Translate

Friday, 26 April 2013

Thursday, 4 April 2013

The Landlord will go to any length to waste time (getting by with a little judicial help from their friends)!! The GAMES BEGIN!! A new application by the landlord... too late mate... and just so as you all get what is going on this is a two and a half million pounds claim for NAYPIC that is far from being defunct as the Main Stream Press like to suspiciously say it is.. I met a survivor of Grafton Close yesterday at my home and he said even the police told him I was not around when he asked for me and nor was NAYPIC that is awful.. WELL WE ARE HERE ALIVE AND KICKING AND WE ARE GOING TO WIN OUR OWN 2.5 Million pounds case because we are right and that is why they play games or they would have got rid of us by now but we are right and were trespassed.. COURT CASE coming soon be there it's public...AND THEN WE WILL SEE WHO GET'S DONE IN THESE CHILD ABUSE CHARGES AS WE WILL BRING OUR OWN CLASS ACTION... WITH OUR OWN CASH yeah stop us then!!!! And...DAM THE CPS IF THEY SAY THAT VICTIMS ARE OUT OF TIME WE SHALL SEE... CLASS ACTION IS THE ORDER OF THE DAY AN AVALANCHE EFFECT OF TOO MANY PEOPLE SAYING THE SAME THING! ONCE THIS BORING CASE OVER DISREPAIR AT OUR NEW NAYPIC/YOUTH PARLIAMENT PREMISES www.youthparliament.co.uk (2000-2013) IS DONE AND WON ON 1ST May/2nd May AT ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE! A message to OHG, UKU & RSA YOU SHOULD FEEL SHAME You BULLY's EVEN YOUR ARMY HAVEN'T BEAT US, BECAUSE What we say is true!!!!..PLUS MESSAGE TO THE PRESS STOP SAYING WE ARE NOT HERE PLEASE IT's NOT Good it's not cool as many of the victims who were in touch with need to know we are still here (ps thanks Ed at ITV and MAtt at BBC remember I agreed to the interview as long as you credited me NOT as a former NAYPIC worker but as the Director of NNYP NEW NAYPIC as being very much HERE..DEFUNCT IS NOT TRUE!!!!! WE CERTAINLY ARE HERE OR WHY HAVE OHG, UKU & RSA SPENT £400,000 STOPPING US from trading for 5 years? THINK ABOUT IT?

Court of Appeal
In the
Appeal Court

Reference No. B5/2010/2396


Respondent's Notice (the time wasting order to appeal before the 1st May hearing!!!)


Your (respondent's) name:
One Housing Group Limited
Your solicitor's name Bircham Dyson Bell LLP:
50 Broadway
London
SW1H OBL

Details of the order(s) or part(s) of order(s) you want to appeal
Name of Judge
His Honour Judge Cowell
Date of order (s)
22 September 2010
If only part of an order is appealed, write out that part (or those parts)

"Judgment for the Claimants in the sum of £100 in respect of their claim for
damages, the said sum to be set off against the judgment for the Defendant on its
Counterclaim".
the words "less the £100 referred to in 2 above" should be deleted from
this paragraph.

Permission to file a respondent's notice


M I Bircham Dyson Bell LLP
respondent ('s solicitor) seek permission to appeal
the order(s)

Grounds for appeal or for upholding the order

X (the respondent)
appeal(s) the order [s/]wish(es) the appeal court to uphold the order on
different or additional grounds
because:-

Permission to appeal - grounds

1. The learned judge misdirected himself as to the extent of the landlord's liability in relation to damage caused to the demised premises by defects in areas retained by the landlord. He ought to have directed himself that on the facts of this case there was no such liability.

Additional or alternative grounds for upholding the order

Possession
1. The landlord was in any event entitled to possession of 104 Cromer Street WC1 on the ground that the landlord served a section 25 notice and no application was made for a new tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Liability
2. The learned judge did consider the issue of negligence and whether the landlord had taken reasonable care to prevent defects and damage arising from areas retained by the landlord and found that there was no failure to take reasonable care or that no case in that regard had been made out. If the learned judge failed to consider this issue as contended on behalf of the tenants, there were in any event no sufficient particulars and/or evidence to enable him to find that the tenants had proved a failure to take reasonable care.

