Help Needed - Local Council - Gross Negligence, Victimisation.... you name it

[damo1312]

cillitbanger..

 

Thanks again.. feeling a fair bit more buoyed up now, working out how to get somewhere

[damo1312]

JonCris..

 

sorry, tried to PM you but box is full

 

Slight mix-up with those dates I gave you, as Tues is the actual anniversary so not about till Wed eve or any time after..

 

Can also give landline no if cheaper, PM me if that helps?

 

Soz for confusion

 

Damo

[damo1312]

Hi all

 

I won't be around until Weds after this and my next post, as its two yrs since my mum's passing on Mon, and I just need to spend a little bit of family time and withdraw for a few days..

 

Please feel free to keep adding any comments or suggestions, they really do help and hopefully they will also help those who follow (which is why I always try and post in as much detail as I can without undermining myself.. ;-)

[damo1312]

just one more post before I'm off..

 

I've just reread blacksheep's replies to my thread (and although I really do hope that the intentions are well-meaning) as I said above, people may use this thread and tailor what is said in it for their own circumstances...

 

and as such blacksheep, I feel that I must raise several points of issue with the content and tone of some of your replies.

 

Firstly:

 

As to the court tbh your defense isn't much of a legal defense its all circumstantial and something that a normal person could have dealt with, all the broken bones and illnesses by family members would have been seen as nothing more than an excuse by the judge and unless you brought in a medical statement saying you were unfit to be questioned in such a way then a judge was going to proceed with his normal methods of gaining information.

 

The N11R form (and the supporting paperwork that came with it) never even remotely suggest that the Defence needed to be a standard legal defence; in fact, they strongly indicate to the contrary by virtue of the advice given in order to answer the specific question (no. 29).

 

here is the specific instruction (on the form, copied verbatim) as concerns answering this question (and therefore, dictating the format of Defence required:

 

'Give details of any events or circumstances which have led to your being in arrears of rent (for example divorce, separation, redundancy, bereavement, illness, bankruptcy) or any other particular circumstances affecting your case. If there are any reasons why the date any possession order should be delayed, give them here. If you believe you would suffer exceptional hardship by being ordered to leave the property immediately, say why'

 

(The emboldened parts were not as such on the form, I have done this in order to highlight them).

 

Please note that the instruction does not include the following (which is intentionally strongly-worded, in order to make a point:

 

'We are instructing you to provide this information in order to give you the mistaken assumption that it will have any effect. We are expecting you to be expert in legal matters. Although we have strongly inferred otherwise, we are expecting you to second-guess our requirements and as such act as if you were qualified legal counsel. Additionally, although we have made no reference to such, we shall expect you to guess that you are to provide supplementary evidence for any point that you make.'

 

Sound ridiculous? I believe it does, which is why I would not expect to guess how to proceed when faced with what is clearly written (upon what, after all, is the Legal System's own form).

 

'...something that a normal person could have dealt with...'

 

This statement strongly comes across as condescending, and is in danger of bordering on the offensive (please define 'normal', and therefore, by inference, 'abnormal' in this context). Please do not use this type of inflammatory language on my thread, even if it is innocently intended.

 

all the broken bones and illnesses by family members would have been seen as nothing more than an excuse by the judge

 

if such is indeed the case, then those of us who have any form of issue have little, if any, reason to place any faith in any such Judge

 

unless you brought in a medical statement saying you were unfit to be questioned in such a way then a judge was going to proceed with his normal methods of gaining information

 

 

1) as I have stated, at no point anywhere in the documentation is any mention made of supporting evidence being required. Again, most of us are not legal counsel and should not be expected to second-guess what is required

 

2) This perpetuates a circular argument, and so effectively the expectation is thus:

 

'we have been told that you are vulnerable, and are aware of the form that this vulnerability takes. However, unless you allow us to discriminate by forcing you to act in a manner that you have stated you are unable to do, then we shall use this vulnerability against you..'

