/ Is this professional?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Edradour - on 08 Nov 2012
Apologies for the length of this post but I would be interested to hear what people thought of the following email exchange that I had with my freeholder today (some background - we are going to a tribunal about service charges and the first email is in response to an email from the freeholder saying he had not previously seen some notes we put in the bundle, the hearing is in four weeks):

My email:

From: xxxxx
Sent: 08 November 2012 18:41
To: -----
Subject: Transcript of conversation

xxxxx,

We are not obliged to provide you with copies of all our correspondence and I fail to see the relevance of your email. It seems you are looking for yet another opportunity to reproduce false information about xxxxx.

Whilst this may be the first time you have seen the notes of xxxxx conversation with xxxxxx you were made aware that it had happened in an email dated 16 Sep 10 (reproduced below).

Similarly it was your decision, not xxxx, not to report the water leak to the NHBC, as shown by xxxxx assertion that '[she is] not prepared to lie to the NHBC' and an email from you dated 19 Sep 10, part of which is also reproduced below.

You have been asked not to use xxxxx work email for correspondence - please abide by this request and note that any future emails to that address will be ignored.

Regards,

------

From: xxxxx
To: xxxxx
Subject: NHBC and Munters
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:47:54 +0000

Dear xxxxx,

xxxxxx has just called me about arranging the Munters appointment.

He's aware that you're out the country until Friday/Saturday, hence his reason for contacting me as he's keen to resolve this asap.

He's therefore arranged for himself and Munters to look at the flat at 10am on Weds Sept 22nd. He said that normally he'd just leave Munters to do their assessment without him but as he doesn't think the source of damp is causing the extent of damage that the recent photographs has shown, wants to show Munters what he's done to date.

I tried to arrange the appointment for the Thursday, so as to be after the deadline I emailed you about last night, but xxxx is unable to make this and stressed that he's keen to get on with this asap.

I told him that I am expecting you to get in touch with him anyway, before the end of play Weds, and that if not I would be contacting him myself. Understandably he did not quite understand what I meant by this and said that he will see me on Wednesday anyway.

This makes the deadline I set last night difficult and I continue to hope that you can understand the difficult position it puts me in. While it still stands, I am not prepared to lie to the NHBC and it would be sensible if you properly inform xxxx of what's happened, as set out in my previous email, prior to his and Munters' visit. As I'm sure you can understand I am very worried that, as the NHBC does not know the full story, the legitimacy of the current claim is under threat.

Regards,
xxxxxx

From: xxxxxx
To: xxxxxx
Subject: RE: Update
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:34:10 +0100

Dear xxxxxx

...
I note your continuing concern about my management of the NHBC claim
and I confirm that I understood you had suffered from a separate pipe leak
which was stopped within a short time of it occurring and that some additional
water had spilled into the main bedroom as a result. However I also
understand that you had the leaking pipe repaired and removed the additional water
to such an extent that you did not think it worthwhile dehumidifying the room further.
I therefore concluded that the temporary introduction of the additional water
was not material to the ongoing NHBC claim and would only obfuscate matters if
raised with them.
...

Regards

xxxxxx




His reply:

Dear xxxx

The recent email disclosures has highlighted that you and your sister have been scheming and interfering behind my back from the outset.

You have refused to cooperate, are rude and demanding and yet expect me to treat you with respect and consideration and tiptoe around you. My policy is to treat people the way they treat me. You need to earn respect.

I replied to xxxxxx email to me. It goes without saying that you are free to ignore any or all of my emails.

As my email of 19th September shows. I was doing my very best to ensure the NHBC claim was accepted and quickly without complication or confusion. My strategy paid off and NHBC confirmed the majority of the water in the bedroom was not from the mains leak. Most decent people would thank me for my efforts in achieving this and acknowledge that my strategy was correct. All I got from you folk was abuse and criticism. You repeatedly claim I am not qualified and demand I do what you tell me. What on earth makes you think you are more qualified to manage the building than me? I project managed the entire build. What have you done? Have you even got 10 years work experience yet alone management experience? As ever I find your tone rude, ignorant and uninformed.

Regards

-----

M0nkey - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

none of this makes sense.
Cthulhu on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

The freeholder is angry. The tone of the email is not what I'd consider prefessional, but if he's his own boss, he sets the tone of his companies' communications. I'm not sure what you're looking for with this thread?
dissonance - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to M0nkey:

tis confusing. would make more sense if one of the names had been replaced with yyyy instead.
Steve John B - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to M0nkey:
> (In reply to Fickalli)
>
> none of this makes sense.

+1

There could be any number of people referred to as "xxxx". Maybe replace the x's with stuff like "me", "sis", "bloke next door" or whatever.
EeeByGum - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli: Is xxxxxx the same person throughout? Or is there actually a yyyyyy and a zzzzzz? Otherwise, it makes no sense.
jkarran - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

You appear to have made someone angry and frustrated. Whether that's reasonable and justified on your part or theirs is completely unclear from what's been posted.

I don't understand what you're hoping to achieve by this.
jk
Neil Williams - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

This sort of thing is precisely why I bought a (freehold) house and not a flat.

