Fact check: Dear Dawn, I'm emailing to follow up on our face-to-face conversation yesterday. I have lived with you as my neighbour for a couple of months now and there are some things that I’d like to get off my chest. First of all I would like to apologise for the length of this email. I am frustrated and I want to document these issues thoroughly, because they deserve to be addressed seriously. I'll be candid and say that the length and detail of the email is also intended to create a clear paper trail of all issues and attempts to resolve them, which could be important if legal intervention becomes necessary. I don't actually think things will get that far and I certainly hope they don't, but for reasons that will become clear I feel the need to protect myself. What I am hoping to achieve with this email is firstly to put across my honest perspective and concerns. I hope you will reflect on them and try to understand how that perspective has come about. But whether or not you do that, my second and main goal is to set a boundary with you and firmly request that you respect it. I put a note under your door yesterday with my email address in it, asking you to email me when you get a chance. You responded by leaving a formal letter addressed to Ross, not me, saying that you are willing to talk to him face-to-face any time. This is a perfect demonstration of the pattern of passive-aggressiveness that I talk about below. Both times we have had substantial face-to-face conversations they turned into confrontations. I didn't enjoy them and I doubt you did either, so my hope was that by talking over email we would be able to take time to consider one anothers’ words and have a more productive exchange. As per your request I attempted to explain this preference for email in person, but you explicitly refused to have this conversation over email, saying that although you're keen to talk to me to resolve these issues, you're willing to deal with Ross over email but are only willing to talk to me verbally. When asked why you were unable to justify this except in high-level and (in my opinion) vague terms about how things are 'easier' face-to-face and putting things in writing can lead to different 'interpretations'. When I moved in, Ross made it clear that the buildings insurance requires that the front door be double-locked at all times (even when people are in the house during the day, or even when just going to the shops which are a 5-minute walk away), and that this was important to you. I took this at face value, because I had no reason to doubt that you were acting in anything other than good faith. For clarity’s sake, when I say ‘double-lock’, I mean not only the upper (Yale) lock is engaged, but also the lower (mortice) lock as well. I sadly know from experience of being a victim of a violent break-in in a previous home that it does make a difference to the door’s security. It is relatively easy to force entry with just a Yale lock but the mortice lock puts half an inch of steel in the door; it’s not easy to kick that down. The first time we met, I had just moved in and you came out of your car just as I was entering the house. I thought you were a bit terse, but given that there was a strange man who you had never met before trying to get into your house (albeit with a key, and it’s a shared entrance), it’s understandable that you were caught off-guard. You reiterated that the door need to be double-locked at all times and that the building has not had sound insulation installed since it was converted from a single dwelling and so you requested that I be mindful about slamming the doors, since you can hear it upstairs. I’ll be honest in saying that it annoyed me that you chose to start our relationship as neighbours off by trying to assert authority over me and tell me the ‘rules’. The same day, when my friends were helping me unload my things, a through-draught blew the door closed and I heard you shout from upstairs not to slam the door. I chose not to respond but this was our second ever interaction and I thought it sad that you assumed bad faith on my part, jumping to the conclusion that I must have intentionally ignored your request to not slam the door. Later the same day, Ross received a message from you requesting some sensitive personal information about me, including my date of birth, occupation, whether I’m renting or moving in as Ross’ partner, confirmation of any insurance claims refused in the last five years, and confirmation of whether I have any criminal convictions. The pretext for requesting this information was that it is required by the building’s insurance. I found this invasive and was uncomfortable with sharing this information, but I’ve never dealt with building insurance before and didn’t want to be the cause of conflict between you and Ross on my very first day living in the flat, so I gave him the information to pass on to you. I found double-locking the door at all times onerous. It meant I needed to use 3 keys to get into my flat (4 if my own flat's door is double-locked), and one key to get out, even if I'm just going to the shop for a few minutes. When I first moved in it took me a while to get used to the key being stiff in the lock or the door being stiff in the frame, which means it was sometimes accidentally not locked. Not that I should have to disclose this to you, but I have a disability that affects my attention span and dexterity, so sometimes I forgot to lock it, or thought I’d locked it when I hadn’t. It was