 

really? In what way can this be said to constitute 'Justice?'

 

I'm just saying after being in court and having seen excuses along those lines

 

Please enlighten me as to in what capacity you were at these cases. If I am to infer that this means that you are in some way connected to either the Legal or Local Government establishment (and I apologise if such is not the case) then please refrain from pushing any vested interest on this thread.... it does not serve to help me (or any who use this thread) by doing so

 

didn't it heal well enough after a couple of weeks? why didn't you get someone else to write/type for you? couldn't you type one handed etc

 

I am assuming that you are again referring to my fractured clavicle.

 

1) Please stop highlighting one particular issue at the expense of the other points raised...it is simply one of many issues

 

2) This fracture did not indeed stop me typing... at no point did I say otherwise; and no, it tooks two months to heal.... This is not the point however; this was mentioned along with such other points as Depression (which is a very volatile condition, and can have ramifications for all other points made; I am stating this as a Psychology Graduate who is all too qualified, both in terms of experience and qualified opinion, to say as such), and in any case all points (including this) were made as part of a whole overview, and not to be taken in isolation. Refusal to countenance this as it was clearly intended (i.e. as an overview, as the form requested) says more about potential failings of the Legal System, than it does about my making these points...

 

And in the end anything that sways the judges view towards him seeing you as someone who is chancing it or using anything you can as an excuse is going to help the other party.

 

Again, this says more about our legal system than my issues as (if it is indeed true), it is a damning indictment upon our trust of the Rule of Law; who constitutes what counts as an 'excuse', and purveys this to all parties concerned so that no bias is shown against them (i.e. I am sure, or at least I strongly hope, that someone is such a position of authority as a Judge does not assess cases using the following mindset..

 

'This looks a little complicated, so I'll decide that several of the points are excuses. It's a Monday after all, and I really can't be bothered with all of this.')

 

I truly, truly hope not.

 

PLEASE, for my sake and (as I keep saying, as it is important) for those who follow, please do not make statements that

 

a) rely on hindsight bias, and

b) do not advance the thread in a constructive manner.

 

As an aside to this (as it is am important point which I feel needs to be discussed, but in the appropriate place) I have posted the following discussion thread in the Beer Garden:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/55092-legal-system-biased-whether.html#post456870

 

damo

[blacksheep1979]

Sorry if my posts seemed to put a downer on anything you have planned etc, I was just trying to put a realistic perspective on things (devils advocate n all that) - and just to confirm, no I am nothing at all to do with any council. My experiences with the small claims court have been to do with claiming money off individuals - who when trying to reason why they had not paid up to that point and why they could only afford to make a token payment (even a 16k salary living with parents and no expenses). Excuses galore were in these cases and they do not look good for that party.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately in my case as the defendants were lying through their teeth) you have to have proof in court. So saying

 

Diagnosed as Clinically Depressed several times since 2001 (most recently from bereavement onwards; this SERIOUSLY limits my verbal communication, both in terms of clarity and a strong tendency to break under duress when stressed, leaving me to put all correspondence with Council / Creditors in writing wherever possible)

 

- Depression has forced me to exist on Incapacity Benefit (made permanent August 2006) even though I do not wish to stay on such permanently (or indeed for any longer than necessary)

 

- Depression means that even this written correspondence takes me considerably longer than is my norm to complete (e.g. Complaints to Council, as substantial, often take weeks or even months to fully complete)

any less scrupulous individual than yourself could claim this for damage limitation.

 

also unless you stipulate why, things such as

 

- Brother I live with suffers from serious asthma (with several near fatal episodes, most recent prior to mother's last hospitalisation in November 2004) which constantly effect his health severely

 

- Elder sister (non-resident) recovering from Breast Cancer, also heavily depressed

have little to no bearing on the case

 

and it goes on - most of your points are of little bearing and tbh a judge probably will have little sympathy for a bereavement from almost 2 years ago.

