Local Council defrauded money from me, Local Court aren't interested

[polonium]

Not at all sure where to post this. The brief gist of it is in the title. I won't go into much detail until a mediator tells me which sub-forum is most appropriate to post this.

 

Council damaged my house, they withheld all of the evidence from the court and made false statements in Court. My claim couldn't continue. and as a result, council were awarded costs against me. I now have the evidence, which the council withheld, I have referred it to the Court. Court don't want to know. Council agree that they withheld evidence, but they won't return my money. Dispute has been going on for up to six years.

Edited July 18, 2013 by polonium
alteration

[citizenB]

For the time being I have moved you to Legal issues as you have mentioned "Court"..

[unclebulgaria67]

When the court say that they aren't interested, I suspect that they require a relevant application or new claim to be made against the council. If I were in you position I would see what free legal advice I could obtain locally. Have you looked into getting help from a Solicitor ? Is there a local advice centre ? Some of the Citizens Advice bureaus will have Solicitors who help out and may offer a free half hour consultation.

[polonium]

Thanks,

 

Things have gone a lot further than that.

 

OK, Public Highway (major A Road) outside my house, and for 100 metres in either direction collapsed in 2005 to 2007. Council, who are Highway Authority said it was due to continued leaks from Water Co. water mains. Water Co denied that they had any leaks. My house was rocked for about 2 years from 2005 to 2007 by the vehicles hitting the recurring potholes. My front wall cracked. Highway reconstructed in 2007. Neither Council or Water Co would accept responsibility, so I took them both to small claims court (under £5,000 claim).

 

In 2008 Court ordered all parties to instruct a joint surveyor, and to disclose. Parties instructed surveyor. They both ignored order to disclose. Surveyor did report, but was pretty incompetent. As he had no evidence that highway had collapsed, his report said he wasn't sure, but he thought my wall had cracked due to temperature and moisture variations.(Its been there for 35 years, so not very likely)

 

At the next Court hearing, the other parties tried to claim costs from me as they said my claim had no chance of success. Court dismissed their application but transferred case into Fast Track. I told Judge the other parties had not disclosed. Judge ordered them again to disclose. This time they made the declaration, but they withheld all evidence that showed their negligence or that the highway had collapsed. i.e. they made false declarations. I offered to go to ADR - They refused. Their costs were accruing at £1,000 per week. Legal Advice I got was that as an individual of modest means, I could not stand the costs risks of a case in the Fast Track, and should withdraw. Court said it was quite OK to withdraw at any time. I did so.

 

Council and Water Co then pursued me for costs - They would have eventually wanted up to £37,000 from me. When the Costs hearing came around, they applied for their small claims costs of £6,000 + each because they said I had brought the case "unreasonably". They didn't get their small claims costs. They got £3,500 (half their Fast Track Costs) from me. They didn't get the rest because they had refused ADR.

 

As I knew the Council couldn't have carried out such a large highway reconstruction without documents, over the next few years, I got their documents relating to the highway collapse by Freedom of Information requests.

 

Turns out that they had allowed, or at any rate, not prevented, a Cable TV company from laying their cables by cutting through all of the steel highway reinforcements in the highway. Council have highways inspectors, but they didn't notice !. Water Company had numerous water leaks that contributed to the collapse. Water Co also had a report dated 2006, that said the highway had been shoddily repaired for many years and had voids under. Council had several hundred documents about damage to and repair to highway, but chose to hide them when ordered twice to disclose in 2008 I have all of this as documents.

 

Local Government Ombudsman will not get involved. OFWAT and Consumer Council for Water don't want to know. Standards Committee of Council ditto. Citizens Advice will only give me a list of Solicitors, All Solicitors won't get involved unless I pay them upfront.

 

In 2010 I referred the evidence to the Court as per Practice Direction 32. (This applied at the time, ended 2012) Court say I need to make an application and I would be at further costs risk. That's not what the PD says. It just says refer evidence of false statements to the court. Then court is supposed to consider whether statements are deliberately false, and then if so, to punish them.

