Dear Mrs Wright
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Your letter of 2 October 1989 to Mr Simpson has once again been passed to me since he does not involve himself in wrangles over day to day domestic matters.
You have been clearly told that the £100.00 per month additional payment which you receive for Freddie is for his own personal pocket money and is not intended to be used to defray household expenses. All outgoings on 4 Norwood Gardens are met by this Office out of Freddie's money and if any additional "one off" expenditure is required, such as the purchase of a washing machine or fridge, then application must be made to this Office for approval of a separate payment.
I turn to the question of your attitude to the works at 4 Norwood Gardens. I must remind you that the house belongs to Freddie and renovation is being carried out for his benefit with his money. Your are not in a position, legally, to refuse admittance to contractors engaged on his behalf.
I have to advise you seriously that unless the contractor is allowed to proceed unhindered with the work in accordance with the terms of his contract then the workmen will be withdrawn and further works of refurbishment will cease. Obviously it is not in Freddie's interest for you to obstruct the workmen nor would I suggest is it in your own interests. The sooner structural work is completed the sooner can redecoration and carpeting be undertaken.
I am copying this letter to the Master (Care and Protection), to Mr Nelson of Messrs Ferris, Craig and Moore, the Chartered Quantity Surveyors recommended by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to the Court and to Messrs Owens Contractors who submitted the successful tender accepted on the Patient's behalf by the said Messrs Ferris, Craig and Moore.
DEIRDRE S BOWERS (Mrs)
[Isn't is a shocking irony, Mrs. Bowers, that if you and your fellow Official Solicitors had done the job you are paid to do and required to do by the law you pretend to uphold, and took the legal action you are legally required to take in recovering Freddie's home at 14 Castlehill Road, there would be no need for any repairs to be done to Freddie's home and Freddie would not be forced to live in a house, 4 Norwood Gardens, my father would not have given a second glance. Nor would you have to further deplete my brother's funds in paying Chartered Quantity Surveyors exorbitant fees and unskilled contractors whose work has to be redone. Why can the expensive Chartered Surveyor not see the faulty workmanship when it is plainly visible to an elderly unprofessional widow?]