainage system, and sometimes the rain helped clear it to an extent. With the noise, Mr V would sometimes be out or asleep etc and so of course it would sometimes temporarily cease). However, not only did Mr Haggan subsequently inform us that since we had cancelled he was closing the urine case, but also the reason behind this was not accurately recorded by the council. In the requested Inspection Report this was very inaccurately and misleadingly logged as “Telephone call then received from complainant stating smell gone and music had stopped. Visit therefore cancelled.” It may be that in this instance Mr Haggan was not responsible for the highly inaccurate logging of the reason for the cancellation. However, his quick decision to then close the urine complaint is ridiculous and untenable. With a chronic problem there are always going to be some short periods of abatement, whether for a few hours or a few days – it doesn`t mean that the problem has terminated and a case should be closed accordingly. The complaint had been ongoing for a couple of months, and obviously (as outlined above) such a problem is going to abate at times before worsening.
D C from Tiverton in Devon stayed with us in late October `08 for a few nights and was kept awake throughout much of these nights due to the thudding bass beat of Mr V`s music from the HMO. As a result, and aware of our continued difficulty in persuading the council to take more robust steps to curtail the increasing anti-social behaviour, Mr C volunteered to `phone the Council to complain about and discuss these problems further. Mr C did so without our knowledge at the time. Mr C later told us that he felt `phoning the Council was a complete waste of time. This was because the person to whom he spoke (definitely male, he believes it to be Mr Haggan) not only seemed uninterested, but seemed intent on making this manifestly clear. Similarly, Mr M W, from Crediton in Devon, stayed with us for a couple of nights in December `08 to do some work. He likewise was disturbed during the night by the music bass beat being played by Mr V. Mr W subsequently volunteered to write to the council to complain after we had informed him that the council seemed unwilling to take our complaints seriously enough to resolve the problems. On a subsequent visit a couple of weeks later in January `09, Mr W was not only disturbed again by Mr V`s music but also witnessed me (Mr B) attempting calmly to reason with a very hostile, threatening, and wholly unreasonable Mr V outside our property. Mr W (who said “I can now see exactly what you are up against”, and who was incredulous at the council`s lack of firm action to resolve this) then told us that he had received a reply from the council inviting him to `phone them to discuss this further. He stated that he would probably “take them up on the offer”. Several weeks after this (in late February, if we recollect accurately), Mr W `phoned us to say that he had `phoned the council and spoken to Mr Haggan. Furthermore he stated that he was appalled by Mr Haggan`s response. Not only, according to Mr W, did Mr Haggan seem uninterested in discussing any of this or listening to what Mr W had to report, but he was further shocked when, after attempting to persevere, Mr Haggan interrupted him by asking “has somebody put you up to this?” Mr W said he was disgusted by Mr Haggan`s attitude and question. It might be standard procedure when replying to invite the authors of complaints letters to `phone back to discuss matters further. But is it also standard procedure, when the invitation is accepted, to make it obvious that one is disinterested in hearing more, or to ask that person if someone has put them up to it? Both Mr C and Mr W are prepared to testify both verbally and in writing to these experiences/claims.
Mr Haggan had a habit of attempting to narrow complaints into a few specific incidents or patterns, and to attempt to close each case as quickly as possible. This was neither to give due consideration to all the problems of either intermittent or near continuous nature stemming from the HMO. For example, after issuing us with noise record sheets to log the music disturbance of Mr V, Mr Haggan wrote to us on 29/01/`09 (as he states further to his letter of 11/12/`08) that “I note from my records that I have not yet received your completed noise monitoring records. It is requested that you return any completed sheets to this office by 5th January 2009. Should you not respond to this letter it will be assumed that there is no further cause for complaint, the case will be closed and no further action will be taken by this department.” However we had, on receipt of this letter (on Friday 2nd January 2009) been in receipt of the noise monitoring record sheets for less than the full fourteen day period of logging required. This was typical of Mr Haggan`s deliberate and undisguised attempts to close cases unreasonably quickly and prematurely. There were other occasions when Mr Haggan informed us of his intent to close cases even though many, as explained, were long-term problems of which some were intermittent. We refer you to letters written by Mr Haggan to us dated 11/12/`08 and 29/12/`08 and 05/02/`09 as written/formal examples of this. Note also in Kate Hindson`s letter of 09/04/`09 states, “Stephen Haggan spoke to you later and asked if the noise had again been a problem and I understand that you agreed it had not. That particular complaint was therefore closed down.” However we had only stated that it hadn`t been a problem for nearly four days (we refer you to the audio recorded meeting transcript), hardly time to determine if what had been a long-term problem with the occasional hiatus had ceased. And sure enough the noise problem (same tenant) resumed a few days later. Furthermore, since the problems were not only chronic but also multiple, narrowing cases ad hoc in such specific, limited and disconnected ways was clearly not a suitable method of tackling all of our problems caused by tenants (and landlord) from the HMO. Not taking a more reasoned and reasonable overview of the persisting, multi-faceted nature of the problems was much less helpful than it could have been, added to our pressure and burden, did very little to resolve the long-term issues, and resulted in increased intimidation and other anti-social behaviours towards us from tenants who should have been dealt with much more quickly – and quite probably evicted. We have little doubt that Mr Haggan, whilst appearing to do things by the book, knew very well that his methods were making matters potentially harder for us. Mr Haggan may have been adhering to procedure, but we maintain that he was doing so over-zealously, without taking a broader view of the picture, and in a manner that was both inappropriate, increasing long-term problems, and also even, arguably, intimidating.
