INCOMPETENCE TODAY

The Joy of Section 215

2010-04-01T20:30:00.005+01:00

My boyfriend's flat is next door to a couple of houses owned by a Housing Authority. These houses are a tip - see photo above, click on it to enlarge. I know it could be a lot worse, (no rusty white goods, for example) but that's not the point; every time I walk past I inwardly fume at the mess, so I decided to find out whether there was anything we could do apart from just writing a letter to the HA which would probably get ignored.

And I discovered section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

215. (1) If it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.
(2) The notice shall require such steps for remedying the condition of the land as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such period as may be so specified.

In plain English, this means that owners of eyesores can be served notice by the council to clean up their act, (and prosecuted and fined if they don't comply).

The definition of 'land' in the Act under section 336 'Interpretations' includes buildings - viz. '"land" means any corporeal hereditament including a building' - so it can apply to pretty much anything, from front gardens full of rubbish, to badly maintained buildings that lend a depressing air to a street. Anything with an adverse effect on the amenity of an area.

I don't know whether there's a legal definition of 'amenity', but the dictionary says it's the quality of being pleasant or agreeable, the attractiveness and value of real estate or of a residential structure, and a feature conducive to such attractiveness and value. It's what Belgravia has a lot of.

And what's 'corporeal hereditament'? - it's permanent tangible stuff, basically, but a better definition here.

While I generally disapprove of nose-poking by local government, this law is a heartbreaking work of staggering middle-class genius. Councils should have a dedicated s.215 team to go round the borough serving notices on crappy buildings and land sites. Indeed, there is published guidance for local authorities encouraging them to be pro-active in the serving of such notices, because they are extremely effective (80% compliance upon serving notice), and therefore an easy way to help regenerate an area. Everyone benefits from living in a nicer environment (if you believe in the Broken Windows theory).

Email to Servicing Stop

2010-01-29T15:10:00.000Z

* * * * * * *

Following this week's shock revelation from Cass, Deborah Meaden's PR, that Ms Meaden did not, after all, invest £100K in Servicing Stop, and has no connection whatsoever with the company, I have emailed them as follows:

Dear Sirs,

I have been advised by Deborah Meaden's PR, on behalf of Ms Meaden, that Ms Meaden did not invest in Servicing Stop following the appearance of Messrs Richmond on Dragons' Den last year.

I would be grateful if you would confirm this. Assuming I have been correctly advised, please could you explain why your website fails to mention this important detail and uses the phrase "Servicing Stop success on Dragon's [sic] Den". Is this not highly misleading when the claimed 'success' consists of a Dragon failing to invest in your company?

In addition, I note that every month for the last six months your website has advertised "save 10% on all service prices in X month". As this so-called offer is continuous, it's not a genuine saving. Again, I consider this to be misleading to consumers.

I look forward to receiving your comments.

Yours faithfully etc

Click here for all posts on Servicing Stop.

Deborah Meaden and Servicing Stop

2010-01-25T21:00:00.008Z

Lovely photo by John Swannel

* * * * * * *

People can call me what they like - fat, ugly, sour - but tell me I'm not fair, tell me I'm not ethical, those are the things that bother me.
Deborah Meaden, Interview in The Guardian, 22 November 2007
I actually rather like Deborah Meaden. I don't think she's fat, ugly or sour etc. And she likes animals so she must be okay. Anyway, I've sent an email via her website - which will no doubt end up in a junior PR's inbox - asking her to comment on Servicing Stop's appalling customer service. With £100K invested in the Richmond brothers' venture, one hopes she might take an interest, if, that is, Davinia forwards my enquiry on to her.

Click here for all posts on Servicing Stop.

Update: Ms Meaden's PR, Cass, has responded to my enquiry, as can be seen from the comments on this post and on other Servicing Stop posts. Cass has confirmed that Deborah Meaden did not, in fact, proceed with investing in Servicing Stop.

Servicing Stop's website does not mention this, however. It's still using Dragons' Den's name prominently on their home page and many other pages.

So now I'm going to ask Servicing Stop why they are misleading customers by failing to state that Deborah Meaden did not invest in the company. I think I'll also try reporting to the Advertising Standards Authority.

The aesthetics of Wandsworth Borough Council

2010-01-22T19:03:00.000Z

* * * * *

This is Wandsworth Housing Department in Garratt Lane, SW18, a sadly typical example of British brutalist architecture in the latter half of the twentieth century: seemingly purpose-built to induce feelings of worthlessness and alienation. And the busy hand of municipality is everywhere. Scroll around Google street view and observe the wealth of road markings and ugly street furniture; is it really necessary to mark the part of the road in which a bus must stop in red tarmac and giant yellow letters? Councils have destroyed the urban landscape with all this crap, almost all of it utterly redundant.

Compare the facade of the Housing Department with the 1930s municipal buildings up the road, designed by Edward A. Hunt. This isn't the main frontage, just a side entrance; nor is it a shining example of Art Deco architecture, however, it is a world apart in its proportions and in its use of materials and ornament.

Servicing Stop reviews

2010-01-08T20:30:00.004Z

* * * * * * *

I've received some interesting feedback to my post in September 2009 regarding the terrible customer service at Servicing Stop Ltd. What's particularly striking is that, taken together with comments posted on another blog (link below), there seems to be a pattern of telling customers that numerous extras are required. I omitted to say in my original post (because it then seemed irrelevant) that, in addition to the full service, I was told I needed: 1) anti-freeze flush, 2) brake fluid flush, 3) change of front brake pads. I was also advised to change the front wiper blades, but refused. These extras added another £212.69 to my bill; the total for a full service, MOT, plus the extras came to a whopping £430.79 (all prices inc VAT). I still feel bad about it; it's the classic naive female car-owner's experience I'd been so anxious to avoid.

Compare this with what happened to Joe Lee, who says,

I too had a bad experience with them. I sent my Lexus for an interim service...it cost £100 less than what Lexus normally charge. While my car was with them, they called and told me my coolant needs a flush & top up, the same with my brake fluid, my wiper needs changing, my brake pads need to change and the same with my tyres.

Sound familiar? Joe was smarter than me, though.

I began to suspect a con as I had just changed my wipers a month ago. I told them to just change the brake pads but I wanted the old brake pads left in the boot. They then told me the brake pads can still last a few months and I could change it later.

When Joe got the car back, he found the engine oil was 3cm above the maximum level. He sent the car to Lexus a few days later, who confirmed the oil was overfilled, and that there were no problems with the coolant, brake pads, tyres, etc...

Then there's Abdullah, who writes

A normal full service of about £200 ended up being £462 and they changed the air filter, pollen filter, fuel filter, flushed brake fluids, all of which were probably not required for my 2006 Astra, which never gave me problems and always drove well. After the service I had the engine light come on and loss of power. I called Servicing Stop who have appalling customer service. They seem nice initially...then never keep their promises of calling back in half an hour. When chasing up, they claim to have called and 'left a message' - do they take people as idiots by lying?

He concludes

Servicing Stop will claim to save you money but you will end up paying more and then having your car spoilt at the same time.

And it's the same story from Michelle, who discovered that

A £160 bargain service turned out to need £500 worth of work, including the timing belt which apparently was going to snap any day...The customer service was shit - they never phone back when they say, and say they have left voicemails (on where I don't know).

Over at blogstorm.co.uk, a post about Servicing Stop has accumulated a number of similar comments from people being charged a fortune for extras, as well as one person whose Jaguar's engine exploded after being overfilled with oil.

There's also an enlightening comment from an independent garage, 'ferryman', who says

I have recently read the criteria for joining them as an authorised repairer and can only say that I am amazed that any garage has been desperate enough to join up...By my calculations [Servicing Stop] will make over £100 for a full service on an average family car, for a few minutes admin. The garage accepts all the liabilities and is not supported in any other way by Servicing Stop. My advice to any potential victims is to contact local garages that are part of the Good Garage Scheme.

I intend to contact Dragons' Den investor Deborah Meaden to ask for a response. I will post again when (and if) I hear back from her.

Click here to see all posts on Servicing Stop.

Leasehold enfranchisement II

2009-11-24T20:25:00.001Z

* * * * * * *

Readers may recall that I went for a meeting last month at Wandsworth's Home Ownership Unit. I met with a Mr John Watts, Deputy Head of Divisional Support (Professional Services). Mr Carl Lacey, the man I'd spoken to before, was also present.

It turns out that my 'block' is well-known to Mr Watts, and has presented something of an administrative headache for Wandsworth for many years due to anomalies in the service charge structure. There have been meetings on this very subject, and the problem remains unresolved. I don't entirely understand the problem myself, but I'll explain as best I can.

The 'block' of which my flat is part was formerly three separate terraced houses. The ground floor has been laterally converted so that there are only two ground floor flats, and six flats (two per house) on the upper floors. The service charge should have been apportioned between eight flats, i.e. approximately 12% per unit; however, my lease states that I pay 50%. I haven't been paying 50% of the eight flats, but 50% of my 'house' (even though there is no separate freehold 'house'). I think there are other incorrect percentages on other leases (but not all of them). The end result is that Wandsworth have been collecting, I think, 137% of the service charge. Mr Watts said I was probably due for a refund.

In short, selling the freehold would entirely solve the problem, as we could issue new leases for everyone. So Wandsworth are, in theory, keen to sell if (but only if) three other leaseholders are willing to join me in the purchase. As a public body, different laws apply and they are not free to sell to whoever they choose. This now makes sense; otherwise, it's backhander heaven, selling off cheap freeholds to chums, etc.

At the time, I felt briefly optimistic about getting other leaseholders on board, as although I have a 125+ year lease, the majority of leases are around the 71 year mark, meaning the resale value will very soon drop, and Mr Watts estimated that the cost of extending the lease would be similar to the share of freehold purchase were everyone to participate. I think I was also encouraged by Mr Watts, who was very different to my previous experience of Wandsworth officials, being helpful, professional and positive. He kindly offered to write to the other leaseholders. That happened over three weeks ago; no feedback as yet, except from my downstairs neighbours who are pro-purchase. I think I'll put a note through people's doors giving them a push, but I somehow sense general apathy (though it's quite likely me projecting my own apathy - the entire Wandsworth experience has slowly ground me down to the point where it's hard to imagine feeling positive about anything for very long).

Epic win

2009-10-31T16:50:00.002Z

* * * * * * *

Hearty congratulations to fellow blogger Niall Connolly, whose criticism of Somerton Town Council in his blog, Muck & Brass, has led to the en masse resignation of 11 of the 15 councillors.

Though I haven't yet read through the whole blog, this post gives an idea of the kind of people Mr Connolly has been up against.

