BLIGHT, BROAD & SKINNARD
to Roger Lovejoy

1. We write further to our letter to you of 17th July, concerning water supply, and our client Mrs. Hanns.
   
   
2. Mrs. Hanns confirms, that what we said in the third paragraph of our letter of the 17th July is not, strictly speaking, correct.
   
   
3. Mrs. Hanns fully recognises, that as a result of the easement granted by her late father, that you have a right to keep a water pipe beneath her land to supply your own land with water.
   
   
4. Mrs. Hanns is grateful that for the time being, you have agreed to continue what we would perhaps describe as the "ad hoc" arrangements for her to take a supply of water from your pipe line. Ad you know, she presently draws this from a tap connected into your pipe in a building on her land.
   
   
5. Mrs. Hanns recognises that this arrangments is entirely with your consent and that should you in future change your mind, she would have to cease using the water.
   
   
6. Mrs. Hanns tells us, that she is not aware of having damaged the continued supply of water to your land when she installed her tap, if no water is coming out of your tap on your land, can you please let her know as she is more than happy to liase with you to ensure that your supply is available.
   
   
7. Mrs. Hanns asks us to confirm that whilst she is the only person using the supply, that she would be more than happy to meet your water charges in full, though no doubt should you wish to use the water yourself from the supply you and she would then want to come to some agreement concerning division of the costs.
   
   
8. Hopefully, there is nothing in this letter that will be contentious or cause you concern, perhaps for the record you could give us a call to confirm.
   
   

faithfully

N. P. W. Skinnard

C.C. Mrs. L. K. Hanns

---

NOTES:

1. Text in bold above is where I think there has been grammatical/spelling mistakes.

2. There follows on mycopy of the letter a note by me to the effect that "Letter sent on 25th Aug to confirm as in last para above". I cannot find a copy of the letter, but it would have been interesting as no doubt I would have pointed out that a) They were rude and did not have Linda Hanns' interest at heart and b) that their paragraph 2 above, "....our letter of the 17th July is not, strictly speaking, correct." was 'not strictly speaking correct' it was was a blatant lie to put pressure on us

---

transcribed to the internet on 1st June, 2005 by Roger Lovejoy
blue text as of 1st June, 2005