 

I believe a simple statement along the lines of

 

"Due to my ongoing depression which has cost me my job and being on Incapacity Benefit I have been unable to maintain payments. I have tried on numerous ocasions to settle this debt by setting up some kind of payment plan. I do not believe removing me from this property would benefit the council in any form and would hamper my recovery and ability to return to work."

 

then provide proof with a doctors note would have found a far more sympathetic ear than someone who seems to be trying any and all angles.

 

And am I wrong in reading that all this came about mainly over a dispute overa couple of windows not opening properly, being without window keys for a short period of time (readily available from a diy store) and a few light fittings being broken?

 

I really don't want to sound rude, and this will come accross as harsh, but going full tilt with complaints etc can rub people up the wrong way and have a negative affect and draw the problem out which I believe this situation maybe not in full, but at least in part is caused by.

[damo1312]

blacksheep..

 

thanks for your reply, and it is obvious to me now that the intention of your posts are constructive, and that any issues I may have are merely to do with the points you raise and/or, occasionally, if any of the tone of the language you use comes across as abrasive (again, the bulk of the points that you make suggest that any such langauge is not intended to offend).

 

It is absolutely nothing to do with you personally, just wanted to make that clear..

 

Also, for others who aren't yet as far along as I am, blacksheep's info would appear to be very useful when preparing yourself... you are receiving info that I wasn't privy to when it was my turn (through no fault of any one on the Forum, as I didn't post till after the fact)....

 

now, with that having been said, to the specifics you raise:

 

My experiences with the small claims court have been to do with claiming money off individuals - who when trying to reason why they had not paid up to that point and why they could only afford to make a token payment (even a 16k salary living with parents and no expenses). Excuses galore were in these cases and they do not look good for that party

 

That's fine as and of itself.. but I think it's my turn to play Mr Pacino here..there definitely are individuals like this (who for whatever reason are merely withholding, or simply playing the system), but I hope that such experience hasn't served to jade you against everybody in this regard.. we aren't all the same and shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. If every point that a defendant raises is automatically assumed to be an excuse, then we're all in trouble when it's our turn (as nothing would ever suffice).. Additionally, if Judges truly do view these things in this way, then we areally are all in serious trouble as a Society...

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately in my case as the defendants were lying through their teeth) you have to have proof in court.

 

Again this is fine as it stands... hindsight is a wonderful thing, but (as I made very clear in my last post) if we are all expected to be legal counsel, then we should at least be warned as such (and not indeed strongly led to believe otherwise in the paperwork that we receive from, of all places, a Court).

 

This notwithstanding, this info is very useful for those who follow..

 

also unless you stipulate why, things such as

 

 

Quote:

- Brother I live with suffers from serious asthma (with several near fatal episodes, most recent prior to mother's last hospitalisation in November 2004) which constantly effect his health severely

 

- Elder sister (non-resident) recovering from Breast Cancer, also heavily depressed

have little to no bearing on the case

 

1) if this indeed is the case, then (as I stated in my previous thread) the instructions with the form need to be amended, as they strongly infer that any and / or all information is relevant if it has any bearing whatsoever; if they do not require this information, they shouldn't ask for it...

 

2) In any case, these things (and all of the points that I raised) DO have a substantial bearing on the situation... if any case does not reflect this, then it suggests that it is the legal system that is flawed, rather than my information

 

tbh a judge probably will have little sympathy for a bereavement from almost 2 years ago.

 

Again, if this is the case, then such a Judge does not deserve his position. The placing of an arbitrary timescale is insulting to (and shows contempt towards) the individual concerned, and has no basis upon the scientific reality of circumstances such as this..

 

'you've been bereaved for 'x' months / years. Therefore you have now achieved mental/fiscal/emotional/whatever state 'y' on our Arbitrary Bereavement Scale...'

 

it doesn't work like that.

