The Slide of Doom: or, a Tale of Two Libraries

Democratic accountability, or managed democracy, in Broken Barnet: an alternative view


They were expecting trouble, at the Town Hall, last night.

In the post MetPro era, there were no blackshirted, jackbooted heavies available for bouncer duty, so for last night's Cabinet meeting, extra council officers were laid on for security, lining the way upstairs, two paces apart, just waiting for an enraged library user to misbehave, and oh, I don't know, raise their voice, or threaten to draw a moustache on Brian Coleman's Mayoral portrait with a marker pen, something Mrs Angry once came close to trying, until Mr Mustard, who is a scaredy cat, stopped her. Or was it Mr Reasonable? Couldn't have been the Barnet Eye, as he would have lent her a pen and filmed it, then ran like hell.

But I digress.

Enraged library users certainly were in abundance, last night. Enraged in a very British, middle class way, the way that we do so well: polite, seething, disgusted, asking lots of brilliantly acute questions, to no avail, and then allowing their innate decency to stop them from jumping up and slapping the faces of the odiously smug Tory Cabinet members.

Last week it was announced that Barnet would not be allowing local campaigners to run a community library in Friern Barnet, but that it had decided to support a similar residents proposal for Hampstead Garden Suburb. The reasons given for this favouring of the Suburb are simply preposterous: the campaigners in this hugely privileged Tory voting area are being subsidised by the council while those fighting for a well loved and well used library in a less advantaged, Labour voting area have been rejected on the grounds that they cannot be subsidised by the council. It is an absolute scandal.

There were thirty three public questions listed last night: a huge number for a Cabinet meeting. Most, but not all were related to Friern Barnet library. One or two other issues were queried: Dr Julia Hines asked a question about adult social care. When discussing the possibility of one of them taking on the role of older citizens' champion, the leader Cornelius and the Chief Executive had to be reprimanded by Julia for sniggering. They looked abashed, as so they should. In his response to her supplementary question, the Leader addressed her as 'Mrs' Hines and referred, in a way which rather implied he had forgotten that being leader of the council may not exempt him from the possibility of being elderly himself, in the not so distant future, to old age as 'the slide of doom' ... he has a habit of producing the most fabulously memorable phrases. Memorable for the wrong reasons. Dr Hines told him off again, for using such a negative term. Again, he had the grace to look ashamed.

Residents and local campaigners took their turn to sit at the table and present their supplementary questions, receiving platitudes and patronising responses from the Leader, Richard Cornelius, who uses the tactic of politeness (a rare quality in a Barnet Tory councillor) good manners, and a manic smile to try to divert people from the pungent smell of the awful, festering corpse that is, or was, One Barnet, lying dead at his feet.

From the Cabinet member with responsibility for libraries there was a predictable performance: defensive, abrupt, sulky. Rams does not like being under attack, and as in the case of the doomed efforts by campaigners to save Church Farmhouse musuem, resorted, completely unfairly, to blaming the campaigners for the failure to save the library.

This is unfair for many reasons: these residents have put enormous effort and real committment into their campaign, and worked really hard to try to save what is a hugely important community resource. To blame them for the rejection of the proposal is insulting. And in truth, they have never had the slightest chance of their plans succeeding, not because of any detail of their case, but for the simple reason that there was never any intention on the part of the Tory cabinet to allow them to succeed. The only consideration that is of any importance to them is the development potential of the buildings in question.

It was very sad to see the residents take their turn at the table, and walk away so angry and frustrated by the process they have been duped into following. Their naivete is to their credit: they really believed that there is a system of democratic consultation in this borough, that they were being invited to engage in a Big Society venture, and that they could trust our council to help them do it. In short, they had not realised they were living in Broken Barnet. They do now.

Discussing a report about secondary schools last night, Councillor Marshall commented waspishly that in his time as a Cabinet member, meetings were not as long as last night's. Clearly he found the inordinate amount of time alloted to public questions and those from opposition councillors rather tedious. He wasn't anti democratic, though, just preferred 'managed democracy'. Ah. Well, we do that rather too well, in fact, here in Barnet, don't we?

