THE founder of a well known local company has described Monmouthshire Housing as "the most unprofessional and inept organisation" he has ever dealt with in 40 years of business.

Peter Jones of Abergavenny was so enraged and frustrated at the state of a property which Monmouthshire Housing allocated to of his employees that he paid over £8,000 of his own money to bring it up to what he calls an 'acceptable standard'.

Mr Jones told the Chronicle, "In April 2009 Monmouthshire Housing Association (MHA) offered an employee of ours, (who does not wish to be named, but for the purposes of this article the Chronicle shall refer to as John) a small one bed-roomed dwelling in the Abergavenny area.

"My wife and I went to view the property with him and were absolutely shocked at the condition of the place.

"It obviously needed a lot of work to say the least but MHA expected John to move in within three days."

Mr Jones explained the property was damp due to its stone construction, inadequate heating (a coal stove) and lack of habitation, but MHA made assurances that any flaws with the property were superficial and a decorating allowance awarded to new tenants would be adequate to make it habitable.

Mr Jones explained, "John had no choice but to take this tenancy, but when we were given the key to the property and started to decorate, its true condition became evident.

"In addition to the considerable damp, there was no hot water supply as the immersion water heater was broken and in bits, the bathroom and kitchen were in an absolutely disgusting state, and the kitchen still had an asbestos roof."

A site meeting was arranged where all the identified defects and repairs required were noted by MHA who decided to call a further site meeting attended by a plasterer, electrician, roofer and a person to show John how to light and manage the solid fuel heater.

Mr Jones said, "We initially thought we were dealing with a competent and well-run organisation, but how wrong we were.

"The only person to turn up to that meeting was the gentleman who was supposed to show John how to operate the heater, but he said he had never seen that particular type of heater before and had no idea how it worked.

"When we contacted MHA we were informed that no other person turned up because in their opinion the property was fit for habitation and no other work was needed.

"It dawned on us then that any decisions made at the many site meeting to follow should be confirmed in writing by us."

Over the next seven months, MHA 'reluctantly' carried out the required work, except for the problems with the bathroom, the replacement of the solid fuel heater, and the damp, which MHA, concluded was condensation which would 'clear up over time'.

"Just as we finished all the decorating we were told that a damp proofing company which had tested for damp during the summer months, had concluded that certain walls did in fact need to be treated," said Mr Jones.

"This involved the walls being stripped to the stone (pictured above) and as a consequence, during the severely cold months of December and January, John lived in these nightmarish conditions with only two small convector fires (which we had to ask for) as heating."

Mr Jones added, "It was at this point we decided enough was enough. We could no longer see John living in such conditions and decided to replace, at our expense, the solid fuel stove with an air to water heating system and install a shower unit to replace the bath.

"Previously John had informed MHA that he could smell fumes coming from the solid fuel stove, they tested it and gave it the all clear but when we removed the stove it was found to have a cracked flue.

"At one point, having exhausted all other avenues, we contacted David Davies MP to visit the property. Now it may well be a coincidence but as soon as MHA was informed of this meeting a company arrived to replace the asbestos roof with a fibreglass one, even though we had been previously assured by MHA this was not needed."

Mr Jones revealed, "In the circumstances we decided to follow MHA complaints procedure and went as far as stage three where John was awarded compensation, but I would like to stress it was never about the money but about the principle at stake.

"I was particularly gob-smacked when MHA eventually admitted many of their shortcomings and admitted the whole thing had been 'a learning curve' for them.

"I feel it is absolutely wicked that a company of this stature would feel a learning curve was necessary in the first instance.

"All John was asking for was a house fit to live in, not a palace but a dry warm house to call home. He now has that and keeps it like a show home, but he had to put up with a hell of a lot to get it."

Mr Jones added, "I would like to stress that throughout this ordeal, as far as the actual MHA workman were concerned, we couldn't wish for anyone better.

"They completely understood our predicament, but they are just the ground force and can only go where they're directed and do what they're told.

"My main concern is this. In our case file we have 35 letters written by us to MHA, and approximately the same number of replies, plus numerous faxes.

"There were seven site meeting with MHA managerial staff and two with damp-proofing companies asked by MHA to survey the property.

"Now where would John be if he did not have help from my wife and I to fight his corner? And I wonder how many other people could be in a similar situation?"

Mr Jones went on to conclude, "Having built up a very successful manufacturing business over the last 40 years which has become one of the leaders of its type in Europe, it disturbs me that a public body such as MHA can be so full of self praise and win so many awards when they are without doubt the most unprofessional and inept organisation I have ever dealt with.

"MHA should realise it is accountable to the tax payer and my wife and I feel as tax payers that it is our civic duty to bring our experience with them to the public domain and fellow tax payers' attention."

The Chronicle contacted MHA's Director of Property Services who explained, "In this particular case I would like to stress all necessary works were carried out as a direct consequence of our complaints procedure which all of our tenants have access to.

"Since 2008 we have invested over £30 million into improving our properties.

"I think this demonstrates we are a landlord who takes our tenants' welfare very seriously."