Deeper Research Into Thomas Paine In Upper Marylebone Street Confirms The “154 New Cavendish Street” Theory

Now 154 New Cavendish Street – formerly 7 Upper Marylebone Street

Thomas Paine really did stay and write at The Rickman’s house between 1791 and 1792. That house is now 154 New Cavendish Street. Following the Thomas Paine Historical Association & English Heritage’s rigorous examination of my previously posted theory, my further research has proved the theory beyond doubt. Here is the story of that further research.

Readers might remember my open letter to the Thomas Paine Historical Association and English Heritage in July 2025:

Thomas Paine Lived & Wrote At 154 New Cavendish Street: Evidenced

In late January 2026, Adrian F Tawfik from the Thomas Paine Historical Association (TPHA) placed a comment on the above piece, suggesting that we liaise over this matter. We exchanged correspondence and had an interesting, collegiate-style Zoom.

The upshot was, the TPHA was willing – keen even – to support my bid for an English Heritage Blue Plaque, as long as we could uncover enough evidence to prove my theory categorically. The notion that “the Horwood Plan must contain an error” seemed insufficient to the TPHA without more evidence.

Through my miniscule network of archivists (I’m not a seasoned historian), I was put in touch with the Howard de Walden Estate archive, where I found a warm welcome, plus a cornucopia of interesting documentary evidence from the late 18th century.

Not least, plans drawn up by John White, c1800, for The Portland Estate (subsequently Howard de Walden Estate) as the basis of lease books. The numbering in these “John White Plans” accords with the numbering from the early 20th century (when my family lived at No 4 – the house shaded red and white), including the period in the 1930s when Upper Marylebone Street was absorbed into New Cavendish Street.

Recorded in the archive as 1800 to 1820

Recorded in the archive as 1800-1850

Richard Horwood’s Plan 1790s – the numbering is “other”

Thomas Clio Rickman’s Publications All Show The Address As “7 Upper Marylebone Street” Or Simply “Upper Marylebone Street”…But…

The mystery started to unravel when I decided to search the British Newspapers Archive for Thomas Clio Rickman’s name and did not restrict the date range to the late 18th century.

I found an article in the Worthing Herald of 26 October 1926, which republished an historical extract from the paper June/July 1791, including:

A Poet’s Advertisement (July 4th 1791), THOMAS CLIO RICKMAN

Takes this method, respectfully to inform his numerous friends, acquaintances and the public that he has entered into business, and to hand them his card…

….No. 4, Upper Marylebone-Street, London, Thomas Clio Rickman, Bookseller and Stationer…

Not No. 7 – No. 4.

Something twigged in my distant memory. I’d seen reference to Clio at No. 4 before. My slightly lazy gene kicked in and I asked Claude (other AI agents are available) to seek out other references to Thomas Clio Rickman at No. 4 Upper Marylebone Street.

ME: Can you find any additional references to Thomas Clio Rickman living at No 4 Upper Marylebone Street for me to delve – I have only found one.

CLAUDE: I have to be candid with you: the online sources are not yielding any additional references to Rickman at No. 4. The searches keep returning the same body of material, and the No. 4 reference appears only in the Barb Jacobson Fitzrovia News article — which is, of course, precisely your problem, since she uses it to argue the wrong conclusion. Your 4 July 1791 advertisement appears to be a genuinely rare primary source with very little online echo.

This was a eureka moment for me. Of course Barb Jacobson’s 2010 article mentions No. 4 Upper Marylebone Street- it was precisely because I was searching for information about No. 4, the house in which my father was born – that I found Barb’s article and started on this Thomas Paine journey of my own. To quote from that Barb Jacobson article:

The mis-identification of 154 New Cavendish may have come about because there is one letter from Rickman published in Joshua Reynold’s correspondence which gives his address as No. 4 Upper Marylebone St, the present 154, one of the three original Georgian terrace houses left. This is, however, the only document among dozens of others which gives Rickman’s address as No 7.

I needed to delve into that Joshua Reynolds reference. A bit of searching and I find the relevant book on the Internet Archive – here’s a link to the reference:

  • From Thomas Rickman
  • No. 4 Upper Marylebone Street
  • July 19 – 1791

Bingo! Both of the No 4 Upper Marylebone Street references were in July 1791. All subsequent written references to the exact address (October 1792 being the earliest) say No 7.

