| |
I received yesterday personally a letter from TW blaming me as a penthouse owner for putting my immediate neighbours boiler installation at risk.A copy of this letter was also sent to me neighbours.
I suspect others have received similar letters.
This is a complete fabrication of the truth and my response is produced in full below.
17 April 2011
Mr David Dunlop
Customer Service Manager
Taylor Wimpey South West Thames
Tyrell House
Challenge Court
Barnett Wood Lane
Leatherhead
Surrey KT22 7LL
Dear Mr Dunlop,
Extended Gas Boiler Flue Installation
I acknowledge receipt of and am deeply offended by your letter dated 15 April 2011 sent to the ‘occupier’ of 29 Wilberforce Court.
Your letter is condescending, factually inaccurate, and confirms my view that TW remains ignorant of the realities of the situation regarding the flue-line installation at Holwood. Furthermore by distributing this ‘inaccurate information’ to my immediate neighbours you have deliberately incited conflict that has damaged the quiet enjoyment of my legitimate home. I am writing this initial reply in order to comply with your requirement of ‘a response within 14 days’, but I reserve the right to have a later independent assessment made of the lasting effects of your irresponsible words.
1) I have never refused access to my property.
2) I have actively encouraged (under HERA advice) TW to carry out corrections to the flue line installation, but TW have not taken up this offer.
3) Your reference to a single flue line fault is a deliberate lie, as TW has information that demonstrates the many cases that have been found and continue to be found. These include leaking joints, unclipped lines, no correct fire-stopping etc.
4) I have expressed my concerns (via HERA) that proposed inspection hatches to my apartment might not be airtight. (This question has been ignored and still awaits your response).
5) I have sought clarification (via HERA) of the proposed CO detection devices to be installed by TW as my personal risk to exposure to fumes particularly in bedrooms is increased if the fabric of internal walls is compromised. (This question has been ignored and still awaits your response).
6) My apartment holds a valid Gas Safe certificate and is not ‘at risk’ so there is no question that my gas supply will be cut off; to suggest otherwise is rubbish.
7) Gas Safe engineering work performed and signed off under guidance from New Build here at Holwood has not proved acceptable to GSR inspectors. (this question has been advised to you via HERA but been ignored).
8) There are examples where inspection hatches have been installed in apartments here at Holwood and then subsequently deemed to be insufficient by the very contractors that installed them with further and/or larger inspection hatches later required.
9) In one case here at Holwood ‘subsequent to remedial works’ a British Gas GS engineer still issued an ‘at risk’ notice.
10) The shortcomings as mentioned in 7), 8) and 9), do not inspire confidence, and have cautioned me to seek ,via HERA, exact details of the proposed hatch installation for my specific apartment. (This question continues to be ignored by TW).
11) I have questioned (via HERA) why the flue lines from ground and first floor level cannot be re-routed through corridors and vented through existing smoke vents. ( This was originally considered a plausible solution by both Capital Plumbing and New Build but has been and continues to be ignored as an option by TW). Presumably on grounds of cost!
12) I have been in correspondence with TW (via HERA) on a continual basis to seek a resolution to this problem but TW has proved unwilling to meet and discuss the issues.
Your letter to the occupier of apartment 29 and its surrounding neighbours, presumably mirrored to other residents, represents a poorly veiled attempt to offload responsibility for lack of progress in solving this problem, onto the very residents that your inadequate system has already put at risk.
I remain willing to have any required remedial works to the existing flue installation undertaken, and remain willing to discuss with TW via HERA or directly, the larger issues relating to safety that TW continue to ignore.
TW continues to be solely responsibility for the Health and Safety of residents exposed to their inadequate flue-line installation until such time as they communicate a detailed plausible scheme that residents have a chance to consider.
I am distributing a copy of my letter to ‘affected properties’ so they might better understand why TW has not progressed the required works.
I would be grateful if you would respond to this communication so that we can seek an acceptable solution.
I am personally embarrassed that my neighbours should be concerned or inconvenienced by any action I take, but I will not compromise my personal safety just so that TW can achieve the cheapest possible solution.
Yours sincerely
Steven James Turner
P.S Please copy future correspondence electronically to steve@holwood-estate.co.uk
|