The media, however, has focussed mostly on the so-called "abuse" of the councillors. In reality, you have to look hard to find the quoted insults such as "clowns" and "hypocrites" - hardly the unbearable torrent of abuse claimed by the councillors.

A report in The Times and a clip from Newsnight here.

Servicing Stop Ltd follow-up

2009-10-06T18:43:00.002+01:00

* * * * *

Following Wednesday's blog post, on Friday I was called by both Jo Preedy of Servicing Stop and John at Acme Garage. They'd seen my blog.

First off, I got a call from John. I was a bit mystified that he was calling me, when I hadn't named his garage and my contract was with Servicing Stop. Anyway, we had a long chat about the whole thing and he sounded sincerely apologetic.

Then about 15 minutes later Jo Preedy rang. She said basically fair enough if you want to complain on your blog, and she apologized if I felt I'd been "let down". But she also felt I'd unfairly depicted her as incompetent, because every single time I'd called to complain she'd contacted the garage (true enough), and there was no point in her calling me as well (so she said) because it was easier for the garage to deal direct.

Yes, of course it's easier, but doesn't this defeat the raison d'etre of Servicing Stop? Aren't they meant to be managing the customer relationship instead of me dealing direct with the garage? And Servicing Stop's T&C state that all complaints/communications must go via Servicing Stop. This means I'm not actually allowed to call the garage, so why is it okay for the garage to call me? The whole system is a fuck up if the point of contact isn't consistently customer-2-Servicing Stop. It may work fine when there are no problems and the car is delivered back on time, therefore no question of customer-2-garage contact; demonstrably not fine when there are problems. At that point, it's even more essential that Servicing Stop makes sure the problem is sorted and the customer goes away happy, or at least not totally and utterly fucked off.

I just don't buy Preedy's claim that because she'd passed my complaint on to the garage every single time she had therefore done her best. She should have stayed on the case the whole way through, and called me and the garage regularly to check progress, not just assume the garage was on top of it. She did admit that it would probably have been a good idea to call me to check up on customer satisfaction levels (I contemplated legal action at least once in the 'silent' periods). But I shouldn't have had to tell her this would have been a good idea.

Preedy went on to explain about short staffing problems as a result of unanticipated increase in business. I told her it wasn't my problem.

I accepted her apology, but she had no answer as to why Mr Oliver "outstanding customer service" Richmond hadn't called me himself or replied to my letter. Ultimately, I don't blame Jo Preedy. Poor customer service is always the result of poor management.

Click here for all posts on Servicing Stop.

Review of Servicing Stop Ltd

2009-09-30T21:00:00.017+01:00

North Londoners Toby & Oliver Richmond

* * * * *

This is a special guest Incompetence Today feature, following an experience of staggeringly bad customer service at the hands of a company called Servicing Stop.

A while ago I watched Dragons' Den on BBC2 and three of the dragons made offers to invest in a company set up by Toby and Oliver Richmond, an online car servicing business which farms out the jobs to garages nationwide, offering competitive fixed prices, compliance with manufacturer’s warranty, free pick-up and delivery, etc. The Richmond brothers accepted Deborah Meaden’s offer of £100K for 30% of the business.

I have no interest in cars and limited experience of garages, mainly confined to being charged a fortune for stuff I'm never quite sure was necessary, and avoiding them generally unless I need an MOT. I drive less than 1,000 miles a year. Anyway, it was three years since my modest four year old Ford Fiesta had been serviced, so I decided to give Servicing Stop a go. I thought that with an investor like Meaden on board, it had to be trustworthy, at least.

What follows is a very dull and long-winded story of crap customer service. So unless you’re contemplating using Servicing Stop Ltd, I recommend you skip it. But if you’ve found this blog post whilst looking for customer reviews of Servicing Stop and are contemplating using them, I urge you to read on.

* * * * *

I booked a full service, an MOT and asked for a repair to the plastic wing mirror back which had been vandalized three years ago.

DAY 1: Thursday 27 August. For a brief time, it all went swimmingly. The car was collected at 9am by a representative of Acme Garage (not their real name), with a promised delivery time of between 4-6pm that same afternoon. I was impressed - same day service! I wondered a bit about the Acme man giving me his business card. It seemed to defeat the point of Servicing Stop managing the customer relationship - if I thought Acme were brilliant, what's to stop me calling them direct next time? (Quite a lot as it turned out).

The first fly in the swimminess occurred at 5pm, when John of Acme, struggling to pronounce my really not very hard to pronounce name, called me to say my car wouldn't be back today. He assured me it would be back at noon tomorrow.

DAY 2: Noon came and went. At 3pm I called Servicing Stop, whose T&C state that all complaints and communications must be conducted via Servicing Stop Ltd. I got a helpful-sounding woman called Jo Preedy, who apologised and assured me my car would arrive between 4-5pm. At 5.05pm I rang Servicing Stop again. A less-than-helpful bloke said someone would call me back. Nobody did.

I rang again at 5.30pm and spoke to Ms Preedy. She assured me that the garage had promised the car would arrive by 6pm. And, in what later turned out to be a rare example of good customer service, offered me a discount in the form of crediting the payment for repairing the wing mirror (approx £66). All was fine until the car didn't show up at 6pm.

It finally arrived at 8pm. Nobody phoned to check I’d be home to take the keys.

DAY 3: I checked the car. No MOT certificate provided in the glove compartment as I’d been promised, and it was a Saturday and my MOT expired on Monday. Also, the wing mirror hadn’t been repaired.

DAY 6: Monday 31 August was a Bank Holiday. First thing on 1 September, I emailed Jo Preedy with my complaints. (It had got to that stage where I felt it was written complaint time). Ms Preedy didn’t call me back so I called her that afternoon. She said Acme Garage would call me to arrange the mirror repair. They did, and said they’d pick up the car tomorrow.

DAY 7: John of Acme called and said they were having trouble getting the spare part, and he’d call again when they had it.

DAY 17: My car was finally collected for the wing mirror repair on Saturday 12 September. It was returned the same day. The MOT certificate was provided this time, and a postcard from Acme with a box ticked next to ‘interim service’ – when I’d paid for a full service. The car was also leaking oil, a 30cm puddle of it.

DAY 19: I took the car on a 2 mile journey and reparked it to check whether the oil was still leaking. It was; and this time it was coming through the radiator grille.

DAY 20: I rang Jo Preedy. She said the garage would call. John agreed the leak was abnormal and said he would call me back. Two days passed.

DAY 22: Having heard nothing from John of Acme nor Jo Preedy for two days, I wrote a formal letter of complaint to MD Oliver Richmond, asking for another garage to take over the oil leak repair and check that the service work I’d paid for had actually been carried out. I also emailed a pdf of the letter to Jo Preedy. This was Thursday 17 September.

DAY 28: After four working days of silence since the letter, (and six since the oil leak was reported), I got a call from John of Acme, wanting to pick up the car. I rang Ms Preedy and said I wanted a different garage to do it. She put me on hold whilst she consulted Mr Richmond (I got the impression he was sitting next to her). She returned saying this was contrary to Servicing Stop’s T&C. I asked her to direct me to the specific term which mentioned this. She tried, quoting a term which did not contain this restriction, but in the end couldn’t find anything. She put me on hold again to consult with Mr Richmond. Mr Richmond says it’s the law, she said. OIC. I told her that Distance Selling Regulations were the law and to tell Mr Richmond that their T&C didn’t comply with them. She asked me to repeat the phrase “Distance Selling Regulations”.

It would have been nice if Mr Richmond himself had deigned to speak to me, the customer who’d written to him, instead of leaving it up to Ms Preedy to parrot his bullshit at me, but whatev. I said okay, if you refuse then so be it. And that afternoon, Acme picked up the car. The driver’s clipboard notes revealed the source of John of Acme’s pronunciation problem – Acme’s records had my name spelt very weirdly.

DAY 29: Acme called to say they would try to deliver car back that day and would call later to confirm a time. The oil leak was due to a loose cap on the oil thingy, which hadn’t been screwed back on properly. They never did call back.

DAY 30: At noon, still no car, so I rang and was told it’d be with me in five or ten minutes. It was, but no-one had called to check I’d be home.

And no follow up call from Servicing Stop to check that my complaint was now resolved. It's now five days since the car was returned.

* * * * *

I haven’t ‘outed’ the garage as they are not the corporate entity with whom I had a contract. Servicing Stop are responsible for the garages they contract.

What really amazes me is that Richmond didn’t even bother to reply to my letter. The real test of customer service is how you deal with complaints, and good customer service is so moronically simple it beggars belief that they fucked up so badly. Just one sincere letter of apology from Oliver ("Ollie") Richmond would have ensured no bad press on this blog, no bad word of mouth to my friends and potential future custom from me. I was therefore very surprised to find, in an interview with fleetdirectory.co.uk, that Richmond claims to believe “customer service is key”. Absolute proof that this man is officially a wanker.

But he surpasses himself in another interview with Exchange & Mart

"In the past, dealer garages have had widely publicised negative press; ranging from them having a total lack of customer service, to their charging exorbitant prices for repairs and servicing. Amidst all this, we are fighting off the industry's negative image, offering outstanding customer service and slashed prices".

The company's adherence to the principle that the 'Customer is Always Right' is proving successful - they've already had to expand into larger offices and employ more staff, to cope with demand.

So, outstandingly CRAP customer service, plus Servicing Stop is not especially cheap. To add insult to injury, I received a card in the post today from my local Ford dealership, Dees of Wimbledon, offering a £99 full service including parts, labour and VAT plus an MOT for £9.99. Less than half what I paid. I hadn’t bothered to check Dees' prices as the last time I took my car to Dees two years ago to get the aircon fixed, the cost was extortionate and they’d quoted around £150 to repair the wing mirror.

Now I feel ripped off as well. Great.

P.S. More bad feedback to be found in the comments to this other blog post.

And click here for all posts on this blog about Servicing Stop.

Leasehold enfranchisement

2009-09-30T18:59:00.005+01:00

* * * * *

I have an appointment with Carl at the Wandsworth Home Ownership Unit on Friday, to discuss buying the freehold. This came about as a result of a mailout they did inviting leaseholders to a 'Buy Your Freehold' open evening. I rang immediately to book a place, literally two minutes after opening the letter.

My flat is part of three houses merged to form a single freehold with eight or nine flats (at least one is a lateral conversion), so apparently it's more complicated, and the upshot was that I was told there was no point coming to the open evening. They needed to get the files for the property first, etc. before it could be discussed.