I took a deeper look at the history of the Horwood Plan. Matthew Sangster’s fascinating article about it is linked here and below:

Introducing Horwood’s Plan (1792-99)

In short, for our purposes, the first page of the Horwood Plan was mapped between October 1790, when Horwood published his prospectus-type small sample – the area around Leicester Square – and June 1792 when he published the first full page of the plan. Part of Upper Marylebone Street is at the very top right hand corner of that first page. Horwood must have done the mapping (including the house numbering) of Upper Marylebone Street during that period.

Not a mistake then, just a diligent record of the state of affairs at a particular date in the very early 1790s. The three un-numbered units on the north-east corner of that street were presumably still under construction. Renumbering will have occurred in the aftermath of that completion.

A visit to the Westminster Archive to examine the rates books for the Parish of St Marylebone confirmed my theory. To summarise:

  • 1788 – Upper Marylebone Street is not listed;
  • 1789 – Upper Marylebone Street is listed but no-one with a Rickman connection is shown;
  • 1790 – No 4. Upper Marylebone Street’s rates are attributed to Sarah Wall, Jane Greetham Rickman (née Wall)’s mother. The first five listed for that street are as follows: No. 1 – John Higgs, No. 2 – Samuel Harper, No. 3- Joseph Kendrick, No. 4 – Sarah Wall, No. 5 – Joanna Boyle…
  • 1792 – Upper Marylebone Street appears on a surcharge page with the following entries: 1- Benjamin Williams, 2 – Joseph Moby, 3 – John Crooks, 56 – John Higgs
  • 1793 & 1794 – Upper Marylebone Street listings show the first three entries with blobs rather than numbers. here is the 1794 extract: * – William Goundry, * – Joseph Mobey, * – John Crooks, No. 1- John Edwards, No. 2 – Thomas Higgs, No. 3 – Joseph Kendrick, No. 4 – Sarah Wall, No. 5 – Joanna Boyle…
  • 1795 – Upper Marylebone Street listings settle into the house numbering system that prevailed until the 1937 change to New Cavendish Street: No. 1 – J. Hickery, No. 2 – John Wingh, No. 3 – John Crooks, No. 4 – John Edwards, No. 5 – Thomas Higgs, No. 6 – Joseph Kendrick, No. 7 – Sarah Wall, No. 8 – Joanna Boyle…
  • 1800, similarly: No. 3 – John Crooks, No. 4 – Richard Quash, No. 5 – Thomas Higgs, No. 6 – Joseph Kendrick, No. 7 – Sarah Wall, No. 8 – Joanna Boyle…

Just in case the reader is baffled by the Sarah Wall connection, here is a link to the Family Search record for Jane – Thomas Clio Rickman’s second wife, who died in 1811. One charming factoid about the Rickman children is that Clio and Jane named each of their children after a well-known radical, revolutionary or anti-slavery campaigner, apart from one later child whom they simply named Thomas:

  • Maria Jane Paine Rickman, b 1791
  • Clio Alfred Washington Rickman, b 1793
  • Eloisa Franklin Rickman, b 1794
  • Rousseau Loft Rickman, b 1796
  • Volney Rickman, b 1797
  • Petrarch Rickman, b 1799
  • Thomas Rickman, b 1801
  • Stanhope Rickman, b 1803
  • Eloisa Rickman, b 1807.

The senior historian at English Heritage has been delightfully challenging yet open-minded to all of this. Fascinatingly, the original application for a Blue Plaque, in 1983, was not rejected because of the confusing changes to house numbering in that street, but because the applicant couldn’t provide evidence that Thomas Paine had stayed and written in Upper Marylebone Street at all, nor even that Thomas Clio Rickman had lived there, as they seemed unable to connect the name Wall in the rate books with the Rickman family. On-line genealogy websites had not been invented in 1983.

The Thomas Paine Historical Association had a plethora of references to Thomas Clio Rickman and Thomas Paine at No. 7 Upper Marylebone Street and I was able to add to those. In addition to several mentions in contemporaneous biographies to the fact that Thomas Paine had stayed at that house, one delicious piece of evidence, very much in the public domain, is the self-indicting testimony that Thomas and Jane gave in the famous Old Bailey High Treason Trials of 1794, while Thomas Hardy was in the dock for the first of the trials.

Here is an extract from Jackson’s Oxford Journal of 1 November 1794, reporting on the events of Thursday 30 October:

Old Bailey High Treason 30 October 1794 Old Bailey High Treason 30 October 1794 1 Nov 1794 Jackson’s Oxford Journal (Oxford, Oxfordshire, England) Newspapers.com

Both Clio and Jane must have been incredibly brave to give this testimony, although under English law, with no Bill of Rights / Fifth Amendment type protection, silence would have been even more self-incriminating. As we now know, Thomas Erskine‘s smart defence prevailed.

