Translate

Thursday, 1 June 2017

'VIP child abuse ring' accuser served time in prison for fraud - Telegraph FAKE NEWS


'VIP child abuse ring’ accuser served time in prison for fraud
A list of public figures accused of child abuse, which was circulated on the internet, was drawn up by a former social worker jailed in 2011 for his part in a fraud

Christopher Fay at his home in South London Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
11:56PM BST 26 Sep 2015


A social worker who first named Leon Brittan and other VIPs as members of an alleged paedophile sex ring was jailed for fraud.
Chris Fay, now 69, drew up a list of prominent public figures he said had visited a guesthouse in London where children were abused.

The list was uploaded on to the internet at a time when Tom Watson, now Labour’s deputy leader, was claiming the existence of a powerful paedophile ring that operated with the knowledge of Downing Street.
It was compiled by Fay on evidence he says was supplied by victims and the owner of the Elm Guest House in south-west London, which has been at the centre of the allegations.
But Fay’s evidence has been thrown into question by his fraud conviction.
Police are investigating historic abuse at Elm Guest House, and have said that Cyril Smith, the Liberal MP, who was never prosecuted in his lifetime, stayed there.
The VIP list identifies a number of well-known figures and has added to concerns that individuals have had their reputations shredded by potentially false but damaging claims.
Fay told The Telegraph he regretted the list had been made public, conceded it contained the names of innocent public figures and admitted it had sparked a witch hunt.
Clockwise from top left; Leon Brittan, "Red Ron' Brown, Cyril Smith and Harvey Proctor
Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.
Lord Brittan’s name topped Fay’s list, but it also included Harvey Proctor and a number of other Tory MPs, and Ron Brown, a former Labour MP, who is now dead. Mr Proctor vehemently denies the allegations.
Last week, the Metropolitan Police admitted it was wrong to describe the evidence of one key alleged abuse victim, who is said to have witnessed child murders, as “credible and true”.
The Telegraph also revealed last week that another alleged abuse victim, who also claimed to have evidence of two murders, had been convicted of making hoax bomb calls, had falsely confessed to murder and been accused by a judge of telling “whopping lies”.
The Telegraph has now learnt that Fay was jailed in 2011 for fraud.
Fay, a former Labour councillor, was sentenced to a year in prison for being part of a scam in which pensioners were conned out of almost £300,000.
The fraud victims were told they were buying shares in property and Tesco but were issued with fake certificates. Fay, of Blackheath, south-east London, helped to launder cash through false bank accounts.
He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House.
Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
Fay, tracked down by The Telegraph to his council flat, said his list was based on conversations with Carole Kasir, the owner of the Elm Guest House, and interviews with abused boys at NAYPIC.
Fay said Mrs Kasir had been murdered – she died of an insulin overdose in 1990 – to cover up the abuse.
He repeated allegations he had been making since Mrs Kasir’s death to Mr Watson in 2013. Mr Watson then passed Fay’s details to police, which had begun an investigation into Elm Guest House in December 2012.
Fay said: “My critics will say: 'He is a convicted fraudster so why should we believe the other things [he says].’”
He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”




This is what I sent to IPSO
their reply is at the end..

Complaint
Material published in print and/or online
settingsEdit
Complaint details
Name of publication(s):
settingsEdit
The Weekly Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group Ltd)
Publication not contacted
Clause(s) breached:


1 Accuracy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html 

'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.' 

First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices. 


Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled. 


Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit. 


There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since. 


Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House' 



Not true. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'. 



Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament. 

He was not a colleague. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see). 


So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered. 


Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.” 



The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried. 

It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles. 



Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference [IPSO: #12767-17#]
Lauren Hay <lauren.hay@ipso.co.uk>
Wed 31/05, 13:32You

Dear Ms Moss,
I write further to our earlier email. 
You have contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements set out in the Editors' Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code. 
IPSO accepts complaints which have been submitted, either directly to IPSO or to the publication, within four months from the date of the first publication of the article complained of. In the case of an online article which remains accessible to the public on the publication’s website, IPSO may consider complaints within 12 months of the date of its first publication. IPSO will, however, take into account the length of time since the publication of the article, as a delay in complaining may have an effect on IPSO’s ability to fully investigate or adjudicate on a complaint. 
It appears that the article you have complained about falls outside this time period and we will not, therefore, be able to assist you further with this matter. I would suggest that the best way to proceed would be, if you have not already done so, to contact the publication directly about this matter. 
With best wishes,
Lauren Hay
Systems Co-ordinator

IPSO
Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London
EC4M 7LG
Tel: 0300 123 2220
Website: www.ipso.co.uk
IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.


