3
   

Report on facilities

 
 
Sun 12 Jun, 2016 02:26 am
Please help me correct the following report. Thank you.

In response to your letter dated 10 May 2016 regarding the proposed cancellation of the water point at the planter of Tower Road, we would like to clarify that we have no objection to your proposed cancellation of the water point as our office has forfeited using the water point for years.

Moreover, after checking our records , we understand that the planter concerned do have been handed back to our office in May 2008, but without the apparent inclusion of the water point as stated in the handover documents. Thus, the registered user of the water point has never been changed, leaving your office remaining the user of the water point in the government record.

More importantly, we have never used the water point for any irrigation work since the above handover and hence we should not be the appropriate party to pay off the overdue water bill of $5,000. You may consider to refer the case to the relevant parties concerned for clearance of outstanding water bill.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 1,093 • Replies: 5
Topic Closed
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Sun 12 Jun, 2016 11:48 am
@chowbarry,
Chow it's so tedious and my response is mostly guesswork but let's hope I take on the last two some time soon

In response to your letter dated 10 May 2016 regarding the proposed cancellation of the (a?) water point at the P(?)lanter of Tower Road, we would like to clarify that we have no objection to your proposed cancellation of the water point as our office had forfeited using the water pointits possible (?) use for years (years ago?)
chowbarry
 
  1  
Tue 14 Jun, 2016 07:53 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman, thank you for your advice.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Tue 14 Jun, 2016 12:20 pm
@chowbarry,
You're welcome Chow, but now let me make a guess at the second

Moreover, after checking our records , we understand that the planters(?) concerned apparently had been handed back returned to our office in May 2008, but apparently without the apparent inclusion of the (its?) water point as stated in required by the handover documents. Thus, the registered user of the water point hads never been changed, leaving your office remaining the as user of the water point in the government record


By the way Chow, what the heck's a water point anyway
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 17 Jun, 2016 12:08 pm
@chowbarry,
Further to your letter of May 10, 2016, we have no objection to your cancellation of the water point.

The planter concerned was returned to our office in May 2008. The water point was not changed at the point of transfer. According to government records, your office remains the water point user.

I can confirm that we have not used the water point since the planter was returned to us.

Your questions in regard to the water bill for the water point do not relate to our office and should be directed elsewhere.
chowbarry
 
  1  
Sat 18 Jun, 2016 10:32 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth, thank you for you advice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Report on facilities
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.8 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 04:41:01