 

As a Psychology Honours Graduate who specialised in the fields of mental illness and emotion (taking this degree and working during the day, whilst acting as a full-time carer for a terminally-ill parent at night) I am obliged to say that anyone who says otherwise is, I am afraid, scientfically, quantifiably and provably (as well as morally and ethically) incorrect.

 

If they subscribe to such an arbitrary and subjective viewpoint (without watertight justification), then they are (particularly) not competent to hold any position of authority that relies upon them being objective.

 

Period.

 

(this is a discussion for another thread, and I'd be happy to go over it in the Beer Garden).

 

I believe a simple statement along the lines of

 

"Due to my ongoing depression which has cost me my job and being on Incapacity Benefit I have been unable to maintain payments. I have tried on numerous ocasions to settle this debt by setting up some kind of payment plan. I do not believe removing me from this property would benefit the council in any form and would hamper my recovery and ability to return to work."

 

Again, hindsight is annoyingly useful;

 

nevertheless, this is again particularly useful for any others who may be reading this thread, in a similar situation, to adapt for themselves, and I again thank you for it on that basis.

 

then provide proof with a doctors note would have found a far more sympathetic ear than someone who seems to be trying any and all angles.

 

I've already stated why this didn't occur, but nevertheless note your comment with the benefit of hindsight.

 

And am I wrong in reading that all this came about mainly over a dispute overa couple of windows not opening properly, being without window keys for a short period of time (readily available from a diy store) and a few light fittings being broken?

 

Respectfully, yes you are... these were parts of the issue, but didn't start it; the Council's attitude immediately following the bereavement (and their generally blasé manner) did (which I am not prepared to go into; suffice to say, it stunk)..

 

on the specific points:

 

1) these are double-glazed windows with integral locks which cannot be replaced independently, and would cost thousands to replace without keys (no key, lock and therefore window, inoperable)

 

2) Even if I had the money (and the Council allowed tenants to do these kinds of repairs themselves, which they don't) then I most certainly wouldn't out of principle (it's their responsibility, and I'm not going to let them shirk it anymore)

 

3) Lack of regulated airflow (especially in extreme heat) can be fatal to asthmatics; therefore being unable do so is hardly an incidental issue

 

4) Do I take it that, if you were faced with these faults (and were not permitted by Tenancy Regulations to attend to them yourself) that you'd be happy enough to leave them as they were?

 

going full tilt with complaints etc can rub people up the wrong way and have a negative affect and draw the problem out which I believe this situation maybe not in full, but at least in part is caused by

 

If they do the wrong thing, then they face the consequences; if they don't like it, then I'm afraid that's tough, and if it drags things out, so be it. They caused (and have perpetuated) the situation, and they will he held to account. I have no intention of blinking first, however much they may be rubbed up the wrong way.

 

I think, to round this discussion off, it may be best to state that:

 

1) we are approaching the same situation from different viewpoints, and our beliefs over legitimiacy appear always liable to clash.

 

2) I'm sorry if I keep saying this, but Hindsight is great after the fact, but we are not all legal counsel; if the system expects us to be, then it is flawed in that regard (and yes, I realise that this is a philosophical, rather than a practical, point)

 

Nevertheless:

 

2) your specific points are very useful for others who follow (or indeed myself, should I be unfortunate enough to find myself in this, or a similar, situation in future), and I wholeheartedly thank you for that.

 

damo

 

(Can I breathe in now..?)

[damo1312]

ANYWAY....

 

back to the case at hand...

 

I'm going to hit them with a DSAR (for everything they have about me...

 

every e-mail (internal or otherwise)...

every piece of correspondence...

every note on my Account...

every decision....

every available telephone call transcript / recording....

 

and will want to know, if they can't provide something, why not (and expect them to prove that they are entitled to withhold it)..

 

then, when I have their reply, it (and all of my relevant correspondence) is off to the LGO. ;-)

 

One query re that if anyone knows...

 

My last contact was with a Councillor (waste of space) in September..

