An exchange of correspondence about the AD leader’s status as a protected tenant

The first letter is one that my husband, who is the administrator for the flat that the AD leader occupies as a protected tenant, sent to the offices of Malta Today, for publication. It was sent via email, and as a hard copy via the postal service. When I mentioned on this blog that the newspaper had seen fit not to publish it, I received a telephone call from the managing director, who said that he had (kindly) checked and that the letter had never been received. What can I say? Perhaps one of the several AD supporters who infest that office disposed of it before it was seen. There’s no other explanation.

The Editor

Malta Today

MediaToday Co Ltd
Vjal ir-Rihan
SAN GWANN
SGN9016

26th February 2008

Dear Sir,

Dr Harry Vassallo is correct in alleging that the rent laws need drastic reform as reported in your 24th February 2008 issue. His weakness, however, lies in his own personal status as a protected tenant in relation to an apparently unused apartment in Frederick Street, Valletta, which I administer on behalf of various mainly non-resident co-owners, and which he leases as an office.

When he launched the referendum campaign for Alternattiva Demokratika, way back in 2005, I had suggested that he renounce to the statutory right to renew the lease on the next renewal date, in keeping with what I perceived to be his principles. I met with abuse and arrogance over the phone, soon followed by a letter in a similar vein. My clients’ and my remedy, he claimed, was to sign AD’s petition for the rent reform referendum.

To this day, I am unable to reconcile his position with his stated but clearly not followed principles.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Caruana Galizia

Valletta

This is Harry Vassallo’s original letter justifying his position as a protected tenant, which followed an abusive telephone call made to my husband’s office.

Dr Peter Caruana Galizia

56 Melita Street
Valletta

8th July 2005

Dear Dr Caruana Galizia,

Re 35/1 Frederick Street, Valletta

Enclosed please find my cheque for Lm105.50c being rent due for the above
premises for the period 1 July 2005 to 31st December 2005 and for the
balance of Lm40.50c which you have pointed out as being due from the
previous period. I trust that any inconvenience caused has not been too
harrowing for your goodself. It was certainly not my intention.

Further to our telephone conversation this morning and to the last
paragraph of your letter of 7th July 2005, I must register my resentment
at your insistence on what you imply is my hypocrisy.

You will recall that it was your goodself who advised me that the previous
tenant, my uncle, Dr George Vassallo had written to you stating that he
had no interest in continuing the lease of the family office. You asked me
whether I was interested in taking it up and I agreed to sign a new lease
agreement at which point the rent was doubled over the previous tenancy.
At no point did I claim any right under the law to have the rent renewed
in my name. It was your offer which I accepted.

While I make no claim to being a perfect tenant particularly with regard
to punctuality in payment of the rent, nobody can ever claim that I have
ever availed myself of any right I may have or may have had under the law
as a protected tenant. I have never been asked to vacate the premises nor
has any increase in rent been demanded of me. Much less have I ever made
any legal resistance to any such demand.

On the contrary I have, on a number of occasions, requested you to state
the owners’ price for the property only to be curtly dismissed since some
mysterious difficulty would make it impossible for the owners to agree. I
now assume from your tone that you must have taken me to mean that I
wanted the place for a song placing my tenancy as a major source of
discount. I had nothing of the sort in mind and would have not objected to
a fair market price. Indeed the long professional attachment to the
address gives me an interest which other potential buyers may not have.

In our telephone conversation you took exception to my mention of the
expenses I have carried out in the premises in the event that I am asked
to vacate for any reason. You compared me to any other protected tenant
simply because of the mention. The premises you rented to me were in a
deplorable state: the plumbing and toilet facilites were beyond repair and
electricity installations were of war damage quality. The fact that it was
previously occupied by relatives of mine is simply an accident of history.
My own relationship with the owners started when I rented the place.

All the plumbing and electricity, fitting of a bathroom and a kitchenette
were carried out at my expense. I have never asked you for any refund of
repairs to the drains in the building which have been a constant toll
sometimes borne by me alone without colecting dues from other
owners/tenants in the building. I have paid my share in lieu of the owners
for the replacement of the roof door and would gladly have paid my share
for the replacement of the roof over the stairwell which has now reached
the point of collapse endangering all users of the building. For a
significant period I covered the expense of lighting for the stairwell
since nobody could get the other owners/tenants to come to terms over the
matter. I did not bother you with a single one of these items. It now
seems to have been a mistake.

Should I be asked to vacate the property by the owners, I do not consider
it to be exploitative to have the expenses I have carried out taken into
consideration. The new electricity and plumbing, costing a couple of
thousand liri would definitely benefit the owners since they are all still
spanking new.