Mr Haggan stated to me and to both of us on more than one occasion that he was totally uninterested in the fact that we had bought our property (and spent a small fortune converting it ) to operate as a small B&B business. Whilst technically it may be accurate procedure not to either demonstrate bias in dealing with or investigating complaints, his attitude and sentiments were hardly empathic or likely to give us any assurances. They were, in fact, downright callous with the strong whiff of schadenfreude.
We `phoned Mr Haggan in mid March (16th probably, or 17th) after an unpleasant incident. On 16/03/`09 I (Mr B) had been in our back garden and, on returning towards our back door, had noticed a carrier bag on the edge of the single-storey flat roof at the rear of the HMO, and adjoining our rear/outside partition wall. Thinking that this carrier bag (which I assumed to be empty) was about to blow directly onto our property, I fished it down with a bamboo cane. However the bag was strangely heavy. On closer inspection I saw (and smelled) that it contained a considerable amount (the carrier bag was about one third full) of compacted faeces of either human or animal origin. My immediate reaction was to flip it back onto the roof (and further away from the edge) and to inform my wife. We recalled that Mr V had already threatened both to us and to some vulnerable residents of a nearby care home (who he often bullied and intimidated) that he would “throw lots of shit onto (our) property”. We agreed to inform Mr Haggan. After explaining the events to Mr Haggan, he merely informed me that it was I who had now done something wrong because I had actually brought the bag of faeces onto our property (when it had not initially actually been so), and then in the act of subsequently putting it back onto the property of origin, I was technically littering that property with a very offensive substance. I was staggered, though this was tempered by the fact that I was, after all, having to contend with Mr Haggan. When I protested calmly and politely that his response was unsatisfactory, Mr Haggan said that I had no proof that the bag of faeces had been intended for our property, that I hadn`t witnessed it being thrown, and then queried why I had fished it down in the first place. After reminding Mr Haggan that I had already explained that it was right on the edge of the roof and appearing to be about to blow/drop onto our property (as I was passing I may as well dispose of it now before it starts blowing around etc), Mr Haggan merely reiterated that it was I who had committed the only potential offence by removing something from next door`s property and then throwing it back. Mr Haggan then quickly terminated the call with his usual sarcastic remark of, “It`s been very nice talking to you, Mr B, as always.” After this and all previous unsatisfactory experiences of Mr Haggan, we decided that we would not deal with him over any issues again. We further note that this was not recorded in the requested Inspection Report. We reported the faeces incident to the police.
