I refer to the awful and disappointing service we personally received from the Housing Authority especially the chairperson (Marisa Micallef) together with the board of directors, who were all influenced by the decisions she took.

After reading the articles written by Mrs Micallef that are published in newspapers, I realised that she manages to give an incredibly unrealistic image of her true self.

Let me specify a few points of a most shameful situation and the service we were given by the Housing Authority.

Two years ago we decided to sell a property at San Gwann, a villa on the main road just opposite the government school. This property lost its value – both financial and aesthetic, due to the high rise flats the government built all around its perimeter, which are now occupied by ex convicts on probation, and so on, who overlooked our property, studying all our moves 24 hours a day, being themselves unemployed.

This property was purchased from the government around six years ago, on one condition: that when it was resold, it would be developed only as residential buildings and never as a commercial development.

We had no worries at all with that. The problems all erupted when we started dealing personally with Mrs Micallef, who unfortunately came into the picture.

We were faced with a hundred obstacles in selling the land. We were informed that the property still belonged to the farmer who had lived there 70 years before, and that we didn’t have the consent of the Attorney General (AG), and so on. Following detailed research and dedicating time to this matter, we managed to refute all these theories, or inventions (whichever word suits best) with the most appreciated help we were given by Architect Michael Falzon.

Obviously, with these proven, written facts, the Housing Authority became much more irritable and unhelpful, and did its utmost to make matters worse.

So what happened next? Our property was valued by the Housing Authority at Lm21,000 to make it freehold because the chairperson had so decided, which went against the redemption of emphyteusis clauses in our original contract. On what basis and criteria this decision was taken is still a mystery.

After trying to get further estimates from private architects and speaking to Members of Parliament about this outrageous injustice and manipulation, we received a letter from Mrs Micallef stating that if we became further involved and appealed against her decision, the freehold value would be doubled, making us pay Lm41,000 instead of Lm21,000.

We spoke to then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami who personally came to our house and said the price would be reduced to Lm10,000 with his intervention. Obviously, this never happened because he became President and had no time for such “uninteresting” matters. So we referred the matter directly to the AG, whose help was also much appreciated. He wrote to the chairperson to say that we would pay the Lm21,000 for the freehold of our land but would open a court case against the Housing Authority in return, since in his opinion, the price was outrageously high.

So what happened next? The unimaginable! We received another letter from Mrs Micallef saying that she would include a clause in our contract to the effect that when the Housing Authority accepted payment of the Lm21,000, we had to FOREGO our right to open a court case against it.

Our neighbour sold his property at the same time that we did, but he did not have such a clause in his contract. On the contrary, he had permission for a commercial development. Can Mrs Micallef explain why?

The property developer to whom we sold our land, was given permission to excavate much deeper than allowed. Can Mrs Micallef explain why?

The government office block overlooking our property was sold to the developer, thus extending his project. Can Mrs Micallef explain why?

The back garden, which the government retained 35 years ago in order to pass the service pipes of the adjacent flats, has now been given to the developer. Can Mrs Micallef explain why?

While we are at it, can Mrs Micallef tell us what right she has to impose such prices and deprive people of their right to take her department to court? Or what right she has to double or triple land values as she thinks fit?

Are these the human rights offered by the Nationalist Party? Are these the ethics by which this party governs? Every Nationalist Member of Parliament knew about this situation but nobody had the decency to object and stop this manipulation and corruption. Everybody said it was shameful, but this acknowledgement is all we have been left with!

Why does Mrs Micallef not show her real image and write in detail about this situation to the newspapers?

Fabrizio Gatt

SAN GWANN