Neil
Ben Sharp - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli: I think I understand it, xxxxx is p*ssed off with xxxxx because xxxxx has gone and *&%$!* in the face with the NHBC claim but xxxxx doesn't aggree with xxxxx so has got xxxxx involved and now xxxxx doesn't think that xxxxx is being very professional, it sounds like xxxxx is right about xxxxx's professionalism but we don't really know any subtext to what xxxxx has done in the past to xxxxx, or indeed what xxxxx has done to xxxxx in the past to cause such anger.

If I was you I'd avoid xxxxx altogether and just get xxxxx in to sort things out, either that or give xxxxx a call, or his wife, xxxxx, she's good with that kind of thing too.

Shearwater - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Ben Sharp:

I wouldn't recommend xxxxx with his wife. That'll only lead to more trouble.
Edradour - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

All fair points, I was just a bit pissed off when I posted it. I wasn't really sure what I wanted from it either! I've changed the xxxx's if anyone is still interested...

> Apologies for the length of this post but I would be interested to hear what people thought of the following email exchange that I had with my freeholder today (some background - we are going to a tribunal about service charges and the first email is in response to an email from the freeholder saying he had not previously seen some notes we put in the bundle, the hearing is in four weeks):
>
> My email:
>
> From: ddddd
> Sent: 08 November 2012 18:41
> To: -----
> Subject: Transcript of conversation
>
> ggggg,
>
> We are not obliged to provide you with copies of all our correspondence and I fail to see the relevance of your email. It seems you are looking for yet another opportunity to reproduce false information about cccccc.
>
> Whilst this may be the first time you have seen the notes of ccccc conversation with rrrrr you were made aware that it had happened in an email dated 16 Sep 10 (reproduced below).
>
> Similarly it was your decision, not ccccc, not to report the water leak to the NHBC, as shown by ccccc assertion that '[she is] not prepared to lie to the NHBC' and an email from you dated 19 Sep 10, part of which is also reproduced below.
>
> You have been asked not to use ccccc work email for correspondence - please abide by this request and note that any future emails to that address will be ignored.
>
> Regards,
>
> dddddd
>
> From: cccccc
> To: gggggg
> Subject: NHBC and Munters
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:47:54 +0000
>
> Dear ggggg,
>
> rrrrrr has just called me about arranging the Munters appointment.
>
> He's aware that you're out the country until Friday/Saturday, hence his reason for contacting me as he's keen to resolve this asap.
>
> He's therefore arranged for himself and Munters to look at the flat at 10am on Weds Sept 22nd. He said that normally he'd just leave Munters to do their assessment without him but as he doesn't think the source of damp is causing the extent of damage that the recent photographs has shown, wants to show Munters what he's done to date.
>
> I tried to arrange the appointment for the Thursday, so as to be after the deadline I emailed you about last night, but rrrrrr is unable to make this and stressed that he's keen to get on with this asap.
>
> I told him that I am expecting you to get in touch with him anyway, before the end of play Weds, and that if not I would be contacting him myself. Understandably he did not quite understand what I meant by this and said that he will see me on Wednesday anyway.
>
> This makes the deadline I set last night difficult and I continue to hope that you can understand the difficult position it puts me in. While it still stands, I am not prepared to lie to the NHBC and it would be sensible if you properly inform rrrrrr of what's happened, as set out in my previous email, prior to his and Munters' visit. As I'm sure you can understand I am very worried that, as the NHBC does not know the full story, the legitimacy of the current claim is under threat.
>
> Regards,
> ccccccc
>
> From: gggggg
> To: cccccc
> Subject: RE: Update
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:34:10 +0100
>
> Dear ccccccc
>
> ...
> I note your continuing concern about my management of the NHBC claim
> and I confirm that I understood you had suffered from a separate pipe leak
> which was stopped within a short time of it occurring and that some additional
> water had spilled into the main bedroom as a result. However I also
> understand that you had the leaking pipe repaired and removed the additional water
> to such an extent that you did not think it worthwhile dehumidifying the room further.
> I therefore concluded that the temporary introduction of the additional water
> was not material to the ongoing NHBC claim and would only obfuscate matters if
> raised with them.
> ...
>
> Regards
>
> gggggg
>
>
> His reply:
>
> Dear dddddd
>
> The recent email disclosures has highlighted that you and your sister have been scheming and interfering behind my back from the outset.
>
> You have refused to cooperate, are rude and demanding and yet expect me to treat you with respect and consideration and tiptoe around you. My policy is to treat people the way they treat me. You need to earn respect.
>
> I replied to ddddd email to me. It goes without saying that you are free to ignore any or all of my emails. etc
cap'nChino - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli: Is the Munter an actual name for someone or something or just and insult?

ps. ive not actually read all of it. It made little sense.
Steve John B - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli: Without knowing who or what the different letters are it still doesn't make much sense.

You're NHBC, right? ;-)
Steve John B - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to cap'nChino:
> (In reply to Fickalli) Is the Munter an actual name for someone or something or just and insult?

Now I'm just giggling hysterically... :-)
andic - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

I dont think the first email is very professional and would not write to someone like that in a work capacity
McKEuan - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

Is this to do with climbing??
Dave Kerr - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

Lobster.
teh_mark - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to Fickalli:

It's quite clear what the problem is in the original: xxxxxx has multiple personality disorder.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Alyson - on 09 Nov 2012
In reply to McKEuan: The Off Belay forum is for general non-climbing discussion.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.