The letter of Mr. S. M. Razeek of Nawalapitiya, "Lethargy at Nawalapitiya SLT" published in the Sunday Observer of September 05, in the Readers’ Forum, no doubt would have awaken the sympathy of the readers. Let us assume that SLT will take note of it. In fact there are several genuine customers of the Sri Lanka Telecom who have been subjected to injustices as a result of objectionable and improper action of the SLT. In fact I am also one of them. I had taken the trouble to meet several officers of the regional and main offices of the SLT with the hope of settling my issue, but of no use. I observed that to most of the officers the Recovery Division’s action was an open question. As I have seen the efficiency of companies in Japan, it is very surprising SLT, a Japanese managed company is failing to provide satisfactory service to its customers.

I am living with my family in a rented annex in Dehiwela. In 1999, I applied to the SLT Ratmalana branch and obtained a telephone in my name for my family and my use. Up-to August 18, 2004, I used the telephone without any form of interruption from the SLT. I settled all my telephone bills submitted by the SLT right up-to that time before the prompt dates. On the evening of 18th August, my telephone was put out of service, because the house including my annex was blacklisted by the SLT, as my landlord had not paid the telephone bills. This was done by the DGM recoveries. It appears that the landlord’s nonpayment of telephone bills issue had taken place some years ago. Now only the SLT has waken up from its slumber and is harassing the wrong person. The correct thing for the SLT in this issue, I think, would be to deal with the landlord directly. If the SLT respects the customer, it should write to the customer clarifying the issue before jumping into action. Further, I could not understand how a tenant was made responsible for the landlord’s personal telephone bills.

I am writing this letter, specially, for the information of those living in rented houses using SLT telephones or intending to instal SLT telephones. The information provided in the SLT Telephone Directory does not mention anything about blacklisting houses. Can there be a rule, or a law in this country making the tenant responsible for the landlord’s debts? The house of the landlord is an immovable property, he will not disown his house and run away, if at all the SLT wants to recover the dues from him it can file legal action against the defaulting landlord.

I would gratefully appreciate, if knowledgeable people in this matter would enlighten the customers on this issue.