Reply To Nigels Email "Your Pool Posts"


Dear Nigel, 7th July 2020

I reply to your email to me dated the 2nd July 2020 referring to my web site post of the previous day. I also refer to your email to me dated the 13th June 2020 and my comprehensive reply dated the 14th June 2020.

In my 14th June reply, you were given the full reasons and explanation for the continued closure of the pool area indicating the considerable risk of substantial financial penalties for failing to comply with government regulations in connection with opening the pool at that stage. The committee had unanimously decided that it was in the best interest of the owners as a whole to keep the pool shut to avoid such penalties. The committee decided that the costs involved, staffing, and practicality of achieving compliance with the government regulations on a continuous basis would be totally disproportionate to any benefit achieved. The closed period has been extended due to Covid-19 factory shut downs preventing us receiving vital parts for the new pool gates. Virtually all other Complexes in the area took the same view as us and have kept their pool areas closed.

You, however, were not happy with this situation and set out to get your own way on this issue. At one stage you even threatened to climb over the gates to gain access to the pool area if it wasn’t opened up for you, and another of your group threatened to smash off the padlocks on the gates in order to gain access to the pool. No element of “self interest” or “grudge” campaign there then.

You say that you believe that publishing your names and apartment numbers breaches your right to privacy and also the GDPR. I believe that you are deluded in this and I am amazed to learn that you have now become so shy after hawking a petition around in public that you now declare that your right to privacy is compromised. Surely you must be aware that virtually every owner on Port Royale knows where those mentioned live anyway and that data already in the public domain is exempt data for the purposes of the General Data Protection Act.

You mention that Mrs Carter was not involved in anyway, presumably you mean with hawking the petition around, and I am more than happy to accept that since it was never said in the first place, merely that she was a member of your group.

You claim that “none of those named has any self interest at heart only the general interests of the community” for pushing your obsession to get the pool open and go on to claim that three out of  the five persons mentioned are daily users of the pool, hardly no “self interest” there then.

There can be only one reason for carrying out such a petition / survey and that is to circumvent the committee decision to keep the pool closed and to try to force the opening of the pool, before it is ready, to satisfy your self interest.

You were fully aware of the reasons for the continued closure of the pool area and chose not to give that information to any owner invited to sign your petition / survey which I must say I find to be extremely disingenuous on your part.

The committee and myself have absolutely no wish to keep the pool area closed any longer than necessary but we need to be able to fully comply with our pool licence conditions and government regulations at all times before considering the reopening of the pool.


Derek Manning

President of Port Royale.

117 Ansichten0 Kommentare

Aktuelle Beiträge

Alle ansehen


A la Asociación de Propietarios de Port Royale del año terminó el lunes 1 de marzo de 2021 Agradezco a todo el Comité las muchas horas de trabajo que han realizado para hacer de la operación de Port R


BERICHT DES PRÄSIDENTEN An die Port Royale Owners Association für das Jahr endete am Montag, den 1. März 2021 Ich danke dem gesamten Vorstand für die vielen Stunden Arbeit, die investiert wurde, um de

©2019 by Port Royale Owners. Proudly created with

Diese Website wurde mit dem Homepage-Baukasten von
erstellt. Erstellen Sie Ihre Website noch heute.
Gleich loslegen