SIA Latectus: The wayward or the virtuous daughter of SEB bank?

 As described in this blog, for the past two years we have being enjoying the ‘privilege’ of owing but not being able to use the flat sold to us by SIA Latectus, a daughter company of SEB bank, which along with its sister companies in Lithuania and Estonia (see here) is managing the real estate portfolio of SEB bank in the aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis and mass bankruptcies of Latvian building companies and developers. This company, which publicly presents itself as the true guardian of high professional standards and ethical values (see their website here), has proved to be a spectacular fail in all imaginable aspects of professional conduct.

 As no amicable solution was offered, we have filed a claim with a Latvian court of law against SIA Latectus for a number of apparent breaches of law such as not disclosing the condition of the apartment block and latent defects of certain parts of the building, violations of the Latvian building code, consumer rights protection law, taking unilateral decisions on the repair of common property, breaking into and destroying private property, making unlawful real property management deals behind the backs of other joint owners of the building etc. No doubt, the court will deliberate on these claims and hopefully justice will be delivered.

However, one cannot help wondering who is behind SIA Latectus practices and who has given SIA Latectus the licence to lie and mislead.  Do they live and do their business in a world of their own or are they part of the reportedly responsible corporate citizen SEB bank? We have a pretty good idea about the ways of the self-proclaimed stewards of virtue such as Ģirts Grīnbergs, the Board Chairman of SIA Latectus, and the smaller cogs such as SEB/Latectus real property manager Jānis Auza and Latectus construction engineer Armands Simsons. Their moral fibre looks quite frazzled and drab to us, their management and communication skills lacking.  The question is: does SEB’s Supervisory Council know what their daughter company is doing. The council is made up of senior  SEB managers (see here) such as Knut Jonas Martin Johansson, Mark Barry Payne, Stefan Stignas, David Bamforth Teare, Ted Tony Kylberg. Well, gentlemen do you know what your daughter company is up to? Is it okay with you?

One can assume that the big boys are not dealing with non-strategic issues such as complaints from people like us – the simple layman?   They have more important business to attend to. They or their PR people are busy preaching the benefits of high ethics, transparency, regulatory compliance  and other attributes of a responsible corporate citizen. For example, a prominent member of SEB’s Supervisory Council, David Teare, Head of SEB Baltic Division, delivered a great speech at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga  where among other things he boasts of  the golden standard of the SEB corporate sustainability while pointing fingers to others who must behave ethically (see here) so SEB can keep its image bright and shiny. So what about their daughter company SIA Latectus?

When trouble strikes and it comes to decision making and legal action on the ground,  the SEB minions such as the real property managers (Jānis Auza from SIA Latectus, Alberts Aigars from BPT) and the lawyers of SIA Latectus (Māris Liguts from Tark Grunte Sutkiene), keep looking over their shoulders. What they say and do implies that without the approval of the big boys they cannot take a piss. So at one point they would not disturb the big boys while they are holidaying and taking a break from their strategic deliberations and preaching. At another point they would not disccuss settlement options in court before they are not dished out to and munched over by the big boys etc.

So it appears that after all SIA Latectus/SEB bank are a closely knit bunch of people.  It also appears that they still have to learn the difference between preaching and practising. But we will excuse them because they might still be on a long journey from “Something must be done” to  “I must do something” to which Mr Teare alluded in his speech. Or possibly, there is no need for excuses as they believe that everything is fine and nothing must be done. Whatever the case, we will meet the little boys next year when the court hearing resumes, and God willing some movement to solving our flat problem will be made.