Hi all ... I am attaching the newspaper clipping that has come out today in the Journal Jaén for all that you can not see it.
It describes a brief summary of the reason for closure of the pub, with the obvious defense by the owner.
He reiterates that the fault, without even knowing where it is our responsibility because we made an initial reform to open. This reform was only aesthetic and design, at no time made any structural reform of local or tubing.
To which he refers is a continuous traffic jams that we had in the bathroom after opening, I guess we all remember that three or four times, the master ordered the firefighters to go to unblock, so that, ultimately, be responsible for he arranged with his family the problem I had, which was none other than, the age of the pipes.
We witnessed many people of that performance.
respect to the more than 4000 € of water, it is logical that if there is no liability by the tenant, do not have to take charge.
What is certain is that, from the beginning, we gave them complete freedom to enter and solve local weekday the problem with a professional, which, at any time they wanted to do.
After having to close the business for this reason, we reiterate that we have tried to solve on our own, but he has refused to enable the provision to fix it.
So I think that if a municipality is fair and democratic solution to enable supply to a fault (and will be decided who is the fault), and to reopen a business in town, is something that should be done without problems , but later the settlement court again to decide who pays the bill, but ... failure to do so, you think about it ...
why not? What interest
City Hall is not easy opening a business?
and now I ask ...
Got something to see City Hall with the interests of local owner?
white and bottled. Express your opinion
yourselves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment