This addendum was written four weeks after the incident,

with a bit more information, and a lot more thought & analysis.




















After going to some keyboard/organ clubs, two of which were held in the common rooms of AP Schemes, I had the idea of starting a musical evening to be held at ****** Court on Mondays.

It was to be a private get together of people with similar tastes, and would be by invitation only. It was not to be done within the social club, as I was not a member, and did not want my ideas diluted.

I did a leaflet couched in Victorian terms, as my intent was to bring the Victorian musical evening into the 21st century.

On Monday 14th June 2004, I sounded out a few people and got a very favourable response.

Eileen, the scheme co-ordinator, was delivering the refuse sacks, and I caught her outside my flat. I spoke to her about the idea, and she was enthusiastic, until she came to the last sentence of the leaflet that said that smokers could use the entrance hall, or the gardens. She blew into a rage, and said that I had no right to exclude smokers from the hall. I pointed out that it was my private evening. It was as though I was having my birthday party there, and I could have what rules I deemed suitable. She was still angry, (I was well taken aback!), and I said that I would get back to her on it.

I walked over and spoke to Joan, who runs the social club, outside her flat. Lil, Eileen's mother, was sitting with her. Their response was completely negative. "Who on earth would want to go to such a thing!" was their reply. Joan then tried to do a 'take over', as she is known to do. I insisted that it was my private evening. She then went on, and on, about security, and that she was responsible as she had the keys. She was still trying to take over. She used a bit of colourful language, as she is known to. I replied in like manner, imitating her 'bullying' stance. She did not seem to mind. I said again that I had come to them just to see if they wished to come to the musical evening, and they said that it was not their kind of thing.

I moved on. When I left them, I had no impression that Joan was angry, or in any was put out, and I had not left Eileen angry.

So far so good? (Some days later I learnt that Joan had resigned from running the social club that Monday evening. She withdrew her resignation after the Tuesday morning altercation!)

Tuesday morning 15th June, I go to get my 'Radio Times'. Eileen is in conversation with Joan in the gardens. I say, "Good morning, ladies!" Getting no reply, I walk round to the front of them, and again say, "Good morning, ladies!" Eileen stands up and says that she is not going to talk to me again. I have no idea what is going on and make a remark about Margaret and Joan. Joan says that I am mad, and Eileen agrees with her. Completely confused, I walk away. Eileen does not come to see me that day, so I put a note through her door.

A week later, I recorded (listen here) a conversation with Eileen in which she says, " ..... and you were the cause of the problem why I was speaking to Joan ....." She followed this with, "...... if you had given me five minutes, then I would have come and saw you....."

This confirmed that I was under discussion by Eileen and Joan concerning an alleged problem that I had caused. (Was it what had happened the previous evening?)

Therefore, it seems that Eileen was not keen on me having a musical evening if I was not going to allow smoking in the hall. Joan did not like me responding to her in the manner in which she spoke to me. She then resigned from running the club. This alarmed Eileen. On that Tuesday morning as I walked out they were discussing me. Eileen had to demonstrate her allegiance to Joan, so she 'bawled me out' in Joan's presence.



For some reason, Eileen did not come to see me after that Tuesday morning altercation. That is still a mystery to me. If she had come to see me, most likely all would have been sorted out.

There could be three explanations.

Firstly, that Eileen is not a competent co-ordinator because she does not have the personal qualities to care for aged people.

Secondly, that Eileen is not a competent co-ordinator because she has not had the required quality of training.

The third possibility to contemplate, is a combination of unsuitable personal qualities, exacerbated by poor training. Eileen's inexplicable actions could have been initiated because, in talking to Joan, she had decided that I had caused Joan, and her, 'a problem'. She may have thought, "Right, I'll teach him a lesson!" Because of her lack of competence, she could not appreciate, or predict, the traumatic effects that her actions would have on me. After the event, fully knowing that I was upset, she did not follow up. This can only be due to her insensitivity to my plight.

A common comment from Eileen to me has been, "What's wrong with you, Ted, is that you think too much!" Is it that I think too much, or that she thinks too little?

On reflection, I think that the reason why I was so angry, was that Eileen had treated me with disrespect in public. This I cannot accept.





That Mrs Warden neglected her duty of care to Mr Aylward in that she did not attend to him knowing that he was under stress, and also knowing that he was vulnerable.

That Mrs Manager-One neglected her duty of care to Mr Aylward knowing that he was vulnerable to stress after being advised by Mrs Warden of the incident.

That Mrs Manager-One neglected her duty of care in not taking prompt action when Mr Aylward phoned her requesting help.


It is beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Warden, irrespective of what was said on that Tuesday morning did not exercise reasonable care, in that she did not take any action knowing that Mr Aylward was upset. This is compounded by the fact that Mr Aylward's care plan highlighted that he has heart problems, and therefore would be unduly affected by stress.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Manager-One did not exercise reasonable care in that she did not respond to his request for help until five days had elapsed.




There are two main conflicting elements between Mrs Warden and Mr Aylward, nevertheless the main fact is that irrespective of what was said that Tuesday morning, Mrs Warden did not visit Mr Aylward and did not check on his welfare.