 

with the Council proper, it was back in July (I think offhand, have the exact date somewhere).

 

The LGO say you need to contact them within six months of the Council's Final Response.

 

1) Does a Councillor count as 'the Council' and, if not,

 

2) would I need to write to someone else in the Council proper to get a further 'Final Response' and re-set the six months (in any case, I never accepted the response before as 'final' and so the complaint remains ongoing) ?

 

Thanks

 

Damo

[iwannabedebtfree]

Damo

 

apologies that i havent been on this thread for a while, just trying to catch up, if it is that we are still talking about the postponed possession? then it will have to be the council (housing department) that give you the final response. if you saw the councillor in their capacity as a political representative then no the councillor does not count as "council", however, if they were replying in their capacity as holding office within the housing department, and in their capacity as a representative of the housing authority then the answer is yes, if it was they were in contact with you regarding your complaint.

 

If it is that it has been over 6 months since you last spoke to the council regarding the situation i would be inclined to ask them for a "final response" in writing to the matter to enable you to take further action.

[damo1312]

AdNicol...

 

thanks for that, I did suspect as much, so I will interrupt one of the myriad tea-parties that our Council Taxes finance by sending a snotty follow-up to one of the more important bods there....

 

As for my Local Councillor, I think that he doesn't deal with this particular Deparment per se

 

(actually, based upon my experience and what I have heard, he doesn't do much of anything really.. ;-)

 

Damo

[damo1312]

Another query...

 

Local Councils...

 

Are Data Access Requests served under the Data Protection Act (1998)with them...

 

or would it be the Freedom of Information Act (2000)?

 

And would the £10 maximum fee still apply to the latter?

 

Thanks

 

Damo

[iwannabedebtfree]

damo, again it would depend on what you want. from my understanding, if you are wanting data on yourselfm then use the DPA if you are wanting data on a more specific issue, for example, the overall spend of the councils housing section etc then use the FOI act.

 

I am unsure of the fee in respect of a freedom on info request, i do know however that many people are not happy as a request under this act can amount to masses of documents being submitted. There was a recent article about costs and refusals under the act to disclose i will try to find it.

 

But if you are wanting personal data the use DPA.

[damo1312]

iwanna..

 

thanks for that, that was my understanding as well but just wanted to check to make sure...

 

unf all has come to a grinding halt until have the £10 to do it,which may be a few weeks....

[damo1312]

Hi all

 

Sorry for the lack of progress on this thread, will let all know when I can afford the DSAR as that is the next step I think

 

On the plus side, the Council appear to have let up on the pressure since, at least for now...

 

Thankful for small mercies I guess

[spunkeyrich]

i wish you the best of luck, i tend to agree with blacksheep he has made alot of posts giving his opnion which is always in my opinion fair with no malice intended, some of his points are fair and reasonable. This site isnt for nodding heads or agreements or simpathy votes, it is for various opnions from other users so that you can make a good judgement.

 

I however will refrain from an opinion on this one but wish you well.

 

rich

[damo1312]

Hi spunkey

 

thanks for the input and the thoughts.

 

I get what you are saying, I think it was kind of left at an 'agree to disagree', and hopefully made it clear that even where I did disagree, there where plenty of bits of info that blacksheep gave that where very useful (to others if not directly to me), and do realise that the info was given in the spirit of advice.

 

I think that the discussion itself may have actually been useful, as hopefuly the points of view not only encouraged us both to look at things from other angles, but may have been useful for others.

 

No hard feelings towards anyone on here as far as I am concerned... ;-)

 

and all viewpoints gratefully received

 

Damo

[JonCris]

damo suggest you dig out blacksheeps other posts before commenting......you may wish to change your views slightly

[damo1312]

Hi Jon

 

I appreciate what you are saying, but respectfully that wasn't the issue.. it may well be that blacksheep's other posts are highly relevant or informative, but that wasn't the problem I initially had with his posts.

