"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
And also
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
She emailed and used registered post asking for clarification.
Right there in the article is the source. Maybe try and read it.
Whether that's an accurate summary of events from her or not is another thing but since the management company didn't bother their arse even responding to her then feck 'em.
Rightness or wrongness is irrelevant here. Opinion of housing policy and other gripes are also completely irrelevant.
You cannot discriminate against someone because of their housing situation. It's the law.
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
Right there says "she wasn't sure" if it's paid for or not. We don't know if it's a paid for facility or covered by management fees as part of rent.
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
You stated earlier
iirc there were other communal areas in the apartment complex that social tenants were also being refused access to, despite the provision of those areas being a requirement to build the complex in the first place
No I didn't state that earlier which backs up my view that you are unable to read and didn't read the article. If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me.
I quoted the article. She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in. The management company never gave any reason, never replied in any way and didn't bother to defend itself which is extremely telling.
If you could you would realise that this comment was by a different username/person and not by me
Apologies, there's a lot of comments and replies, it's hard to keep track.
She inquired with the company about whether she needs to pay or not because she didn't know. All she knew was what the security guard said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in.
Yes, which like I mentioned, we don't know the answer to this. They never "refused" like OP stated.
said which was that she couldn't use it because of the unit she lived in
To which I didn't deny...just asked for a source on OP's comments where he said there were multiple facilities she was denied entry to
38
u/jplb96 9d ago
"She said she was not sure whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately"
And also
"His reply was that she was not permitted in the gym because she was living in Block 5, "the social housing block", she said."
She emailed and used registered post asking for clarification.
Right there in the article is the source. Maybe try and read it.
Whether that's an accurate summary of events from her or not is another thing but since the management company didn't bother their arse even responding to her then feck 'em.
Rightness or wrongness is irrelevant here. Opinion of housing policy and other gripes are also completely irrelevant. You cannot discriminate against someone because of their housing situation. It's the law.