 

Met with Council with my MP, Council say they thought they didn't need to disclose internal documents or photos, say they're sorry they didn't do it during court case, (they were represented by a large firm of solicitors so this is very dubious) and they decline to return my money.

 

Contacted my MP. MP asked Attorney General for advice. AG says refer it back to court, (he knows I already tried this) but he says bring the Practice Direction to the Court's Attention. I did this. Court ignore the evidence I supplied them with, won't even acknowledge allegation has been made. MP has asked Court to explain why they are refusing to comply with PD. That was seven weeks ago, they haven't replied.

 

Made a complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman (via MP) as court not following Rules. PO says they can't get involved - I can ask for a review, once only. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

Local Newspaper ran a story on it, but they're so biased in favour of the council, as they have to keep the council sweet.

 

Contacted BBC Watchdog, Don't Get Done, Get Dom, They're not interested.

Council had to go to Transport for London, who gave them £200,000 (tax-payers money) for the reconstruction. In total it cost c.£321,000. Cable TV Company and Water Company paid zero.

 

Edit: Forgot to say, Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg aren't interested. Eric Pickles, Dept of Community and Local Government isn't interested.

 

Chris Huhne lied to a court about his speeding points and got sent to prison. My Council lied to court about their negligence, and the court don't want to know. Go Figure !

Edited July 19, 2013 by polonium
Addition

[polonium]

OK, So I guess no-one has any ideas, then ?

 

Or is perverting the course of justice now acceptable ?

[citizenB]

This thread is now in "General Legal Issues"

 

It is purely an administrative move.

[polonium]

Thanks Citizen8.

 

I have now had the reply from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Although I quoted their stated Principles. i.e. that they will redress an injustice caused to an individual by a public body, the Ombudsman say "It's nothing to do with us" !

 

It seems that no-one in the whole of the British "Justice" system is prepared to do anything about criminal acts committed by a Local Authority or take any responsibility for a court that won't follow the rules. I think the only course now is to report the crime to the Police and hope they don't wash their hands of it also.

Edited September 16, 2013 by citizenB

[Ganymede]

So they only thing stopping the Court looking into it is you not paying the fee?

[Riz0]

Polonium, what is your asset position? Is there any way you can make it seem as if you have no assets/wealth to take away the costs risk? i.e. even if you were to lose you won't have the means to make payment and the council will just have to live with that?

 

If you are looking to rely on the provisions of CPR 32.14, I think you need to look up the procedure and issue around bringing committal proceedings against either the council/the water co or the individuals that signed the statements of truth. You need to go back to the original statements/evidence relied upon and highlight exactly where they have lied or made a false statement. To help, you may want to obtain transcripts of any oral evidence provided on the back of those statements as that is where witnesses can often be a bit liberal about the truth.

 

This will mean preparing an application to the court and paying the relevant fee (or applying for a remission if you are eligible).

 

I am happy to look at this in more detail this evening.

[polonium]

I am So SORRY, Guys, I didn't realise anyone else had replied. Didn't get any notification from CAG that there were new replies.

 

So they only thing stopping the Court looking into it is you not paying the fee?

 

There isn't a fee. The Practice Direction says, (paraphrased) Anyone alleging that false declarations of truth or false statements have been made in court should refer that allegation to the court where the false statements were made. The court then investigates, decides whether punishment is appropriate or not, OR to refer it to the Attorney General to investigate. The court DON'T have the option to to absolutely nothing.

 

Polonium, what is your asset position? Is there any way you can make it seem as if you have no assets/wealth to take away the costs risk? i.e. even if you were to lose you won't have the means to make payment and the council will just have to live with that? Can't do that - I am a house-owner - besides the Council owe me money (that they defrauded from me ), rather than the other way round

 

If you are looking to rely on the provisions of CPR 32.14, I think you need to look up the procedure and issue around bringing committal proceedings against either the council/the water co or the individuals that signed the statements of truth. The procedure is as above in the Practice Direction 32 (now superceded)

 

You need to go back to the original statements/evidence relied upon and highlight exactly where they have lied or made a false statement. I have done this and sent a full explanation and evidence to the Court and the Attorney General - Neither of them will do anything, at all .

