Jim Tregaskis, of Higher Island, Blackawton, writes:

I read with interest Peter Conisbee’s letter, Chronicle, September 18, in which he claimed that my letter to the ­secretary of state contained ­inaccuracies, in particular about the number of court summons issued.

I can only go by the names and figures quoted in this newspaper. As for the cost of issuing hundreds of reminder letters and court summonses – which he claims to be very small, but experience tells me may be considerable, with postage alone amounting to hundreds of pounds – can I refer him to the operating agreement between the Business Improvement District and South Hams Council, ­section 6.4, which says: ‘The Council shall not be entitled to recover Enforcement Expenses from the BID Company’. From which one can only assume the costs are covered by the council and in turn by the ratepayers.

Perhaps Peter Conisbee would like to share with the levy-payers and local ratepayers exactly what the ­situation is – after all is said and done, we are the ones who are paying, not the BID company.

As for inaccuracies, perhaps readers would like to go on the BID website, such as it is, from which I quote: ‘The Bid was brought into being following a year-long process, which culminated in a ballot of Dartmouth businesses in November 2013. The vote saw the BID attract 63 per cent of the businesses voting in favour.’

No Mr Conisbee, of the 740 businesses in Dartmouth, only 16 per cent voted in favour. At the AGM earlier this year levy-payers were promised better communications and I voted for one of the new directors who promised that she would make it her priority. Why is it not happening?