So there you have it – sufficiently evidenced. The house that was briefly No. 4 but soon became No 7. Upper Marylebone Street for nearly 150 years, before becoming 154 New Cavendish Street today, is the very house where:

THOMAS PAINE 1737–1809 Political writer and radical wrote Rights of Man in 1791–92 while lodging with his friends THOMAS ‘CLIO’ RICKMAN 1761–1834 and JANE GREETHAM RICKMAN NÉE WALL 1764-1811, booksellers, publishers, and reformers, who lived there from 1791 and c.1790 respectively, and both died in that house.

That was not easy. I could do with a coffee.

Aha!

Cracked Coffee – 154 Upper Marylebone Street

Miscellaneous Late Spring Cricket (And Lack Therof) At Lord’s, Late May to Early June 2026

That looks more like football than cricket to my tired eyes

Middlesex Double Feature: Men v Surrey & Women v Leicestershire, Sunday 24 May 2026

The end of the men’s game

Janie and I were not going to let a double header of county T20 cricket interrupt our regular schedule of playing tennis (modern) on a Sunday morning, before washing and smartening ourselves up a bit and heading to Lord’s.

The men’s game was scheduled ahead of the women’s game. We figured that seating in the pavilion was not going to be a problem for late arrivals. We were right.

While sprucing, I caught the end of the Middlesex innings of the men’s game and adjudged Middlesex to be many runs short of a competitive target. Indeed I, of little faith, told Janie that I thought we might not make it in time to see the end of the men’s match.

Actually, when we arrived, Middlesex were flattering to deceive…or providing a faint glimmer of misplaced hope…before succumbing to the inevitable before our eyes quite soon after we arrived.

There was a seemingly unnecessary long interval between the men’s match and the women’s match – almost encouraging those less devoted to women’s cricket to depart before seeing the second match.

Janie and I chatted at length with my tennis friend Barry Nathan and his good lady. Barry informed us that the men’s and women’s matches had been switched, timewise, because the TV company couldn’t imagine anyone watching the men’s cricket match at the same time as football play-offs were taking place on other sports channels. It’s all about TV sports scheduling these days – who knew?

It was a blisteringly hot afternoon, but the pavilion forecourt offered shady respite from the worst excesses of the relentless May heatwave sun. Barry recommended the view from the new Allen Stand – what there is of it at this stage – but not the very top, uncovered section, obviously.

I resolved to avoid jokes with phrases such as “Foxy ladies” (for the Leicestershire Foxes Women) or “hot totty” to describe a women’s match on the hottest May day since records began.

Janie and I gave that a try, until we realised that the middle tier, shady though it was, and excellent view though it provided, effectively had a radiator above it, in the form of the depopulated uncovered top section.

We retreated back to the pavilion, but not before I was accosted by a young man whose face looked vaguely familiar. He greeted me like an old friend and told his mate in slightly inebriated terms that he’d met me in the locker room and that I was an expert on tennis and cricket history. I waxed briefly about 1875 And All That, in the style of a minor celebrity who feels that he has to perform in his show-biz demeanour, while bemoaning the fact that my history expertise was not doing a great job of remembering this young man, nor whether he was tennis, squash or in the locker room for some other reason. I guessed tennis and probably showed the requisite amount of remembering to get a bare pass at recent history.

The “meeja” action unfolded right before our eyes

…as did the “mill around until the other team bats” action

We left a few overs in to the Leicestershire innings and caught the end of that match on the stream when we got home. Much like the men’s match, Middlesex flattered to deceive for a while but came second in the end.

Tournament-wise, the men’s team are doing their normal thing of barely winning a game, whereas the Middlesex women (albeit Division Two) have only lost the one game out of five so far as I write – it just happened to be the one that we attended.

Still, an enjoyable, albeit swealtering, afternoon at Lord’s.

England v New Zealand Test Match: 4 to 7 June 2026

Day Four With Daisy

I attended days one, two & four of this match. Good pick – day three was a near washout.

Days one and two I attended alone, having arranged to play some tennis as well as watch cricket on both days.

I try to book slots on the test match days that do not coincide with the intervals in play. This is not to avoid watching cricket, but more to try leaving the pre-match, lunchtime and post-match slots to players whose tennis performances have more “showtime” potential than the tennis I play.