 

It was one of tone and the apparent implications behind the way he had phrased things, and what it was implied that people should be expected to somehow just 'know'.

 

Besides, we thrashed it out and we both reasoned out why we responded as we did.. I can agree with the content and information of what was said by blacksheep in my thread a lot of the time... and freely admitted that the info might well be of use to others.. but it won't be to me per se as I am already past that stage

 

My issue with the replies was for the reasons I had stated, and I gave mine where I disagreed.

 

My particular gripes were ones that happened to clash with professional disagreements I have based upon my academic qualifications, and that was the basis of the debate I think ensued.

 

Again, I fully respect blacksheep's contributions elsewhere, but had valid professional reasons for making the points that I did, and am afraid can't retract the initial reasons for disagreement with issues on my particular thread (irrespective of what may have been said elsewhere) as to do so would have gone against my training, and indeed may have been professionally 'negligent' on my part.

 

Again, as I said though, as far as I was concerned, there were no hard feelings left after we'd finished; if I'm wrong in that assumption, I 'd be more than willing for some one to enlighten me and I'd be happy to go through any gripes anyone has..

 

At the end of the day,we all want the same things on this forum after all (broadly speaking) and we are doing ourselves a great disservice if we can't argue/talk out points of disagreement as to how to get there.. as I've said before, the points we make could always end up helping others..

 

Damo

[MrShed]

JC is actually implying the opposite himself and other members have been having a, shall we call, "heated debate" with blacksheep elsewhere on the forums!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/64566-bailiffs-forcing-entry-using.html

[damo1312]

Mr Shed..

 

ahh, thanks for that, I may well have completely got the wrong end of the stick there in that case...

 

I'll have a look around and see if I can dig out the posts that Jon is referring to.

 

Jon...

 

 

heartfelt apologies if what I have just said is barking TOTALLY up the wrong tree in reply to your comment...

 

what threads are we talking about, just out of interest?

 

Thanks

 

Damo

[damo1312]

Mr Shed..

 

just saw your link at the bottom of your post..

 

 

sorry, not awake AT ALL today..

;-)

 

Damo

[damo1312]

Jon..

 

if you could give me a metaphorical kick for replying too quickly earlier to your post first thing today, I'd much appreciate it...

 

didn't twig as to what you were referring to, so going to have a gander at that post Mr Shed has mentioned...

 

(whilst hiding in a corner... )

 

Damo

[blacksheep1979]

sorry to go slightly off topic

 

damo suggest you dig out blacksheeps other posts before commenting......you may wish to change your views slightly

 

but that is totally uncalled for, not helpful in this situation and my views on other subjects do not affect my ability to advise or offer help in this area.

[JonCris]

Fine do that but then don't imply that debtors are the author of their own misfortune....they need help & support - not critizisim

[MrShed]

Have to agree with BS, JonCris - his thoughts in other areas in no way affect his thoughts here, and there is no reason to go tainting his views everywhere on the forum.

 

And what debtors need are not every single person telling them that it is not their fault - it is a simple fact that for some, or many(depending upon your view), they HAVE played a part in their misfortune, and if everyone absolves them of their own blame, they will never learn from their mistakes, as they will simply see them as the fault of others, and will simply become trapped in a vicious cycle - whats the point in that? You can support and educate at the same time, one does not exclude the other.

 

Anyhoo this is somewhat off topic - but feel free JonCris to join the constructive debate on the matter in my thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/66700-baliffs-theory-morally-right.html

 

(which, for point of note, I set up primarily as I was fairly disgusted with yours and other members efforts to personally attack BS for merely voicing his opinion, as is his right).

[JonCris]

Please understand Mr Shed I don't much care what you think & if it's your intention to support people who kick others when they are already down then perhaps you may wish to consider your motives. After all unlike the rest of us according to your sig you don't appear to have any problems

 

If you can't be supportive then I suggest you keep quiet.....The debtors on here have probably had more that their fill of carping voices