Mr Haggan, in addition to his hasty intentions of prematurely closing cases involving tenants from the HMO, did, in a letter to us dated 05/02/`09, inform us - after the V noise had briefly subsided/quietened for a few days following the noise monitoring recording - that not only did he intend to close the case but also, “as discussed should the loud music reoccur I will reopen the case and continue with my investigations.” He had stated this verbally on previous occasions, and did so verbally subsequently. However, he also pointed out on each such instance (to Mr B alone and to both of us) that it would mean having to restart the whole procedure again, involving filling-out log sheets, letters being written, and then having to then wait for perhaps up to “five or six weeks or maybe even longer” for the noise monitoring equipment to be brought back in. This would be the case whether or not the thudding music recommenced in a couple of weeks` time or several months` time. Likewise, in such eventualities, Mr Haggan pointed out that a member of Environmental Health (as a new law required) would actually have to hear the noise him/herself – even though, as he acknowledged, this could also take a number of weeks, and that the worst noise disturbance was often during the evenings when Council staff were likely to be off duty except on occasions of visiting pubs/nightclubs re noise etc.. Irrespective of procedure (and Mr Haggan`s inflexible and non-pragmatic utilisation of it), considering all we had already gone through, to be advised that the case would be so quickly closed and we`d have to go through the whole very protracted procedure again whilst our lives continued to be further badly blighted cannot surely be an appropriate method of dealing with this and all the other issues we`d been enduring. Note that during the audio recording transcript, Mr Haggan makes at least six references to closing the case down.
On 30/01/`09 Mr Haggan and Ms McGown made an unscheduled visit to our property. Bearing in mind we had little reason to trust either of them, and many not to do so, and combined with our belief that some of what Mr Haggan had told us previously we considered to be statutorily negligent and inappropriate, we felt the need to surreptitiously make an audio recording of what was said. The key areas of complaint are listed accordingly:
Mr Haggan and Ms McGown had been visiting the HMO and stated that they had conducted dye tests that showed that no urine could have possibly been exiting from the washbasins on the 2nd floor of the HMO and into our outdoor drain via the guttering conduit shared by both properties. Mr Haggan did not test our side (including downpipe and drain) for urine traces, however, and as far as he was concerned there was no urine that could be in the (our) drainage system, and that was all there was to it. Initially he stated “So it`s something that we will not or cannot option with, because there`s no, if it were the sink, now listen, if it`s the sink we could help you with that one, then we had something there.” I protested that we still had urine in our system from the HMO, and Mrs B and myself both added not only was it not possible that the urine was originating in our property, but also that we had seen liquids suspiciously ejected from the window from a rear 2nd floor of the HMO. Mr Haggan, however, intervened to stop us from expanding on this with relation to the urine. “Stop” he interjected before veering away from our line of reasoning and instead referring to the washbasins. “They`re not blocked” he said. He again subsequently attempts to restrict the investigation within absurdly tight parameters, simply not listening properly to our contentions, by stating “...what I`m saying to you is, your initial complaint was made out specifically that it (urine) was being poured down the sink and coming out in your...”This was despite pointing out that it had been Mr N who had told us that the problem was being caused by someone urinating into blocked sinks (and also that the sinks were blocked), and that he knew the culprit`s identity because this had previously occurred. Mr Haggan reiterated that we had complained that urine was being deposited into washbasins on the 2nd floor of the HMO, and that from there it was coming out through the pipes into the guttering and into our drainage system. We pointed out that there was categorically a urine problem in our system originating from the HMO, and that we had originally assumed it was coming from the washbasins because that was what Mr N had concluded (stating it wasn`t the first time) when we had first `phoned him on the issue. Mr Haggan seemed either unable or unwilling to listen to or explore what we had been saying, and we had to keep pushing and pushing to prevent Mr Haggan closing the case having restricted it within such ridiculously unhelpful parameters. Ultimately this section of conversation concluded thus:
Mr B: - “So is that it?”
Mr Haggan: - following some other brief interchanges - “Like I say, it`s not the drainage system, it`s not something, we can`t deal with, we haven’t got the legislation there to, you know....”
Eventually, because we had pushed Mr Haggan on this, he contradicted himself by stating, “...., so the investigation continues. It hasn`t finished.” However, to our knowledge, no further evidence has been gathered, and we can now be certain (having subsequently witnessed this) that urine was being tipped into the guttering from a top floor rear window of the HMO.
Regarding the thudding music of Mr V, and the fact that Mr Haggan and a colleague had already collected the sound monitoring equipment with emphatic evidence seven days earlier, Mr Haggan seemed very evasive about what he had said to Mr V and when. We had to keep pushing him with our questions with this section eventually concluding thus:
Mrs B: - When did you speak to him (J V)?
Mr Haggan: - I spoke, I`ve spoken to him a couple of times, yes.
Mrs B: In the last week?
Mr Haggan: - Yes.
Etc.
Mr B: - Did you tell him that the equipment had been in? The monitoring equipment?
Mr Haggan: - We don`t discuss that with, er, outsiders. That`s between you and me.