Let's fast forward to later in the evening, when the report was officially approved by the Cabinet.
Councilor Rams introduced the report with a carefully thought out preamble. This was, he informed us, in a way meant to deny the rumour that he has never read a book, and perhaps a nod in the direction of homage to a certain bicentenary .... "A Tale of Two Libraries".

Two libraries, two cities, two nations.

Hmm. Mrs Angry thought happily about Sydney Carton, and a vision of Robert Rams stepping up to the guillotine, doing a far, far better thing than he has ever done before, and expressing his hopes for Broken Barnet:

"I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out".

And then she woke up. Mrs Angry was touched by the indication, however, that Councillor Rams has enjoyed reading her posts on Dickens in Barnet. Hmm. (And he has been sending her tweets, did you know? Trying to set her up with a friend of his, and accusing her of stalking him, and staring at him with mad love in council meetings. Clearly he is besotted. When Mrs Angry writes rude things about him, no matter how rude they are, he sees only the words I love you, Robert Rams ... ) Poor boy.

Labour's Councillor Pauline Coakley Webb spoke to the members: she observed that the issue now was one of inequality: the favouring of the Suburb scheme contrasted with the Friern plan. The Tories looked on apathetically.

When the Suburb branch was mentioned Mrs Angry made a face at their local councillor Andrew Harper, who was looking more than usually pleased with himself. Mr Reasonable laughed, and nudged Mrs Angry as she scribbled away and pointed out Cllr Harper was still fixing her with a most unpleasant expression in return. Mrs Angry was tempted to stick out her tongue, then remembered she is a middle aged mother of two teenagers and supposed to be grown up. She consoled herself by making an imaginary obscene gesture at you, instead, Councillor Harper, on behalf of the children of Friern Barnet, whose library is being taken away from them in order to subsidise one for your over privileged consituents.

Cllr Barry Rawlings sat at the table next: in exasperation he questioned why the residents associated with the Friern community plan were being treated with such contempt. He carefully deconstructed the reasons for the rejection of their plan, as detailed in the report, for example the contradiction between using the loss of capital gains from property sale as well as lost rental.

Rams' response was simply pointless: how do you defend the indefensible? The Barnet Tories have been trying to do this for the last two years, and still haven't got the hang of it.

We have, said Rams, been doing everything to try to help the community with their proposals. He blurted out: in fact we have BENT OVER BACKWARDS ...

Yes, said Mrs Angry, for no good reason, to a tittering public gallery, but probably in the wrong direction, Councillor Rams ...

Another contentious issue raised last night was the issue of park hire. This is another brilliant idea from the genius who thought up the fatal cashless parking scheme which is bringing the high streets of our borough to the brink of bankruptcy: yes, that nincompoop, Brian Coleman. Having nuked the town centres, Coleman has now turned his sights on our parks and greenspaces and is set to ruin them as well with his latest idiotic scheme.

Inside the head of Brian Coleman, of course, there is very little room for anyone else except himself, and his interesting fantasy life, in which he rules the whole world, and is widely admired for it, but increasingly there is now the constant irritating thought that there are still some things in Broken Barnet over which he has no control. The sky above, the ground below, the birds in the trees, and the little blades of grass which grow in Victoria Park, for example. (And Mrs Angry: fecking nuisance, eh, Brian?)

When Brian goes for his constitutional in the park he looks around with grave disapproval, and is all too keenly aware that these things are beyond his command, and insist on delighting the residents of Broken Barnet without his permission, despite his Very Important role as Cabinet member for the Environment. But what can he do?

He can round it all up, and extract money from it, that's what. Hence the park hire proposals.

Labour councillor Jim Tierney addressed the meeting and reminded the dunderhead Tories that the parks belong to the community, that he had not received one email in favour of the proposals, that for the minimal estimated revenue of £30,000 the disruption such a scheme would cause was simply not worth it. In fact, he predicted, while Brian Coleman scowled at him, it was clear that there would more likely be a loss due to the running costs, which have not been properly assessed.

