FastFreddy2

Now down to two chances ..... Missed a couple tonight, due to a small family crisis. The mother-in-law is again in hospital, and this time it's looking a bit serious. She's very old, and although I've known her a long time, there's not been a day I've been glad of her acquaintance. I don't wish her anything but a speedy recovery though, despite our mutual dislike. Really off-thread but..... Doctor calls ambulance at 11.30am, ambulance arrives at 4.30pm... Time I got Mrs Freddy back from the hospital tonight, and then fed, two pairs had been sold. A blue pair for about £45. Obviously if I had bid they might have gone for a bit more, but there was no last minute 'flurry' with either pair, which surprised me. Someone has bought a handmade, all leather shoe, for £45 plus £15 carriage. Bargain? I'd say so.

Been a little while .... Seen recently on an auction site, from Jeffrey Campbell:

Nice find. They may not be long enough in the rise (sit too low on the hips) but if I can find a pair, I'll certainly try them.

I think that is the very reason they employ the procedure as part of the membership scheme. Many of us would do the same. When I buy clothing or shoes with a 28 day returns policy, I try to do any returning ASAP. At the very least, I make sure I have to trip over anything I'm unsure about every day, so the money tied up in something I may not want isn't lost to me. This is especially true of postal returns. Some retailers stick to the letter of the (consumer) law, in that returns have to be advised to them within 14 days, and the goods returned within another 14 (or so). I once missed this with a retailer, who would not compromise, refusing even store credit against something I had not returned (back then) inside a 7 day period. While spending a LOT of money on my then hobby, they have not had a single penny from me since. I am unhappy to spend money with anyone/business entity, that would use legislation to ensure I'm an unhappy customer.

If you can find a way of doing it, a photo with your feet (~or foot) in one of the Just Fab shoes would be a useful thing to see. I did read up on the "membership" qualifications for getting their shoes at £35 (or less). It seems you commit to buying one pair of shoes each month, with credit card deduction (or maybe D/C) being made on the 5th or 6th day of the month. You may cancel this commitment month by month, but it has to be during the 1st and 5th day of the respective period. I think this arrangement is called "continuous payment authority". Forget to cancel, you get charged whether you wanted shoes or not. If I remember, the 'charge' produces a 'store credit' if you do not use it by choosing something to own. Other than the enticement of some discount on the first (or second) pair of shoes, I can't immediately see the obvious benefit of membership. If you remember to cancel the subsequent 11 payments, there is some advantage, but it's a lot of trouble/risk to save £9.

Have had some PM's with '1969' about shoe sizes, and looks like I might actually want an EU41, though even that looks a bit on the long side? Anyway, I've currently got about 5 chances to buy, if I bid high enough of course. If I get the right size court shoe, I'll then try for a boot if they are still available at sensible prices. "Sensible" will look like under £130 at the moment, assuming I can walk in the 5" courts.

I've now had a good look through all three groups of listings, and there is only one doing the auctions at a low start price. I'm thinking this might be going on because things are slow in the factory? (That time of year?) Current selling prices, are not to be missed.