 

To help, you may want to obtain transcripts of any oral evidence provided on the back of those statements as that is where witnesses can often be a bit liberal about the truth. The evidence is in writing, i.e. the false declarations of truth on the disclosure statements - Oral evidence would not be conclusive.

 

This will mean preparing an application to the court and paying the relevant fee (or applying for a remission if you are eligible)

 

As above, there is no fee. False statements of Truth are "Contempt of Court" a criminal (and imprisonable offence). This is an offence against the court rather than me, directly. I allege that they have Perverted the course of Justice - This offence is committed where a person does an act which, 1) has a tendency to pervert the course of justice and, 2) is intended to pervert the course of justice. They then extracted as much money as they could from me, (which they refuse to return) I suggest that this is FRAUD, plain and simple. These are criminal offences and I would much rather not risk losing my house, I would sooner the State prosecuted this as it does in other criminal offences.

 

I am happy to look at this in more detail this evening.

 

Things have moved a little further on from when I last posted.

 

My MP has written to the court asking why they aren't following the Practice Direction. The court replied, (eventually) ,saying they had taken a "judicial decision" not to do anything ! AND the MP can't ask them about it, as they refuse to discuss "judicial decisions" !

 

My MP has asked the Minister for Justice to explain under what circumstances, is it acceptable for a court to disregard a Practice Direction, and what procedure should be followed when this happens. When I get a reply, I'll let you know.

 

My understanding of the Human Rights Act Article 6, is that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing in both Civil and Criminal court. If the Minister doesn't do something, (like referring it to the Attorney General or a higher court) my next move will be to make a Police Statement. - but I don't have much hope that they will take much notice.

Edited November 1, 2013 by polonium

[steampowered]

Regrettably I think your interpretation of CPR 32 is wrong for the following reasons.

 

Firstly, CPR 32 is about giving evidence and applies to live proceedings not dead proceedings. Remember that the CPR all work together and you cannot consider only one aspect of the CPR. The general CPR applying to applications for court orders is CPR 23.

 

Second, you cannot treat the court like complaining to a regulator. If you want proceedings to be brought for contempt of court there is a proper procedure for doing this. Refer to CPR 81.

 

Third, your paraphrasing of what the old Practice Direction says is not correct. The old Practice Direction you refer to states "The court - a exercise any of its powers under the rules; b initate steps to consider if there is contempt of court and, where there is, to punish it ... c direct the party making the allegation to refer the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to bring proceedings for contempt of court".

 

The PD only says the court "may" do any of these things. The court is not required to do any of these things. The PD also says it should be YOU referring this to the Attorney General, not the court.

 

Fourth, your posts do not suggest contempt of court. Disclosure screw ups are unfortunately common. Unless you can prove it was done deliberately there is no contempt of court.

 

For your health and sanity might be better to let this one go. Its been five years since 2008, very unlikely anything can happen now. At some point you need closure.

[polonium]

Regrettably I think your interpretation of CPR 32 is wrong for the following reasons.

Firstly, CPR 32 is about giving evidence and applies to live proceedings not dead proceedings. Remember that the CPR all work together and you cannot consider only one aspect of the CPR. The general CPR applying to applications for court orders is CPR 23. Second, you cannot treat the court like complaining to a regulator. If you want proceedings to be brought for contempt of court there is a proper procedure for doing this.

 

It was the Attorney General that suggested using PD 32, although I had already tried this. As he is a QC, I have to assume that the AG knows what the proper procedure is

 

Refer to CPR 81.

 

It is now CPR 81, but until 2012, when I referred this to the court, PD 32 applied.

 

Third, your paraphrasing of what the old Practice Direction says is not correct. The old Practice Direction you refer to states "The court may – (a) exercise any of its powers under the rules; (b ) initiate steps to consider if there is contempt of court and, where there is, to punish it ... © direct the party making the allegation to refer the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to bring proceedings for contempt of court".

 

The PD only says the court "may" do any of these things. The court is not required to do any of these things.