Coleman, of course, is never wrong, and would never admit to being wrong even if he were (rather like Mrs Angry) ... but he struggles to answer the criticisms of the park hire plans because, for once, even he realises he has misjudged the amount of opposition this would provoke.

Interestingly, leader Cornelius told us we needed this stupid scheme for the revenue it would provide for the purpose of 'maintenance'. This is a completely new excuse and is nonsense.

Coleman's strategy in defending his plot to pimp our parks and greenspaces is to pretend the proposals change nothing of importance. So why make them, Brian? He claimed that 'only' a small area of the parks will be closed - but as he was reminded by Labour councillor Alan Schneiderman, at the last Finchley residents forum a question (by Mrs Angry) about this eventually extracted the admission that entire closures would be permitted.

Our Brian then informed us that we have 'always' had large private events in our parks, and sometimes closed the entire area to residents. This is another of his sweeping claims, made with great bravado and absolutely no proof. His one example of this was to refer to the Dussehra event which used to take place in Victoria Park. Mrs Angry may have misheard, but she thought she heard him say this attracted 10, no, 30,000 visitors. This made her laugh: living round the corner from the park in question she remembers exactly what it was like, in fact. It was a spectacular event, and seemed like good fun, but where on earth would 30,000 visitors have fitted in, and where would they have parked?

If you recall, Coleman says he is against the Saracens' take over of Copthall stadium because er, his constituents in Totteridge, miles away, are worried about the parking. Mmm. And what about the parking problems caused by private events in our local park, Brian? Can they plonk themselves outside yours? Ah: no permit.

Still, remembering the Dussehra festival set Mrs Angry thinking. This is a Hindu celebration held at the end of summer, marking the victory of good over evil. At the end of the day, it is traditional to set fire to a huge effigy of Ravanna, the great demon. Kind of like the Lewes event, where images of unpopular public figures are paraded through the town and burnt. Or Guy Fawkes.

Can any citizens think of a similar sort of event that we might be able to hold here, in Broken Barnet? If only there were a well known local figure whose face on the top of a giant effigy shooting flames into the evening sky might attract a crowd of thirty thousand - or even more. Now - there is a private function that would be worth hiring the park for, don't you think?

Coleman had another set of proposals to set before his Cabinet colleagues last night. This was his cunning plan, building on his success in removing traffic calming measures from our roads, to further speed up traffic flow by getting rid of such nuisances as temporary traffic lights. Mrs Angry was present at a meeting last year in which he said he wanted to replace all such lights with men carrying, oh dear, stop and go signs.

The report last night has pointed out that banning temporary lights would be deemed as an 'irrational' decision, (quite) and one that would expose the authority to a 'potentially massive liability' (underlined, in case any Cabinet member were left in any doubt as to the extent of sheer idiocy of his idea).

Barnet has one of the worst road traffic accident rates in London. We should be prioritising all the extra income which Coleman's disastrous parking policy is supposed to generate on road safety measures, shouldn't we, and perhaps prevent some residents from needlessly losing their lives, not wasting time and money on schemes to empty the roads of things which compel speeding motorists to slow down a bit? It may annoy one or two people sat in taxis, rushing between social engagements to stuff their faces at our expense, but frankly, Mrs Angry does not give a shit about that, do you?

There was one procedural discussion last night, on some tedious matter, which was causing Mrs Angry's attention to wander somewhat, until brought back to reality by a most surprising protest from Councillor Coleman: to everyone's astonishment, his mouth opened, and he made a complaint about 'the lack of democratic accountability' ... There was a moment of stunned silence, and then the residents present erupted into a howl of laughter.

Coleman lost his rag. Will the Public Gallery, he yelled ... will The Public Gallery .... GET A LIFE!

The Public Gallery was beside itself, falling about in merriment.

WHEN YOU START TELLING THE TRUTH, YOU SCOUNDREL! shouted Mr P, Mrs Angry's favourite heckler.

And then, a woman who had been sitting quietly at the back, a well spoken, middle class resident who had come because of the library closure, the type of voter that the Tory party in Barnet, and London, simply cannot afford to alienate, stood up.

COLEMAN ... she shouted: You are A JOKE.

