Let’s start with music - wonderful that the guestbook, rather than being filled with the rather tedious "why haven’t they done a full concert?", is now filled with discussion of the album itself.
Under the circumstances, now might be a good time to reveal that I offered a huge hostage to fortune when Robert first launched the new King Crimson. I told him, that with one proviso, this would be the most popular King Crimson ever (that proviso being that the band would have stay together for long enough). I realise that I am inviting a host of "not good as Bruford/Wetton/Cross or Belew/Bruford/Levin, but I stand by my opinion. This Crimson may or may not "cut edges" in the same way as former lineups, but in reinventing the whole catalogue, it is able to stand on the shoulder of those giants, and take full advantage of that history, while being fully and happily itself.
King Crimson becomes popular. Who’d have thunk it?!
As I have already heard Live at the Orpheum, my own new musical excitement comes from elsewhere. At piano practice this morning, I played the opening of The Sound of Music, which I found lurking in my piano stool. It was stepping into the presence of genius. Anyone who can explain the harmony of the opening line, please do so (perhaps I need to consult the good Dr Keeling). The chords are summarised as F maj, E maj, F maj, E maj (somewhat Spanish in feel) but Rogers actually wrote is from another planet entirely. The E Maj is closer to F minor. All meaningless when written in a diary, and i am sure part of a rich history of which i am unaware. But wonderful when played.
Thankfully that moment rescued the rest of my day, which involved writing a long letter to the Financial Services Authority. They are adjudicating on a dispute with Cheltenham and Gloucester, who over a period of three months , offered a daily dose of incompetence in processing a simple mortgage request.
My final letter (for anyone mad enough to wish to read it) goes as follows :
Dear Sirs,
I have been requested for any further information regarding my complaint against Cheltenham and Gloucester.
I would first request that you read the daily account that I prepared of my experience with C & G. This is the key document. It shows a large number of distinct failures over a period of three months from a variety of C&G departments: their call handlers, mortgage advisers, interest-only team, even their complaints department. They have not denied any of these failures, but despite repeated requests (including from my MP), they have refused to explain why so many different parts of their company failed in so many apparently unconnected ways over such a long period of time. It would appear to indicate a serious systematic failure by senior management.
I have always said that redress needs to come in two parts. The first part is an explanation of why it occurred, an apology and proof that things have been corrected. Mr Greenleaf seemed to deem the formulaic apology from their complaints department sufficient. I strongly disagree. From my perspective, it was glib and meaningless, easily made and already broken – on several occasions, the company was continuing to make identical mistakes at the same time as I was being sent apologies for previous ones. I compare that situation to one where someone is being punched, and someone else apologizes, while the offender continues. That is no solution. The offender needs to stop, explain what has happened, why it will not happen again. Without that, there can be no apology. It would also need to be made to all those who were adversely affected, including the other employees of my company, the seller and his estate agent (both of whom may well believe that I was lying when I repeatedly told them that I had been promised action within the famous“48 hours”). It should also include my daughter and my two tenants, who had to move in a month late, and for whom the house was not finally finished until this Christmas. Mr Greenleaf felt that, as this was a corporate error, a “personal apology” was inappropriate. I am entirely in agreement. It needs, however, to be an apology on behalf of the corporation from the person responsible for the failures, not from some hired hand, paid to write a letter. The original problem with C&G would appear to have been that no-one in a management position took responsibility for the situation. That problem does not appear to have been rectified. I should point out that since last writing to you, C&G have already made errors with the payments on my account.
Thereafter, we come to an appropriate financial settlement. In my original letter, I suggested that C&G should adjust their rates so that they are not seeking to make a profit from me. I still think that would be the fairest solution. As an alternative, Mr Greenleaf proposed that C&G put my wife and I “back in the position we would have been had the business not made an error.” I have accepted that suggestion. I do not therefore understand how he can recommend a settlement of just £700. Apparently this is based on the figure of £10 an hour. Bearing in my mind that I support a family of four children and am fortunate to earn far more than that, how does this come close to “putting me back in the position that I would have been in had the business not made an error”? If I disrupt your work over a period of six months, and then offer you a settlement of about a fifth of what you would have earned, how is that “fair” or “proportionate. Indeed, if I earned that little, C&G would never have offered me a mortgage in the first place. Furthermore, if you include the ongoing stress, disturbed night and a ruined holiday, surely any fair and proportionate settlement would need to give me more than I would have earned?