also difficult to do it in the dark, and turning the light on and off added extra steps to what was already, in my view, an unreasonably long process. To make things easier and quicker for everyone coming in and out of the house, I plugged in a nightlight, which only powers on when it’s dark, into the power socket in the hallway, but the next day I found it unplugged, placed neatly on the floor beneath the power point. Given that you hadn’t said anything to me or, as far as I know, Ross, I assumed that this was your way of telling me that my attempts to improve the communal area are not welcome. On 30 September, less than a week after I’d moved in, you rang the doorbell to confront me about the door being ‘unlocked’ (by which you meant, it was locked, but not double-locked). You said it was the fourth time that week that the door had been left unlocked, and you said it in such a way as to suggest that you felt like you'd been magnanimous by letting it slide until now – but I didn't know that it had been left unlocked, so that only makes sense if you assumed that I must have known that I had not been double-locking the door and therefore had been doing it deliberately. What had actually happened that time though was my partner (Josh), who was visiting for the first time since I moved in, had been to the shop with my keys, and although I’d told him that he needs to double-lock the door when he comes back in, he wasn’t used to the lock and mistakenly didn’t engage it all the way. I chose to take the blame for him, unreservedly apologised, said that it was an accident and that I’d try to be more careful in the future. However I wasn't comfortable with the way that you spoke to me about it and so, assuming we had each other’s best interests at heart, asked if I could share something personal with you, played back what I had observed in our interactions so far, explaining how I was feeling (that all our interactions had been quite charged, that I felt like I was being told off), and explaining my needs (that I want to feel comfortable in my own home). At that point your demeanour changed and you began raising your voice and speaking over me, telling me that because I had left the door ‘unlocked’ you no longer felt safe in your own home, that you’d been here for years and that I was ‘just a lodger’. When I asked what you meant by that – because to me, it implies that you think that I am less entitled to quiet enjoyment of my home than you are because you’ve been here longer and you own your flat and I don't – you denied having said it (probably because you realised that you shouldn’t have said it), even when I quoted your words back to you verbatim. In the moment, I interpreted this denial of something that had happened moments before as an attempt to gaslight me (that is; to manipulate me such that I doubt my own memory), and that in turn made me doubt your sincerity in saying that the door not being double-locked made you feel unsafe. I said as much, saying that I suspected that you were trying to guilt-trip me, and your demeanour changed again to become even more unpleasant, saying that I was trying to 'put everything back on you'. I guess from your point of view, you had psyched yourself up to confront me, an unfamiliar man who you think doesn't care about your safety, and suddenly you felt like you had somehow ended up as the person who was under attack. I suggested that the conversation wasn’t going anywhere because we had both become too defensive, and that we should take a step back and return to it when we were both feeling calmer. You said that you shouldn't be talking to me about this anyway, you should be going through Ross because he was the flat owner (although I’m not sure why that means that we can’t be grown-ups and have a conversation about how we get on as neighbours), and we left it there. You later texted Ross and had a conversation with him about me without me. Throughout the conversation you also reiterated that the door not being double-locked invalidated the building’s insurance, that you would bill Ross directly, as the owner of the downstairs flat, if I didn’t double-lock the door and anything of yours was stolen, and that the road was a burglary hotspot. I’d like to be able to claim that I said all of this as confidently and articulately as I did above, but my partner was listening in from my bedroom and said that my voice was breaking and I was stuttering, so clearly it was unpleasant for me. And it was – I don’t like confrontation, I could tell my body was having an adrenaline/stress response, and I didn’t sleep well that night at all. I’ve thought about it a lot since then. No house with a shared entrance that I’ve ever lived in (and I've lived in a fair few) has required the shared entrance to be double-locked. I’ve done some research and it would be unusual for a building’s insurance policy to require that. Building’s insurance is usually about damage to the building itself – so I guess the scenario would be that someone breaks in and does some damage to the structure – whereas items being stolen would usually be home contents insurance (which, unlike building insurance, I do have some experience with), and the requirement to secure those items would be to double-lock the door to the individual flat at night or when the flat is unoccupied, not to double-lock the door to the building as a whole at all times. But I hadn’t seen your specific policy, so I thought maybe it does require that. When researching this I also discovered