Unfortunately, as the weather had turned shoddy for this test match, our lowly 12:00 fixture on day one coincided imperfectly with a rain interval. The viewing gallery filled up with people. Hecklers from our own real tennis cohort in the inner part of the dedans gallery. Bemused patrons in the dedans gallery bar, who had come to Lord’s in search of international standard elite sport, yet were, instead, faced with four keen but aging gents “having a go” as best we could. Hopefully, come the third or fourth glass of fizz, visitors could barely tell the difference between international cricket and amateur tennis.

This 1 min carefully selected sample from the MCC Club Weekend tournament at Lord’s in January 2026

I played again at 5:00pm, a slightly more high falutin’ game than the 12:00 bout, mercifully without a crowd for the tennis, as New Zealand were starting their innings. I played rather well, and was delighted to hear several huge cheers from the crowd beyond, as I landed a few rare winners during a good 10 minute period. I was a little deflated to learn later that the authorities weren’t showing my winners on the big screens – it was Ollie Robinson taking three wickets in an over on the cricket pitch.

The bit of cricket I saw on day one I mostly watched from the pavilion.

I got to see far more of the cricket on day two, after playing tennis at 11:00. The weather was better and I took up one of my more regular positions near Old Father Time at the despised end of the Tavern Stand. It is the least crowded members and friends area and therefore the easiest place for nomadic members, like me, who like to wander a bit more than most. After tea, I took to the pavilion sundeck, which was pretty crowded but a good place to just mingle and watch on a bit, before sitting again in the Tavern Stand for a chunk of the last hour.

Day four was supposed to be a day at Lord’s with Janie, but we knew before the start of play that it would probably only be an hour or two. Janie is always happy with that. In any case we take a modest picnic if it is just the two of us and Janie is always happy to get a chunk of such a day back, having taken in the Lord’s atmosphere and enjoyed some action. Seeing the end of a match has a certain form of satisfaction to it, which some MCC afficionados consider to be quite unneccessary; perhaps even a bit common.

Sporting my pillbox

I had received plenty of positive feedback throughout the match on my new choice of headgear – the pillbox cap rather than the peaked cap. Pillbox caps were all the rage until peaked caps became fashionable for sports from the last quarter of the 19th century.

Robert Allan Fitzgerald sporting an MCC pillbox cap. Drawing not all totally to scale.

I have now ordered another pillbox cap that looks even more like MCC colours. I’m going to start lobbying the MCC shop to start producing and selling proper MCC ones. The pillbox cap feels like a fashion whose time should come once again.

Anyway, Janie and I saw more than 90 minutes of cricket and I got half of Janie’s ticket money back!

Not a classic test match but still, as pretty much always, enjoyable times at Lord’s.

Some Sort Of MCC Cricket Day At Lord’s With Michael Mainelli, 11 June 2026

Michael has visited Lord’s with me many times, for both domestic and international cricket. Apart from the odd rain delay, we have never previously experienced a washout.

But this day was well and truly a washout and was destined to be so for several days in the build up.

Never mind. There are worse places to be than Lord’s. I showed Michael the library where I am doing a lot of my research, then we watched the last set-and-a-half of a good in-house tournament tennis match, which went down to the wire. Then we retired to the Long Room Bar / Old Library for luncheon after taking a stroll around in what, by now, was just persistent drizzle, which prevented mopping up after the torrential rain of the mid-to-late morning, ensuring no cricket play at all that day.

Michael presented me with a fridge magnet, in honour of Ogblog, emblazoned thus:

Whatever can Michael mean? You can absolutely rely on me to report matters faithfully from my point of view on Ogblog.

After Michael departed, I spent a couple of hours at Tennis Committee and then a further couple of hours at a town hall meeting in Pelhams Restaurant to discuss gender diversity in the MCC.

I even went back the next morning for another very enjoyable game of tennis.

I do now have my own locker at Lord’s – perhaps I should consider keeping a sleeping bag there as well.

It’s A Funny New Game by Mark Keegan & John Random, Canal Café Theatre, 10 June 2026

John Random IS VAR (Victorian Animated Referee)

Football is not really my thing, but friendship that spans decades is. I used to write Newsrevue material with these fellas., back in the day…

Happy Tories, NewsRevue Lyric, 26 April 1992

The above is a very relevant early example of my “work”, not least because Victoria (whose father I was spoofing in that lyric) directed and appeared in It’s A Funny New Game.

Anyway, I took the very slight detour from my regular routes twixt W2 and NW8 to revisit the Canal Café Theatre and see friends Mark Keegan and John Random in their football-oriented comedy show, It’s A Funny New Game.

The show is timed to coincide with the advent of a football world cup and much of the comedy is thus topical. What else would you expect from former Newsrevue stalwarts?