Etc.
Mr B: - “Have you told him (V) this week that the evidence has been gathered?”
Mr Haggan: - “He knows that evidence has been gathered. He doesn`t know how.” (seems unlikely since Mr Haggan had written to him advising him that sound monitoring equipment would be installed)
Mr B: - “He knew that earlier the week?”
Mr Haggan: - “Earlier in the week. And I got an undertaking from him not to play his music.” (But he did recommence playing it loudly a few days later)
Mrs B then asked for clarification about what would happen if, a few months down the line, Mr V recommenced playing his music when we would hopefully be trading as a B&B, causing the guests to walk out or demand refunds etc.
Mr Haggan: – “.....If he starts playing his music....you can come back to me.....I will speak to him. Now, again, evidence has to be gathered. I can`t take into account your business.....” We were trying to establish whether we would have to go through the whole lengthy process of gathering evidence (including a potentially long wait for the recording equipment to be installed) with letters sent out etc should the problem start up again. This, of course could have dire consequences for our business as well as further damaging our health. Yet Mr Haggan is often unclear in his response. On the one hand he states every thing is simple, and that he was dealing with it or would do so (magistrates likewise) should the problem recur. On the other hand he refers to gathering evidence again (as he had stated prior to this meeting and subsequent to it should Mr V start playing music loudly again at any juncture in the future).Mr Haggan concludes, somewhat ambiguously (because no time reference is provided) and ominously “And on the other hand, if he sticks to playing it low, and there`s no nuisance I will close the case down. Right? The nuisance has been abated, the case is closed.” Given Mr Haggan`s lack of clarity over any time period elapsing before a case is formally closed and a new one commences (with all the protracted evidence gathering etc), and given Mr Haggan`s propensity for attempting to close down long-term case problems (sometimes of intermittent nature) as quickly as possible before one can truly evaluated whether there is just a hiatus or whether the problem has genuinely ceased, we were far from satisfied.
Unhappy at the way Mr Haggan was addressing all our problems in his narrow, piecemeal and ad hoc manner caused by the HMO, inflicting considerable stress on us, and preventing us opening for business, I also listed the majority of these problems caused by certain tenants and the landlord. Mr Haggan, again tried to narrow the parameters - ignoring the fact that we had not been the protagonists, but had reacted to anti-social behaviour doing what we believed to be the right thing at every stage only to be suffer further. He attempted to implicate as much blame on me whilst absolving the council of due and proper responsibility by painting our problems as being a neighbour dispute between Mr V and me. The final part of this section of conversation went as follows:
Mr Haggan: - “...and he`s (V) not happy with you. You`ve got off on the wrong footing. I will throw that into the pot and what we`re looking at is a neighbour dispute because you`re not happy with him and he`s not happy with you....”
Etc.
Mrs B: - “He`s not happy because we`ve complained about his noise.”
Mr Haggan: - “Exactly... (he now agrees with us, only to persevere with his previous suggestion that he had just agreed wasn`t viable after our comments).... What we are coming close to is a neighbourhood dispute. It`s an opinion that differs between you.”
Mr B: - “I`m not interested in what he (V) has to say, okay, because he`s just been an aggressive nuisance. He`s been aggressive in his manner towards us - or towards me - he`s been aggressive with his music....”
Etc.
Mr Haggan: - “You`ve just proven my (Unclear)...” (indicating agreement)
Etc.
Mr Haggan: - “That `s what I`m saying, you know, my observations are exactly what you`ve just said there.” (So now he agrees with us again, without this time persevering with the neighbour dispute assertion, and begging the question how, if Mr V, but not I, has been the protagonist and aggressor, this could have be dismissed as a neighbour dispute)
So having attempted to implicate me as being as culpable as Mr V in all of this, having tried to dismiss this with apportioning of equal blame as being a neighbour dispute, Mr Haggan then casts a ridiculous and quite offensive and patronizing aspersion that (as if we`ve nothing better to do, and are complaining without validity) we would sit around waiting and hoping for Mr V to disturb us just so we can lodge another complaint. He states, “But what I`ll say is, you know, and I`ll say it to both sides, don`t sit there looking for it. You know, don`t sit there saying go on, play the music, or is he going to play the music........that`s what I would say – get on with your life.” This attempt to put as much blame, if not indeed more, on us is further compounded when Mr Haggan states, “Let them (the tenants of the HMO) get on, do their own thing. Whatever they want. They`ve got their rights to live their life. Okay? If it isn`t interfering with yours...” (Outrageous, and we had only complained because we had had to, so badly were the actions of a minority interfering with our lives). Later Mr Haggan states, “Let`s leave that man (could be referring to either V or N) and let`s, you get on with your life on this side.” Later still he states, “Let`s say, you`ve, you`ve got this to get on with and look at, and let them (tenants of the HMO) get on with their lives.” Still later Mr Haggan states, “...let`s move forward, you get on with your life in here...” (with the obvious implication again that we let the HMO tenants get on with theirs and stop complaining about them). For the sixth such occasion, Mr Haggan states, “That you get on with your life, they can get on with theirs.”