that in the UK, fire safety regulations mandate that in multi-occupancy buildings, all exit doors – including the main front door – must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a key. This ensures that occupants can quickly and safely evacuate in case of an emergency. To comply with these regulations, it's recommended to install locks with internal thumb turn mechanisms. These locks allow the door to be unlocked from the inside by simply turning a knob, eliminating the need for a key and facilitating swift egress during emergencies. Insurance providers assess the risk profile of a property when determining coverage terms and premiums. Non-compliance with fire safety regulations can significantly elevate this risk, leading insurers to increase premiums, impose coverage restrictions, or decline coverage. The building’s insurance is a matter for you and Ross, not me, but as someone living here, fire safety does affect me as well. The only substantial direct interaction since then is the one we had yesterday. But I understand that in the meantime you have had a few conversations with Ross about the olive tree in the garden – you have claimed that the building’s insurance requires it to be cut down because it is over 5 metres tall. We measured it and it was 3.6 metres tall, substantially under 5 metres. I didn’t witness this conversation first hand, but Ross has told me that when he said that the tree was under 5 metres he felt like the tone of the conversation became unfriendly, that you insisted that you could tell that it was over 5 metres, and when pressed, that you had actually measured it yourself. This dispute is between you and Ross but I include it here to further illustrate what I believe to be a pattern of using insurance requirements to control behaviour and enforce your own personal preferences. Josh has also mentioned in the time since then several times that he feels anxious when visiting because, having witnessed our previous confrontation, he is intimidated by you and is worried that you will shout at him. This is one of the things that aggrieves me the most – it makes me angry that you would make someone I care about feel that way. While I doubt you set out to do that, it shows that I am not the only person who feels an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation. A couple of weeks ago, Josh went to the shop to get us lunch. I was busy with work but he was reluctant to go on his own, and when I asked why it was because he was worried he’d mess up using the lock again and that you’d shout at him. This shows that he finds you and the way you enforce your preferences around the shared spaces in the house intimidating. Again, this is somebody I care deeply about, and this is how you have made them feel. I told him not to worry, to just let me know when he gets back and I’ll go out and double-lock the door for him. He was gone for no more than 10 minutes, and in that time I heard you come downstairs and I heard keys jingling and rattling in the lock, which must have been you. Then Ross had a message from you to say that you needed to talk to him, and he replied to say that your previous conversation (about the tree) had made him uncomfortable and that if it’s related to the building’s insurance, he’d rather have the conversation in slower time over email. Then I had a phone call from Josh to say he couldn’t get in. I went to the door to help him and discovered that the latch was on, meaning that he wasn’t able to open the door even with the key – he had been locked out. I believe that when I heard you at the door after he had left, that was you putting the latch on to lock him out. The other night while taking the bins out, which required multiple trips, I briefly left the front door open while getting bins from the kitchen. When I returned just minutes later, you had double-locked the door and turned off the lights. While I understand your security concerns, I was actively using the door. Again, it made me think my movements were being monitored, which makes me feel uncomfortable. I think you are monitoring myself, Ross, and our guests coming and going from the flat, going downstairs after someone leaves to check that the door is locked, and in the case of Josh going to the shop, you decided for some reason, maybe because you didn’t know him, to prevent him from coming back in. When you emailed Ross you said that the door had been left ‘unlocked’ (which is not true – it had not been double-locked, putting a mere 3 locks between you and the outside world instead of 4) and that this made you feel ‘extremely uncomfortable and very unsafe and vulnerable as a female living on her own’. I don’t doubt that you are genuinely anxious about security, but whether or not that anxiety is rational is a different matter, and it certainly doesn't justify locking my partner out. If your own flat door is properly secured – say, with a solid mortice lock or another high-quality locking mechanism – leaving the shared building’s front door single-locked rather than double-locked typically does not make your flat’s contents substantially less secure. Here’s why: 1. Your flat’s door is the primary barrier protecting your belongings. Even if someone gains access to the communal entrance more easily, they still face the full security measures of your well-secured flat door. 2. While a double-locked front door might serve as an additional deterrent, it’s generally not as strong a barrier as a properly locked flat door. A determined intruder