August 14th, 1996
Susan Yee
C/O Shirley Yee
880 Vallejo Street
San Francisco, CA
94133
Dear Mrs. Yee,
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 8th, 1996, wherein you dispute, in rather unfriendly and
menacing words, my $60.96 deduction on my rent for the repair of the front door
lock at 864 Union St.
You state, most vehemently, that no notice of the lock's
malfunctioning was given. That is not
true. We both know that. Therefore, let us examine the history of this
lock issue and bring out all the salient facts--and you shall see that I
did--indeed-make several complaints about the lock--all of which were met with
indifference.
The front door lock was broken. I could not lock my door, and the door would
not stay closed by itself. That is the
problem simply put.
My action at the time of noticing that the lock was
broken was to call Shirley Yee, your agent.
Shirley Yee arrived at my residence at 7:00 P.M. with an alleged
locksmith or lock repairman;
I don't know which. I
found it rather odd that a repairman should come at
such an hour--seeing that my call to Shirley gave her ample time to get a repairman
to my door during normal business hours.
This told me immediately that your alleged locksmith was no locksmith.
On the surface your so-called locksmith
seemed to have fixed the front door lock;
the reality of the situation is the complete opposite; for when he was finished allegedly fixing the
front door lock, this so-called repair resulted in other problems which caused
the door to lock when it should not lock, and prevented the door from staying
closed when it was shut! In short:--
Your alleged locksmith did not repair the lock but,
instead, caused other problems--problems that need not have arisen had you sent
a competent, licensed, locksmith instead of some common handyman, as a
responsible property owner should have done
When I realized that the lock had not been fixed, I then
called Shirley and explained that the lock was not working; again she and your handyman showed up
at my flat at 7:00 P.M. Your handyman examined the lock and declared there was nothing
wrong with the lock--even though I explained and demonstrated what the problem
was, i.e. that the door would not lock properly and when the door was closed
the door would open by itself--yet your handyman said there was nothing wrong
with the door, that he had fixed the lock--but the lock was not fixed and the
door would not lock and the door would not stay closed. I find it incredible that such a man would
declare to me and in front of a witness, Shirley Yee, that there was nothing
wrong with the door, that he had fixed the lock and so on. Don't you also find it
incredible that your handyman would say the lock was fixed even though
it was demonstrated in front of him that the lock was not fixed?
Many weeks passed and the lock still was not working
properly. Therefore, I called Shirley
again and she and your handyman came to examine the lock 2
or 3 more times--each time he saying the lock was working--which in fact it was
not. Would you like such a man to
"fix" your locks? I dare say
you would not.
The lock being still unworkable, and
since Shirley and the handyman seemed to believe that all was well when it was
not, I, therefore, took it upon myself to call a legitimate locksmith, from
North Beach Safe and Lock, who came and took the lock apart and discovered to
his amazement that two (2) important pieces of the lock were worn and should
have been replaced originally.
The questions that need to be asked,
and answered now are these: How is it
that your handyman did not see that lock parts were worn out and should have
been replaced? Why did he not see the
problem? Can you answer that? I would like to hear your answer to these
questions.
After the lock was repaired by North Beach Lock and Safe,
I had no further problems with the lock or the door: it locked when it was suppose to lock and the
door stayed closed after it had been closed.
How is it that this did not happen after your handyman allegedly
"fixed" the lock?
Because you sent someone obviously unable to deal with
the original problem, you left me with no choice but to seek
competent relief from this worrying problem. I was not able to lock my door in a normal
manner, thereby leaving my front door vulnerable to anyone who might want to
seek illegal entry. Don't
you like a secure front door? I believe
you do.
I am 78 years old, a widow, I am not in good health and I
live alone. How can you be so adamantly
opposed to my safety?
You stated in your letter of August 8th
that--and I quote you: "If you
don't like my house rule...move out of my property."
You really have no call to use such strong language with
me--considering the circumstances of this situation and further that I have
lived in this flat for 37 years and I have always respected and taken care of
this property. Now you claim that I have, somehow, disregarded your "house rule,"
which in fact is not the case. Why do
you use such strong language against an old woman?
Therefore, considering the facts, as I
have truthfully stated them in this letter, I am holding you responsible for
the shoddy workmanship of your handyman, which workmanship I call into question
and which workmanship has caused me much grief and anxiety, which workmanship
caused me to engage the services of a competent locksmith and have the front
door lock fixed as it should have been fixed in the first place. You are, therefore, liable for the $60.96
because I did give you prior notice that the lock was broken; and, further, I gave your agent and
your handyman ample time and opportunity to fix the lock.
It is ever my wish to settle things in a friendly
manner. I hope you are, also, of a mind
to settle this issue in a friendly manner.
There is no reason why you should not accept the facts as they stand and
let us bring this matter to a conclusion.
Let this issue be at an end for the sake of peace.
Sincerely yours,
Clara M.Paolinelli
cc to: Shirley Yee
8/14/96