It was lovely to meet up with some of the old Newsrevue crowd the night I attended: Barry Grossman, Graham Robertson and even a special guest appearance from Harriet Quirk, which was a lovely surprise.

The show is bound to be funnier to people who understand the football jokes than it was to me. But some of the humour is universal, as are the characters. Egotist Barry Mousetrap – a theatrical football manager who struggles to separate compering a show with managing a football team. The god-fearing, temperance-touting Victorian referee played by John Random, who also excelled as a 120-year-old Uruguayan retired footballer, who recalls being chased by adoring female fans in the style of Pete & Dud: “Calm down girls, back off, form a orderly queue”…or words to that effect.

I enjoyed the video fillers that enabled some costume changes and provided some relief from the on-stage mayhem. The Sense & Sensibility spoof particularly pleased me (I’m partial to a bit of Jane Austen) although the football puns in that one were all wasted on me as I couldn’t contextualise them.

I could contextualise the Mastermind sketch, in which the England goalkeeper takes “inadvertently naming each member of England 2026 World Cup squad” as his specialist subject. This worked so well because, even if you didn’t know the names that were yet to come, you sort-of know that some of the names are going to be quite difficult to dovetail into a simple question and answer. Bellingham made me laugh out loud.

It was a game of one half, this show, as the whole show lasts about the length of one half of a football match. I think that’s about the right length for such a show.

But if you were not sated by my write up or by seeing the show, there is a book, linked below, available through that link or through other reputable and disreputable outlets.

Well done lads. Top performances. Now it’s time for your ice bath.

Are You Watching? by Georgie Dettmer, Royal Court Theatre Upstairs, 30 May 2026

Shakespeare it isn’t. Google Flow picture morphing The Bard with Meself.

I was reminded of one of my favourite Peter Cook quotes, when seeing a preview of this one.

I go to the theatre to be entertained… I don’t want to see plays about rape, sodomy and drug addiction… I can get all that at home.

I also predicted with word perfect accuracy what Janie would say as soon as she felt able to express her opinion on the play:

Everything but the kitchen sink…

…and of course, kitchen sink drama should be what The Royal Court is all about.

I’m being a tad unfair, but only a tad. The core subject matter(s) of this play – sexploitation, sexual violence and the nether worlds where computer/AI fakery morph with human fakery – are hugely important topics in 2026 and worthy of coverage in drama.

The problem I have with a 65 minute long play, depicting 52 (that is not a misprint) different scenes, is that the drama is barely able to emerge through the fog of scene and personnel changes on stage.

It reminded me a bit of Martin Crimp‘s work – but unfortunately the Crimp that baffles us rather than the Crimp that does the business for us.

The actors did their best and several of them are among the best stage actors around at the moment; Lucy McCormick, Maimuna Memon and Nicholas Rowe stood out for me.

This relatively short run has sold out ahead of even opening, so my thoughts on the piece won’t be affecting readers go/no go decisions anyway. In any case, the formal reviews (which are starting to come out and which the search term if you click here will find) are surely less harsh than my and Janie’s judgements.

Georgie Dettmer clearly has a lot to say and is surely capable of saying the things she wants to say through playwriting. I would like to see how she gets on with chunkier scenes, trying to explore some of those dramatic depths.

I go to the theatre to be entertained… I don’t want to see plays that jump around a myriad of important topics at a rate of 50 matters per hour… I can get all that at home.

Equus by Peter Shaffer, Menier Chocolate Factory, 16 May 2026

A very kind invitation from Claudia Lesley, who had scored a clutch of excellent seats for this production early in the run and thought of us. It was a great opportunity for Janie to met up with her old school pals, Claudia and Anthea. Plus what looked to be a very promising production of Equus, a play that I had studied at school but, apart from the movie version, had never seen.

Janie and I are both partial to a bit of Shaffer too. I had read or seen (or both) most of his oeuvre. Actually one of Janie’s and my early dates was a Shaffer:

The Gift Of The Gorgon by Peter Shaffer, The Pit, 12 December 1992

Janie even (perhaps inadvertently) forgave Shaffer for his proclivity for theatrical dames who are not Janie’s favourites. Judy (e.g. Gift Of the Gorgon) and Maggie (in several Shaffers throughout my life, starting with The Public Eye and more recently Lettice and Lovage, which I saw back in the day).

Lettice And Lovage by Peter Shaffer, Globe Theatre, 30 January 1988

Lindsay Posner is a superb director who possibly wanted to continue the family (if not stage dame) tradition for Shaffer plays, by choosing Toby Stephens (Dame Maggie’s son) to play Martin Dysart, the psychiatrist. Great choice. Toby Stephens absolutely smashed it in that role.