3. Alternatively, if the learned judge did not consider the issue of negligence and whether the landlord had taken reasonable care to prevent defects and damage arising from areas retained by the landlord, he was right not to do so (and right to hold liability arose after notice and the expiry of a reasonable time to carry out repairs). Alternatively, to the extent he did not so hold, his decision should be upheld on the ground that any liability was subject to a requirement of prior notice and the expiry of a reasonable period following such notice on the facts of this case given, inter alia, the terms of the leases and the fact that the landlord's liability to residential tenants would only arise after notice and the expiry of a reasonable time to carry out repairs.

4. The agreed evidence of both parties' surveyors was that the defects caused by water ingress did not
prevent occupation and use of the premises and the learned judge was in any event right to hold that
the cesser of rent provision contained in clause 6.3 of the leases was not triggered.

5. Even if the cesser of rent provision was triggered the tenants had no cause of action for the return of the rent which they had paid and were not entitled to set off such sums or any part of them against
sums due to the landlord.
ZIA BHALOO QC

Arguments in support of grounds
My skeleton argument is:-will follow within 14 days of receiving the
appellant's skeleton arguments (ha ha that's like the day before the court case yeah right!!)

X (the respondent) will rely on the following arguments at the hearing of the appeal:-

What decision are you asking the appeal court to make?

X(the respondent) XX (is) asking that:-

the order(s) be set aside
the order(s) be varied and the following order(s) substituted :-

Paragraph 2 of the Order should be varied to read:

"The Claimants' claim for damages is dismissed"

Paragraph 5 of the Order should be varied to read:

"Judgment for the Defendant for mesne profits in relation to 106 in the
sum of £25,075.88 plus interest in the sum of £1,381.46 and continuing at
the same rate (daily rate) until payment."

a new trial be ordered (Are they joking 5 years in court and counting NO LETS NOT!! You just want to let us die waiting you are cruel lets just get this over and done with on 1st May for good, why the games is that the only way you can win because you are wrong.. ha games games games)

the appeal court makes the following additional orders :-

the appeal court upholds the order but for the following different or additional reasons

Possession
1. The landlord was in any event entitled to possession of 104 Cromer Street WC1 on the
ground that the landlord served a section 25 notice and no application was made for a
new tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Liability
2. The learned judge did consider the issue of negligence and whether the landlord had taken
reasonable care to prevent defects and damage arising from areas retained by the
landlord and found that there was no failure to take reasonable care or that no case in
that regard had been made out. If the learned judge failed to consider this issue as
contended on behalf of the tenants, there were in any event no sufficient particulars
and/or evidence to enable him to find that the tenants had proved a failure to take
reasonable care.

3. Alternatively, if the learned judge did not consider the issue of negligence and whether the
landlord had taken reasonable care to prevent defects and damage arising from areas
retained by the landlord, he was right not to do so (and right to hold liability arose after
notice and the expiry of a reasonable time to carry out repairs). Alternatively, to the
extent he did not so hold, his decision should be upheld on the ground that any liability
was subject to a requirement of prior notice and the expiry of a reasonable period
following such notice on the facts of this case given, inter alia, the terms of the leases and
the fact that the landlord's liability to residential tenants would only arise after notice and
the expiry of a reasonable time to carry out repairs

4. The agreed evidence of both parties' surveyors was that the defects caused by water
ingress did not prevent occupation and use of the premises and the learned judge was in
any event right to hold that the cesser of rent provision contained in clause 6.3 of the
leases was not triggered.

5. Even if the cesser of rent provision was triggered the tenants had no cause of action for
the return of the rent which they had paid and were not entitled to set off such sums or
any part of them against sums due to the landlord.

Section 9 Other applications
I wish to make an application for additional orders [3] in this section
in the Part 23 application
form (N244) attached

Part A
I apply (the respondent applies) for an order;(000000000001)00000004X that :-

(OUT OF TIME DO YOU GET THAT WELL UNLESS THEY HAVE FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES THIS IS RIDICULOUS WITH A HUGE LEGAL TEAM AND SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED.. THE CHEEK!!!!)
The Respondent has permission to file this Respondent's Notice out of time and
rely on the grounds set out at this Notice at the appeal
hearing, fixed to take place on 1st or 2nd May 2013
because:-

The Respondent was not in a position to file its Respondent's Notice or seek
permission to appeal within the time specified under Part 52(5)(b) of the Civil
Procedure Rules 1998 following the grant of permission to appeal, for the reasons
explained at  this application

Part B
I (the respondent) wish(es) to rely on :
evidence in Part C witness statement (affidavit)

Part C
I (the respondent) wish(es) to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:-
The Appellants filed their Appellants's Notice and application for permission to
appeal in October 2010, within 21 days of the Order made. The Appellants also
applied for transcripts of the judgments appealed to be supplied at the public
expense. There were delays in the transcripts being procured and the Court granted
the Appellants permission to appeal on some grounds on 4 December 2012. The
Respondent's solicitors were served with notification that permission to appeal had
been granted on 5 December 2012.