 

As far as I can see, the court DOES have the power to do nothing, but only after looking at the evidence. In this case, the court are refusing to consider the evidence, at all. They say my MP cannot ask why they have decided to do this, as they don't comment on "judicial decisions"

 

The PD also says it should be YOU referring this to the Attorney General, not the court.

 

(1) The Attorney General prefers referrals to come from the court rather than individuals - (2) “A request to the Attorney General must be made in writing and sent to the AGO’s office at . . . . it must be accompanied by a copy of the order directing that the matter be referred to the AG and must identify the statement said to be false, and explain why it is false, and why the maker knew it was false at the time, and explain why contempt proceedings would be appropriate in the light of the over-riding objective in Part 1.”

 

That is directly from the AG’s reply to my MP. (and probably directly from the PD) I have referred this to the Attorney General but he says his office must remain impartial

 

Fourth, your posts do not suggest contempt of court. Disclosure screw ups are unfortunately common. Unless you can prove it was done deliberately there is no contempt of court.

 

As this is an open forum I have not been too specific, The evidence is written and completely indisputable, The Council spent well over £300,000 in 2007, on reconstructing the highway, there were hundreds of documents withheld, and the Council Officer, who signed the statement in 2008 and certified to the court, that the list was a complete list, had actually written some of the withheld documents. Moreover, when I and my MP showed the withheld documents to the Council, they had no credible excuse, and they still refuse to return the money they extracted from me. You would think that had it been a simple screw-up, they would have returned my money, wouldn't you ? You might also expect the court to take some action to redress the injustice caused by this "screw-up"

 

For your health and sanity might be better to let this one go. Its been five years since 2008, very unlikely anything can happen now. At some point you need closure.

 

Thank you for your reasoned response, but as I remember it, Chris Huhne’s speeding offence took place in 2002, but he was prosecuted n 2011/12. He wrote a letter to the court saying that he wasn't driving. That was automatically contempt of court, the fact that he intended it to avoid the legal consequences made it also perverting the course of justice. Fair enough, I am not a Cabinet Minister, I am just an ordinary Joe, but doesn't the Law apply equally to everyone ? . . . maybe the Council and the Court have an "unhealthy" relationship ?

[steampowered]

Now I am confused. You say that the list contained some of the withheld documents. So how are they withheld documents - why did you not request these documents at the time?

 

Yes, I don't think there is any time limit. But as time passes it becomes more and more difficult to prove things ... if Huhne was not a Cabinet Minister its very unlikely he would have ever been prosecuted let alone jailed.

 

In order to show contempt of court, you would have to show deliberate wrongdoing by a particular individual. You can't be in contempt of court through negligence it has to be deliberate. I would think the documents should have been disclosed and understand why you feel aggrieved, but unless you can prove someone deliberately withheld them this is a non-starter. In big organisations such as councils the court applies a concept a "proportionate search" ... just because a document exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be uncovered at the time or that you will be able to demand a search for it.

 

CPR 81 has always been the CPR applicable to contempt of court applications. CPR 23 is about evidence generally it is not specifically about contempt of court. There is nothing in the CPR which suggests that the court must look at the evidence itself - if you want to bring contempt of court proceedings there is a recognised procedure for doing so.

[polonium]

Now I am confused. You say that the list contained some of the withheld documents. No So how are they withheld documents - why did you not request these documents at the time?

Sorry if I didn't make it clear. The list contained just a few old documents dating from 2005. The Council certified that a full and proportionate search had been made for all relevant documents dated between 2004 to 2008, and their list was a complete list of all relevant documents. BUT, the list did not include any of the hundreds of documents that had been created by the Council in 2007, covering the emergency reconstruction of the highway in 2007. The Council made this declaration in 2008. The Officer signing the declaration in 2008 had actually written some of the documents in 2006 and 2007. So unless she had suffered acute amnesia, she must have known that her declaration was false. The standard declaration also includes an affirmation that the "signer" understands the duty of disclosure and has complied with it. I could not have requested the documents at the time because they were not on the list, and I could not prove their existence- until I had obtained them

 

Yes, I don't think there is any time limit. But as time passes it becomes more and more difficult to prove things ... if Huhne was not a Cabinet Minister its very unlikely he would have ever been prosecuted let alone jailed. That is true, but perhaps both Cabinet Ministers and Local Authorities should be held to account for perverting the course of Justice ? perhaps there should be a "zero-tolerance" policy for perverting the course of Justice ?

