I agree with the levels of discontent expressed here.
The absence of any coherent response from Southern is of concern, especially in light of the e-mail response to "Forester" in which a conflicting claim to the reason for the closure was expressed by Southern.
It is less than re-assuring to hear a statement in the same response that "Safety requirements will have been adhered to and emergency procedures followed if necessary." when the writer cannot even establish consistency in the reasons for closure and thereby devalues her claims to good safety management.
How much more ambivalence can be espoused by Southern.
Their stated reasons for closure are inaccurately and ambiguously expressed. It negates any assurance offered by Southern that safety requirements have been properly assessed and adhered to.
It demonstrates that that there is is limited understanding on their part of their duty of care.
And another thing - the best piece of maintenance work that could have been carried out would have been to clean up the stairway and provide appropriate levels of lighting - and that did not hapen.