The Respondent retained Counsel who dealt with the initial trial before His Honour
Judge Cowell in July and September 2010, to represent the Respondent in the appeal.
At the time that the Respondent's Notice and skeleton argument were due to be filed
(19 December 2012), Counsel was out of chambers. The Respondent notified the
Appellants and the Civil Appeals Office at the time to inform them of the
circumstances and to ask for an extension of time to file the Notice and skeleton
argument, in the event that it considered it was necessary to file the notice after
it had consulted with Counsel. The Civil Appeals Office informed the Respondent that
it should seek permission to file a Respondent's Notice when it subsequently filed a
Respondent's Notice. The filing of the Notice was subsequently delayed on Counsel's
return to chambers as she was then out of chambers for some time due to illness.
Given the passage of time since the conclusion of the original trial in September
2010 and the need to review transcripts of judgments made by His Honour Judge Cowell,
following the grant of permission, it was not possible for the Respondent to
formulate the ground of appeal for which permission is now sought and the alternative
grounds of appeal referred to at Section 6 of this notice by 19 December 2012.
Further, following a request in writing via email dated 14 December 2012, the
Respondent's solicitors received a copy of the Appeal Bundle which was before the
Court at the permission hearing from the Appellants' then advocate, Jan Luba QC, on
20 December 2012. (BLAH BLAH BLABBERY BLAH ARE YOU STILL WITH US)

Whilst the First Appellant initially objected to the Respondent's request for further
time to file its Respondent's Notice and skeleton argument in December 2012, she
subsequently sought further time by email on 19 December 2012 for the Appellants to
file and serve the Appellants' skeleton argument, to benefit from the assistance and
advice from the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The Respondent confirmed by email to the
Appellants and the Civil Appeals Office on 19 December 2012 that it had no objection
in principle but suggested that the directions remained sequential.

To date, the Appellants have yet to serve their skeleton argument and we understand
that the Bar Pro Bono Unit is no longer assisting the Appellants in relation to their
appeal. The Respondent has also been informed by email dated 2 April 2013 from the
First Appellant that she has also filed an application seeking to amend the grounds
of appeal before the court.

In those circumstances, the Respondent believes that no prejudice shall result to the
Appellants as a result of the late filing and service of the Respondent's Notice and
the application for permission to appeal, given that the contents of the bundles do
not require additional material to consider the Respondent's grounds.
Finally, the ground on which permission to appeal is sought formed part of the
submissions made to the trial Judge in the court below. Accordingly, the Respondent
avers that the Appellants shall not be prejudiced if permission to appeal is granted
out of time.

In all the circumstances, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Court grant
permission to file the Respondent's Notice out of time.

(OH GOD respectfully!!!)

WELL HERE IS MY REPLY...

TO THE COURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (just in case they do have friends in high places)