 

In order to show contempt of court, you would have to show deliberate wrongdoing by a particular individual. You can't be in contempt of court through negligence it has to be deliberate. If this had been looked at by an impartial court, it could not have been seen as anything other than deliberate. How could a Council possibly NOT know about an emergency Public Highway reconstruction the previous year ? ? I would think the documents should have been disclosed and understand why you feel aggrieved, but unless you can prove someone deliberately withheld them this is a non-starter. What sort of proof do you think might be conclusive, then ? Perhaps a signed statement from the Council in 2008 that they have declared all relevant documents, and a few hundred of the documents in their possession in 2007 that they DIDN'T declare ? Well, I have that and have presented it to the Court in accordance with PD 32. As to deliberate or accidental, I think the assumption is, that persons signing court documents are generally of sound mind, unless they can provide evidence of mental incapacity. How could anything ever be proved if courts will not look at the evidence ?

 

In big organisations such as councils the court applies a concept of a "proportionate search" ... No, the Court is supposed to apply the requirement of a proportionate search for everyone just because a document exists doesn't necessarily mean it will be uncovered at the time or that you will be able to demand a search for it. I don't think even big organisations can evade their legal duties by saying, "We're a big organisation, and we couldn't find any of the documents". It is the court that demands a reasonable and proportionate search. If the Council were so incompetent that they forgot that they had an emergency highway re-construction costing £300,000 the previous year, with hundreds of documents, perhaps they shouldn't have signed a legally binding declaration that they didn't have those documents ? And then pursued me for costs after they had scuppered my court claim ?

 

CPR 81 has always been the CPR applicable to contempt of court applications. No, Only since Dec 2012/ Jan 2013. Previously it was PD 32. CPR 23 is about evidence generally it is not specifically about contempt of court.

 

There is nothing in the CPR which suggests that the court must look at the evidence itself - If false statements have been made how would courts become aware of them, unless they look at the evidence ? if you want to bring contempt of court proceedings there is a recognised procedure for doing so.Yes, the AG says it's using PD 32

 

Yes, the AG says it's using PD 32, at least, he did, when I referred it to the Court in 2012, before CPR 81 came in, and PD 32 still applied,.

 

I spoke to a solicitor about this, he had given me some advice previously, and, NO, he won't represent me. I described what the Council had done, and he said, "Oh, they've committed perjury". I didn't say that I thought perjury only happened when under oath, after all, he says he has 31 years experience as a solicitor.

[steampowered]

Having seen some monumental disclosure screw-ups in my time, I don't think it is inconceivable that the person signing the disclosure statement was not aware of the highway reconstruction. This kind of thing does happen with large organisations like councils who hold millions of documents in different departments with no central database. The fact that the documents weren't disclosed does sound negligent but not sure you would be able to prove it was deliberate.

 

There is a formal procedure for bringing contempt of court proceedings. The system has been in operation for several hundred years through the RSC rules and now formalised by CPR 81. The court very rarely (in fact I am not aware of any examples) brings contempt proceedings of its own volition, judges are generally used to deciding disputes and adjudicates on formal requests not acting as prosecutor ... and AG generally only prosecutes where there is significant public interest. If you want to bring contempt of court proceedings against the individual that signed the disclosure statement or the council that is still an option open to you, through you'd need to use the proper procedure. Although I wouldn't advise it for the reasons given above ... there is a reason why contempt of court proceedings are rarely brought, the standard of proof required is very high.

[polonium]

Having seen some monumental disclosure screw-ups in my time, I don't think it is inconceivable that the person signing the disclosure statement was not aware of the highway reconstruction.