would need to overcome the robust lock on your flat door regardless of how secure the building’s main entrance is. 3. Most burglaries target the weakest point of entry. If your flat door is the equivalent of a reinforced gate, having a slightly less secure communal door doesn’t drastically change the overall risk profile. In short, a fully secured flat door remains the key factor in protecting your personal belongings. While an extra layer of security on the communal entrance adds peace of mind, the difference in practical terms is not substantial in my opinion. I doubt this will alleviate your anxiety, but I've tried to avoid getting engaged in a debate about this because at this point I'm not interested in going above and beyond what I believe to be required if it's purely to do you a favour. Ross replied to your message by asking where in the building's insurance document does it claim that the front door must be double-locked at all times. He also asked if it was you that put the latch on the door. You denied it (although the wording of the denial was a bit suspect – you said "I would never prevent anyone from being able to access their own property", but you kind of left yourself a bit of a get-out clause because it isn't Josh's 'own' property; he was a guest), but I can't see any other possible explanation of how Josh ended up locked out minutes after I heard you messing with the door and you emailed Ross about the door. Let me be clear: you will not do this again. You replied to Ross saying, > Page 7 of 12 of the EKU 2 document attached to the e-mail from GMI specifies the following: > > Minimum Security Conditions - It is a condition precedent to liability that the property has the following mimimum protections which are fitted and in operation at all times: > External Doors - 5-lever mortice deadlocks or multi locking system. That is written to look as though you are quoting the insurance policy verbatim, but that's not what the insurance policy actually says. Ross, who up until now had been assuming good faith, checked the wording of that paragraph of the insurance policy document attached to the specific email you referred to, and it says that the locks must be "operational" at all all times, not "in operation" at all times. I interpret these to mean different things – the term **"operational"** indicates that the locks must be capable of being used effectively, not necessarily that they are engaged 24/7. What's not open to interpretation is that the wording you quoted is different from the actual contents of the policy, in such a way that happens to better support your preference. When we spoke yesterday you wanted to revisit the topic of the locks and your argument was initially entirely based on security; you didn't mention the building's insurance at all until I pointed out that when you previously shouted at me (you said you didn't shout at me, you would never do that; OK, fine, you raised your voice, you spoke over me – semantics), the main reason you gave was the building's insurance. That you de-emphasised it this time suggests to me that you know that you have been caught out. When I said that you had changed the wording of the policy you actually denied it, but you put it in writing, it's there in black and white, and Ross pointed out as much in his reply to you (which you did not respond to). Ross has shared the full policy document with me and I can't find any requirement in the policy for to me to share my date of birth, occupation (although it's noted that I'm a "professional"), rental/partner status, insurance claim history, or criminal convictions. Based on the content of the Mid Term Adjustment note, the only requirement that was actually needed was simply notifying the insurer about a new lodger. This makes me think that you wanted this information – some of which is quite sensitive – to do some kind of background check on me, and that you were willing to resort to deception to get it. Incidentally, there's also no requirement in the policy about trees needing to be cut down if they're over 5 metres tall. The only tree-related clause is under "Subsidence" which states trees/shrubs within 5 metres of the property that are more than 5 metres tall must be disclosed. But since we've measured the tree at 3.6m, it's well under this limit anyway. Again, this is between you and Ross, but it shows that there is a pattern here where you appear to be misinterpreting the building's insurance in such a way as to favour your own personal preferences. I think you simply don't like the tree, but it's not your tree, so you don't get a say. In summary, none of your claims about insurance requirements are accurate according to the policy document. The only requirement was actually needed was simply notifying the insurer about the new lodger. Try to see things from my perspective: not only does it look like you have been lying to Ross & I about the insurance requirements, but you actually confronted me for not following a rule that you had made up. It really angers me that you would make me feel that way over something that you knew wasn't even a real requirement. I feel like I am walking on eggshells in my own home, I am feeling monitored/controlled, my partner feels unwelcome visiting, and Ross is stressed about potential confrontations. This is my perspective, I appreciate that you will have your own. Like I said, I believe that you do have some genuine anxiety about security, but I don't agree the requirements that you want me to