I'm not optimistic. I know I'd need to get at least three or four other leaseholders on board, which I think is unlikely as people won't want to fork out money if they don't have to. Still, it's worth a shot. I've already asked if I could buy the freehold if I couldn't get enough of the others to cooperate, and Carl said no. I don't know why, as if they want to sell freeholds (presumably a money-making exercise, perhaps disguised as citizen empowerment) then why do they care who buys it?

Mr Crawley's letter

2009-09-25T19:10:00.000+01:00

* * * * *

Following on from Wednesday's update, as I said, Mr Crawley has written in response to the stuff I sent him on 20th August, the stuff I thought meant that we'd now be moving on to sorting out the valuation and then the Deed of Variation.

But now he wants more stuff, stuff he's thought of since the onsite meeting. It no longer matters what stuff. It feels like a sisyphean torture, as if I am doomed to correspond with Mr Crawley for eternity and never quite reach the point where he finally agrees that the Deed of Variation may proceed to completion. This feeling is mixed with despondency, and aching boredom with it all.

And anger that this is all down to me being stupid enough to trust Miss Parris, who gets off scot free in spite of the maladministration and the lies.

But, like Claire Zachanassian in Dürrenmatt's The Visit, I can wait.

It's still not over

2009-09-23T19:20:00.005+01:00

* * * * *

It's been over four months since I last posted; not because it's all over, but because, in the wake of the roof ridge refund triumph, there seemed to be a general air of rapprochement with Mr Crawley.

An onsite meeting took place in mid-May. Both Mr Crawley and Mr Brophy (the Building Maintenance Manager) attended, and both seemed satisfied with the standard of the work carried out. Positive, approving, noises were made.

Mr Crawley also appeared to accept that I could not provide all the things he had originally demanded, like Public Liability Insurance in excess of £5 million - I mentioned that I had considered trying to get this insurance retrospectively, and he said there would be no point (this being the case, I inwardly wondered why he had repeatedly demanded it). I explained further about the breakdown of cordial relations with the builders, and again he seemed to understand. Anyway, he asked for a few things: a copy of the technical drawings for the sliding doors to the balcony below the roof terrace (not a structural alteration, but whatever...), details of the contractors who installed the railings on the roof terrace, and anything else I could find in my 'files' which might be relevant. In short, it all felt like progress. I actually felt cheered, after years of getting absolutely nowhere.

I then lapsed into a period of laurels and apathy, as finding these documents involved, well, finding them. I have shedloads of paperwork from numerous properties over the years, other work projects, company accounts which I have to keep for seven years, personal tax accounts, stacks of invoices shoved into plastic bags, etc. Until last month, I'd not filed anything except essential stuff for tax purposes for quite some time (years). Non-essential stuff was deployed in various crates stuffed into inaccessible parts of the flat.

I eventually sent the requested documents to Mr Crawley on 20th August. This particular three month delay is, I fully admit, down to my own laziness, holiday-making, and general fear of paperwork. I now have Mr Crawley's reply dated 8th September, but I'll continue this thread tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the leak in the communal hallway was repaired. You will remember that, back in April, Roy Evans had expressed his doubts concerning the simplicity of fixing the leak, in a masterpiece of flawed logic:

"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"

Unsurprisingly, it turned out that there is no direct relationship between the length of time since a leak is reported and the complexity of the repair. Both my plumbers were right; the leak was due to one leaky valve and it proved unnecessary to excavate the hallway in search of other leaks, as previously advised by the council's contractors.

Trufax -v- Wandsworth Council

2009-05-08T18:45:00.014+01:00

* * * * * * *

You'll remember that at the end of March I announced I couldn't write about the court claim against Wandsworth for the time being? Well, I can now.

It was shortly before that post that I received two letters from Ashfords Solicitors. The first invited me to discontinue proceedings against Wandsworth and told me that, either way, they'd go after me for their costs, and use their letter as "evidence of [my] unreasonableness". (Huh?)

The second letter was a Part 36 CPR offer. CPR is short for Civil Procedure Rules; they apply to civil court claims. You can find Part 36 here. As you can see, it's all about offers to settle ("out of court" so to speak) and the consequences if the other party refuses the offer, one of which is that a refusal may expose you to the other party's legal costs, if, ultimately, the judgment is not more advantageous than the offer, or even if it is "at least as advantageous" as the offer.

So, in effect, this was another way to threaten me with costs. It meant that if I refused the offer put forward, I would have to be damn sure I'd do better in court, or I could end up with a massive legal bill for Ashford's services.

They offered to pay me £125, but here's the twist - they also wanted me to delete "any reference to the Council, its agents or employees and this firm [i.e. Ashfords]" from my blog, and agree that I would "not refer to this matter or to the terms of any settlement in any publicly available document or electronic medium [i.e. newspapers, my blog]".

In short, they were trying to buy my silence for £125, and scare me into accepting for fear of the possible cost consequences. However, my instinct was not to take this lying down - firstly, I had the huge advantage of knowing the truth and being able to prove at least some of it with hard evidence (in a court which judged only on a balance of probabilities), and secondly, how dare they try to suppress criticism of a public body.

So, in the spirit of some outrage, and feeling a bit like this was turning into the Winslow Boy, I did some research. It took me a couple of weeks to get to the bottom of it, but eventually I discovered CPR Rule 27.2, which states that Part 36 does not apply to the small claims track (the track to which it was almost certain that my claim would be allocated, as it fell entirely within its scope according to CPR). In addition, Rule 38.6 (regarding Discontinuance and liability for costs) didn't apply to the small claims track either. Therefore, Ashfords' threats were empty, or as good as.

I can only assume that Ashfords' lack of experience in the small claims track meant that they were ignorant of the special rules which apply. I was quite tempted to go ahead with the claim, but however gratifying it would have been to expose both Ashfords and Ms Parris to the judge's opinion of their conduct, the law should not be treated as a point-scoring exercise, and really all I wanted was the money promised to me, so I took the reasonable approach, and made them a counter offer, pointing out that Part 36 does not apply to the small claims track. My offer was the same as theirs - £125 - but excluding the gagging provisions.

A few days later, Ashfords accepted on behalf of their client. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for the conversation between Ashfords and Wandsworth, where Ashfords presumably had to admit they'd fucked up with the Part 36 offer.

I have the cheque for £125. It's only taken two and half years to get the money. Ashford's bill for this must be at least £500, probably more like £1,000, not to mention the cost of the man hours put in by Mr Crawley in his endeavours not to pay me the refund promised by Ms Parris. Epic misuse of public funds.

Freedom of information

2009-04-24T11:00:00.005+01:00

Apologies for the long silence. This is partly due to very little happening apart from the stuff I'm not allowed to write about. Hopefully, I should have more in the way of updates in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, last month I submitted a couple of Freedom of Information requests via WhatDoTheyKnow; one regarding the number of complaints received by each area team in Wandsworth's Housing Department in the past two years, the other asking for details of the contract between Ashfords Solicitors and the council including the fee scale. I now have the information.

1. The total number of staff in the Housing Department is 410, and there are four area teams - Central, Southern, Eastern and Western - each comprising between 19-22 staff members. I'm not sure what they do apart from managing leasehold properties.

In the years 06/07 & 07/08, these are the figures for Step 1 complaints received by each area team:

Central Team: 59 complaints in 06/07; 45 in 07/08
Southern Team: 49 complaints in 06/07; 39 in 07/08
Eastern Team: 44 complaints in 06/07; 55 in 07/08
Western Team: 57 complaints in 06/07; 33 in 07/08

It is interesting that the Eastern Team is the only one in which complaints levels increased in this two year period. Could be a statistical blip but it did rather fulfill my expectations.

2. Ashfords Solicitors' contract with Wandsworth contains a schedule of "notional assessed workload hours" totalling 4,233 hours. If you divide this number by the number of working days per annum - approx. 250 - this is equivalent to 16 hours per day. The total payment for this notional workload is £550,077.

Anyway, based on these figures, Ashfords' hourly rate is approximately £130. Quite reasonable, really; at least, compared to what my solicitor charges. But it's like going to a wholesaler and buying 10,000 bog rolls. This makes me wonder, if I got 100 friends together, we could merge to become a single buyer of professional services such as accountants and solicitors - one could probably negotiate some great deals.

HHSRS & Mould

2009-04-07T20:21:00.002+01:00

* * * * *

Along with blossom, daffodils and warm spring weather comes the perennial delight of fungus in the communal parts. The carpet is so soggy now it squelches when you walk on it.

On the subject of mould and fungus in the home, the Government's Housing Health and Safety Rating System Operating Guidance (Housing Act 2004) booklet says:

Description of the hazard
1.01 This category covers threats to health associated with increased prevalence of house dust mites and mould or fungal growths resulting from dampness and/or high humidities. It includes threats to mental health and social well-being which may be caused by living with the presence of damp, damp staining and/or mould growth.

Potential for harm

Most vulnerable age group and statistical averages
1.02 The most vulnerable age group is all persons aged 14 years or under. [The neighbours downstairs have a small baby]

Mould growth
1.08 Although less significant statistically in health terms, spores of many moulds and fungi (including timber attacking fungi) can be allergenic. The spores can also be carcinogenic, toxic and cause infections; the potential health effect varying with species. Fungal infection, whilst not common, is usually associated with those vulnerable to infection (such as those on immuno-suppressant drugs). Some fungi, particularly when in very high concentrations, can also colonise the airways of susceptible individuals, particularly asthmatics. Toxins from some moulds (mycotoxins) can cause nausea and diarrhoea, can suppress the immune system, and have been implicated in cancers. Although uncommon, these are serious if they occur.

Social and mental health effects
1.09 The mental and social health effects of dampness and mould should not be under-estimated. Damage to decoration from mould or damp staining and the smells associated with damp and mould can cause depression and anxiety. Feelings of shame and embarrassment can lead to social isolation.

Regulations relating to Housing Health & Safety are enforced by local government.

Roy Evans finally replied

2009-04-03T20:38:00.009+01:00

* * * * *

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." [N.B. the incorrect use of the comma is theirs]

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.

Announcement regarding the claim for the refund

2009-03-31T18:50:00.002+01:00

* * * * *

As the claim for the refund is pretty much up and running now, I'm going to leave off claim updates till after it's settled. This is in order to avoid any risk of being held in contempt of court - however unlikely this may seem given the nature and size of the claim. When it's over I promise I'll fill you in on all the gory details.

Meanwhile, I will of course continue to keep you all posted on the thrilling developments which arise with regard to the repair of the leak, the existence of Mr Evans, etc.

(BTW, in case any of you are wondering where I get my funny cat pictures and illustrations from, they are mostly ganked from communities on LiveJournal, as was today's image. No idea who made it or why, but somehow it seemed...apt).