PS and from what I know of Fay, I don't doubt the sabotage came partly from him and his cohorts too.








Wednesday, 4 January 2017

No central agency representing the views of children and young people

This post is now over 25 years old..
see www.youthparliament.co.uk

Children Act Monitoring Officer
Salary 30,000 per annum + N.I. £6,040.44
Hours 40 hours per week
Holiday 25 days per annum
Notice 20 days for leave up to one month. 10 days for leave up to one week
Age Applicants shall be aged 16-25 years (except in the 1st year)
Travel Considerable travelling to various parts of the country needed
Your job will be to help promote and develop New Naypic / Youth Parliament's idea's, policies and practice in as many ways as possible.
NEW NAYPIC / YOUTH PARLIAMENT Structure.
You will be managed and answerable to the National Executive Committee (NEC), which will be voted in at the NAGM, Regional and Local Management Committees. Although you will be managed and answerable to the NEC, regional or local Management Committee, you will be expected to work with them to decide on actions and policies, also to encourage and enable them to take part in as many aspects of your work as possible.
You will be required to distribute monthly written work reports to the NEC or MC. Records must also be kept on all expenditure throughout the months. You will be expected to do most of your own administration, although there will be administrators within the organization that can assist you. Your general duties will involve paper work, incoming and outgoing mail, filing, orders and invoices, accounts and dealing with telephone enquiries concerning the Children Act. The National Administrator should be conversant with all your outside activities.
Meetings and Media.
You will be expected to attend meetings on New Naypic's/ Youth Parliament's behalf. Your first and main priority will be to involve New / Youth Parliament's members in all your outside activities, any meetings regarding the Children Act, its development and ongoing implementation. You will be expected to attend meetings or receive and update information on children act legalities.
From time to time, you will be expected to deal with the media, this will be done in conjunction with New Naypic/ Youth Parliament's Press Officer or Press advisor.
Newsletter.
All workers are expected to produce articles on developments for the National Newsletter.
Casework.
You will be expected to pass casework to specialist child care practice solicitors. The Casework you will be involved with will be specific regarding the Children Act being upheld. The Casework you will pass on and be kept updated on, will be cases that are of national concern to the Organization in up holding the Children Act. The intended outcome will be to assist changes or amendments in the current ChildCare Law.
The outcome is also to identify bad practice and recommend better ways forward. At no time will you on behalf of the organization undertake casework personally.
Networking.
As the Children Act Monitoring Officer, you will be expected to build up a wide variety of legal contact such as:, Child Care Panel Solicitors, Banisters, The Law Society, Legal Departments, in universities, including professors and lecturers. Feeding back to New Naypic / Youth Parliament's development workers and officers in Management identifying good practice - past, present and future.
The Children's Law Center
It is New Naypic / Youth Parliament's intention to work with the children's Legal centers or any other relevant bodies to set up a Children's Law Center. The idea of the Center would be to take on Casework, creating test cases for positive changes in Child Care Law and practice The setting up of the Children's Law Center will be a central focus of your duties. We would expect you to co-ordinate the development of ideas and initiatives from children and young people first and foremost; and secondly, as many relevant professionals or legal bodies as possible.
Fundraising
We will expect you to liaise with our Management on any fundraising ideas you have or any contacts you have made, especially with the setting up of the Children's Law Center.
Library
You will be expected to set up a comprehensive library on test cases, publications, videos and Child Care Law etc.
Mail-Outs
You win be expected to distribute any Interesting information or updates on Child Case Law to the local groups and regional offices, this can be done via e-mail and put into the newsletter.
Personal Awareness
Employees must be aware of the Equal Opportunities practice in New Naypic / Youth Parliament. That is to say that any forms of Sexism, Racism, Homophobia or Prejudice against the physically challenged will not be tolerated. New Naypic / Youth Parliament must ensure that the Equal Opportunities Policy Is practiced and promoted whenever and wherever possible within the National Organization.
Disciplinary Procedure.
In the event of disciplinary action or grievance, the mechanism of our Disciplinary and Grievance procedures will be implemented.
Person's Specifications
Experience
(1) Communication with young people at all levels
(2) Helping young people advising and assisting them
(3) Legal awareness
(4) Having been in care
(5) Dealing with professionals at various levels