She's right, Brian.

And in May, you will find out quite how deeply amusing we find you.

Mrs Angry: social delinquent

Well, I haven't updated this blog until today for a reason. And that is because for the last week or so, I have been in a fit of deep despair. Again.

About a week ago, we received a prelimary response from the Local Government Ombudsman. We have never held out much hope of our complaint, first submitted in er, what, October last year, coming to any favourable conclusion, not because we do not know we have been treated very badly, but because the Ombudsman procedure is strictly limited in its powers, and many maintain is direly in need of reform, being so weighted against the needs of complainants and being predisposed to work to the advantage of the authorities. The other day, in fact, I found a website, ombudsmanwatch.org, which, if I had seen before we started this process, would probably have persuaded me not to bother. Take a look, if you are interested, or struggling for justice from any cynically obstructive, morally bankrupt, and hopelessly incompetent local authority. It won't make you feel any better.

We were told, despite misgivings, last year, by someone who has great experience in dealing with LGO cases that ours was a good one, and worth pursuing. The fact that, despite every obstruction put in the way by Barnet, we did eventually manage to get an active investigation at the beginning of this year was a sign that we certainly had a case that needed addressing. This served its own purpose, as from that point on, a noticeable change took place in the attitude of the authority to the Smith problem, and instead of leaving us with no suggested solution, other than to install £10,000 worth of sound proofing to block out the sound of Mrs Smith 'whacking' her sons, or taking a private action, whcih the council assured us would be bound to be sympathetically heard (because we had so much evidence which they weren't going to use), a resolution was at last put forward.


So it was almost with academic interest now, I suppose, that we have continued our complaint, or rather left it to the arcane mysteries of the Ombudsman process. I had almost (almost) forgotten about it, in fact, when a package arrived last week containing, amongst other material, a first stage response, and in particular, comments on our complaint made on behalf of Barnet Council by a certain senior council officer. Let's call him/her Ms X. I hope he/she reads this, and perhaps some vestige of conscience might stir somewhere in her soul, if she has one, in the dark hours of her night. But I guess that would be too much to hope. When I looked at some of the shameless bilge written by this person on behalf of the council, you see, I very nearly lost my mind. In fact, I threw the letter on the floor, walked out of the front door, up the road, and found myself sitting on a park bench in a state of total bemusement. wondering if I was about to have a stroke.

I won't go into full details about the contents of this officer's statement, as it would be inappropriate at this point, but let me just say that even I, the veteran now of more than a year and more's worth of Barnet Council's Machiavellian working procedures, am staggered by the well, interesting and selected version of the truth and countless inaccuracies that her written comments contain. Rather stupidly, many of these 'misrepresentations' are easily proven as such and indeed are contradictory within the same documents. Many of the people who read this blog come via the Neighbours from Hell in Britain site and I think that they may well be familiar with this sort of corporate sponsored 'creative writing'. And it won't make any difference if these errors and distortion are corrected, I am sure, as for every one you cut down, another will spring up in its place.

It is so hard for an ordinary resident to pursue any complaint like this. You have no support, no guidance, and precious few resources to help you. Unless of course you are fabulously wealthy and can afford legal advice at a cost of several hundred pounds a go. The authority you are complaining about, on the other hand, has of course an entire network of resources : professional officers adept at fending off complaints, and presenting selected information in the best light, legal departments, files of information to which it will have access but to which you will not, for reasons of 'data protection' ... There is no way in which you can compete: it is like a tiny mouse trying to fight a pack of lions.

So I have spent the week thinking very carefully about what to do. My first reaction was to just throw in the towel, because I have just had enough of the whole damned thing, and I don't know if I can keep going, and what will it acheive anyway? The amount of stress that this whole experience has dumped on me is difficult to convey, but anyone who has been through something similar will understand how hard it is to fight something like this at the same time as living with the situation you are trying to escape. It really does take its toll. I felt that I couldn't, didn't want to, put myself through any more anxiety over this situation. More letters, more point by point dismantling of the council's lies and distortions and convenient ommissions: what for? They will get away with it in the end because of one huge drawback in the LGO remit.


