Friday, 3 April 2009

Roy Evans finally replied

* * * * *

Roy Evans, Director of Housing and Mr Step 2, finally replied, thus saving me the heartache and misery of writing to Mr Jones again. The letter is dated 31st March but didn't arrive until 2nd April

He obviously won't discuss the refund as that's in the court's hands. Fair enough. 

Regarding the landlord's consent, he completely avoids the point - i.e. Mr Crawley's total inflexibility and failure to acknowledge that I can't provide documents that were requested years after the event - and says:
"Tom Crawley is quite correct in that irrespective of Planning Consent or Building Control approval, the written permission of the Council, as landlord is required prior to any such works being undertaken and that the works if approved may require a variation of your lease."
Like, duh. I know I need permission; that's why I wrote to Ms Parris in 2006 before the works began asking for permission! (BTW, like Mr Crawley, Mr Evans is careful never to mention Ms Parris). Anyway, he wants me to "take up the offer of arranging an appointment with Mr Crawley for an inspection" following which Mr Crawley "will advise you on how the matter can be progressed and thereby remedy the current breach of your lease conditions". Yes, and I know exactly what that advice will be - please provide the following documents....etc. 

Mr Evans' letter continues with a paragraph which starts well but quickly descends into flawed logic:
"Concerning the leak, I understand that you feel that on the advice of your plumber, the destructive survey currently being proposed is not necessary and that all is required is for the renewal of a stopcock. [Yes, yes, and...] I would obviously be very concerned, particularly given the time period since this leak was first reported, that the remedy was as simple as your plumber suggests."
So - Mr Evans is concerned that the leak isn't a simple repair because it was reported three years ago? I don't know the premise upon which this logic is based, but it is clearly unsound. 

He thinks it would be a good idea to have a meeting with my plumber, their contractor, Steve Brophy the Building Maintenance Manager, and me. However, I can't ask my plumber to waste time coming to a meeting to say exactly what he said in his report to a person who didn't bother to carry out a proper inspection, and for a job he's unlikely to get. 

The letter concludes with a rare admission that "in respect of the delays in responding to your concerns and the apparent loss of paperwork, I would agree that this is unacceptable and I offer my apologies for this lapse in our normal high standard of service delivery." And, finally, Mr Evans assures me that I won't be charged for costs associated with the repair, which is obviously a win, but I wonder why he doesn't mention the buildings insurance. 

If I'm not paying for it, they're welcome to dig up the hall to find the non-existent leaks. I suppose I should still go along with the high-level leak conference (without my plumber), if only to point out all the redecoration that will need to be done. 


  1. Irate of Isleworth6 April 2009 at 18:37

    "I would be very concerned ... that the remedy is as simple as your plumber suggests."

    That doesn't even make sense.

    You've got to let Crawley come round, if only for a photo op with the world's most incompetent man.

  2. An apology, good lord !
    I was going to suggest they could pay for your plumbers time for the meeting but probably a non starter on current form.


Be as rude and sarcastic as you like