Knowledge
(1) Good Knowledge of the child care system
(2) Good knowledge of the relationship between the media and issues relating to young people
(3) Good knowledge of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004
(4) Good knowledge of the Criminal Justice Act 1992 and Criminal Justice Act 2003
(5) Good knowledge of young peoples rights and concerns


Skills
(1) Must be able to conduct basic research
(2) Must be able to keep confidentially
(3) Must be committed to and able to implement all of New Naypic / Youth Parliament's policies, particularly the equal opportunities policy
(4) The ability to communicate effectively both in writing and verbally to people at all levels both inside and outside of New Naypic / Youth Parliament
(5) Must be able to accept instruction from the NEC, regional and local management committees.
(6) Must be self motivated and able to work on own initiative
(7) Must be able to use ms office and internet explorer

Circumstances
(2) Must be willing to travel as a representative of the organization
(3) Must be able to give commitment of carrying out work of the organisation alongside its members
(4) Must be willing to go to court cases
(5) Must act professionally at all times when dealing with New Naypic / Youth Parliament's business
(6) Must be willing to learn new skills

Thursday, 29 September 2016

History tells us no one ever listens therefore youth must have a budget given by parliament of their own..

Dear Alison O'Sullivan,

I have copied below an email sent to Baroness kennedy of the shaws QC today. I will write again when I hear back from the Baroness or secure another venue.

15th January 2016
Dear Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws QC,                     

I met with you at the offices of the National Association of Young People In Care a number of times in 1990, just after I did a speech at a Legal 500 event in London, as a Development Officer for NAYPIC.

Over the past few years as you might have seen NAYPIC and a raid at my London home hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons and that has partly led to the CSA inquiry being set up.

When NAYPIC ceased to be funded in 1993 by the DoH, I had already resigned from my 1987, five years employed post as London Development Officer, as I found that I needed to expand NAYPIC structurally to a National level and therefore could only do that at a voluntary management level, from which I was then to give a public speech to 365 members at conference, to be successfully voted in as elected chair of the national organisation. 

I wrote the manifesto 'Time for Change' as a development officer advocating a National structure and then as chair I wrote 'How to set up a NAYPIC local group' and organised a weekend conference at Skegness for 450 young people across the country to elect the National Executive Committee for which I again did a speech and became elected chair of the NEC. 

I believed then as I still do now that empowerment is not and never will be rights.
I believed then as I still do now that children by the very nature of them, do not have money.
I believe then as I still do now that there is no central agency that expresses the views and opinions of young people through an elected and democratic process and NAYPIC was the last organisation that was effectively voicing some of youths most troubling experiences for society to become aware of the issues and hopefully work with NAYPIC to do something about it all.

Did it take one dead monster for us as a society to see the tip of an iceberg or had we already known? 
Well that as it is, is neither here nor there!
That is not to say I don't care but what I am saying as I have always said, is without hearing what NAYPIC says, NAYPIC being by nature children in care who have seen the worst, how do we know what to do? 
We speak from experience, we don't speak from psychological or sociological points of view, we speak because we know! 

The reason why I am writing to you is to ask for your assistance in ascertaining a room at the House big enough for about 660 young people from the UK that will be two persons a borough. 

I will then approach another 90's person I used to know very well and last I saw him he was having pizza in my house as we were working late on a presentation for NAYPIC DoH funding the next day, Bob Lewis, Social Service Director of Stockport and head of the ADSS Association of Directors of Social Services. He kindly endorsed our conferences throughout all social services making it so much easier for us to get the representatives and their carers to our conferences. 

I will try my best to get his equivalent now to do the same.