Any maladministration can only be proved if an authority has failed its own standards or procedures in some way. Of course Barnet has already admitted to the LGO that it was guilty of treating our complaint incorrectly, and other procedural failures to do with keeping us informed of developments. Barnet has a very nasty habit of failing to follow procedures at times when it suits them. Breaches of the Freedom of Information act in response to requests by us about the Homechoice scheme, and other examples such as sadly missed blogger 'Don't Call Me Dave''s attempts to access councillors' expense details are, or should be, deeply concerning to all of us. Now you might attribute this sort of thing to genuine incompetence, which itself would be unacceptable, or something more sinsister, ie a cynical and deliberate abuse of procedure for political reasons. And what happened to our complaint is no different. Barnet eventually and sniffily offered us the grand sum of £500 for what was, to the council, a very useful delaying tactic, cheap at the price, in fact, but barely covers the legal expenses we incurred in sending an unanswered letter to their irresponsible landlords, let alone compensate us for all the additional, totally unnecessary, and prolonged trauma that this convenient abuse of the complaint system caused us.

In regard to the way in which it dealt with the antisocial behaviour, things are more complex as there are, it seems, in Barnet, no clear cut procedures anyway, or standards to measure their actions by, so they can't really fail to administer something that wasn't in place. If you see what I mean. Terrific.

There surely is an urgent need for a body which not only fairly monitors the behaviour of local authorities in disputes like these, redressing the imbalance in the system and giving the complainant a more complete access to justice, but also legislation which sets national standards to which authorities must comply in areas such as dealing with antisocial behaviour, with clearly defined time limits. That might prevent any more victims like us being forced to go through such a prolonged period of distress while the authority concerned makes up its mind what it is going to do, or fail to do.

One would hope that David Cameron's coalition government might like to put measures in place that will protect the rights of ordinary families in situations like ours. But as that would involve telling local authorities what to do, and Dave and his chums want local authorities to do what they want, with even less input from central government, there ain't much hope of that. You might even think that the Human Rights Act might cover these issues already, and in theory it does, but in practice, apparently not, at least not in Broken Barnet. This borough is run by Tories whose values are not anything that most traditional Conservatives would recognise. You might imagine that support, in a Tory borough, would be given to the homeowner, the ordinary law abiding, tax paying family, rather than the benefit dependent, law breaking and abusive household like the Smiths, but no, not in Broken Barnet/easyBarnet. That would have cost implications. Here in Broken Barnet, money is more important than justice.

How amusing, incidentally, to see this week a story in the local press causing so much upset because our council would not fly the England flag over the Town Hall, for the reason, according to Councillor Andrew Harper, that it would cost too much. Compare this admirable penny-pinching attitude to the grossly inappropriate and self indulgent creation of three new senior officer posts advertised last week by Barnet Council, at a cost of more than £300, 000: a totally unnecessary and shameless splurge at our expense, at a time when, for example, we are told wardens in old folks' homes must be cut because we cannot afford to pay for them. Why have these posts been created? To save money. Er ... ?

I invite any of the Tory supporting residents of this borough who voted this feckless lot back in power to explain to the rest of us what you think of such proposals. Of course it may be that Leader Lynne Hillan, who has, after all, a proven record of outstanding business acumen, has been going though the books, and found some secret funds(maybe savings from the deleted antisocial behaviour officer post, or some ASBOs that never got to court?), or maybe she got back some of the millions her predecessor, our new MP, lost in Iceland, in which case I defer to her superior judgement.

So, anyway, all week I have been debating whether or not to put my sanity first and ignore the LGO process from now on, or to continue to stand up for what I know to be the truth, and demand justice for what we feel has been a betrayal of our right to live a normal family life in our own home. Seems like a simple decision, I suppose. But it's not that easy.