Noah Valentine was excellent as the troubled boy. Indeed the whole cast was excellent.

Equus is a long play and the Menier has a bum-numbing seating, but somehow this didn’t seem to matter, as the production was so good, the time seemed to fly by without physical discomfort for us. For the actors, possibly more discomfort, as it was a very well-choreographed production that surely required great feats of strength and dexterity at times, especially from the ensemble “horses”.

This link should find on-line reviewed for this production until the end of the world, if not longer.

Before the show, Janie and I had a hair-raising drive across London with multiple demonstrations and road-blockages in place. I had strategically worked out a route, which worked well, but hadn’t counted on unscheduled (and unconnected) road closures nearer to the theatre blocking off my chosen parking places.

Still, we got to Borough Market on time for a pre-theatre supper of fish at Fish!, with Claudia and Anthea, which was a very pleasant way to start the evening. Not our usual way round for theatre (eating before rather than after) but the only sensible way to have done this one.

I’m Not Being Funny by Piers Black, Bush Studio, 14 May 2026

I suppose this piece “does what it says on the tin” by not being funny. For us, I’m afraid, this play, which we saw in preview, is not entertaining or enlightening either.

We’re huge fans of The Bush and are rarely disappointed when we visit either the main house or the studio, but this one missed the mark for us.

But it didn’t miss the mark for everyone – the reviews have been pretty good – click here for a link to them.

So maybe the problem with it is us, not them.

Which could easily be a line from this play…indeed it could be many lines from the 90 minutes of achingly mawkish conversation and attempts at comedic patter, as the tragedy-struck couple in this two-hander try to use performing stand-up comedy together in an open mic session as therapy.

We thought that both performers, Tia Bannon & Jerome Yates, dragged as much as could be dragged out of the script. For us, it was the conceit of the play and the predictable story that emerged through their attempts at making comedy out of tragedy, that didn’t work for us.

Here’s the trailer.

The run has been extended even prior to the show opening, so the idea of it has clearly sold well. Running until 13 June if you want to take other people’s word for it rather than ours.

A Follow Up Open Letter To Colm Holmes, Allianz UK CEO, Regarding Root Causes & Issues That Led To The Now Resolved Complaint In The Woodfield Avenue Subsidence Case

1980 in Woodfield Avenue; Back When I Thought Cases Were Just For Cassette Tapes

Dear Colm,

FOLLOW UP REGARDING ROOT CAUSES AND ISSUES THAT LED TO NOW RESOLVED COMPLAINT

RE: 3 WOODFIELD AVENUE, STREATHAM, LONDON SW16

You might recall my open letter of 6 April…

An Open Letter To Colm Holmes, Allianz UK CEO, Wondering Why, More Than Six Months After The Financial Ombudsman Ruled In My Favour In The Woodfield Avenue Subsidence Case (2019 To Present Day), I Am Still Fighting A Wall Of Silence, 6 April 2026

…in which I pointed out that, more than six months after a legally binding, final decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service, the matter was still being delayed and ignored by Allianz.  I can confirm that, within a few working days of my public outburst, the outstanding financial settlements flowed in my direction, as did the long overdue warranties and certificates, such that the matter is now resolved.

Janie, my wife, wondered whether I was relieved and satisfied now that the claim is over.  As the days have gone on, I realise that I am much relieved but not much satisfied.  I still don’t understand why my claim and complaint were such an omnishambles over a period of nearly seven years, yet finally resolved so quickly once I barked in public. I am also convinced that most Allianz clients, when faced with such sustained obstruction, would have given up and not achieved a fair outcome.

In my 6 April letter, I requested comments and proposed actions from you.  I still await those.  Let me set out in a little more detail the areas that I think need your attention:

  • In the matter of six months of silence after the ombudsman’s decision:
    • Who in Allianz is responsible for following up with clients following an ombudsman’s decision and why did they go silent on me for so long?,
    • Does Allianz not investigate internally adverse ombudsman decisions to ensure that the matter is properly resolved in the aftermath of the decision?  Also to learn lessons to prevent recurrance of such adverse cases? It should – using staff independent of those who were previously involved with the case.
  • In the matter of the ombudsman process itself, the matter took more than a year, which the ombudsman investigator explained was due to consistent requests for extensions by Allianz and the furnishing, by Allianz, of 12,000 pages of defence documentation. That is clearly disproportionate. I provided some 100 pages to support my original sumbission plus a further 20 to meet the investigator’s requests:
    • Shouldn’t Allianz be working in good faith and co-operation with the ombudsman? It is impossible for me to believe that such a drawn out process, manifestly swamping the process with an excess of detail, might have been conducted by Allianz in good faith.  The only other conclusion I can draw is that the Allianz people assigned to the case were vastly under-skilled and under-trained in handling ombudsman cases,
    • I believe that the ombudsman should have powers to penalise financial institutions (as well as award compensation to and specify actions for clients) when cases are met with delays and obfuscation to the detriment of the ombudsman service as well as to the detriment of the client. Do you agree?
  • With regard to the entirety of my claim, between 2019 and its conclusion last month, there were extended periods of delay and also dishonest conduct by Allianz and/or its agents. The worst example being the false claim that there was separate storm damage at the house in January 2021, whereas the truth was that the agents had done no work on the house for many weeks, even after being notified of water ingress arising from the subsidence damage:
    • Did any internal investigation/intra agency complaints/sanctions occur in the light of that dismal and dishonest performance. If not, why not?  My claim handler at Allianz promised me that it would, as part of his entreaty to me not to take legal action at that juncture,
    • Is part of the problem the lack of clarity in a system that has so many agents from different organisations working on such a case, (seemingly) not communicating well with each other?  The Allianz claim handler, the Crawford loss adjuster, the agents of the loss adjuster doing the remedial work, the Allianz complaints people… Not only was it sometimes unclear to me who was responsible for delays or problems, it was seemingly unclear to the very people who were supposed to be resolving the problems.  But matters are especially opaque here to the client, as the information asymmetries add to the agency problems that abound in such a set up.  My sense is that the several agents are motivated to look after their own corporate corner, e.g. keep the claim within budget or mark some element of a complaint “resolved”, to a far greater extent than they are motivated actually to resolve the claim and settle matters satisfactorily with the client,
    • Without wishing to sound rude or disparaging of the whole insurance sector, my sense is that this byzantine set up is designed to obfuscate, and pass the blame for delays and bad practice back and forth, with no-one taking responsibility. That is shameful.

In short, I sense a massive ethical gap between the claims of the insurance sector – that it acts with professionalism, in the utmost good faith, striving to support its clients at a time of vulnerablility – with the reality of the sector’s practices. Allianz at the moment seems to be an especially bad example, in which case you, Colm, have a massive job on your hands to make good in your company. But I also sense that the whole insurance sector/profession need to take a long look at itself and seek to improve, through self-regulation and/or through substantial strengthening of the ombudsman’s powers.

I have heard from your new complaints manager, Michael Torres,  who would like to discuss matters with me. I am happy to do so with him, but the complaints department shortcomings are only part of the problem; more symptom than cause.  The essence of these shortcomings arise from the causes of complaints.  I am willing to speak with relevant senior people at Allianz to help you understand and improve, but not to be fobbed off or to take up yet more of my time to no purpose. If you show serious intent on Allianz’s part to address the root causes of these issues, then I’ll gladly engage with Allianz, purposefully.  I still await your comments and proposed actions with great interest.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Harris

SOLE DIRECTOR & SHAREHOLDER

cc: The Financial Ombudsman Service, BBC Radio 4 ‘You and Yours’ (Investigation Desk), BBC ‘Money Box’ (Consumer Redress Team), Crawford & Company, Michael Torres (Allianz)

1978 in Woodfield Avenue: Back When I Thought I Could Always Pick Up The Phone, Speak With Someone Sensibly & Resolve Issues Promptly.

Mayday, Mayday…A Day At Lord’s With Bionic Tennis Followed By Cricket As Tonic – Middlesex v Durham, 1 May 2026

The weather chose to improve a little at the start of May – my previous attempts at watching county championship cricket so far this season had led only to some glimpses from the safety of the Long Room and/or Writing Room behind glass, April was so chilly.

I got to Lord’s just before lunch was called, then got ready for a bout of doubles tennis early afternoon, with a collection of players similar to the Bionic Quartet reported last summer:

Plums, Spirits, Gunns & The Bionic Quartet: Only At Lord’s, 5 & 8 August 2025

One of our number was having his first go back after surgery, so we played for fun off the book.

I had informally arranged to meet up at some point in the afternoon with Ed Griffiths (our London Cricket Trust mastermind) and Madz, who does some photography for Durham CCC. Can it really be four years since Madz last came to Lord’s on such a mission in May?

May Days At Lord’s, Not Least With Chas & Madz, May 2022

Yup!