I will then email all the districts after sorting out the venue, workshops, speakers, elections, lunch, accommodation, event insurance, t-shirts, baseball caps, membership cards and various  travel arrangements, so that the event runs smoothly for all the members and carers to enjoy.

The aim of the conference will be to prevent other non established organisations from setting up non democratic, unconstitutional and without structure fledgling organisations at this crucial time and to also crucially advocate the creation of a Youth Economy by statutory right, to be eventually voted on in both the House and the other house, so that young people who represent youth people by election do not waste precious time constantly asking for funding, often funding that can be withdrawn by interested parties in the continued abuse of youths rights. We have freedom of association but where is the association? A pound a head for the 12 million children in this country would be a small but good start to a budget by right!

Babies, children and young people have no right to a voice, a youth economy, a budget by law that they administer, will bring about the change this society and then the world needs.

Kind Regards
Mary Moss

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

I wonder when I will get some respect from the insurers?


The Court of Appeal were very respectful isn’t it time for the insurers to finally deal with me?


I managed to actually speak with Gemma last Friday by dialing 141 before her direct number. Then I sent this email... She had told me that all the letters have been passed on to the correct people.. So the insurers do know my Barrister and I are waiting their response!

To
Aug 26 at 4:36 PM
 Dear Gemma,

As agreed could you forward to me the contact I will be dealing with directly at the building insurers.
This is now a damages on damages claim, as the court of appeal said I was covered for the structure.
As I said I have no truck with One Housing Group and I would like to take on the insurers directly.

All the best have a lovely bank holiday.
Jo Flores
UK
Tel: 00 44 (0) 20 7837 6680
Mob: 07916 325037
Community Interest Company



HAVING TAKEN ADVICE ONCE I COULD AFFORD IT…
To Solicitor
04/18/15 at 1:52 PM
Dear REDACTED,

Thank you for the legal advice.

Having had a think about it, the advice is in two parts, one about the Court of Appeal judgement and the other on the insurance policy.

On the insurance policy, there are two things you say that need further clarification from me.

1)   General starting point is that mere noting of your interest on a policy (as distinct from your being joint insured) does not give you a right to claim under that policy

2)   Also, even where a loss payee is entitled to be paid out, that entitlement to be paid might not arise unless a claim is first made by the insured party.



Clarification of point 1. 'Noted interest' as stated by the insurance broker FARR PLC means;

02 September 2005
Ms Jo Gavin
104 Cromer Street
London
WC1H8BZ
Dear Sirs
Community Housing Association Limited
Property Stock Policy Number: UKU/FARR/2005/274
Property Interest at: Any property insured under the above Policy
Following your recent request, we enclose the Summary of Cover.
With regret it is not usually possible to note individual interests, due to the number of properties insured. We are however pleased to confirm that your interest is automatically noted by the following Clause which applies to this Property Stock Policy.
"The interest of the owners, leaseholders, mortgagees or other interested parties of each individual property insured by this Policy is noted, the nature and extent of such interest to be disclosed in the event of loss."
Buildings Sums Insured are not specified for individual properties, as each are covered for full rebuilding costs following total loss, under the terms of the Policy.
Please note that this document has been prepared to meet the specific requirements of our client and is supplied to you at their request. It has not been prepared for and may not meet your own requirements. You should, therefore take steps as you consider necessary to satisfy yourselves that your own requirements have been met.
Any further documentation or detailed information will incur an administration charge of £50.00, which we require in advance.
We trust the above is in order.
Yours faithfully
H
0
Marie Livings (Mrs)
Local Rate Dial: 0845 129 8037 E-Mail: m.livings@farrplc.co.uk
Clarification of point 2. In brief the property claim forms sent to the insurer BY THE landlord, after I filled it out.