A couple of weeks after the Smiths left, the owners of the property next door brought in some workmen to renovate the house. Of course, being the sort of unpleasant people they are, they even managed to fall out with these workmen, who seemed to have left after some sort of argument. We became concerned as to what was going to happen to the house now: very concerned. Once or twice Mr Angry has encountered two of the brothers who own the house, at a distance: tellingly, they avoided eye contact and looked embarrassed, as well they should. This week, however, one of the brothers was seen with what must have been prospective tenants or buyers: my heart sank. They were not exactly an encouraging sight, and one pair stormed out in a row, shouting, 'You say four bedroom: not four, only three, you lie ...' Up to their old tricks, it seems: should have expected it. And with this in mind, it may well be that we have to keep the pressure up via the old LGO after all.

Because the horrible, frightening thought which is now keeping me awake at night is: are we going to be living next door to more Homechoice tenants? Barnet have refused to count this out, despite everything that has happened. And in the comments by Ms X, the senior officer at Barnet, there is no criticism of the landlords at all, no mention of the lack of cooperation with the police, the rat infestation that had to be cleared, the fact that by the end of the tenancy they had fallen out with tenants and council alike, and were apparently demanding compensation for damage to their property! No, if you read her remarks, you would believe they were model landlords, with model tenants, who only needed 'support'. So: more of the same, then? Are we going to have to put up with more problem neighbours? Will we have to move out of our home? Anyone who has followed this blog from the beginning, or lived through an ordeal like this might have an idea of how we feel. It just seems never ending. Hence my despair.

And I realised then that it isn't over. I can't draw a line under it all and 'move on'. We are still facing an uncertain future. Once again, I just feel overwhelmed by anxiety about what we may have to face in the next few months.

I looked again at the letter from the LGO today, the first time in a week that I have been able to bring myself to do so. I read and reread the sentence which drove me out of the house, into a state of incipient madness in the park. Not for the first time in our dealings with Barnet council, I did not know whether to laugh or cry.

Anyone who has read this blog will have had a taste of what we have had to put up with in the sixteen months that the Smiths were resident next door. I've only included some of it, so just imagine the rest.The hundreds of incidents of antisocial behaviour. The drug use, the drunkenness, the domestic violence, the abusive language, the harassment, the continual noise, the constantly disrupted sleep, the numerous crime reference numbers relating to police attendance, the arrest of Mrs Smith's daughter after a violent assault, the notice served on Travis Smith for harrassing us: etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum.

But Ms X, the senior officer who responded to the LGO, mentions none of this.
She reverentially refers to the 'needs' of Travis Smith and his ADHD, and goes out of her way to present Mrs Smith as nothing more than a tragic victim of circumstances. No reference whatsoever to the drug abuse, the violence, all the antisocial behaviour of the other members of the family, or indeed, the lodgers and many other associates of the household who were openly accommodated by Mrs Smith. She can't mention that because that would only serve to underline the complete failure of the council to offer any consideration of our rights and well being. The fact that the Smiths were moved was never because of any sympathy for us, or acceptance of responsibility for the inadequacies of their housing policy in action; it was because of the long delayed activation of the LGO investigation - oh and possibly due to some uncomfortable publicity in a pre election period.

We could of course turn the whole thing on its head and say, ok: by your non existent standards, it is true, then, that you are not guilty of maladministration in your handling of the ASB of this family, because there were no standards capable of protecting innocent victims like us from such an experience. Hmm: that doesn't say much about your commitment to the residents of the borough, or in tackling the challenges of Broken Britain, does it? When the perpetrators of such behaviour are given more consideration than their victims? How does that fit into Conservative political philosophy?

As for Ms X: one has to ask if she and some of the other senior officers and councillors involved in this case do actually understand, or care, about the impact that living through a situation like we did has on your life. The truth is that they probably don't give a damn, as long as it doesn't happen to them.

No where in her comments does Ms X mention that throughout our hellish sixteen month ordeal we did not once retaliate, or respond in any way, despite all the distress we endured and the extreme and constant provocation. That we conscientiously did everything the council and police asked us to do. That Mr Angry only spoke - politely - to Mrs Smith on one occasion, after being kept awake literally all night, as we were night after night for months on end, by Troy Smith and his yob chums - she of course as usual skilfully deflected the blame on her poor son Travis (who has ADHD, did you know?) despite the fact that it was nothing to do with him.

