A PENSIONER embroiled in a four-year legal battle over repair works to his flat has claimed the council has “ruined his life”.

Albert Drew, 81, who lives in a flat above shops in the Broadway, Loughton, had persistently refused to pay for works done to his balcony in 2005 claiming they were bad value for money.

He said a new railing erected on his balcony was attached the wrong side of a wall robbing him of precious space, and the wall itself was crumbling and in need of repair.

Epping Forest District Council took Mr Drew to the county court to force him to pay up, and a resulting tribunal has now finally been completed- after four years and 180 pages of correspondence.

Mr Drew said: “The original railing was getting on. It was 50 years old. When they replaced it we were quite happy but they bolted it to a crumbling wall. I looked at it and couldn't believe how bad it was.

“All I wanted was a reasonable job done for the £3,000 they were asking. It was done so badly by the contractors with no council person here to supervise.”

After complaining to the council Mr Drew became caught up in a mire of correspondence dealing with at least ten different officers concerned with his case.

He said: “We were having things thrown at us from ever level of management saying there's nothing to complain about. We've been through the mill over this.”

At the tribunal chairman Geraint Jones criticised the council's “frustrating” complaints system but eventually concluded that Mr Drew must pay up.

He did, however, state the they should be entitled to £862 Compensation after workmen damaged Mr Drew's fence through “negligence” when moving his shed to attach the railings.

Despite the council disputing Mr Drew's claim that the wall was in a poor condition and needed to be fixed in 2005, it agreed by 2008 that extra remedial works needed doing.

The estimated costs for the new works, by a separate contractor, are £2,690 + VAT.

Mr Drew said: “We are elderly people here. All we want is value for our money. The wall still needs doing and these council people have now said it needs doing and they'll need another contractor in so we'll have to pay again. I said: 'don't come up here you're just ruining our lives as it is'.”

A spokesman for the district council said: “Mr Drew's flat is one of a number in the block. Some years ago we carried out work to other properties in the block, costs of which are apportioned to all the occupiers - normal leasehold practice.

“At that time work was not necessary to his property. The only work we carried out on his property was to move his shed in order to reach the boundary walls where the railing and brickwork needed attention. We damaged his shed in the process and the tribunal awarded some costs.”