Evidence of the claim having been made…2005

PROPERTY CLAIM FORM
Name of Housing Association: Community Housing Association
Your Name: Ms Jo Gavin.................
Policy Number: UKU/FARR/2005/273
Loss Address: 104 Cromer Street, London, .................
................. ..... Postcode: WC1 H 8BZ................. Telephone Number: 0207 278 4404.................
Are you: Leaseholder
Date and time of loss giving rise to this claim: Sept 04 to August 05

I have read section12 on page 7,accidental damage to pipes, which covers CHA. Page 10 regarding the reduction in market value and the delays in carrying out the repair work, which also covers CHA. Page 11 section 2. Flood, which also covers CHA. Page 12, loss or damage caused by the policy holder or employees, covers CHA. Page 13 pollution or contamination covered by the policy, covers CHA, also stated on page 15. Of course it does state that the conditions that apply to the policy cover on page 18 are that CHA are to keep their property in a good state of repair or any defects must be made good as soon as possible taking necessary precautions to prevent loss or damage. Obviously this has clearly not been observed by CHA therefore if this claim is void due to that I would expect you to specifically state that in your decision on this claim to me. I shall therefore take legal action against the company and will expect you as my insurers to pay the legal expenses in doing so. Page 17, denial of access can also apply with the interference to business. Page 23 states that the policyholder should not admit, reject or negotiate any claim without your written consent. That you may take control in the defence or settlement of any claim on our behalf.  That you may take legal action to recover any expense from others ( ie: CHA ) covered by this policy. I look forward to your advice as my building insurance company as to how to recover my losses.  

PROPERTY CLAIM FORM
Loss Address: 106-108 Cromer Street, London .................
................. ..... Postcode: WC1 H 8BZ................. Telephone Number: 07916 326 511.................
Are you: Leaseholder


Looking back, more than a year ago we entered a commercial premise that had no flooring, no proper heating, no ventilation and was not safe to open according to regulations. We have spent a lot of time and money dealing with a decent refurbishing of the place, lost a lot of time and associated potential business in reporting and chasing up the repair of two major leaks which delayed us on a massive scale, and we are still left in a situation where the health & safety basics need to be put in place.
On that last point we do not know how long these will take to fix and consequently how much in time and business this will cost us. If the landlord is prepared to carry out the works then we will only claim for the additional loss of our time, rent and business rates.
. I have read section12 on page 7,accidental damage to pipes, which covers CHA.
 Page 10 regarding the reduction in market value and the delays in carrying out the repair work, which also covers CHA.
 Page 11 section 2. Flood, which also covers CHA.
 Page 12, loss or damage caused by the policy holder or employees, covers CHA.
 Page 13 pollution or contamination covered by the policy, covers CHA, also stated on page 15.
 Of course it does state that the conditions that apply to the policy cover on page 18 are that CHA are to keep their property in a good state of repair or any defects must be made good as soon as possible taking necessary precautions to prevent loss or damage. Obviously this has clearly not been observed by CHA therefore if this claim is void due to that I would expect you to specifically state that in your decision on this claim to me. I shall therefore take legal action against the company and will expect you as my insurers to pay the legal expenses in doing so.
 Page 17, denial of access can also apply with the interference to business.
 Page 23 states that the policyholder should not admit, reject or negotiate any claim without your written consent.



So I suppose firstly I am not a tenant I am a leaseholder and secondly according to my building insurance policy I am to be treated as if I had separately insured and in brief this is my cover too. Alongside the CoA clarification that the structure was insured.

"the repair of the structure of the building is catered for through the provisions of clause 7(2) [obligation to insure]"




FARR PROPERTY INSURANCE
FOR REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS
RENTED STOCK POLICY SCHEDULE
Effective Date Policy Number Property Insured
Policyholder The Business
Other Interests
30 April 2005 UKU/FARR/2005/273
Any residential property (or commercial property where required) in respect of which the Company has accepted the risk. The terms of the Policy apply separately to each property as though each had been insured by a separate Policy
Community Housing Association Limited &/or leaseholder &/or part owner of any property insured hereunder
The ownership (freehold or leasehold) or management of residential property (or commercial property where required) and all other activities of Registered Social Landlords
The interests of the freeholder and the head lessee of the property where required (if they are not the Policyholder), the owner or lessee of each property and the mortgagees of any of them are deemed to be noted
Period of Insurance    From     30 April 2005            To        29 April 2006 (both dates inclusive)
Annual Cost            Included in Programme Cost
Section (not operative unless Sums Insured or Limits of Indemnity shown)
The basis of cover is 'All Risks'
The basis of cover is 'All Risks'
Buildings
Rented
Commercial
Contents
Playgrounds
3.   Property Owners Liability
Excess - Rented
General Claims
Subsidence, Landslip and Heave
Property Owners' Liability
Excess - Commercial
General Claims
Subsidence, Landslip and Heave


Commercial Property
Offices shops community centres and other buildings in connection with The Business of the Policyholder which We have been notified of and accepted the risk

I don't know if that alters anything but it has been my contention throughout that I was insured for the structure and the Court of Appeal gives that to me, I think?

