I certainly anticipated that Ms Micallef would not give any answers, or justifications, to the allegations I made about the Housing Authority and her administration in the newspaper, since my allegations were all true and well-founded.

I knew that Ms Micallef and Dr Zammit would say that our property was given to us free by the government, while being well aware that it was leased from the government at Lm60 a year and far from freely acquired. After five-years’ possession we had permission to dispose of the land, for either commercial or residential use. To our surprise, after we had paid Lm881.67 for the freehold entitlement to this property, we were denied this possibility due to a wrongly inserted clause.

By not answering any of the questions I posed in The Independent on Sunday about this case, Ms Micallef has proved her involvement and, most of all, her shameful administration of this department.

I am quite eager to go deeper into this case and I am glad that Ms Micallef has referred the matter to her secretary and, above all a lawyer – a lawyer who did not sign a letter addressed to us, written by Ms Micallef, in which she informed us that she had decided to charge us an extra Lm20,000 for our land, since we were seeking an explanation as to why we were being charged the ridiculous sum of Lm22,500 for the residential development of a property that was freehold.

This letter was still sent by Ms Micallef to us by post but, shamefully enough, (was it because her lawyer, Dr Ray Zammit, did not approve of the situation?) was unsigned. (Why did Dr Zammit not mention any of this in his article?)

Dr Zammit suggested that the property should be sold for development as residential apartments and never mentioned any sums to be paid in return when we met, together with our architect, Perit Michael Falzon.

Can Dr Zammit explain why our neighbours did not have the same clauses in their contract and could dispose of the land as they deemed fit, with no restrictions whatsoever?

As Dr Zammit has stated that the Housing Authority helps families in need, I wonder why it imposes such manipulative clauses and obliges families to pay prices to which the Authority should not be entitled, and then forego the right to take the Housing Department to court and seek vindication. The word “arrogant” is most suitable here. Dr Zammit should know the law quite well and probably knows that this matter went against legal ethics and, above all, against all human rights and morals.

Since Ms Micallef states that she had no involvement in this case, why did she attack my sister at a private party, referring to our family in unsuitable language?

Are these the morals or ethics of a chairperson? I think they are shameful in the extreme.

Dr Zammit should know well that we have never received any preferential treatment from anyone in our lives, and that we made a career through our own capabilities, unlike others who found their administrative roles ready.

The people should know about these shameful situations and both Ms Micallef and Dr Zammit should have had the decency to answer the points I raised, if this matter was above reproach.

We will be more than pleased if Ms Micallef takes legal action against us, because this is what we wanted to do in the first place, but were prevented from doing by the conditions she imposed for us to sign.

I am sorry to disappoint Dr Zammit and Ms Micallef by contradicting their claims about the status of this case. I consider that this matter is still wide open and I suggest they compile a detailed dossier about the whole situation for answers to the forthcoming Parliamentary question.

Fabrizio Gatt,

San Gwann