When faced with legitimate questions, improper silence from any official body is a tacit admission of incompetence, guilt or criminal intent.
Silence is also the last refuge of officials or official bodies who simply do not care, have not done their job properly or have something to hide.
Silence is, however, a double-edged sword and where officials cannot even be bothered toread what you have written to them they tacitly accept, and in due time should honour, the appropriate unread contents of your communication(s).
ARMS Ltd seems to have been infected by the currently prevalent attitude of ‘if you can’t prove I’m guilty then I’m innocent, no matter what I have done’. I find it quite disgusting that even their in-house lawyer avoids properly answering my questions and believe this situation to be not only seriously unprofessional but totally unlawful.
The more serious of my many questions ARMS refuses to answer are:
1) Why was a cost crucial document kept secret from my wife and I when we applied for service in person?
2) Why were my wife and I registered as being of zero occupation when we stated we were moving in to our new flat immediately?
3) Why did the promise to investigate the very high early electricity bills, which I paid, come to nothing?
4) Why were many of my later bills sent to the wrong address?
5) Why, when asked where my bills were, ARMS responded with silence and cut off the power?
6) Why are most verbal promises neither confirmed in writing nor kept?
7) Why, once I pointed out that copy bills were wrongly addressed, my records were altered to show the wrongly addressed bills being sent to the correct address?
8) Why were no minutes ever taken at meetings, which lead to each meeting being a reiteration of the main points and, thus, a waste of time?
ARMS has stated it represents Enemalta and the Water Services Corporation but is acting like a spoilt child rather than a service. How can this be right?
Is this persistent refusal by ARMS to do their job properly just an incredible lack of professionalism, sheer bloody-mindedness or criminal negligence?