Roy Evans, Wandsworth's Director of Housing, still hasn't replied to my letter

2009-03-30T20:54:00.003+01:00

* * * * *

Follow up to my post last Wednesday, it's now two weeks since the Chief Executive, Gerald Jones, forwarded my letter to the Director of Housing, Roy Evans, and Mr Evans still hasn't responded.

It is worth noting that Wandsworth's citizens charter says it will respond to complaints "in an efficient and understanding way." They promise to: "send an acknowledgement letter to you within 5 working days if we cannot deal with your complaint immediately" and "send you a final written answer within 10 working days of receiving your complaint".

I'll give it a couple more days then if he still hasn't I may write again to Mr Jones telling him his BFF Mr Evans hasn't replied yet again.

My hero

2009-03-26T14:01:00.009Z

Daniel Hannan's recent speech in the European Parliament, directed at the Prime Minister. Really cathartic to see incompetence being attacked so eloquently. Note Gordon Brown's pathetic smirk.

Mr Hannan, you are full of win and awesome.

Blog Summary: II

2009-03-26T01:30:00.002Z

* * * * *

It's a while since the last summary, so here's another catch-up for n00bs.

THE REFUND FOR THE REPOINTING: Ashfords Solicitors have submitted their defence, comprising a broad denial of everything. The existence of Ms Parris has been confirmed by a rare sighting of her signature on the defence's "statement of truth". Mr Crawley has referred my request for statements from Ms Parris and the council technician to Ashfords, carefully avoiding any mention of the words "Ms Parris" or "statements".

THE LEAK IN THE COMMUNAL HALL: I've written to Mr Crawley telling him it's not necessary to "excavate" the hall because we know where the leak is, and pointing out that it's a buildings insurance claim so I'm not liable for the cost of repair/redecoration. I've asked him to send a loss assessor (as I previously asked Ms Parris to do in 2006). I await Mr Crawley's response. Not hopeful and assume all my points will be ignored.

LANDLORD'S CONSENT: Mind games time. I wrote to the Chief Executive, Gerald Jones, and he replied saying it wasn't a "Step 3" complaint because the Director of Housing, Roy Evans, (Mr Step 2), hadn't replied to my "Step 2" complaint to him dated July 2008, Mr Crawley had (but he's not Mr Step 2), so he was forwarding my letter to the Mr Evans (yes, I know it doesn't make sense). I'd naively assumed that Mr Crawley had been replying on Mr Evans' behalf over the past seven months since Mr Evans himself hadn't replied to my July 2008 letter. Anyway this all means that Mr Crawley was just "Step 1" so the two years of Ms Parris not replying to my letters don't count and my complaint only began in July 2008, as there is no "Step 0" in council complaints procedure-land. Mr Evans has yet to acknowledge receipt of the letter forwarded to him by Mr Jones nine days ago and I am unimpressed, but resigned.

This is because, following Mr Jones' letter, it finally sank in that they are all zombies and I am not dealing with reasonable people with any desire to resolve the issues. It's increasingly clear that the council's primary concern is to avoid admitting any maladministration and moreover they have the supreme confidence that, as council employees, normal consequences like getting the sack for being crap at your job don't apply. Look at how much Sharon Shoesmith bleated about it.

In other news, I've started a satirical twitter called Crawley's Tweets [EDIT: tweets now deleted]. Ashfords Solicitors have discovered my blog which means there may be a time lag in some of what I post for strategic reasons. I'm reviewing my options in terms of machete-ing a way through this maze of incompetence and bureaucracy, TBA at a later date.

No word from Roy Evans

2009-03-25T16:13:00.002Z

* * * * *

You'll remember that the last I heard from Gerald Jones, Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council, he'd completely ignored my complaints and passed the buck back to Roy Evans, Director of Housing? The very same Roy Evans who I already wrote to back in July 2008. Mr Jones' letter was dated 16th March; today is 25th March and I have yet to receive any response from Mr Evans. You'd think that if you were Mr Evans, and you got a letter forwarded to you from your Chief Exec, you might just bother to send a two line acknowledgment. (That is, unless it arrived on your desk with a Post-It note stuck on it saying "This is low priority").

I have, however, had an acknowledgment from the Mr Crawley dated 17th March which I assume has to be for my letter about the leak dated 12th March. Can't say for certain as Wandsworth's acknowledgments don't give the date of your letter, just the date it was received into the bowels of the inferno.

Sian Gibbon's middle name

2009-03-23T20:24:00.006Z

I noticed that the covering letter which came with Wandsworth's defence from Sian Gibbon at Ashfords Solicitors has the reference "SLG/SLG 123456" so I think it's not unreasonable to assume that her middle name begins with an L.

I've created a *fun poll* in the sidebar where you can vote on what Ms Gibbon's middle name is. Choices include Louise, Ludmilla (suggested by fellow blogger Robert Bonnett), Lucinda, Lola, LaToya, Linda, Lorraine, Laura, Lesley, Lindsay, Lisa, and Lynette.

If you want to put a face to the name before deciding, Google Ashfords Solicitors and click on the "Our Partners" button. There's a photo of her there.

Edit: No, we'll never know the answer to what Sian Gibbon's middle name is, but that doesn't mean we can't have fun guessing.

Blue custard thinking

2009-03-21T14:00:00.007Z

* * * * *

I've decided not to reply to Gerald Jones' letter; I realized it would be a complete waste of time when he's made it obvious he doesn't give a fuck. Instead I'm going to go to Martin Linton MP's next surgery and hopefully get him on side. Meanwhile, I will continue to go through the motions of corresponding with Wandsworth regarding the leak and the landlord's consent, but with extremely lowered expectations of getting anywhere. I haven't ruled out contacting the local press, chaining myself to the wheelchair ramp handrail outside the town hall, or blue custard.

I've also decided to have more behind-the-scenes fun, to alleviate the debilitating effects of dealing with the council. To this end, inspired by the banality of twitter and of local government, I've started a twitter called CrawleysTweets (with an anonymous co-author), which you can follow here, or in the sidebar (bear in mind it's early days and we're just getting the hang of it).

And tomorrow I will be posting *a new fun poll*.

On the subject of polls, we have an outcome for the last one: "Do you think Mr Crawley's reply to my letter dated 24th February will...etc." Mr Crawley finally replied this week saying,

"As you rightly point out the issue of the roof pointing is now the subject of a court claim. This matter has been referred to our solicitors, Ashfords, and they will contact you regarding this claim in due course."

Yup, no acknowledgment of Ms Parris' existence; not even an acknowledgment of the existence of my request for written statements. Maybe Ms Parris should be added to the list of banned words compiled by the Local Government Association.

Wandsworth "number one for service and value"

2009-03-20T13:10:00.001Z

* * * * *

Every letter that is spewed forth from the fifth bolgia of the eighth circle of Hell a.k.a. Wandsworth Borough Council has this tagline at the bottom: "number one for service and value" in oh-so-accessible lower case. Over time, I've come to view this with extreme cynicism. I don't care what the Audit Commission says, or how many stars it has awarded to Wandsworth, a more accurate slogan would be "we don't care so don't fucking bother". They could use the universally despised Comic Sans font.

I've been too bored and dispirited with the whole thing to write back to the Chief Executive yet. I know that's the whole point of the complaints procedure, to grind you down, so I think I need to step back and examine strategy before proceeding. The matter of the refund is at least under control, as it's up to the judge to decide, not the council. But aside from the trio of unresolved issues, one must also consider the context of maladministration as well as the implications of Ms Parris' signature on the statement of truth. This isn't something that anyone employed by the council is likely ever to address, judging by the total absence of interest shown by Gerald Jones, the Chief Executive.

I've discovered that the MP for Battersea, Martin Linton, with a majority of 163, is Labour, not Conservative as I'd assumed (given the overwhelmingly Conservative council). He may well take an interest in maladministration in Wandsworth Council. It depends what sort of man he is, I suppose, but his being Labour is surely an advantage.

Dreams of blue custard

2009-03-18T19:01:00.009Z

* * * * *

As you probably gathered, I was in a rage this morning. Part of it was sheer disappointment; I'd been hoping - foolishly, it turns out - that I'd finally get somewhere with Gerald Jones looking into my complaints, after months of going round in circles with Mr Crawley. Instead, his letter was entirely focussed on buck-passing on the spurious premise that my letter of July 2008 to the Director of Housing, Roy Evans, was not a Step 2 complaint because Mr Crawley replied to it and not Mr Evans himself. I can't entirely get my head around this; if Mr Crawley wasn't replying to my letter on behalf of Mr Evans, then the only alternative explanations are:

1) Mr Crawley has been secretly opening and responding to the Director of Housing's post behind his back.

2) It's part of the council's unwritten complaints procedure whereby complainants are fooled into thinking they've made a Step 2 complaint, because sending them back to square one will usually result in the complainant losing the will to live, thus 'solving' the complaint and removing the inconvenience of having to deal with it.

I'll be writing to Mr Jones tomorrow.

Le sigh.

Reply from Gerald Jones, Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council

2009-03-18T11:59:00.014Z

Would you agree I've been really patient up to now? Like, really, really patient and reasonable in the circumstances and you can't believe how reasonable and patient I've been considering this has all been going on for three years? Yes? Okay. Read on.

This is Gerald Jones' reply to my letter of 13th March.

"You have requested that your complaint be considered as a Step 3 complaint. However, from your letter you say that you made a Step 2 complaint in July 2008 and that you received a response from Mr Crawley and not the Director. Accordingly a copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the Director of Housing asking him to arrange for the matter you raise to be investigated and a reply sent to you direct."

Yes, I wrote to the fucking Director of Housing in July 2008 and Mr fucking Crawley replied. The Director of Housing did not fucking reply. I therefore fucking assumed that Mr fucking Crawley was fucking replying on behalf of the fucking Director of Housing. If he wasn't, then how come the fucking Director of Housing didn't fucking reply?

Gerald Jones can go fuck himself.

That is all.

"The definition of a complaint is as follows: A clear expression of dissatisfaction in connection with either a council provided service or policy"

2009-03-17T19:56:00.020Z

* * * * *

Following a Freedom of Information request submitted via the awesome What Do They Know website, I am in possession of a copy of the Complaints Recording guidelines reissued to Wandsworth Housing Department staff following the alarming discovery "early in 2007/2008" that "a number of items were being recorded as complaints in error". [Quoted from the Annual Complaints Report, Paper 08-513, available to download here].

Here's an extract from the guidelines specifically relating to my experiences with Ms Ann Parris and Mr Tom Crawley. It's part of a breakdown of what constitutes - in Councilspeak - a "Service Delivery Failure." Kudos for bravely employing the word failure instead of a euphemism, however I can't help noticing that lying and dishonesty are omitted from the list of failures.