Let`s put all of the above into perspective. We were not contaminating the HMO with urine, it was the other way round. We were not littering the HMO, it was the other way round. We were not vandalising the HMO, it was the other way round. We were not plaguing the HMO with regular thudding music that badly disturbed every room in our property, it was the other way round. We were not behaving aggressively to any of the tenants of the HMO, it was the other way round. As a postscript, Mr V`s loud music did recommence a few days after this meeting. Whilst Mr Haggan did indeed call round promptly with a colleague to listen to it, and then pay Mr V another visit whereupon it finally stopped, Mr V subsequently stepped up a campaign of intimidation and threats against us culminating in his arrest by the police. On 26/08/`09 at Weymouth Magistrates Court Mr V finally admitted to all charges of harassment against us, and was bound over to keep the peace (for 18 months or face a fine, or be re-arrested). Before his arrest, however, he had made friends with the tenants from the ground floor front/side flat of the HMO whom he encouraged to play music loudly, to be a general nuisance to us, and to intimidate us. They had often been doing this collectively before Mr V`s arrest and subsequent strict bail conditions. Regarding the downstairs tenants, though very recently much of the noise has subsided, they still disturb us (awaken us at night etc) and behave aggressively towards us. We do not consider for one moment that Mr Haggan`s conduct was in any way appropriate in this respect. We do not consider that his (or Environmental Health`s) approach, as since acknowledged by Ms Hindson, was particularly helpful. We would go further in asserting that, to the contrary, Mr Haggan and his colleagues had little interest in helping us, but plenty in protecting the extant HMO arrangement next door.
Mr Haggan told me/us on several occasions (different dates) that he was not interested in hearing any complaints against the landlord and would disregard them. He did this over the phone and vis-a-vis. We complained about this in a letter to Jane Light dated 05/04/`09 and in a number of emails. This is surely in breach of statutory obligations (see fourth complaint against Mr Beeson). Mr Beeson had earlier acknowledged to us in the letter dated 16/12/`08 “that one of the general conditions that will be applied to the licence is `the good management of the property`. Hence these standards are pertinent to being awarded (and keeping) the licence concerning a criterion of the fit and proper persons test for HMO licensing. Extraordinarily, Mr Haggan either seems unaware of this, or willing to disregard it. In disregarding our complaints about the HMO`s tenants and landlord, Mr Haggan was disregarding statutory obligation with respect to licensing criteria that both precedes licence-granting and is subsequently on-going.
During this discussion we tried on more than one occasion to complain about the landlord, Mr N. We were, and still are, adamant that these complaints are both very legitimate and justifiable. We still vigorously maintain that Mr N is not fit and proper to hold such a licence. Despite this being highly germane to the council`s consideration of the HMO licence holder`s standard of management, Mr Haggan, as he had done several times previously, refused to listen to any complaints against the landlord. In this instance (the meeting), and after our complaints against Mr N`s appalling management, Mr Haggan stated the following:
Mr Haggan: - “Can I just, can I just stop you there. What I will say is this. Let`s take Mr N out of the picture.... This is an HMO. Yes it has a landlord and that landlord is doing what, as a licensed operation, you know, he will continue to do. The licence doesn`t stop.“ (This also disregards the fact that the council can remove a landlord`s licence if it deems appropriate, and so Mr Haggan was to wrong both to inform us that he is won`t listen to complaints against the landlord, and also to misinform us that the licence is irrevocable).
Etc.
Conversation continued thus:
Mr Haggan: - “I will disregard that information. I don`t need to know that information, the noise is one set area. Okay? So, when, you know, each time you bring Mr N into, you know, the equation each time, I will remove Mr N from that equation.”