As for me, I have never spoken to Mrs Smith, being so terrified of her, and her menacing household, and despite her informing me, or rather screaming at me on two occasions, her decided opinion that I am a 'fucking cunt' or, on a more friendly day, that I am a 'fucking cow'.

We have always followed official advice and tried hard to resist responding to their obnoxious behaviour, and scupuously done everything we were told. Where did it get us? Absolutely f***ing nowhere. And worse.

Everything we had to put up with has been completely ignored. Reading Ms X's comments, you would think that we had spent the last sixteen months living next door to the Waltons, or maybe the Von Trapp family. And then, in a paragraph which is supposed to be an initial response to the complaint in general, in a paragraph in which our name is, incidentally confused with the Smiths, and detailing for some reason the remarkably saintly behaviour of Tracey Smith, who we are told was 'happy' to move, being such a nice cooperative Neighbour From Hell (into a special type of tenancy that is only available to families proven to be guilty of ASB) and what do we read? A nicely placed throw away comment, obviously meant to cast me in the light of one of the worst villains in modern history. You will be shocked, be warned. This seemingly trivial example of Ms X's attempts to justify the actions of the council in our case is actually the one sentence in the whole report that very nearly caused me to spontaneously combust - says Ms X:

'(Mrs Smith) was happy to sign up and moved out last week. Lovely woman. Mother of the Year. But look what happened then. Ms X can hardly contain her her disgust. 'When Mrs Smith moved out Mrs Angry displayed banners saying 'Bon Voyage' and balloons on her (Mrs Angry's house).'

There. Now you see me for what I am. A despicable, contemptible, untrustworthy woman who may not not indulge in drug abuse, domestic violence, criminality or antisocial behaviour, but who, for no reason, at the drop of a hat, nips up to Waitrose and sticks a few decorations in the window in full view of passing motorists and unexpectedly returning Neighbours From Hell. I am so ashamed. Lock me up, and throw away the key.

I had an overdue library book once too.

Oh dear.

If you remember, we were rung by the police on the night the Smiths left, to say that they were definitely going at eight o'clock that night. We watched them drive off, and the house was for the first time in sixteen months silent all night long.

I had long ago promised my daughter, who, with my son, has put up with a prolonged and intolerable situation that no one their age should have to endure, that when the Smiths finally left, we would celebrate. So we had a bottle of champagne, which had been chilling in the fridge for some time during the long last few weeks of rumoured moves. Thank God no one told Ms X about that. The next morning, as promised, I put some white balloons on the front door, and some Waitrose best bunting in the window, yes, with a small bon voyage sign. It was partly a joke to show our friends who pass by on the way to school in the morning that we had been liberated. Do you blame us? What we didn't know of course was that the Smiths, who we had been assured had finally gone, would return, and see this display. But so what, after what we had put up with? That night, as recounted in a previous blog, they slipped into the house next door and left a nice surprise for us all over our doorstep. They got the last word, as is only fitting, I'm sure you will agree.

So Ms X decided to ignore all the terrible things the Smiths have done, and draw attention to the one gesture of defiance that we ever dared to take: after we had been informed by the police that they were finally gone. That is very interesting, isn't it? Why does she feel the need to mention this dreadful example of Mrs Angry's social delinquency, I wonder? Of course smear tactics are a favoured ploy in this borough in some quarters, as we have seen.

What do you think, dear readers?

How I regret, now, not doing something that was really worthy of inclusion in this woman's pathetic attempt to discredit our case. You see, friends, virtue is not always its own reward, after all.

And so, here is Mrs Angry's advice to any of you who may be in the same situation as we were.

If you live in this borough, unless you live in a council property, don't bother asking the council for help. They won't. If appropriate, contact the local police.

Log everything that happens, so that you have evidence. Make sure you have witnesses to some of the trouble, or maybe CCTV.

If you are being harrassed or intimidated, and you can provide evidence, use it, insist the police see it and take action.

If all else fails, and a friendly cab driver offers to get a pal of his to teach the b******s a lesson, say no. But give him a good tip.

Or start a blog.