I've underlined/bolded all the bits that apply to Ms Parris and Mr Crawley:

Staff Error - Where the complaint is the result of an error or omission by a member of staff. Examples include:
Complaint not dealt with in set time scale (speed of response)
Telephone calls/letters not responded to (keeping client informed)
Adopting incorrect procedures
Failing to pass on information requested
Failing to undertake general tasks
Failing to keep appointments
Any action/non-action creating gaps in service delivery
Incorrect assessment of housing register and other similar application forms
Staff Attitude - Where the complaint is the result of the way in which a member of staff has dealt with an issue. Examples include:
Rudeness
Unhelpful
Obstructive
Arrogant
Making racist or sexist comments
Fairness [presumably they mean unfairness]
Not listening to problems
General staff conduct

It's rather a lot of fails, isn't it? Even excluding lying. In the private sector, this many fails would result, at the very least, in a warning, not a promotion.

Insured perils

2009-03-16T18:30:00.000Z

I found an old copy of the buildings insurance schedule at the weekend. It dates from when I bought my flat in 2006 but that's when the leak started. In case Ms Parris tries to deny knowing anything about this as well, I have several witnesses to the first appearance of the leak including my neighbour (who spoke on the phone to Ms Parris about it, and told me she "fobbed him off") and the plumber who first discovered the leak (before it had caused any serious damage), a lovely chap called Richard.

Anyway, I knew the "INSURED PERILS" in the insurance would include flooding but they also include "Escape of Water from any tank apparatus or pipe." In short, I don't think there can be any doubt that the leak is covered by the buildings insurance.

Sian Gibbon sends me Wandsworth's defence

2009-03-14T19:54:00.011Z

* * * * *

Sian Gibbon of Ashfords Solicitors has sent me a copy of the defence, dated 13 March 2009. She's gone for a generalized deny-everything approach. No surprises there. No specifics and no mention of Ms Parris. This is the main body of the defence:

The Defendant [Wandsworth] denies that it is in debt to the Claimant [me] as claimed or at all and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant [sic], or any of its servants or agents has, at anytime [sic], entered into an agreement with the Claimant whereby the Defendant was contracted to refund to the Claimant any sum of money expended by her in relation to repairs at [address of my flat] in 2006 or subsequently. Furthermore, there is no contractual, statutory, tortious or other obligation upon the Defendant to make payment of the sum claimed by the Claimant or at all.

The Defendant denies that it has any contractual, statutory, tortious or other liability to make payment of the sum of £100 claimed by the Claimant in respect of her time. The Defendant maintains that it has complied with its duties pursuant to the Lease and is not indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

The first sentence of the second para contains errors - "The Defendant denies that the Claimant...entered into an agreement with the Claimant"? - but I think I know what Ms Gibbon is trying to say. This isn't weighty litigation, after all, and no doubt Ms Gibbon has more important cases to attend to.

The bit about "strict proof" basically means they demand proof. Ashfords know I don't have, say, a letter from Ms Parris confirming our conversation about the repointing. However, this is a small claim, so it will be judged on the balance of probabilities based on the evidence presented, both actual and circumstantial.

I have other observations which unfortunately I have to keep to myself now that Ashfords Solicitors are lurking (they've been back since the first flurry of visits on Monday).

It is most interesting that Ms Ann Parris appears to have signed the Statement of Truth at the bottom of the defence (see photo). Obviously, I don't have an example of her signature to compare it against, but it does look like 'A Parris' and she is an estate manager. I will leave blog readers to draw their own conclusions as to the trufaxity of Ms Parris' statement: "I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true."

This seems to be the standard phrasing for Statements of Truth. Some would argue that facts are, by definition, true; the word fact is derived from the Latin factum, meaning 'thing done'. However, the definition of fact in the Collins Dictionary includes "a piece of information", and it's possible to say "the newspaper got its facts wrong in that report", so false facts do exist.

I've written to Gerald Jones, Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council

2009-03-13T20:13:00.021Z

* * * * *

I finally posted my ‘Step 3’ complaint to Wandsworth’s Chief Executive, Gerald Jones, today. I rewrote it and edited it down to two pages instead of the original three, to ensure I got the key points across.

I won’t reproduce the letter here as you already know the story, but writing it brought into focus precisely wherein the problem lies with Mr Crawley. Ms Parris’ failures are straightforward ones; she just ignores letters and doesn’t do her job. And while Mr Crawley has similarly failed on the basic level of not resolving any of the issues, it goes beyond that.

Looking back over Mr Crawley’s letters, I realized that he consistently disbelieves anything I say. He has shown no concern whatsoever about the disappearance of all my letters to Ms Parris – why? – because he doesn’t believe I sent the letters. He says I misunderstood what Ms Parris told me about landlord’s consent (i.e. I'm just confused about that, obvi). He won’t accept I can’t provide the documentation he’s demanding – why else would he persist in demanding it four times? He refuses to believe that Ms Parris authorized the roof repair. He didn’t believe I was going to issue a court claim for the refund (wrong again). He ignored it when I said I was taking the consent complaint to the Chief Executive, and just wrote back as though I hadn’t said it.

This is the key to the madness. How can Mr Crawley address any complaint if he disbelieves everything the complainant tells him? It's a classic example of local government mentality. You are wrong/woefully misguided/lying/a nuisance who needs to STFU and/or DIAF. The council is always right. It is incapable of maladministration, (I mean, just look at the findings of the LGOs). They apologize if you were not aware of this universal truth.

Letter to Mr Crawley objecting to the proposed works

2009-03-12T15:20:00.003Z

* * * * *

Here's my response to the Notice of Intention to Carry Out Works, posted today, 12th March 2009.

"Dear Mr Crawley

This is a formal objection to the proposed works/quotation. I have several reasons for my objection, firstly:

1) This is a buildings insurance matter. I therefore do not accept liability for the cost of repair. When the leak was first reported to Ms Parris and to the duty manager in 2006, the water had reached carpet level, i.e. flooding. In the subsequent months and years, the water has inevitably drained into the surrounding timbers, masonry and foundations, (causing further damage).

In my letter to Ms Parris dated 9th June 2006, I asked her to arrange for someone from the buildings insurance company to come and inspect. I am, obviously, aware that Ms Parris ‘lost’ this letter (along with all the others).

In addition:

2) Excavation of the hall to ‘discover’ the location of the leak is unnecessary. The extensive damp in the wall is entirely consistent with a single long-term unrepaired leak, and the leak is coming from the valve on the water pipe on the right hand side, something which an inspection of the exposed portion of the pipes would have revealed. There has never been any mystery surrounding the location of the leak.

I enclose a quote from a qualified plumber confirming the location of the leak.

3) The remedial works now necessary to the walls and timbers are entirely due to the negligence of the council, who failed to take appropriate action at the time the leak was reported. It has taken several years for the damp to spread and it is laughable even to suggest that leaseholders are responsible for the cost of repairing this.

If you choose to ignore the above observations and proceed with the works as proposed, I will obviously not accept any liability for costs you incur.

Please note that the hallway is again flooding and I would be grateful if you would send a loss assessor from the buildings insurance company to inspect the damage.

Yours sincerely, etc"

Leak worse

2009-03-12T14:13:00.007Z

* * * * *

This is the hallway this morning. The water is spreading (you can see it better if you click on the photo). Compare with how it looked six days ago.

Should be a bumper crop of fungus this season.

Incompetence Today welcomes Ashfords Solicitors

2009-03-09T13:00:00.003Z

* * * * *

There were several visits from an IP address identifying itself as Ashfords Solicitors, in Exeter, Devon, to the blog this morning. (Ashfords are the solicitors acting for Wandsworth in the court claim). My site meter tracked the following visits from this IP address:

Visit time 11.23am; page views 7; visit length 21 minutes
Visit time 11.27am; page views 22; visit length 31 minutes
Visit time 11.28am; page views 1; visit length unknown
Visit time 11.28am; page views 2, visit length 1.3 minutes

FYI, 22 page views is an exceptionally high number compared to the average, which is 2.4 per visit.

They all arrived at the blog at the post about Sian Gibbon, not the home page, which suggests someone is circulating a link to that post. The overlapping visit times indicate as many as four individual visitors.

Edit: 7.30pm 9th March 2009. Ashfords made a further five visits to my blog this afternoon.

Blog Summary: I

2009-03-08T15:35:00.001Z

* * * * *

For the benefit of newcomers to the blog, this is a brief summary of what’s happened since my first post in January. Mr Crawley and I have continued to correspond and here's where we've got to:

THE REFUND FOR THE REPOINTING: Mr Crawley has refused to pay this on the basis that I have not “provide[d] any evidence to indicate that [Wandsworth] agreed to contribute towards the roof works”. Mr Crawley appears, perversely, to have failed to ask Ms Parris what she said to me during the site visit of May 2006. No explanation has been given by Mr Crawley with regard to the loss of my letters by Ms Parris or her failure to reply to them. I’ve issued a court claim for the money and Wandsworth are contesting it. Ashfords Solicitors are acting for Wandsworth, and I'm waiting for them to submit a written defence (deadline 18th March). I also await Mr Crawley’s response to my request for a written statement from Ms Parris.

THE LEAK IN THE COMMUNAL HALL: (Not mentioned in my first post, but explained in a subsequent post). The leak, first reported in May 2006 when it flooded the hall carpet, remains unrepaired. Wandsworth contractors, sent by Mr Crawley to inspect, failed to identify the location of the leak, and propose to “excavate” the area to discover its source. I’m about to write to Mr Crawley about this. The location of the leak is not, nor ever was, a mystery; it's on the internal mains stopcock, something which would have been obvious had the contractors carried out a proper inspection.

LANDLORD’S CONSENT: Mr Crawley has sent me his bulleted list four times and refuses to budge on this issue, or acknowledge Ms Parris’ role in failing to inform me these documents were required at the appropriate time. I’ve informed Mr Crawley that I’m taking this complaint to the Chief Executive, Gerald Jones.

In conclusion, Mr Crawley has spectacularly failed to resolve any of my complaints, and there is the subtle but unmistakeable implication throughout his letters that he regards my claim of having written repeatedly to Ms Parris, and having had a conversation regarding the roof repointing and landlord’s consent with her, as being the product of a delusional or, at best, confused, mind.

Oh, and Mr Crawley's been promoted.