Best Wishes
Jo

spaceshift...
in association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
UK
Tel: 00 44 (0) 20 7837 6680
Mob: 07916 325037
www.spaceshift.co.uk
www.scarletmaguire.com
www.onepercent4art.com

I then took some further advice on these insurance issues from another partner at a top London law firm and she said that since the Court of Appeal judgment was only decided within the last few years, that that was the only point I would have known that there was a lawful claim! So having only recently been able to afford advice and with the claim still being within 3 years of my knowledge of the outstanding claim and the fact the claim has already been made by the landlord through the property claim form in 2006 the claim remains outstanding.

After then further telephone advice and clarification by my solicitor a letter was written by my now appointed barrister to the housing association to forward to the insurers;

He took this line based on the advice I paid for (although it is further down the blog to read in full)…

In Brief…

I have recently taken legal advice and have been told that in the Court of Appeal Judgment on 25th May 2013 where it states in paragraph 42 in such absolute terms that "the repair of the structure of the building is catered for through the provisions of clause 7(2) [obligation to insure]" and added that "in the face of these provisions there is no reason based on necessity or business efficacy to alter the balance of the scheme by imposing an implied covenant to repair on the landlord ..." It now seems to me I need to assert or recover any of the contractual benefits of the policy which I might be entitled to limited to damage to property.



The reason I appointed a barrister is because I sent this to the Housing Association and was ignored.

Dear One Housing Group,

You failed to pursue the two insurance claims of ventilation at 106 & a floor at 104 that you knew about in a proper way. You the landlord had an obligation to insure the building against a specific set of insured risks. To pursue an insurance claim where the building becomes damaged, by one of those insured risks. You failed to pursue the claim that you knew about in a proper way. Subject to time, re-litigating etc I am re-visiting whether you, the landlord fulfilled its obligations to pursue the insurance claim.

I am using the law of; Vural Ltd v Security Archives as my main case law.

That case is about harassment; insurance payments were delayed by the landlord, to put the tenant out of business, so that the landlord could evict the tenant.

Here is an email from Jan Luba QC specializing in Landlords & Tenants law (shortened for relevance);

From: Jan Luba QC <janl@gclaw.co.uk>
To: scarletmaguire@yahoo.com; jo@spaceshift.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2012, 10:37
Subject: YOUR APPEAL

Dear Jo,

It seems to me that in so far as it is the determination of a complaint that the insurers (UKGI(I)Ltd)  agreed to meet the legal costs of their insured (the landlords) in the litigation, the FSO was right to decline jurisdiction. That was a matter between that insured party and their insurers.

But equally, it would seem to me that the FSO has jurisdiction to investigate a compliant that the insurers (UKGI(I)Ltd)  refused to meet the legal costs of another of their insured (the tenants) in that litigation. In any event the FSO must have jurisdiction to investigate a compliant that the insurers (UKGI(I)Ltd)  refused to meet the full claims of their insured (the tenants) arising from loss consequent on flooding etc. I do not know if you have made any such complaint.

Jan
JAN LUBA QC
57-60 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London WC2A 3LJ
DX: 34 Chancery Lane
Direct dial number: 0207 993 7794
Direct fax number: 0207 269 0794
This email advice was requested in relation to the Financial Services Ombudsman but I am using the last part in relation to outstanding claims regarding the structure of both shops since the Court of Appeal findings in May 2013 and their relevance to the two outstanding insured, structural material damage, claims.

