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