Mr B: - “Does he not have a duty of responsibility to the neighbours of his HMOs?”
Mr Haggan: - “With the neighbours? That`s it. You are making a complaint against an individual that`s causing the noise.”
Mr B: - “I`m also making a complaint against Mr N.”
Mr Haggan: - “Mr N isn`t causing the noise.”
Mr B: - “No, but he has...”
Mr Haggan: - (interjecting) “Bear with me now, okay? What I`m saying to you is we`re dealing with a noise complaint.....We are dealing with that individual....” (Actually, and despite Mr Haggan`s assertion, we had also already been complaining for a couple of months about Mr N and his management of the HMO. This was made clear in a letter to Mr Grainger dated 08/12/`08, which included a letter of complaint written to Mr N on 06/11/`08, and also in a letter to Mr Beeson dated 16/01/`09. This had also been made clear in various conversations with Mr Beeson and Mr Haggan. The latter had, as already stated, always refused to consider such complaints and had always said he would disregard them.)
Much of what was said by Mr Haggan was evasive, contradictory, nebulous, absurd, inappropriate, offensive, in breach of statutory requirements/obligations, and sometimes downright incoherent gibberish (READ THE TRANSCRIPT). Under the circumstances, it became very hard at times to focus to expound our views coherently and thoroughly. Perhaps this was, in part, Mr Haggan`s objective. The conduct of Mr Haggan has put us in a position whereby we are not inclined to further correspond with him over matters.
As a postscript, note the letter below. For the record, Mr Haggan has denied calling me a "fucking idiot". The truth, though, is that he definitely did as described. After the Council investigated Mr Haggan`s conduct in his general attitude and handling of our complaints about the HMO, as well as our complaint about the swearing incident, they finally wrote back to us stating that they had completed their investigations but would not tell us anything about the outcomes. We are yet to receive an apology from either the Council or Mr Haggan in respect of these complaints regarding his conduct. It should also be noted that due to the continuation of anti-social behaviour we were still unable to open our B&B business for another 15 months after the visit of Mr Haggan and Ms McGown (transcribed above). After months of campaigning helped by PACT, some councillors and Jim Knight MP the Council eventually agreed to vary the landord`s licence conditions to make them stricter (not that they had been enforcing many of the original conditions), and this was belatedly implemented the day after Mr Haggan swore at me at the beginning of December 2009. Some continued ASB nonetheless prevented us from opening our business until several months later, and after the HMO was finally closed down by the landlord following a drugs raid by the police (part of Operation Dismantle):
Tom Grainger esq
The Chief Executive
Weymouth and Portland Borough Council,
Council Offices
North Quay
Weymouth DT4 8TA
2nd December 2009
Dear Mr Grainger,
Re. FORMAL COMPLAINT / Being sworn at by Mr S Haggan.
This is to make a formal complaint to the Council over the conduct of a Council staff member. Yesterday afternoon (01/12/`09) at just before 14:00hrs, I was standing on the pavement close to the Council offices entrance. I was holding aloft two placards in a quiet protest against the council. I noticed Mr Haggan approaching from the small car park side, and walking along the path by the offices wall towards the entrance amongst a small cluster of people. He looked at me and my placards, shook his head vigorously, and then just before entering the Council offices looked back at me briefly before he immediately muttered very loudly (presumably with clear intent that I heard) the words, “fucking idiot”. There can be no doubt that this was directed at me.
I instantly responded by calling back (calmly and without aggression), “Mr Haggan, I heard that. Not very pleasant, thank you very much.” Whether or not he heard all of this I don`t know as he was in the process of entering the Council reception area.
I consider Mr Haggan`s conduct to be totally unacceptable from a Council employee, and highly unprofessional. That said Mr Haggan`s conduct wasn`t particularly surprising considering the contemptuous and unpleasant way he has previously treated me. I would also be interested to know exactly why this unpleasant and thuggish Council employee considers me to be a “fucking idiot”. For, with the health and finances of my wife and myself suffering considerably, standing up to anti-social neighbours, to a landlord not fit to be licensed, and to Council staff who have behaved negligently and contemptuously – as Mr Haggan has yet again demonstrated? Perhaps you can quite easily now appreciate why we are not prepared to deal with some of your shockingly atrocious staff. We are entitled to better.
Yours sincerely,
M B