The personal consequences last year divide into two – the period when I was fighting an ongoing battle to get C&G to process my mortgage, and the period thereafter where I had to deal with the consequences of the late completion. The diary shows the amount of days that were wasted trying to make C&G act professionally. It cannot accurately describe the disruption that each of those episodes causes. It is not simply a question of making a simple phone-call and then calmly returning to your working day. It would often take upwards of half an hour to get through to someone, and when you have finally finished being pushed from pillar to post you are so irate that it is impossible to return to your day job – which in my case is a music producer, requiring a calm, quiet artistic focus. It is not in the least unreasonable to suggest that the disruption involved in each phone call lasted for two or three hours.
My many and protracted contacts with C&G’s various departments are imprinted in my memory. I recall, for example, one Friday afternoon (25th April) when I was suddenly told that I needed to get a signed document from my solicitor by that evening or everything would fall through. This document had never been mentioned before but was suddenly required within hours. My solicitor was out of the office, but C&G insisted it had to be with them before they reopened on the Monday morning. I diverted our entire office staff to tracing the home number of my solicitor’s boss, who I phoned at home that evening, and persuaded to go into the office on the Saturday (when they are not open) and send the document. It failed because of C&G’s email system, and I spent most of my weekend trying to find ways of getting it to them. That one incident completely dominated my life from Friday afternoon through to Monday mid-morning. To add insult to injury, when they opened on the Monday morning, C&G apparently failed to process it anyway. I have never been told why there was the apparent hurry, and why it went away.
That one incident amply demonstrates the need for a detailed explanation of what occurred. I could name any number of similar incidents, each one of which still makes me so angry that I can barely type. C&G cannot expect to put someone under that amount of stress for that long and not have serious repercussions.
The second stage of the ramifications, as also detailed for Mr Greenleaf, concerns the work that needed to be done after the mortgage was complete. The property that we were purchasing in Bath needed to be completely gutted and refurbished in time for the start of the University year in September. This was a tight but achievable schedule, helped by the fact that we obtained special (and very unusual) dispensation from the seller to allow us to work on the property between exchange and completion. All that was needed for work to start on the property in early March was written confirmation from C&G of the mortgage offer. You will see from the accompanying documents, that this was promised by 16th March. Due to C&G’s appalling mismanagement, that letter was over three months in coming, halving the available time for restoration. Mr Greenleaf considered that this deadline was “self-imposed” and “unforceable”, and that C&G have no reason to pay for these ongoing ramifications. It was quite the contrary. In my very first conversation with C&G, I explained the exact details of the property we were going to buy, the fact that it was needed for my daughter in September, and asked them specifically about the length of time it would take to remortgage. I was assured that it would be a couple of weeks. The circumstances were therefore not “unforceable”, nor was the deadline “self-imposed”. C&G were aware of both from the start.
The financial consequences of this loss of three months of restoration time were just as serious as those suffered while getting the mortgage. We had intended to do much of the work ourselves on weekends and spare days with the help of my family. This was now impossible. We did not have the budget for outside contractors. My wife and I therefore had no choice but to take significant amounts of time off work. Between May and September, I took 31 days from work, and my wife took 15 days – 46 days in total.
Mr Greenleaf repeatedly asked me for invoices showing additional expenditure. That was a misunderstanding of the situation. The largest financial cost was in this time lost at work, and in our loss of earnings. The only obvious external cost was that the house was not ready on September 1st, so we lost a full months rent (£800). Due to my work it is difficult to quantify my financial loss. It will, in fact, not yet have occurred. I was due to deliver the next volume in a series of books and albums – both of which deadlines were missed. My actual loss of income will therefore not occur until 2016.
In addition to all the other costs, there is also the time spent on this dispute. It took over two days to compile the attached diary (also diverting the resources of my work team), I have written to my MP (copied below), and I have spent time on my correspondence with Mr Greenleaf. I began writing this very letter at 10.00 am this morning; it is now 18.32. Another full day lost to C&G. They have compounded their original offence by their failure to offer meaningful explanation, apology and restitution, with the ongoing associated costs.
Given recent events in France and elsewhere in the world, I have no desire to get this out of proportion. No-one was killed or hurt. I would, however, ask you to read the attached diary and this letter, and ask yourself one simple question. If this happened to you, and six months of your life were disrupted, would you feel that £700 “puts you back in the position you would have been in had the business not made an error.” I am tempted to suggest that you might feel there was a zero missing.
Yours faithfully,
David Singleton.
"Listen also with the ears of the heart."