Sian Gibbon: Wandsworth's solicitor

2009-03-08T11:30:00.008Z

(Edit: 9th March 2009. As ashfordbots have been crawling around my blog this morning, I have removed the photo of Ms Gibbon which used to be here and replaced it with a charming cat photo in order to preclude any attempt by Ashfords to claim illegal use of a copyrighted image)

* * * * *

Out of idle curiosity, I checked Ashfords' website (Ashfords being the solicitors who are acting for Wandsworth in my court claim) to see if the person who filled in the response form was mentioned anywhere. I'd vaguely assumed that a junior lawyer would have been assigned to my case but it turns out Sian Gibbon is a partner of the firm, in the Property Litigation Department. She joined Ashfords in 1988, and became a partner in 2000. She is the only partner mentioned on the Property Litigation page. It's a big firm with about 60 partners, but nevertheless this all suggests a reasonable degree of seniority.

In addition, the Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession, 2009 Edition, says:

"The heart of the practice lies with Sian Gibbon, who has excelled in winning public sector and housing association work. Her practice focuses on commercial landlord and tenant disputes, easement and restrictive covenant enforcement, trusts of land and redevelopment-related litigation. In recent highlight work, she represented the London Borough of Wandsworth in a Court of Appeal determination on the meaning of succession in the context of the Housing Act 1985."

And, from the 2008 Edition:

"Sian Gibbon has been involved in the weighty litigation that has kept the department busy of late and she can expect much more attention as a result of her 'fantastic work' in service charge and rights of light cases."

Weighty litigation? Hahaha! It's both flattering and risible that Wandsworth regard my claim for £274.06 as so fiendishly complex it requires a property litigation specialist and senior company partner to contest it.

I wonder how much Ms Gibbon's time is costing Wandsworth council tax payers? £150 per hour? It can't be less than £100.

In a few weeks it'll be the leak's third anniversary

2009-03-06T20:18:00.003Z

* * * * *

The leak, perhaps in anticipation of the forthcoming occasion, is reviving its 2006 glory days, when it was first reported to Ms Parris and to Wandsworth Housing's duty manager. That heady time when leaks were young and carefree, and you thought repair was just around the corner.

I noticed the tell-tale patch on the communal hall carpet when I went out today. It's not dirt, it's waterlogged from the leak. The second photo shows the rather grim scene inside the cupboard on the left in the first photo. As you can see, water has filled the cavity (in fact, it's always like that), but is still below carpet level, so I'm not sure how the water is making the carpet soggy. I presume the floorboards and underlay are acting as a sponge and drawing the water up?

Click on the photos if you want to see the full-size image. (I only just discovered you can do this).

The Joy of SEO

2009-03-06T12:45:00.002Z

* * * * *

Yes, a few hours later and Incompetence Today has jumped 43 places to number one.

Awesome.

housing+complaint+wandsworth

2009-03-05T21:01:00.001Z

* * * * *

I've registered this blog's URL with Google Webmaster and technorati.com as it's meant to be good for Search Engine Optimization (SEO), i.e. coming higher up the page in Google. They send virtual robots to check out your blog regularly. It seems to be doing the trick as I'm beginning to get hits from Google searches (revealed by my site meter), and I'm on the first page for:

incompetence+wandsworth (yay!)
incompetence[or wandsworth]+crawley
incompetence[or wandsworth]+parris

...and in 49th position for housing+complaints+wandsworth and 44th position for housing+complaint+wandsworth, which isn't that great, but not disastrous for a puny blog like mine. It's lucky there's only one Wandsworth on the planet.

I've also changed the blog's tagline. Apparently, what and how you write has an effect on SEO and there should be a degree of 'focus' and 'Keyword Rich Content'. I think I'm okay since this blog is already obsessively focussed on a single topic and littered with keywords without even trying. Well, I admit I am trying with those last two example Google searches. And I'm going to use more post titles from now on.

What this increased visibility will achieve, except for an increase in (hopefully interested) traffic, remains to be seen, but exposure of local government incompetence has to be a good thing.

I wonder if Mr Crawley or Ms Parris are self-Googlers. Most people do it occasionally. I enjoy the idea of them coming across this blog accidentally. It did occur to me this might not be helpful in terms of the court claim etc, but then I realized there's nothing here which could harm my case as it's all true. Any minor tactical disadvantage is far outweighed by the naming and shaming factor.

Court Claim Update

2009-03-05T12:51:00.013Z

I received today from the court a Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, (Form N10) dated 3rd March 2009.

Enclosed was a copy of the defendant's Acknowledgment of Service, which shows that Wandsworth "intend to defend all of this claim". They are using a firm of solicitors called Ashfords in Exeter, Devon, to represent them.

The deadline for Wandsworth to file a defence is 18th March. I'll be very interested to see what it says. It could just be a broad denial of everything, i.e. say I have no evidence that they authorized the repair and agreed to refund. However, given that I named Ms Parris in my claim, and given that Ashfords will surely read my correspondence with Mr Crawley, they will surely have to ask Ms Parris about what she said on the site visit in May 2006. It's the logical thing to do. So it's possible she may be mentioned in the defence, which would be a far more interesting outcome.

BTW, I checked today and Ms Parris hasn't been promoted.

2009-03-02T21:00:00.007Z

* * * * *

I noticed today that Mr Crawley's job title has changed. Up until his letter of 18th November 2008 he signed himself as Senior Estate Manager, Eastern Team; in his February 2009 letters he's Deputy Area Housing Manager, Eastern Area Team. This means he's been promoted. (Note to self: find out whether Ms Parris has also been promoted).

I've drafted my letter to Mr Jones. I may wait till next Monday to send it, though, as the deadline for Wandsworth to respond to my court claim is in two days, 4th March. Then it takes a couple of days for the court to send me a copy of the response. Probably best to know what it is so I can incorporate it into my letter.

Meanwhile, in the course of googling for other victims of council incompetence this week, I have discovered a network of dedicated campaigners who are trying to get an overhaul of the Local Government Ombudsman system. I'd never heard of LGOs before now, but my understanding is that they sit atop the incompetence pyramid, and arbitrate in cases where a local authority fails to resolve a complaint to the complainant's satisfaction, or the complainant believes the council is guilty of dishonesty, or maladministration, etc. However, the problem is, LGOs almost never find in favour of the complainant, and believe anything the council tells them. (If I've got any of this wrong, let me know).

One of these heroic campaigners is Trevor Nunn, (whose blog I've added to the blog list in the sidebar). He recently submitted a freedom of information request to every single council in England, via the What Do They Know? website, which provides a simple online method of making a FOI request, and publishes both the request and the result.

Anyway, this is Trevor Nunn's question, (more details on his blog):

"During the last five years how many times has the Local Government Ombudsman (as a result of investigating a complaint against X District Council) brought to the attention of the council the fact that a member of X District Council staff had misled them, lied to them or done anything else to hinder their investigation. If they have what disciplinary action was taken against the individual(s) concerned by the council."

Mr Nunn updated his blog today, saying: "only one council out of hundreds...has admitted that a member of their staff has been criticized by the LGO". And in that case it was for removing some handwritten notes on a letter, and the member of staff was not disciplined.

Mr Nunn's post concludes:

"Over the last five years the LGO will have received over 80,000 complaints. The majority of which are complaints against one of the 400 or so Councils in England. Yet not one of these complaints led to the LGO criticizing a council member of staff for lying or misleading them during an investigation. I call that a statistical impossibility."

Al The Plumber

2009-02-25T00:30:00.004Z

My plumber, Al, came round today to look at the leak. I've known him for several years and although he's not cheap you can trust him to do a guaranteed 100% professional job. In my experience cut-price plumbers are a false economy; I've had to pay Al to fix bad work by other plumbers on more than one occasion.

Anyway, Al confirmed what I already knew. The valve on the right hand side pipe is leaking. He offered to fix it there and then for £300. I was really tempted, but I couldn't say yes. Apart from the council's involvement, there are two other leaseholders who pay a percentage of communal repair costs for the building so, overall, little likelihood I'd get the 50% back for non-pre-approved-by-council repairs.

I've drafted a response to the Notice of Intention to Carry Out Works, but next on my council To Do/Attack list is writing to the Chief Executive, Gerald Jones. This is the man.

It was the only photo I could find. He has a remarkably low media profile, given his position. You can find out considerably more about me via Google than about Mr Jones, whose only claim to fame is being one of the UK's highest paid local authority chief executives. In 2007 it was widely reported that his salary was £227,424 per annum. I don't at all begrudge him the money - he no doubt does a good job generally since our council tax is one of the lowest in the UK - but my attitude may well change, and swiftly, if he can't sort out the mess created by Ms Parris and Mr Crawley. Sackings would be good but I know that's pure fantasy - you have to be Sharon Shoesmith to get fired by a council for incompetence these days.

Incidentally, I've just noticed there's a spooky resemblance between Jill Pay, (underling of Incompetence Today's unofficial blog mascot Michael Martin, The Speaker) and Ms Shoesmith. 0_0

2009-02-24T18:30:00.003Z

* * * * *

Here's my latest letter to Mr Crawley. It'll go in tomorrow's post. The idea is to force Mr Crawley to address the matter of the existence of Ms Parris and her role in the drama. I have created a poll in the sidebar in which I invite blog readers to guess whether or not Mr Crawley will refer or allude to Ms Parris in his reply. It'll take about three weeks for Mr Crawley to respond, so the deadline for votes is Sunday 15th March.

Dear Mr Crawley

Further to your letter dated 13th February, I write with regard to the matter of the roof ridge repointing separately as this is now the subject of a court claim.

Although I have repeatedly informed you that Ms Parris verbally instructed me to arrange to carry out the repair, and promised to later arrange a refund of my neighbouring leaseholders' share of these communal maintenance works, you have apparently neglected to ask Ms Parris about this discussion.

Therefore, please would you provide me with a written statement from Ms Parris. The statement should include her account of the following:

The discussion regarding roof repointing, which took place at 10.30am on 10th May 2006 when she visited my property accompanied by a council technician.
Confirmation that, in the following months, she received or did not receive letters from me relating to the refund.
In the event that she is able to confirm receipt of these letters, an explanation of the subsequent loss of these letters and her failure to reply to them.

In addition, please provide the name of the technician and a written statement from him giving his own account of the discussion regarding roof repointing.

Yours sincerely

*TRUFAX*

2009-02-22T19:00:00.001Z

* * * * *

Mr Crawley has now sent a Notice of Intention to Carry Out Works, received yesterday.

The estimate for the repair is £755.78 (I am expected to pay 50%). The breakdown includes an optimistic £126.54 "Minor Works Commissioning Fee" - they'll be lucky - and, my favourite: "Cost for turning off and turning on mains water supply to block x1hr @ £22.22/hr = £22.22." I'm surprised there isn't a costing for walking to and from the van.

