Disregard for individuals’ complaints

At the last European and local elections, the Labour Party lost far more votes than anyone had expected. The main cause was zero customer service and total disregard for individuals’ complaints. When the results were out, Prime Minister Robert Abela said voters were sending the government a “message”.

The prime minister can count me as one of those disgruntled citizens who did not vote. All I asked was for the education ministry to investigate false accusations made against me and my professionalism as a teacher (Times of Malta had kindly published my letters regarding the case).

As the ministry kept on ignoring my request for an investigation, I turned to the OPM itself. However, the OPM too ended up ignoring me. I told them I would not vote and that there were many other complaints of poor customer care, and that it would mean the government losing votes. The results of the election proved me right.

I sent an “I told you so” e-mail to the OPM after the election and the very next day I was contacted to set up a meeting to discuss my case. I made it clear I would attend but not to hear excuses as I had to travel from Gozo. The meeting was very amicable, and I thought, finally, there was a light at the end of the tunnel.

It’s been over three months now; my first two gentle reminders were answered with lame excuses, but I remained patient, and, now, my other reminders are being ignored – back to square one.

Is the OPM respecting the “message” of the last elections? It doesn’t look like it.

I always told my students that it was perfectly okay to make a mistake – we learn by first recognising the mistake and not repeating it. Unfortunately for Labour, it is repeating the same mistake with a passion.  

I cannot understand why the Ministry of Education and the OPM are so against investigating.

JOE FALZON – Qala

No special treatment

The Sannat property

In his article ‘Breaking the rules for Joseph’, Kevin Cassar (September 29) made a number of factually incorrect statements that require clarification.

Firstly, it is not true that Enemalta provided electrical or water meters to the properties that are still under dispute. The sites in question are currently using a temporary electrical feed.

Secondly, it is not true that the court ruled the penthouses in Sannat were illegal and should be demolished. The court simply gave a different interpretation to how the Planning Authority is interpreting penthouse policies. The court believes penthouses like ours should be receded further back.

However, since that court ruling, the PA has continued to interpret this same policy in the way it did for our permit. Our properties were not given any special treatment. Many other properties were permitted with the same interpretation.

In the case of the Qala swimming pools, again, Excel Investments was not given any special treatment. The Planning Authority has long held that, when residential properties are built within scheme, they are allowed to use their adjacent ODZ land for swimming pools. This was the Planning Authority’s interpretation before our applications were filed and after the court ruling was given.

As large-scale developers, we understand that our planning permits get more attention than those of other individuals. We also understand that, sometimes, our permits are used as examples to challenge the Planning Authority’s interpretation of policies, especially by people who disagree with the PA’s interpretation. However, we completely refute the allegation that we are being given special treatment by any of the authorities.

JOSEPH PORTELLI, Excel Investments Ltd – Victoria.