My, how things have changed .... Spring of 2015, the cat learned to jump, and jump good. I had mentioned he thought he was a squirrel, but he's much better in most respects. (Thankfully not at climbing trees.) Getting up and over 6ft fences is done in the blink of an eye. We think him watching two other local cats, or following them, got him the idea. I've seen him run and jump over a 3ft fence as if a race horse in a steeple chase. His paws might have touched the fence, but his touch so light the fence didn't move. With this new ability, came the taste for using mud for his toilet. There is a large semi-derelict flower bed in a communal area the other side of our garden fence. It's the cats private loo. I've cut a hole in the back gate, so he doesn't need to climb to access it. He never uses the litter tray in the house. I wish I had his bladder control. The tray is always left were it was, ready for use but it doesn't get his attention at all. One wet day recently, he was inside for 14 hours, and didn't use his tray. I'm not sure I can manage 5 hours! He is a hunter. Still chases bugs, moths and butterflies. He's quite the mouser too. Brought home 5 or 6 during the summer of '15. I've watched him. He can hear them, and just waits and waits and waits. Fortunately, he doesn't do the same with birds, though Mrs Freddy screamed "he's caught a pigeon" during the summer. By the time I got to the back garden, only the cat with a mouthful of grey feathers was present. I swear he was smiling. I'm pretty sure the pigeon was suicidal. Birds are usually way too smart for our cat, he's too fond of the waiting bit. (You can sometimes hear the cogs whirring.) That pigeon must have thrown itself at the cat. He still follows me everywhere, except the bathroom - at least when I'm in the bath. Me sitting on the loo does not guarantee solitude; "well why do have a lap if it's not for me to lay on?" Must think the cat. My defence is, he's so timid, I don't want to refuse him anything. He doesn't worry about overhead aircraft any longer, but any noise scares the bejeesus out of him. I've known him growl after hearing the door knocker. Doorbell, will have him run upstairs. Loud noises, he will run anywhere as long as it's away. So if he wants to sit on me, while I'm 'busy', I pull my trousers up and he lays on my lap. (Well, it's not like I'm too busy to let him.) Little more than a month ago, he got so comfy, he actually started sleep-wheezing. Although here in the second half of his third year, he's only been scolded once. And all my fault, apparently. When the cat was more of a kitten, he would sometimes climb my trouser (jeans) to get up at me. Often to see what I was doing at the kitchen counter. Although now a grown cat, he still does the same thing. He's so long outstretched, that his back legs are barely off the ground as his front paws reach my waist. So, once he's stretched up my leg, I now raise my leg upward resting it on the counter for support. (Supple, see.) He then lays along my leg, watching what I'm doing, often preparing food. He is never allowed anywhere near food prep areas. He was (ahemm) never allowed on any kitchen surfaces either. Not until I thought I'd worked out a solution to him watching me anyway. I thought I could train him to sit on a worktop that isn't used for food prep, positioned so he could watch without me doing the splits. It worked. It meant disinfecting the worktop after use, but it's not like this doesn't get done from time to time anyway. He learned he had a place he could sit to watch, and he knew he wasn't to go anywhere else. We know dogs can be trained. so can cats! So, clever cat can jump, clever cat knows his spot. One day, our dumb cook leaves partially prepared food on the cats bit of worktop, then the fool walks over to the sink to use it. Hearing 'slurp slurp slurp', the idiot at the sink turns 180 degrees to see the cat eating the dinner originally destined for 'the help'. Grabbing a washed up butter lid, drying prior to going into the recycling bin, the stupid cook used it as frisby to reprimand the cat. It was a bad time to realise unknown skills. The lid caught the cat amidships, a direct hit, scaring the bejeesus out of the cat as required. The cat leapt off the counter (also as required) and exited the kitchen at some rate of knots. Unfortunately, the dish containing the (now spoiled) food was sufficiently unbalanced by the speedy exit of a 5kgs cat, that it too left the counter. Hard to accurately describe the ensuing carnage, but suffice to say, a food blender without a lid could not have spread the food further. The cat returned sometime later, obviously after all the clearing up was complete. I got all the blame for the incident. The cat has not attempted to reclaim his 'spot' on the usually unused bit of counter, but he has climbed up my trouser leg a couple of times since, just to watch. He still sleeps on the end of our bed, and often where my feet should be. It's a situation that needs improving. I have in mind to make him a frame that will hang over, what is currently 'his spot', so I can make use of all my side of the bed. He likes his comfort does that cat.

There is/was a batch of shoes and boots at auction prices going through tonight (I was out doing PR for a landlord), and my trial bids were easily overtaken even though my bids were not small. (Small enough, obviously! ) If the 1969 M.O. continues for any length of time, I will acquire. The chap over at HHp likes them enough to have several pairs, so maybe the important bit after a successful bid, is getting the right size? I am thinking I should try for a court shoe first, as there's a smaller loss if I get the wrong size. Regarding the "classic Rosa" toe-box style, it's wear (and tear) at the toe I'm more concerned about, rather than the walkability of the style. Perhaps I should have said "walking in them would seriously reduce their aesthetic appeal" as they would get damaged fairly quickly worn in the street? The cowboy style boot from Harley Davidson took me nearly 5 years to wear them out, and with the long(er) pointed toe, it was the toe that wore the most. My current fav's, the same style from M+S, are getting the same rate of wear in the same place. The Rosa style has an even longer toe box, and I can't help but wonder if the toes get scuffed up on the first or the second use. Although I'm not a betting man, I think the odds are in my favour for putting money on them not getting past a third outing without scuffs. They are I suspect, designed for wearing at the theatre, restaurant, or other upmarket gatherings. Not traipsing around shopping malls or high streets, which is where I do most of my high heel wearing. They do look comfortable though, with all that toe space, if a heel that high could ever be described as comfortable.