In August 2008 this email (shortened for relevance) was sent to us from the landlord

From: Monique Jamera
Sent: 12 August 2008 17:13
To: 'scarletmaguire@yahoo.com'
Subject: RE: RE: leaks at 106-108 Cromer Street - Building Regulations and Health & Safety

Hi Chantal
  
I note your comments about the ventilation and would draw your attention to the clause in your lease 5 (14).  The responsibility of complying with Health and Safety legislation is the tenant’s.  In any event I do not believe the premises do not comply and doubt whether the insertion of air vents will solve all the problems

If you disagree with our analysis then your option as you say to legal recourse is always there.

Regards,

Monique Jamera
Commercial Property Officer
Tel: 020 7428 5592
Mob: 07515 598 515 

Here are a few more references to us, asking for the repair of the structure, since 2005 in the property claim form & throughout;

Paragraph sent from Bircham Dyson Bell on the 7th Jan 2009

As discussed yesterday, in order for me to convey your concerns about the current state of the property, it would assist if you could prepare a short e-mail setting out a bullet point list of the defects which you say are outstanding to both properties and which are preventing you from trading.  I can then present this list to my client and the insurance companies.

Also here is another email from the landlord referring to Mathew Greenland the insurance company broker on 8th May 2008;

Hi Jo

I've been in touch with Matthew from Farr Insurance (who I have copied into this e-mail) who has been on annual leave since we last spoke.  I've asked him for an update on this claim and he has advised me that he will get back to me once he reviewed all communications since he has been away.  As you are aware we can not make arrangements for repairs until the insurers have accepted the claim.

I hope to hear from Matthew later today if not tomorrow and will inform you accordingly.

Also later in an email which I have on disclosure Matthew asks not only for photo's which the landlords surveyor took of the damage to the floor at shop 104 which he says he has asked for since Feb 2008 but he also asked if a 'cessure of rent' claim has been put in and if not why not


Here is the quote from worldwide expert in damp Mike Parrett after a 4-stage survey of our premises with regards to the ventilation in 09.

13.7
"Additional static ventilation to the main cellar room to business unit 2 should be provided to comply with the requirements of the approved document Part F of the current Building regulations."

And further as clarified (and that being when yourselves & I were first made aware) in by Lord Justice Patten on 25th May 2013 at the Court of Appeal.

paragraph 42 said in absolute terms that "the repair of the structure of the building is catered for through the provisions of clause 7(2) [obligation to insure]" and it added that "in the face of these provisions there is no reason based on necessity or business efficacy to alter the balance of the scheme by imposing an implied covenant to repair on the landlord ...".  

paragraph 43 to "the existence of what the parties obviously intended should be a comprehensive scheme for the repair of both the demised and the retained parts of the building"

paragraph 38, what they say is that "disrepair of the structure ... constitutes an insurable risk and the landlord is required under the terms of the leases of 104 and 106 to apply the insurance monies in making good the damage and disrepair"

The Court's basic point is that in appropriate circumstances the landlord has an obligation to pursue the insurance route.  Looking at clause 7(2) of the lease, if the premises are damaged by an insured risk the landlord must (to paraphrase) with reasonable speed use all relevant insurance monies received from the insurers to repair/reinstate the premises.  This in turn, in my view, implies that the landlord has an obligation to use reasonable effort to pursue an insurance claim.

 Since the repair to the structure was made in March 2012, 18 months after the premises were taken off us, subject to permission to appeal, (see attached photo’s) and the premises are still not let now in 2015 this indicates ongoing material damage for which claims are still outstanding.

I am re-visiting if there is anything you can do with the insurers to speed up the outstanding claims for material damage that you made in the property claim forms in 2005, in the light that your own liability has been established and in view of your duty as established in the Court of Appeal in May 2013 to chase up our outstanding insurance claims namely the ventilation at 106 & the floor at 104 and any reasonable offer of settlement due to the insurance delays and consequential losses.

If this can be done outside of the courts this would be preferable as reasonable people.

Kind Regards

Ms Jo Flores

spaceshift...
in association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
UK
Tel: 00 44 (0) 20 7837 6680
Mob: 07916 325037
www.spaceshift.co.uk
www.scarletmaguire.com
www.onepercent4art.com

Once I appointed a barrister taking more time he got this reply;