Anyway, as it turned out, Ed was delayed until much later than he had intended to arrive, and Madz was engaged with matters photographic and the like also until late afternoon.

I thought I’d photograph Matt Potts in action this time, while waiting for the others

In the end, all three of us watched from the Warner Stand for a while late in the day. Here’s the scorecard from that match. A high-scoring draw. Why can’t they produce result pitches at Lord’s, I hear some irate, know-it-all readers cry!

Heart Wall by Kit Withington, Bush Theatre, 25 April 2026

Janie and I thoroughly enjoyed this simple five-hander, about a purportedly successful young woman returning to her home town near Manchester.

Much of the play is set in the pub, which gives the piece a bit of a soap-opera-like feel, as does the play’s narrative arc. But there is depth to the emotions and interactions in this play that take the piece into dramatic territory that works wonderfully well as live theatre.

Janie and I would highly recommend this production.

The performance starts (or pre-starts) with an element of immersive experience. The Charlene character is singing karaoke in the pub. Bad Romance by Lady Gaga, seeing as you asked. Go on, give it a go. It’s not easy to belt, so hats off to Olivia Forrest for fooling Janie for a few seconds before we walked in.

Members of the audience were invited by barman/DJ Valentine (Aaron Stanley) to give it a go. No, Janie and I resisted the temptation. But one pair of women from the audience gave a pretty serviceable account of Flowers by Miley Cyrus, then a cunning chap volunteered to sing Tequila, which must be the “minimum effort, maximum reward” option for karaoke. Finally , one brave fellow tried singing Crocodile Rock, perhaps secure in the knowledge that his falsetto la, la-la-la-la-las could almost make up for the inadequacy of the rest. That’s karaoke for you.

Mercifully, the play proper started after that. Rowan Robinson, Deka Walmsley, Olivia Forrest, Sophie Stanton and Aaron Anthony all acted their roles superbly well. Well directed by Katie Greenall, whose name was new to us, but we’ll be looking out for that name again henceforward.

Having praised the pre show Bad Romance karaoke rendering, I should also, for balance, praise Sophie Stanton’s karaoke Brass In Pocket towards the end of the play. Not an easy one.

Here’s a link to The Bush resources for this production, which includes some video trailers if you want to see those.

At the time of writing, this production still has a couple of weeks to run.

Here is a link that should yield formal reviews of this production long into the future, if you want to read more about it, or if you don’t take our word for it!

Some 25 Years After Janie & I Started Playing Tennis At Boston Manor Park…Coach Ray Has A Retirement Party At Which He Has Me Bard, 25 April 2026

Ray being introduced by Janice

It is hard for me and Janie to remember a time when Ray was not a constant feature of tennis in Boston Manor Park. We have always played at the weekends. On Saturday mornings, for more than two decades, we would witness Ray enthusiastically showing children the basics of tennis on Court One. On the occasions when we could play during the week, such as Monday mornings, we’d come across Ray again, stewarding some (mostly) women’s doubles.

Ray’s thoughtfulness and courtesy towards other players at the courts was impeccable. One of the many reasons why Janie and I became sure that Boston Manor Tennis Club, is “our sort of place”.

All good things come to an end. Ray has decided to hang up his racket. Would we care to join him and other members past and present for an afternoon party across the way in Blondin Park? Linda Massey was organising a bit of a do. How could we possibly have missed that?

Dozens and dozens of Ray’s friends, family and former tennis trainees stopped by to help Ray celebrate. The April weather smiled on Ray’s party – no more than he deserved. In fact, it was a bit of a scorcher. I decided to protect my head with my new pillbox cap, which I plan to sport when watching cricket and tennis this season.

I have long thought that Janie and I might be the last remaining players at Boston Manor who have been there since before Ray’s time. Very few people played there when we started playing in that park and Ray came along to get activities moving soon after we joined.

Ray confirmed that factoid in his speech, while also making reference to a playful comment by one of the youngsters alluding to my resemblance to a certain well-known writer from days of yore – the short clip below says it all:

No-one had pointed out this resemblance before…at least, not this month they hadn’t.

Ray was far too polite to point the finger at the offending youngster…which is more than can be said for that youngster’s dad, who approached me on the tennis courts a few days later, struggling to suppress his giggles, confessing that his son was the culprit. Hmm.

Have more than thou showest, Speak less than thou knowest…

…as The Bard so eloquently put it, in King Lear.

Boston Manor Tennis Club won’t quite be the same place again without Ray, but his efforts (and those of many others) helped transform that small tennis club, and indeed the whole park, into a thriving and friendly community place.

Ray might well smile with satisfaction