Agreed. I've had a slightly better look at the 1969 range of courts, and it's been quite illuminating. Here are two styles that meant their range was originally excluded from my interest about the time I was made aware of the Renzi boots: Platforms, and long (comfortable) toe box (a la Rosa) but not good for walking in. Sadly. But....... At least two styles that are of interest! The plastic shoes, made in China.... A nice looking shoe, but only listed in smaller sizes, so far as I can see. Typical of those coming from China. But, their classic court, well ...... Jackpot! Any size up to EU42 (or 43 depending on the listing), which is likely bigger than my shoe size, if experience with the Renzi style is anything to go by. The next issue .... Cost. I'll have to keep an eye on the auctions, see what I might get a pair for. "Feedback" suggests £55 with £15 carriage isn't uncommon.

1. At no time have I thought we were discussing L/R c-o-g, only fore/aft since heel position ought to only affect that (surely)? Any additional direction would create too many differentials, and we might already have too many. 2. A direct quote from your link: "A vertical line through the center of gravity must fall within its base of support." We are discussing that position of b-o-f and heel tip. Can I 'rest my case'? 3. Your 'simplified' version of my log/dowel is likely less dangerous, but needs no less marking, and doesn't seem to allow as much latitude for finding the position of equilibrium? By way of a go no-go gauge, it would work, and IS safer though. 4. This idea the b-o-f is a difficult thing to locate, surprises me. Here's why; While heel tips, ankle positions might vary in a shoe, the one thing that never changes is the position of the end of our longest toe. These HAVE to be on the ground, in a heel or out of a heel. The 'ball of the foot' is the last bit of skin touching a flat surface (usually floor) when we stand on our toes. That can be measured and recorded. It's a reference point only, and the end of our longest toe is the datum. When I have said "mark the toe position" I meant toe of foot, not toe of shoe. Since rise shape (long vs compressed) length of toe box etc all vary, finding the exact position of the b-o-f when fitted inside a shoe .... Toe of foot is a good datum. The other end of the "base of support" is the moving heel tip position of course. My belief is, the movement of that heel tip location in a static position (ie standing still) affects the c-o-g so little, in practical terms the difference (if there is one) is immeasurable. I have proposed the ankle is the fulcrum. Given the lack of forward/back latitude possible in the 5-6ft above the ankle (in degrees), the difference on the other side of the fulcrum "base of support" will likely be minute. Or to be exact, several minutes (of angle ). Actually, an even simpler test: Can you tell the forward/aft position of the heel you are wearing, while standing still? I think unlikely. The "feeling of a better c-o-g with a traditional heel", goes back to the very thing we have discussed before, as to ease of walking. With a dynamic c-o-g created while we purposely tip ourselves forward to create motion, it really doesn't seem to be pertinent. What that shorter base of support does do, is allow less effort in creating an easier tipping motion as we walk.

"In theory" I would agree your principle is right, in that a plumbline replicating a c-o-g could be found almost anywhere. In practice, it has to be between heel tip and b-o-f or tipping is inevitable. Again in practice, the ankle is the fulcrum on which the load is kept vertical while motionless. When motion is involved, the heel/toe combination is much more involved. A test I doubt I'll ever make .... 3 inch diameter log/dowel about 12 inches in length, rested underneath a 12" wide by 18" long piece of half inch ply. The log/dowel has to be square to the ply during both tests, the test surface has to be solid and flat. Wearer with 5" traditional heels gets on the board, shifting the position of the board (with help) so they are balanced with the ply board perfectly horizontal. Position of their toes are marked on the ply so that the second test can mimic their b-o-f position, and the position of log/dowel is marked on ply board too. Second test, the heel wearer has on 5" heels but it has a set back heel. Same position of perfectly horizontal board is achieved. Board is marked again. I am going to be completely dumbfounded, if those marks identifying the log/dowel position, are anything other than in the same place.