IN RESPONSE TO A RESPONDENTS NOTICE FILED BY MS McINTYRE FOR THE LANDLORD

Dear Civil Appeals Office,

The respondents were given full latitude to reply to Jan Luba QC’s representation at the permission to appeal hearing. They had a full team of legal representatives to advance any response to the grounds for permission to appeal and with respect they choose not to do so. That means that they are out of time to put in a respondence notice at this stage to appeal the permission to appeal grounds. Further at this time the claimant was represented and we believe that the grounds that were appealed and won stand now. The claimant in person asked at the permission to appeal to add further grounds and permission to do this was granted. The respondents through choice were confident that the permission to appeal hearing would fail given that they choose not to appear.
It is now for the courts to decide if the claimant in person’s further grounds can be simply added as she requested at the hearing once further advice, which she had not received by then, ordered by LJ Ward for her to get by LJ Ward could be considered by her.
Simply put she is appealing against a finding of Caveat Lessee and has provided evidence that she is not relying on a finding of Caveat Lessee for the issues of water ingresses, she is simply saying she was insured against water ingresses and not that she was put to any trouble by the installation of a glass pavement as Jan Luba QC rightly stated. The volunteer at the pro bono advised that it was a ground she must appeal after the advice was received and it had more that 50% chance of success in appealing this ground. She has now done so through a N244 notice, which is with the Deputy Master to be considered.
The other grounds of appeal backed by evidence are findings of fact with irrefutable evidence to show they were incorrect in that the claimant did ask for the structure to be fixed and the claimant says that there was no insurance in place at the time of defects as the landlord had broken the terms of the insurance and the respondent will have a copy of those grounds once the notice has been sent to them through the Civil Appeals Office as is procedure. We will be happy to respond to those individual points as pleaded in the further grounds for permission to appeal if the respondent disputes those individual points, to be helpful to the courts but we will not need to respond to the Grounds already granted as stated above because the respondents choose not to appear when given the chance and notice at the permission to appeal hearing. Therefore those grounds still stand and the respondent is with respect out of time. Except of course to argue those points at the appeal as they now have the same counsel back in place who is capable at that hearing to put the landlords point across at that hearing only and not through this notice before the hearing. With respect it is too late for that, lets get the issues back into court to be Judged by three judges in public.
On the few issues mentioned in this notice, the Section 25 Notice was dealt with at a hearing and it was decided by the judge that those were issues that could only be dealt with at the end of the trial, which has not finished yet.
We will be able to argue these issues in court at the appeal and have for the duration of the trial argued that the Section 25 Notice was served as an improper inducement as part of a harassment claim against the landlord, added to the grounds for appeal.
The liability issue that Counsel now wants to deal with through this notice and not at the appeal, with respect is underhand and as stated is a ground for appeal not to be argued behind the scenes. We have given reason and laws why we feel that absolute liability existed, with respect this cannot be dealt with at this late stage and behind the scenes with this notice and for that reason the notice should be refused as it would put the claimant to much work advancing her case before a long awaited for hearing and would not be judged in public with the help of an amicus to point towards the most current of authorities for these very important points of law.
The respondents notice should be dismissed as time wasting, vicious and a tactic from the respondents to divert from the real issues that we are happy to argue in court, in public and fairly armed. With respect any diversion from the already planned hearing will be seen as a sabotage and a trick to get some issues out of the hearing.
It is further noted that the respondent’s notice is verbose in the extreme and clutches at as many scenario’s as one could put in a notice to be as unhelpful to the courts as possible and should be seen as very bad conduct given the resources available to counsel at a full hearing in a month. 

We look forward to hearing about the Amicus and will be filing our full skeleton once the further amended grounds are considered and the Amicus can assist with the legal parts to back our arguments.

Kind Regards

Ms Flores
spaceshift...
in association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
104-108 Cromer Street
London WC1H 8BZ
UK
tel: 00 44 (0) 20 7837 6680
mob: 07916 325037

From: Civil Appeals - CMSB <civilappeals.cmsB@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk>
To: 'Scarlet Maguire Gallery' <scarletmaguire@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 14:05
Subject: RE: Flores and Cracy v One Housing Group


Good afternoon
 
Please provide the Court of Appeal reference number.
 
Many thanks
 
 
Miss Hannah Balsom
Case Management Section C
Room E311
Court of Appeal
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Tel: 0207 947 7215
Fax: 0207 947 7679

Re: Flores and Cracy v One Housing Group

Dear Ms Balsom,

The reference numbers are B5/2010/2396

The reference number of the claimants N244 Application is 2013/PI/10478.

The Respondents Notice, to which the reply below is in reference to, is the same as above B5/2010/2396 but it may help to have the DX reference which is LZM/SXP/Y059098.

Please let me know if you need anything further from me in terms of a full verbose reply to their application.

Kind Regards

 Ms Flores
spaceshift...
in association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
104-108 Cromer Street
London WC1H 8BZ
UK
tel: 00 44 (0) 20 7837 6680
mob: 07916 325037

Flores and Cracy v One Housing Group

Dear Civil Appeals Office,

Please note the skeleton for the respondent is out of time (even considering asking for an extension) and unless it is granted that permission to file their response is two weeks after they receive our skeleton, which with all due respect will be a day before the hearing, they are also out of time to file their skeleton and the Civil Appeals Office can under the CPR rules dismiss their application with full costs.

Kinds Regards

Ms Flores