IN response to statements made by council representatives in your article 'Friends' anger over dead man's property' (November 14), I would like to ask City of York Council the following questions.

If the council or its authorised agents were not responsible for the ransacking of Mr Wakefield's property, why are the police not treating the removal of valuable items such as a television, video recorder and furniture as a burglary?

Why cannot the council account for the whereabouts of the above items or the disappearance of upwards of 20 high quality suits?

If, as the council says, Mr Wakefield's possessions are in storage, why then has it not returned a mahogany standard lamp, which he was keeping for a friend, to its rightful owner?

When a friend of Mr Wakefield's contacted the council on October 17 to ask what would happen to his possessions, he was told they would be put in storage. Why then did the housing department inform him two days later that most of Mr Wakefield's effects had been 'skipped' or otherwise disposed of?

If, as the council says, it is obliged to clear properties "as soon as possible", why did it wait for ten days after being made aware of Mr Wakefield's death before issuing instructions to its cleaning contractors?

What steps have the council taken to trace Mr Wakefield's next of kin?

James Lambie,

The Tofts, Huttons Ambo, York.

Updated: 10:09 Tuesday, November 20, 2001