 

How about monumental disclosure screw-ups that have caused a miscarriage of Justice, is it worth the court''s trouble to do anything ? ? Sorry to labour this point, but I DO think it's inconceivable, "The Officer signing the declaration in 2008 had actually written some of the documents in 2006 and 2007." These were documents directly about the highway damage. How clear does it have to be, to show that the declaration was false ? I mean, you can remember what happened to you last year, can't you, Councils are required to keep records, you know !

 

This kind of thing does happen with large organisations like councils who hold millions of documents in different departments with no central database. In a claim about damage caused by a collapsing Public Highway, most organisations would consider it essential and even prudent to check the records in their Highways department. In this case the Council Highways dept held hundreds of relevant documents. Most Councils these days even have computers and suchlike to keep and find their records. You must admit, it must be hard ( and more than a little reckless) to truthfully make a legal declaration that you have made a full and proportionate search for all relevant documents, if you haven't even checked with your Highways dept. ?

 

The fact that the documents weren't disclosed does sound negligent but not sure you would be able to prove it was deliberate. It's certainly going to be difficult, as the court refuse to even look at the evidence ! Do you think that Councils should be held to account for their negligence ?

 

There is a formal procedure for bringing contempt of court proceedings. The system has been in operation for several hundred years through the RSC rules and now formalised by CPR 81. Here is a quote from a solicitors website > > " From 1st October 2012 CPR 81 and its practice direction came into force. In this article, GCN's Gary Willock reviews the new CPR 81 from the perspective of . . . . ." Yes, since October 2012 its been CPR 81, previously it was PD 32.

 

The court very rarely (in fact I am not aware of any examples) brings contempt proceedings of its own volition, judges are generally used to deciding disputes and adjudicates on formal requests not acting as prosecutor ... So the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP is wrong, then ?

 

and AG generally only prosecutes where there is significant public interest. Yes, there should be sufficient public interest in prosecuting both lying Cabinet Ministers and lying Local Authorities, don't you think ? Of course, Huhne didn't do it to screw a member of the public, he only did it to escape the penalty for speeding

 

If you want to bring contempt of court proceedings against the individual that signed the disclosure statement or the council that is still an option open to you, through you'd need to use the proper procedure. Well, I've already told you, the AG has explained the proper procedure. If you mean I'd have to bring a case in the Local County Court, who have already indicated that they are not in the slightest bit interested, Yes,. It seems they are biased in favour of the Local Council - Do you think it's "the Old Boys Network" or just a Bung ? ?

 

Although I wouldn't advise it for the reasons given above ... No, nor would I, because the State is supposed to prosecute all criminal offences, not the individual,

 

there is a reason why contempt of court proceedings are rarely brought, the standard of proof required is very high. Hmm, If you disobey a court order, let alone two court orders, like the council did, and are unable to explain why you have done so, it's AUTOMATICALLY contempt of court, so not really that high But if the court want to turn a "blind eye" to criminality in their own court, what do you do ?

 

I'm not sure whether you consider that it is OK, or maybe it's just acceptable for a Local Authority to pervert the course of justice in order to evade their Statutory liabilities, but if they can do it, surely any crook can do it ? In any case, at the moment, the latest is that my MP has asked the Minister to explain why the court are not following the rules.

[steampowered]

I don't really have anything to add to my previous posts. CPR 81 itself is recent but the contents are not new, the way in which you can bring contempt of court proceedings has been the same for decades. There are not many examples of the AG bringing contempt of court proceedings, it is generally done in the public interest, and from reading the case law on contempt of courtI am not aware of any examples where the court would start proceedings of its own volition (other than situations where someone is judged in contempt during live proceedings). The court generally does not see it as its role to do these things, the court is set up to act as a neutral adjudicator not as a prosecutor.

 

As set out above, PD 32 does not require the court to do anything. It does not say the court must investigate or that it must do anything, only that the court "may" take the steps listed.

 

I don't consider what happened to be OK. I am just getting the impression that this is eating away at you. It might be better to let this one go. If you want contempt proceedings to be initiated you can do so through the proper route, but I don't recommend as you would need to engage solicitors and would be liable for costs if not successful.

[polonium]

Ok, thanks