follow are proportionate or required by the building's insurance. What I hope we can agree on is that the current situation is not tenable and that something needs to change. It’s not necessary to get on with your neighbours but it is desirable. While I suspect that we’ll never be best friends, I would like to have a civil relationship with you for the sake my comfort and yours. From reading my email you will have likely picked up that I feel like you have mistreated me quite badly. Given the number and scale of the perceived grievances, I don't know how we move on from that. The fact that you've previously proven unable to say "I was wrong" about even small things suggests you're psychologically incapable of backing down gracefully. For an amicable solution, both parties need to: 1. Act in good faith 2. Be honest 3. Respect boundaries 4. Consider others' needs 5. Be willing to compromise Given the facts: - You told me (and Ross) that the front door needed to be double-locked at all times, even during the day. - You claimed this requirement came from the building’s insurance policy. - You confronted me about the front door not being double-locked double-locked. - You requested my date of birth, occupation, insurance history, and criminal history, purportedly for building’s insurance purposes, but there is nothing in the policy document that requires or uses this information. - You quoted a passage from the insurance policy which states that certain locks must be “operational” at all times, but your quote says that the locks must be “in operation” at all times, which differs from the actual wording in such a way as to change the meaning. - You removed or disconnected a nightlight I had placed in the hallway without prior discussion. - You engaged a latch on the door, which prevented my partner from re-entering the building with a key. - You referred to me as “just a lodger” during a confrontation about the door lock. - You initially denied having said “just a lodger” after I repeated it back to you. - In no previous shared-entrance residence I have lived in has there been a requirement to double-lock the main entrance door continuously. it’s not unreasonable for me to suspect problematic motives. Taken as a whole, these behaviours fit a pattern where you repeatedly invoke rules or requirements that don’t exist and challenge attempts at compromise or convenience. While there could be other explanations (such as genuine misunderstanding on your part, anxiety, or poor communication skills), my interpretation that you might be acting out of a desire to control, intimidate, or mislead are not far-fetched. They are plausible reactions to the pattern I have observed. An amicable solution requires both parties to operate from similar principles. 'Amicable' doesn't mean letting someone control me through manipulation and lies. You've demonstrated that you'll exploit Ross' goodwill and compromise to maintain control. Instead of aiming for 'amicable', for the moment I suggest we aim for 'civil' and focus on de-escalation by: 1. Following actual requirements 2. Creating normal boundaries 3. Reducing points of contact/conflict As a start, we could agree to be on the same page about not double-locking the front door when the house is occupied or during the day. The insurance policy doesn't require it, fire safety actually discourages it, we have our own flat doors for security, we're currently doing the extra work for no valid reason, and it makes coming and going unnecessarily complex. I'm feeling anxious about compliance with fake rules and my partner feels anxious about visiting. The insurance policy mentions that failure to comply, **to the extent that such failure increases the risk of loss or damage**, may void a claim. This implies that if a loss occurs due to the locks not being engaged when they reasonably should have been (e.g., when the property is unoccupied), a claim might be denied. This suggests to me that for the moment (given that insurance companies have a financial interest in requiring engaged locks to reduce claim payouts), it's still worth double-locking the front door at night or when the building is known to be empty. The insurance policy is between you and Ross, but it does affect me if it creates rules that I have to follow. Understanding which requirements come from the home contents insurance and which come from the building's insurance can also help reduce friction points. My understanding is that building insurance typically covers damage to the building (e.g., doors, windows, or structure) caused during a break-in. For loss of personal belongings or contents of your flat, the claim would likely fall under your personal **contents insurance** policy, not the building's insurance. Home contents insurance is the responsibility of each individual flat and so if it turns out a requirement is actually linked to that, it needn't be a point of contention. This suits both of us. It is also worth investigating whether my interpretation of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, specifically Article 14, in which it is required that emergency doors (which could include shared entrance doors in residential buildings with shared occupancy) "must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency"​, is correct – that the shared entrance door must have a mechanism that allows it to be opened quickly and without the need for a key in case of emergency. While this regulation generally applies to emergency exits, it is interpreted to