Which is dynamic when walking, anyway. As far as 'the theory' goes, please feel free to experiment yourself. If you can find a way to stand upright while having your centre of gravity passing through somewhere other than your ankle, you will be of great interest to medical science. I believe there is very little latitude (in degrees) for an upright and motionless position. Someone who has flexible calves and knees, could and should be able to get their Tibia and Fibula tilted slightly backwards, canting the c-o-g line, but only as far as the ankle (to which those bones are held). After that, straight down 'cos that's how gravity works. I struggled to find pictures of women standing still in a high heel, to illustrate the relationship, and had to resort to using my own library of images in the end. But the ankle has to be between the ball of the foot and the rear position of a heel tip, or the wearer just falls over. The higher the heel, the closer the ankle position comes to being over the ball of the foot. When a heel is so high it is actually over the ball', if canting the Tib+Fib isn't done, better have your arms outstretched or you're going to need your nose fixed when it hits the ground. I think heavier people who might have more forward bulk, have to rely on that canting, or have to keep their knees bent to maintain the c-o-g position over their ankles. I see this knee bending often, when people are wearing ballet heels for example. Please excuse the apparent jocular tone of my post. It was a short night.

It took me an age to find the relevant post on HHp. Right...... Regarding Sky-Scrapers, please read ALL of this >> clicky << Written almost 3 years ago, so things have changed a little. Now looks like Burlesque Blue has moved away from London too, at least the sales point has. Shame, as Southgate wasn't that far away, in fact it's closer than Islington. (And what was LSB many years ago.) I'm wondering who is actually making the shoes. The fellas I saw 30+ years ago were not young men then? "1969" .... Like the two (or more) who owned LSB, I think this might be one half of a broken partnership. A few years ago, I bought some boots from a reputable shoe/boot company in Italy. I knew them as "Renzi". Like some of those currently being sold on the '1969' label, these were a "buy a pair and we will ship the size you want" purchase. Their sales M.O. was to have the fixed price shoes and boots in the £300/£600 price range respectively, but to auction each type with starting money of (say) 99p. Of course these boots seldom went through the auction at less than £100, but they did sell at well below the fixed price boots on offer. I can't remember exactly what I paid, but with carriage it was a tad over £100. It all went through smoothly, with me even having a telephone conversation with a very helpful Italian lady. We agreed that since Italian sizing usually came up small, I should order an EU42. Sadly on my feet, they fitted more like an EU43. See back up the thread >> here <<. Plus, they were too high to wear anywhere but a bedroom. (And I don't wear my heels in the house at all.) And of course, they flapped around my skinny legs. As they are hand-made, I suppose I could have ordered a pair that were a bit more fitted, but I still wouldn't have been able to walk in them! I did think about just swapping them for a smaller size that might fit, but it seemed pointless as I couldn't wear them out. They were sold on. The buyer was pleased with them, especially as they had red soles. At the time there were two similar Italian made/sold companies, but with distinctly different styles. At the time, the heel shape of the other brand; "1969" wasn't as attractive as the Renzi heel. I don't remember them doing any low start auctions, but they may have. The Renzi's stopped being auctioned off, and for the most part (that I know of) their sales went to fixed priced only, at the prices I have indicated above. They changed their heel shape too, which to me, looked very unattractive. The heel is long and thin, making the wearers heel look bulbous. As discussed elsewhere, the purpose of the thinner heel maybe to give the illusion of a higher heel? It might work, but it dramatically changes the flow of the line apparent in silhouette. More wearable too, but not a style for me. At the time (3 years ago) the 1969 brand was of no interest, because of price and style. Having looked at both, I thought they shared the same address. They don't, but it's close. Same town, putting forward the idea of a broken partnership? Had it not been for reading the info about their courts and pricing on HHp, I wouldn't be aware of the style and price changes at 1969. So thanks for that. It looks like some of the new business expansion ideas toward 'glamour' clothing I used to see at "Renzi", has been included into the 1969 range. It also looks like 1969 brand is now using what was the redundant Renzi M.O. for achieving sales using the low start auction prices. Who knows? Certainly must be the case with these two businesses, that some sharing must be going on, even if it's only at staff level. But it's an easy (if wrong) conclusion, that these two outfits started life as a partnership - assuming they aren't still? I notice on the main auction site, the same UK business often has two or three trading names, with the same or close to, business address. In my mind, it's a way on convincing the buyer they are making a choice of supplier, when in fact there isn't one. Not that the two Italian makers seem to share exactly the same styles. I shall have to give both makers a good look, to see if there's anything there I might want. At money I can afford. P.S. After sourcing information for the post, and I thought completing it, I find there is a THIRD seller of high heels in the same town! This can't be a coincidence surely? The first and third company's must be almost neighbours? And the third company sells boots in the original Renzi style, but in colours other than black. More "innovation", from a son or daughter perhaps? Photo styles, background etc etc - all the same. Hard not to draw a conclusion they are a related business. Regarding the centre of gravity comment, it has me a little lost. The centring of gravity involves the Tibia and Fibula lining up with the ankle, and in a heel, will likely pass just behind the ball of the foot. The higher the heel, the closer to the ball this might occur. If the heel was at the centre of gravity, it would be all too easy to topple backwards surely? Though the further inboard (forward) the heel tip is, the shorter the "footprint", the easier a rolling motion for the foot and ankle while walking? This is likely important because unlike our natural flat-footed state, a heeled foot can't achieve the same rolling motion as it's effectively locked in the rear position. (Shape your foot would be in as it trailed you after the other leg made a forward stride.) This is entirely in keeping with a heel mechanically limiting rotation of the ankle and toe joints, that are usually used in walking 'naturally'. Of course if the heel tip was moved too far forward to support a centre of gravity position, as indicated in the last picture, the wearer would likely fall backwards - as has also been mentioned by Puffer.