My principles, with which you make yourself over familiar without ever
discussing the matter with me, are that rent is a personal contract. In
fact it has irked me significantly that you have never allowed me to find
out who my landlords are and with whom I consider myself to be in a
personal relationship. I deeply resent the thought that people I do not
know personally may have some idea that I have been squatting in their
property.

The absurdity of your refusal to sign the rent referendum petition because
of my ‘hypocrisy’ truly takes the cake, cherry and all. It is your
privilege but if you are so convinced that I am happily exploiting the
rent laws in my own interest you should have hurried to sign up rather
than become embroiled in nonsensical mental contortions. I am leading a
national referendum to do away with the rent laws, all of them, including
those that you imagine apply to my own office in Valletta and which never
applied to them as far as I am concerned.

You may also take note of the fact that in its 15 year history
Alternattiva Demokratika has always been housed in rented properties.
Counting the very short time it availed itself of the premises at 35/1
Frederick Street, it has moved six times during these years. We have never
refused to move house on request and the only instance of disagreement
with a landlord was over an exorbitant request for electricity consumption
unfairly allotted to us and which we eventually paid in any case.

Kindly let me know at your earliest convenience the names and addresses of
my landlord/s with regard to my office at 35/1 Frederick Street,
Valletta.. I do believe that it is high time that I find out who they are.
I also repeat my request to purchase the property, clearly at a fair
market price as was always my intention but which must now be made to you
explicity. Should you prefer to wait until the rent referendum is won or
the rent laws are abolished in anticipation by the government, I will
understand. It may also allow me some credit with my landlords who, I
expect will derive very significant benefit from such a change and not
only with respect to the humble premises I currently rent from them. I
would also ask you to forward this letter to my landlords to clear up any
misconception that may have existed so far.

Yours faithfully

Harry Vassallo LL.D

And this was the letter sent in reply.

Dr Harry Vassallo LL D
13/1 Triq Sir Luigi Camilleri
SLIEMA

18th July 2005

Dear Harry,

Re: 35 Flat 1 Frederick Street Valletta

Your letter dated 8th July 2005 refers.

Receipt is acknowledged with thanks of your Lm105.50 cheque for rent on the above premises, being Lm40.50 due as balance on the previous instalment and Lm65 for the period 1st July 2005 to 31st December 2005.

The experience was not at all harrowing. I have been dealing with tenants, arrogant or otherwise, for the past 25 years and can deal with all types. I simply would appreciate not having to send reminders for each instalment.

Your uncle Dr George Vassallo had never given up possession: he simply asked, following retirement, for the lease to be renewed – in his name, as “the office is still used by my brother Charles and Frank and his son Harry”. I was not comfortable with a situation where the person paying the rent and the person/s using the premises are not the same.

As to the other allegations in your letter, I will simply point out that the lease agreement dated 24th February 1988 was entered into for the maximum period of ten years. Your retention of possession after 1998 has therefore been as a protected tenant in terms of Cap 69 and it is facetious of you to deny this. As you well know, the owners cannot refuse to renew the lease or increase the rent without the authorisation of the Rent Regulation Board, which authorisation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

As to repairs, the lease agreement clearly states that the tenant is responsible for all extraordinary and ordinary repairs, giving you a right to terminate the lease should these be felt to be too onerous. If the premises were in a deplorable state, it is purely due to the lack of maintenance by the previous tenant, who had been in possession for decades.

As to my suggestion that you relinquish possession, I stress that this was purely motivated by the impression that you are not using the premises and are therefore paying rent for nothing. Your campaign for the abrogation of the rent laws has also, in my opinion – but clearly, not in yours – made your position as a protected tenant rather inconsistent with your stated principles, but obviously you find no contradiction in this. It is a matter of opinion to which we are surely both entitled.

As often advised, the owners of the premises are the descendants of X. I am not authorised to provide you with a list of their individual names and you will appreciate that this is their prerogative. I will be advising them of your interest in purchasing the premises and also of your apparent willingness to accept an increase in rent and will in due course revert.

I trust this has clarified the issue.

Sincerely

Peter Caruana Galizia
Administrator

A further note

Harry Vassallo’s offer to buy the place should be put in inverted commas. The owners don’t want to sell. They just want the place free and unencumbered by protected tenants. Vassallo never made an offer because he wanted to buy it as an incumbent – using the line of reasoning that is used by so many of the protected tenants he is arguing against: you can’t get me out, the rent is minimal, therefore you might as well sell the place to me for peanuts. And in any case, here he is arguing that he can’t pay his VAT fines on Lm400 a month, and yet he’s offering to buy property?