1. What was said on that Tuesday morning?

2. Why Mrs Warden did not see Mr Aylward later that day?

Mr Aylward says that Mrs Warden said, "I am not going to talk to you again."

Mrs Warden says that she said, "I can't speak to you at the moment."

It is agreed by both that Mr Aylward only said, "Good morning, ladies." before Mrs Warden replied.

The normal response to being bid "Good morning." is to say, "Good morning." in reply.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Warden did not say "I can't speak to you at the moment." As this cannot be considered a reasonable reply to, "Good morning."

 On the balance of probabilities, Mr Aylward's version must be accepted.

As to why Mrs Warden must be wrong, it is necessary to query as to why she said, in the recorded conversation to Mr Aylward of the following Friday week, " ..... and you were the cause of the problem why I was speaking to Joan ....." She followed this with, "...... if you had given me five minutes, then I would have come and saw you....."

It is beyond reasonable doubt, that Mrs Warden had been talking to Mrs Joan H about Mr Aylward, as she says," ..... and you were the cause of the problem ...." This confirms that Mr Aylward was under discussion by Mrs Warden and Mrs Joan H concerning an alleged problem that he had caused.

This would confirm what Mr Aylward says is correct, when he claims that Mrs Warden said, "I am not going to talk to you again" (Because of the problem that you have caused with Mrs Joan H?)

It is agreed by Mrs Warden and Mr Aylward that he was upset after the exchange of words on that Tuesday morning. Mrs Warden says, in the recording, " ... I was going to see you when I finished with Joan ......" She continues by saying that she did not "..... because you stormed off out, then you stormed off back in - because you took offence ...."

Mrs Warden did not see Mr Aylward after she had finished with Mrs Joan H (about 9:30am?), and indeed did not see him at all on that Tuesday. Mrs Warden says that "you stormed off out", showing that she knew that Mr Aylward was very upset. As a person with a duty of care to her tenants, she should have followed up and seen Mr Aylward. This was a gross neglect of her duty of care to Mr Aylward.

In addition to the above event, the treatment experienced by Mr Aylward when he phoned the Vange office is not acceptable. A five-day delay in seeing him exacerbated his stress.

The "investigation" carried out by Mrs Joan Manager-One was flawed, and indicates that she is not qualified for such duties.

The other points mentioned in Mr Aylward's document need to be investigated. If verified, they indicate an inappropriate warden/tenant relationship at ****** Court.




This is the entry for my diary on the day I put these pages on here. I think that no comment is needed.

I will put all diary entries from my main site that deal with this incident here


Friday, 30 July 2004 That's another birthday over! 71 come and gone!

I have been seeing my psychotherapy counsellor, Laura, for two sessions. One thing that came out of the first session was that I did not really have a 'problem' but that 'they' (BDC?) had a problem. To this end, I decided to end my correspondence regarding the 'unsettling incident' that occurred on 15th June 2004. As you will see above, I have suffered quite a bit for the past six weeks waiting for things to happen.

The manager seconded by the CEO to deal with the matter, like all others, has left me 'roasting', for three weeks. Not a 'dickey bird' out of her. So, I sent a letter saying that I wanted nothing more to do with the matter, and enclosed an addendum to the set of notes I sent to the chief executive.

I gave a lot of thought as to whether I should include the last two pages of the 'Addendum' that I sent to the CEO and managers. These deal with the mismanagement of the complex, and I highlight eight examples. My decision has been to withhold these for the moment. I will review my decision later. The notes may seem a bit daunting at first, but it is well worth the effort to get a feel of what has happened to me. You may even be tempted to read about the other 'campaigns' that I have had with BDC!

Yes! .. I know what you will all say, "Why the bloody hell did you get involved. You should have just told her to f*** off, and got on with your life!" But, that is how I am. I told Laura that if anything else happens, I will 'quietly exit stage left'.

On reflection, I think that the reason why I was so angry was that Eileen had treated me with disrespect in public. This I cannot accept.

To be a bit naughty I have bought the URL and pointed it to this section!


Friday, 06 August 2004. I am a bugger for punishment! Despite deciding to end my intercourse with the BDC people, after they wrote to me I gave in and saw 'Mrs Manager Three'.

Am I also gullible, in that I have a feeling that a more mature person is involved? You have to laugh though . The CEO passed the job to a senior manager .. He was on holiday so it was passed to a middle manager That manager goes on honeymoon so it is passed down the line again and that manager is away today and all next week! I'm waiting for it to be delegated to the Senior Bog Cleaner in Basildon Centre! What to you all think?

Mrs Manager Three brought Mrs Manager One with her, who 'conducted' the first 'meeting'. She just took notes. I recorded the meeting with their permission. An interesting fact emerged. When I recorded Eileen, the warden, she said that she would not visit me in my flat. It transpires that it was Mrs Manager One who advised her on that! We must now wonder why? Is it that Mrs Manager One is very close to Eileen, and told her that if she went into my flat that I would record her? (That was a waste of her time - wasn't it!) We must also wonder if she also gave privileged information to Eileen regarding the attitude survey, and the identity of the manager who was 'out to get' Eileen. There certainly is a 'mole' in the housing office who is passing on information.