Quite right you should remove any ambiguity. Though it never hurts to keep people on their toes ..... Doubtless the preference would be .... ourselves?

This will be somewhat out of sequence to the rest of the thread, but I thought it worthy to include it immediately ... 2016 Golden Globe Awards. Full details, more pictures >> here << And related (by one commenter of the DM article - be sure to read these...) While those heels don't look high to me, this Presidential Candidate has been universally pilloried for wearing a "stacked heel". Link to full article >> here << which itself has some useful/interesting links.

There is a disfavourable, and somewhat cynical remark made by men on behalf of women that runs ..... "You don't need to put out the bait, when you've caught a fish..." Mrs Freddy has always liked a heel, even before we ventured into our current relationship. Initially I bought her newer heels, but financial independence has meant I'm less able to influence her style choice (which is by no means anti-high heel). Given the length of our relationship, (I'm told 20 years) it should surprise no-one that she is less happy to wear an uncomfortable shoe than she was either 20 years ago or 40 years ago. For most women a comfortable high heel would seem to be a contradiction, which I suppose I can grudgingly understand. My 45 years of personal research suggests, foot sensitivity (or the reluctance to suffer for fashion or sexual attraction) increases directly proportional to the ageing process. Wearing a high heel, is a bit like owning naturally blonde hair. It would seem only young women can own what we all understand as naturally blonde hair, which why -in principle- "blondes" were deemed to be more attractive than brunettes. (It says here.) In liking blonde, we are liking youth(fulness). I suggest the same can be said of a high heel. Younger people can and will tolerate a high heel, where older women can't or won't. The two women I've mention with the crippled feet, would both love to wear a heel again. So unless an older women has exceptionally numb feet (care of botox possibly) older women and a high heel don't often mix. Is it then like 'blondes', we like a high heel because of the inference of youthfulness? I think not to (life long) enthusiasts like us, but others? So Mrs Freddy will still wear a heel provided two criteria are met: (i) Her shoes don't hurt - at least when she puts them on. (ii) We are not walking far. So no heels when we go out on one of my 'shopping' trips. I remember with some pleasure, a warm evening some 6 or 7 years ago, when we both wore a heel to a local venue. Our clip~clopping heels were in time with each other, so no-one noticed the second pair of heels worn by me. Bliss. Which happens to be my shoe size .....

Similar but not same: Faith Gina courts. These were worn during the evening regularly, some 25 years ago by my current walking companion, when her feet could easily tolerate a high heel. (These days, bunions prevent any slim shoe being worn, and if the bunions didn't prevent them being worn - two duff hips would prevent walking in them anyway.) This pair is still owned by her... There are pictures of these being worn by her, with the model also wearing a very short skirt to further enhance the length of her legs. Even without a heel, I think she was an inch taller than me. That sort of outfit wasn't that unusual back then, but her legs got noticed everywhere we went. I remember people we worked with being shocked at her evening wear. She worked in a finance department, and was better known for her more conservative dress style. Sadly, "prudence" once again compels me to keep the images away from the site, since there are no longer any viewing restrictions. They were great times.