The notice informs me:

"The investigations have revealed that there are one or more leaks under the communal entrance to the property. In order to resolve the problem it will be necessary to excavate two holes, repair and reinstate all groundwork and timbers (skirting and floorboards). As we are unable to establish the exact location of the leaks without excavating through the floor we are only able to estimate the total costs of repair. Therefore, the costs provided represent our best estimate at this time. It is quite possible that the costs of repair could rise."

In short, the contractors' expert investigations apparently didn't reveal that the leak is coming from the valve of the water pipe, which they would have seen if they'd looked at the visible portion of the water pipe. Dear God, the relentless dimwittery is really beginning to grind me down.

I am invited to make "written observations in relation to the proposed works". I'll be doing this after I get my own plumber round to give an independent report, as I doubt Mr Crawley will be willing to take my word for it.

2009-02-20T17:21:00.005Z

* * * * *

I was looking through my Wandsworth paperwork today when I discovered a useful piece of evidence. Back in 2007, I wrote on one occasion to the Finance Department to chase the overdue refund, since I wasn't getting anywhere with Ms Parris. And I've found the reply, from Ms Kenny, Assistant Property Accountant, which contains this perfectly phrased paragraph:

"I have sent a copy of your letter, along with a further copy of the invoice for £250 for repointing of the roof, to Ms Parris, as this is a matter for the Housing Department. I have asked for her to reply to you direct on this issue and to send me a copy for information."

So, I now have hard evidence that Ms Parris received at least one of my letters requesting the refund, and failed to reply to it. If Wandsworth's defence is that they didn't agree to or authorize the repointing, or know anything about it until recently, (as Mr Crawley appears to be arguing), then this letter helps to undermine that defence.

I also have copies of the letters I sent to Ms Parris. While I cannot prove she received all of them, I am confident that a judge would take the view that my letters were posted and delivered, just as the one to the Finance Department was, and do not comprise an elaborate fraud conducted over a three year period in order to obtain £125 by deception.

BTW, a gold star for Ms Kenny, who I've dealt with a few times on service charge matters. She's always been really helpful and efficient. I like her even more now.

2009-02-19T14:22:00.009Z

So. Mr Crawley's letter...

First, the refund. I notice he pointedly fails to mention Ms Parris yet again. (In four letters, he hasn't once mentioned her name). The implication has to be that he hasn't actually asked her about the roof ridge repointing (as I helpfully suggested). Unbelievable and utterly inexplicable. Why wouldn't he ask her? Ms Parris still works there and although this entire business concerns her actions, Mr Crawley has apparently decided not to discuss it with her. The whole thing is getting really quite bizarre.

I'm going to ask him to provide statements from Ms Parris and the council technician (who I presume they can locate by the novel method of asking Ms Parris). If he fails to provide the statements, then that's evidence of a sort. Fortunately, small claims don't require the kind of proof required in the higher courts, the 'beyond all reasonable doubt' stuff.

I suppose there's a chance - in the unlikely event that Ms Parris does provide a statement - that Ms Parris might lie, though again this seems improbable as firstly, there's no motive, and secondly, they'd need to get the technician to lie too. It's hard to imagine them all conspiring to this extent, and potentially putting their jobs at risk if the fraud were to be exposed, all for £125 of council money.

I suppose I could also call Ms Parris as a witness. Though I'm sure she can't be compelled to attend, if she doesn't then that's another point in my favour. I need to find out the name of the council technician who came with her on the site visit.

As for the leak. I made this face 0_0 when I read the bit about excavating the area. WTF?! I've no idea why Newpoint think there's more than one leak. All that's there to be seen is a section of the water pipes (the valves are accessed via a very small cupboard door) and the damp walls on either side. As it's three years since the leak was noticed and reported, this is ample time for the damp to have spread. My point is, I can't see what possible evidence there is to suggest something other than a single long-term unrepaired leak. And in what way is repairing a leak a job of an "unusual nature".

Again, we seem to be slipping into a parallel council-funded universe in which common sense and logic has no bearing.

Lastly, landlord's consent. I can't believe he repeated his sodding bulleted list again. That's the fourth time now. Although a faint glimmer of flexibility and reasonableness creeps into the paragraph about the Deed of Variation in Mr Crawley's use of the word "may" - probably unwittingly - I'm totally unconvinced. "Keen to address"...yeah, right. And I don't call three years ago "recently". The time has come to go to the Chief Executive. I've been putting it off, partly because it's hard to know where on earth to begin.

The other thing that bugs me is there is no need whatsoever, nor any legal basis, for any of the documentation requested. It's completely pointless, especially when the works were supervized and approved by the Freeholder's own Building Control service. They're acting like I built a mega Tesco in the back garden instead of just putting in a small roof terrace and a new kitchen.

I think after I get confirmation from Wandsworth that they're disputing my claim, I may contact the local paper.

2009-02-18T17:28:00.010Z

Finally! A reply from Mr Crawley! I must have missed it amongst all the junk mail in the hall this morning. I am going to quote it here in all its jawdropping entirety. I'll comment on it later (or tomorrow) when I'm over the blind rage.

EDIT: I really want that cat in the photo.

* * * * *

Dear Miss *Trufax*

I am writing with regard to your letter received on 30th January 2009 concerning your property.

1) I appreciate your position with regard to the alterations that you have undertaken. I also apologize for any letters that you sent that have not been responded to. Nevertheless, it appears that we are both keen to address the issue of consent for the alterations that have been undertaken. As previously stated we would normally require the following documents and as the work took place as recently as 2006 I would hope that you would be able to provide them.

Details of the contractors that undertook the work
Contractors Health and Safety Statement
Contractors Public Liability Insurance (must be in excess of £5 million)
Specification of what works were carried out, illustrating how the property looked before and what it now looks like
Method statement explaining how the works were undertaken

We may be able to process a Deed of Variation to alter the terms of your lease without all of the above information. However, in order to do so it will be necessary for one of our Building Maintenance Surveyors to inspect the work that has been carried out. Please contact me on [telephone number] so that we can arrange an appropriate time for them to visit.

2) I have discussed the issue of the roof repointing with the Area Housing Manager. Unfortunately, in order for us to provide you with the refund that you are requesting we would require evidence that you consulted with us, and obtained our agreement, prior to arranging for the works to be undertaken. You have been unable to provide, and I have been unable to locate, any evidence to indicate that we agreed to contribute towards the roof works. Therefore, I am unable to provide you with a refund.

3) I visited the property on Monday 24th November 2008 with Steve Brophy, Senior Building Maintenance Inspector, and our plumbing contractors, Newpoint. Newpoint then provided us with a report and a quote for the proposed works. Unfortunately the nature of the problem means that only when the area is excavated will we be able to accurately assess the cost of repair. Newpoint believe that there are two leaks in the area concerned but they are not able to establish their exact location. The anticipated cost of the works is also greater than the limit at which we are obliged to consult with leaseholders within your block. Therefore, I will shortly be sending out consultation letters to all the leaseholders within the block giving an estimated cost of the works that are required. As soon as this consultation period has finished, one month after the date of the letter, we will be able to arrange for the works to be completed. I apologize for the delays in undertaking this work but I hope you can appreciate that these are largely due to their unusual nature.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any of the above matters, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Crawley

2009-02-18T10:49:00.008Z

* * * * *

Total number of letters written to Wandsworth Council: 13

Number of years since I first reported the mains water leak to Ms Parris: 2.83

Number of years since I sent Ms Parris the receipt for the roof repair and requested the refund: 2.42

Number of years since I sent Ms Parris the Building Control Completion Certificate which she told me was all that was necessary to gain landlord's consent for the alterations: 1.33

Number of months since Mr Crawley's first letter: 6

Number of issues resolved: 0

Number of days since Mr Crawley received my last letter: 20

2009-02-14T18:15:00.007Z

* * * * *

I have received a Notice of Issue (Form N205) from the Court, which says:

Your claim was issued on the 13th February 2009.

The court sent it to the defendant by first class post on the 13th February 2009 and it will be deemed to be served on the 18th February 2009.

The defendant has until the 4th March 2009 to reply.

The defendant may

Pay you your total claim.
File an acknowledgment of service. This will allow the defendant 28 days from the date of service of your particulars of claim to file a defence or contest the court's jurisdiction.
Dispute the whole claim. The court will send you a copy of the defence.
Admit that all the money is owed. The defendant will send you a completed admission form and you may ask the court to enter judgment.
Admit that only part of your claim is owed. The court will send you a copy of the reply form and you will have to decide what to do next.
Not reply at all. You may ask the court to enter judgment.

I Initiate Court Claim Against Wandsworth Council

2009-02-11T19:51:00.010Z

* * * * *

The deadline has passed. No cheque, and no reply from Mr Crawley since his acknowledgment dated 30 January 2009. So today I initiated a claim via HMCS's Money Claim Online. The total value of my claim, including £125 for the repair, £100 for time-wasting, £24.06 interest on the £125, and £25 court fee, is £274.06.

The next stage is acknowledgment of my online claim.

PROTIP: When filling in the online Particulars of Claim form, it specifies no more than 24 lines and 1080 characters. However, it doesn't mean normal A4 page-width lines; it means lines the width of the text entry box, which is about 2 inches wide, but misleadingly stretchable. When drafting a claim in a Word doc, reduce the margins to the same width as the online text box. If you paste the text with normal page-width margins, you'll get repeated error messages (which don't tell you what you're doing wrong) like I did until I figured it out.

Mr Crawley Acknowledges My Letter

2009-02-04T16:25:00.005Z

Quick update. Mr Crawley has acknowledged my letter of 27th January 2009, in a letter dated 30th January. This is good because it is proof he has received notice of my intention to initiate legal proceedings if Wandsworth fail to pay up, and I need that proof if I submit a claim to the Small Claims Court.

The deadline for payment is end of play on Tuesday 10th February.

The Leak Saga

2009-01-31T12:30:00.011Z

* * * * *

For the sake of clarity, I’ve so far omitted the parallel saga of the leak in the mains water pipe in the communal entrance hall downstairs. (Click on the Wandsworth tag to read the story so far…)

It’s coming up to three years since I first reported the leak to Ms Parris on 5th May 2006. It’s not a gushing leak, just a gradual and inconsistent seepage from the valve, but on occasion the water has reached carpet level.

Because the leak is on the mains, the water needs to be turned off at the external stop valve in order to carry out the repair. My plumber, who first spotted the leak, told me he couldn't find the external stop valve in the pavement - it's usually directly outside the property. He also said you couldn't freeze the pipes either as there wasn't enough room to access them.

Anyway, shortly after Ms Parris had been round to inspect my flat in May 2006 and had also seen the leak, Council contractors arrived unannounced to repair it. I told them they couldn’t repair it until the external valve had been found and, sure enough, after having a look they told me they couldn’t repair it.