ensure that routes for escape, including shared entrances, are accessible under fire safety provisions. This requirement would apply if the shared entrance is considered part of the escape route for residents. It is possible to get a 'thumbturn' lock for the front door which can be easily unlocked from the inside that meets BS3621 (the standard typically required by insurers). Whether or not it's strictly required by law, this seems like an obvious move which would benefit everyone by improving fire safety, making it easier to double-lock or unlock the front door, and remove a point of friction while improving your posture with the insurers. As a resident I am willing to contribute financially to the cost of this. Another practical step we can take to de-escalate is to communicate frequently and openly about any concerns but to do so via email. Over email because I can take my time and check my facts, and it would benefit us both to be able to consider each others' and our own words carefully. When we spoke yesterday you said that when you previously confronted me about the door being 'unlocked', I refused and became hostile. As I said to you yesterday, this is not true. I apologised and attempted to gently set a boundary with you, and then *you* became hostile. The fact that we disagree over the basic facts of what was and wasn't said is another reason why we should stick to email. Given that you are making untrue claims about me, I don't want situations where it's my word against yours. If this was a genuine mistake on your part, it should be in your interests too, because it means there won't be further such mistakes in the future. In our conversation yesterday you also denied having changed the wording of the insurance policy document, which is verifiably not true. In our conversation yesterday you demonstrated the pattern of hostile face-to-face interaction that I'm trying to avoid, which again is another reason we should use email. Doing things over email means there can be no disagreements or 'misunderstandings' about who said what and when. It minimises ambiguity. I see no reason why it wouldn't be in both of our interests' to do this. I said as much to you in our conversation yesterday, and that the only reason I can think of why you might not want to talk over email is if you for some reason wanted to avoid transparency. At that point you accused me of 'slinging mud', that if I knew what you did for work I'd know that your whole job is about transparency, and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't see how you can claim to value transparency while refusing written communication, or state that you want things to be amicable while refusing reasonable communication requests. But this attempt to reframe requests for transparency as an attack only strengthens my belief that there is a pattern of behaviour here where you try to resist documented communication. I clearly and repeatedly stated why I think it would be better to have the conversation over the email, and you weren't able to adequately explain why we shouldn't. I have told you several times now that I am uncomfortable in our face-to-face interactions. I think you know that and prefer them because you have more control. You say you want to reset things but you won't accommodate this basic boundary. My request for written communication in these circumstances is far from unreasonable. I don't doubt that you also find this situation unpleasant but it seems you only want a resolution which is on your terms. You made it clear yesterday that my choices are to either talk to you face-to-face or not at all, and that you'll only do written communication through Ross. There is a pattern in your behaviour of trying to triangulate (written) communication through Ross, but I have the right to address issues that affect me directly, set boundaries with neighbours, challenge misrepresentations being used to control me, assert my privacy rights, and document problematic behaviour. On a similar note, I think it would be reasonable for us to agree that if we should both be able to check that information shared with each other is not just made up. This means that it must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Quotations and any materials challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by a reference of some kind. If your goal is to have **reasonable** security measures in place for your own home and to be compliant with the building's insurance policy, I am confident that we can find a way forward that lets you do that while respecting mine and Ross' right to peaceful enjoyment of our home. If your goal is to maintain your sense of security and control by any means necessary, even if it means deceiving people, then we're going to have a problem. I would like to hear what you have to say, but before you respond, please do reflect on what I have said. I imagine that your initial reaction will be defensive; mine would be as well. I have tried to be careful to distinguish between when I am talking about the facts as I recall them, and when I am talking about my beliefs and assumptions about what's behind those facts. Whether or not you think those beliefs and assumptions are fair, especially the ones about your motives, this is my honest perspective that I am sharing. I have also noticed that you have put a Ring doorbell on the front door, in front of the shared entrance. I will email you about this separately. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Tom Moreton