One of my few qualifiers for a 'regular' girlfriend in my past would be their interest in a heel, or their enthusiasm to please me by wearing one. I have never made any secret of my interest, nor my interest in the wearer of stockings. In fact I would even suggest to my female companion of the moment, that wearing these two, almost guaranteed my undivided attention whenever they wanted it. Up until around 10 years ago, it was a very successful arrangement. Your post reminded me of a girlfriend too, but from some 35-40 years ago. Not a wholly pretty girl, but slim and moderately attractive nonetheless. I was young, and had my head cemented inside my arse at the time, I'm now ashamed to confess .... She was keen to please, and she did a pretty good job. At the time, I hadn't realised how good - but isn't this so often the case? She smoked the occasional cigarette, and at the time it excluded her from being marriage material, as I was virulently anti-smoking back then. (Due to 20 years suffering my parents love of smoking.) Ironically, I married what people often refer to as a social smoker, (though now in her 14th year of abstinence). The girl I have in mind, once surprised me by meeting me wearing a pair of Covergirl 6" heels - in black patent. The evening ended in the way you might expect ... Why I didn't ask her to marry me that night, I can't explain, except to reiterate where my head was buried at the time. The last I heard. she was in a marriage she didn't much like. And consequently smoked a little more than she used to. I do sometimes wonder what might have been? Though given my penchant for a roving eye back then, (I refer again to my head location), I'm sure things would not have lasted anyway. On balance, I probably settled with the right person at the right time in my life. Doesn't stop me reminiscing about my (hard to now comprehend) somewhat wilder past. I'd say we are both lucky to have had the experiences we had, when we had them. Long may we enjoy those memories.

A 'standard letter' tells us everything. Why is there a 'standard letter'? While I might not be considered an 'expert' in customer service, I've spent at least 10 years (and possibly longer) dealing directly with people who have either spent money with me, or with the people employing me. I have experienced one or two impossible to resolve situations, but mostly making a customer happy hasn't led to anyone having to sell their soul either. Losing a bad reputation, is a lot harder than keeping a good one, so I would say it's best to resolve than ignore. A 'standard letter' suggests, BA prefers "ignore". Even if it were a lie (and it shouldn't be) the response should have been; "We have investigated your comments and have decided the employee described would benefit from further training, and this has been arranged for them. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, we are grateful for the feedback. When next in a BA facility, please use the enclosed voucher to enjoy lunch or a drink/snack by way of a thank you, on us. We aim to ensure you enjoy being a BA customer. Best regards ..... " With ticket prices ranging from hundreds to thousands of pounds, a £15/£20 voucher, and an individually composed letter would have resolved at least two things (though it should resolve three.) Their good name stays good. A customer who experienced poor service, has had their problem addressed. (Though I realise you can't undo a bad experience.) The third issue of course is the errant steward, who is possibly costing BA more in lost sales, than he is getting paid? And it's not like good air stewards are hard to find either. For my part, 'good service' in recent years mostly centred around faulty goods (as manufactured) being received by my customers. As time went on, I developed better techniques for testing equipment before it was shipped. No-one else in the industry tested equipment at all, so I got to be a little ahead of the game. I also shipped very quickly. Even now, my auction site feedback is littered with "fast" and "well packed" comments. In a previous existence where there was a more 'service' aspect, I managed to change the spec of supplied equipment from £300 down to £30, and (through loaning electronic test equipment) managed to completely remove the Achilles heel of a software driven bit of telecoms kit. So reliable was the finished product, I was recently asked to resolve an issue with a company almost 14 years after I had first installed it, with no interim maintenance involved. Perhaps I should mention my involvement with the system ended some 8/9 years ago. Some of the reason I left it, was continually getting into an arguments about call-out fees to remedy customer FUBAR's. One memorable one, was while at the customers retail site on Boxing Day.... This after being assured I would get paid whatever the outcome of my visit. (Their electrical supply - which had not been protected by spike prevention devices - had cooked the system transformer, so it wasn't fixable on the day.) I was taken for a walk around BA HQ circa 1999, while it was empty. (A friend ran the maintenance team.) Lovely place .... They probably think that while the money is coming in, why worry about customer satisfaction?