I phoned Ms Parris shortly afterwards. She told me that the contractors had said they’d repaired the leak. I told her this wasn’t true and that she’d have to get Thames Water to find the external stop valve first. Subsequently, I wrote several times to Ms Parris, enquiring as to progress. She didn't reply. And so, around the end of 2006, I began to chase Thames Water myself, as Ms Parris clearly wasn’t planning to do her job any time soon.

The Thames Water game went like this. I would call Thames Water and give all my details, explain the problem, and they’d say someone would call me back within 24 hours to arrange an appointment. If I missed that call, they wouldn’t try calling again. I’d have to go back to square one and call the call centre, explain it all again, to be promised another call back. Sometimes, the call centre would try to tell me that Thames Water don’t come to investigate stop valve location.

Thames Water dug up the pavement three times without success. By the summer of 2008 I was beginning to get desperate and one day I flipped and insisted on speaking to the manager. It worked; I got put through to a top secret, crack-team, department of Thames Water. The man said he would personally ensure that the stop valve would be located, and would not rest till this objective had been achieved. He even gave me a direct line phone number to bypass the call centre routine.

A special Thames Water engineer arrived the next day and found the stop valve in about ten minutes. I had mixed feelings: joy that the 18 month search was finally over, mingled with the face-palming knowledge that the hours spent on the phone to Thames Water, the waiting in for appointments, the digging, could all have been avoided if they'd sent this guy round in the first place.

* * * * *

By this time, beige fungus was growing out of the carpet in the communal hall, and the damp was spreading up the wall. I sent photos with my letter to the Director of Housing (17th July 2008), gave details of the problem, and the location of the exterior stop valve.

Mr Crawley’s letter of 22nd August 2008 said he was ‘currently liaising with the Senior Building Maintenance Inspector’; his letter of 16th September, however, said he had spoken with Thames Water and unfortunately they were unwilling to discuss the matter for reasons of data protection. I replied, pointing out that Thames Water’s involvement was unnecessary due to the fact that the exterior stop valve had already been located, as explained in my letter of 17th July.

At the end of November 2008, a Council contractor came to have a look at it. That was two months ago. Still waiting for them to come back and actually repair the leak.

I SURVIVED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

2009-01-29T12:29:00.012Z

* * * * *

I wish they did a mug version of this. I approve of incompetence-related merchandise, but slogan t-shirts rarely look good on anyone, except the occasional skinny geek.

Via notcot and available from printliberation.

Letter to Mr Crawley, Wandsworth Housing Department

2009-01-27T13:45:00.006Z

* * * * *

Dear Mr Crawley

Thank you for your letter dated 18th November 2008. I note your apology but do not accept you could have been unaware that threatening me with legal action would ‘come across as threatening’.

Regarding the matter of consent for the alterations, as I said in my letter dated 28th October 2008, I will be taking this complaint to the Chief Executive in accordance with council complaints procedure as you seem unable to appreciate that I am not perversely withholding the documents you have requested ad nauseam but, as explained, am unable to provide them due to the fact that Ms Parris failed to request them at the appropriate time in Spring 2006, a failure for which I am not in any way liable, yet which you refuse to acknowledge other than as a ‘misunderstanding’.

I originally wrote to you to complain about Ms Parris’ failure to respond to my letters over a two year period, and to resolve the simple matter of formal Landlord’s consent; consent which I sought at the appropriate time, for alterations which were fully supervised and approved by Wandsworth Building Control.

You have not only failed to apologize for Ms Parris’ negligence, or explain the loss of every single document sent to her, you have also spectacularly failed to show any willingness to resolve the central issue of consent. Your most constructive suggestion has been to propose legal action against me. I therefore see no point in continuing our correspondence on this matter.

As regards the roof ridge repointing, and your request for ‘further information’ as to ‘the nature of the works’, I have already given you details in previous letters and have no idea what further details you could possibly require. However, may I suggest that you pursue whatever enquiries you deem necessary via Ms Parris and/or the council technician who inspected my flat and its roof at 1.30pm on 10th May 2006, given that it was the technician who noted the need for the repair and Ms Parris who said that my builders should carry out the repair.

Obviously, this suggestion is based on the assumption that Ms Parris, despite having lost all documents, plans, certificates and letters relating to my property (remarkably, even before she had had the opportunity to respond to them), is not suffering from amnesia in addition to her fragile grasp on paperwork.

I note that I sent you a further copy of the invoice for repointing on 28th October, i.e. three months ago, and I originally sent this invoice to Ms Parris on 20th September 2006, i.e. well over two years ago. This letter is the ninth time I have requested this refund and I have reached what is popularly known as the end of my tether.

Therefore, I hereby give you formal notice that if I do not receive the 50% refund owing for the roof ridge repointing, i.e. the sum of £125, within 14 days of the date of this letter, I will initiate legal proceedings against L.B. of Wandsworth to recover this money. My claim will include the usual court fees and, in addition, a charge for time spent pursuing the debt.

Yours sincerely

*TRUFAX*

Me -v- Wandsworth Council: The Backstory

2009-01-23T20:07:00.010Z

* * * * *

I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth, in a two-bedroom Victorian flat I bought in early 2006. Unfortunately, the freeholder happens to be Wandsworth Council.

This is my story.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
The Council, the Freeholder and Landlord of the Victorian leasehold property known as 'my flat'
Ms Parris, Estate Manager in the Housing Department responsible for leasehold matters
Mr Crawley, Senior Estate Manager of the Housing Department and Ms Parris's superior
Trufax, Me, Leaseholder and miserable pawn in the shenanigans
The Council Technician, a mysterious Council employee who only appeared once, yet plays an important role as The One Who Wanted The Repointing Done
The Chief Executive, head honcho of Wandsworth Council and the last stage on the labyrinthine complaints procedure so beloved of local government

* * * * *

It all began just after I bought the flat. It came with planning permission for a roof terrace on a flat roof at the rear. I also wanted to move the kitchen to the front of the flat to create an open-plan kitchen/sitting room, which involved removing half a (non-supporting) wall between the existing sitting room and an adjoining second bedroom.

So, in April 2006 I contacted Ms Parris to seek Landlord’s consent. My letter included a description of the alterations, home-made plans of the new kitchen layout, and a copy of the planning permission. Ms Parris called to arrange a site visit and came round in May, had a look, said it was all fine and to send her the Building Control Approval Certificate when we were done. She'd then arrange for a letter to be attached to the lease giving Landlord's consent. Naturally, I believed her. It all seemed very straightforward. *laughs cynically*

Ms Parris was accompanied on the site visit by The Council Technician, who confirmed, when we were inspecting the site of the proposed roof terrace, that the roof ridge needed repointing. It was agreed by Ms Parris that my builders should carry out this minor work, I would pay for the work in full, send her the receipted invoice, and she would arrange for a 50% refund, as communal maintenance works are shared by my two downstairs neighbours.

In due course, I sent Ms Parris the Certificate and a copy of the invoice for £250. No response. I wrote again. And again. And again. I left phone messages (Ms Parris was never at her desk). In short, by July 2008 – over two years after my initial request for Landlord’s consent – I had written eight letters to Ms Parris and hadn't had a single reply except for her initial phone response in April 2006, and a solitary voicemail message in the latter quarter of 2007.

* * * * *

On 17th July 2008 I finally complained to the Director of Housing, Roy Evans, and after a target-hitting letter of acknowledgement, and one saying the matter required ‘further investigation’, Mr Crawley replied (I assumed on behalf of Mr Evans) in a letter dated 22nd August. He said there was no record of the plans, certificates, my letters, etc on file. He did not apologize for or explain their loss. Nor did he mention Ms Parris. (I assumed she’d been sacked but when I rang to check in October 2008 I discovered she is still a council employee).

Mr Crawley noted I had carried out alterations ‘but that [I had] not obtained [Landlord’s] consent for the works’, ignoring the significant detail of my dealings with Miss Parris. He said retrospective consent for the alterations would be granted on production of copies of the following:

Details of the contractors that undertook the work
Contractors Health and Safety Statement
Contractors Public Liability Insurance (must be in excess of £5 million)
Specification of what works were carried out, illustrating how the property looked before and what it now looks like
Method statement explaining how the works were undertaken

Needless to say, I didn't have these documents, or a formal specification, and didn't know WTF a method statement is. The builders were a bunch of Lithuanians to whom I'd mostly paid cash and sacked in the end when they stopped showing up for the decorating part of the work, I think because they’d underquoted for the job and had more lucrative fish to fry elsewhere. We didn’t part on the best of terms.

* * * * *

In my letter dated 4th September 2008, I told Mr Crawley I was unable to provide the documents requested, given the lateness of the request, i.e. two and a half years after works commenced, that such a request was unreasonable in the circumstances, and that it was not my problem that Miss Parris had failed to keep records or request further documentation at the appropriate time.

I pointed out that I had acted throughout with due diligence, that Building Control and the Planning department had records of the works, and gave details of what Miss Parris had said on the site visit on 10th May 2006.

Mr Crawley's reply of 16th September apologized ‘if [I was] misinformed or if there was a misunderstanding’ then went on to repeat verbatim his demands for the documents listed above, adding that if I failed to comply ‘the Council may be forced to take legal action’ and I might also ‘have difficulty selling [my] property’. He also wanted a copy of the invoice for the repointing, upon receipt of which he would be ‘able to further consider the reimbursement of 50%’.

Please note the graciousness of his consideration to reimburse me for works dictated and authorized by council employees, as well as the helpful and constructive threat of legal action.

* * * * *

I was so angry that it took me a while before I felt calm enough to resume the correspondence. Eventually, I wrote back on 28th October 2008:

‘Further to your letter dated 16th September, as you do not appear willing to resolve the issue of Landlord’s consent for the works undertaken, I have no alternative but to take this complaint to the Chief Executive whom I trust will take a more constructive approach than threatening me with legal action’.

I enclosed a copy of the subcontractor's invoice for the repointing and requested payment within 10 working days.

Which brings us more or less up to date. I am in possession of the latest letter (18th November) from Mr Crawley. He firstly apologized ‘if [his] request came across as threatening’, which was interesting given that the threat referred to in my letter was clearly the threat of legal action, not the request for paperwork. He then totally ignored my statement as regards taking my complaint to the Chief Executive and again listed the ‘required’ documents.

He also thanked me for sending the invoice but wanted ‘further information' about the roof repointing and ‘the nature of the works…undertaken’.

*le sigh*

Two months have passed, and it's my turn to reply to Mr Crawley. This time, the gloves are off.